Burying Bolshevism

[The Idler]

http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=5564

For somebody who came to Marxism on his own, not through any socialist sect, I find the continued obsession with the Russian Revolution and the effort to model contemporary socialist organizations on “the Party of Lenin” (to borrow a line from the old Soviet anthem) bewildering. Not least because—as Pham Binh, Lars T. Lih, Louis Proyect and others have argued—“Leninism” has little to do with Lenin and the RSDLP, the true heirs of which all “Marxist-Leninists” (i.e., Trotskyists, Stalinists, Maoists) claim to be. What is more bewildering is the idea that the organizational structure and tactics of the Bolsheviks, who were operating in largely agrarian Tsarist Russia, can or should be a guide for socialists today in advanced capitalist countries.

...

[Comrade #138672]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure a future revolution will not have much to do with Bolshevism. Still, we can learn a lot from them.

[Rafiq]

What is more bewildering is the idea that the organizational structure and tactics of the Bolsheviks, who were operating in largely agrarian Tsarist Russia, can or should be a guide for socialists today in advanced capitalist countries.

What's more bewildering is the negligence in recognizing that the Bolshevik model was based off of that of the German SPD, not a direct reflection of 'Russia''s agrarian condition. Actually, the success of the Bolsheviks, their arm didn't come from the peasantry but from the revolutionary industrial proletariat (and the soldiers).

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

What's more bewildering is the negligence in recognizing that the Bolshevik model was based off of that of the German SPD, not a direct reflection of 'Russia''s agrarian condition. Actually, the success of the Bolsheviks, their arm didn't come from the peasantry but from the revolutionary industrial proletariat (and the soldiers).

Weren't most soldiers peasants though?

[red flag over teeside]

It's probably useful to read Gorters letter to Lenin to see why expecting the Russian revolution of 1917 to play out in Western Europe was wrong.

[goalkeeper]

What's more bewildering is the negligence in recognizing that the Bolshevik model was based off of that of the German SPD, not a direct reflection of 'Russia''s agrarian condition. Actually, the success of the Bolsheviks, their arm didn't come from the peasantry but from the revolutionary industrial proletariat (and the soldiers).

Perhaps it a point would have been that the highly repressive political climate of of Tsarist Russia necessitated the sort of party described in WITBD? which many "Leninist" sects use as a blueprint for how their own parties should operate (ignoring that the Bolshevik party didnt even conform to this in 1917 anyway)

For many it seems that 1917 has turned into the highpoint of human history; its practice being the aim for which all should aspire and follow. This view was understandable in the early to mid 20th century, but the idea that Trotsky, Lenin, or Zinoviev can tell people today the best means by which to carry out socialist revolution seems silly.

edit: case in point: http://www.revleft.com/vb/censure-zi...358/index.html
How the Bolsheviks should have acted nearly 100 years ago being used to justify present day party politics.

[Art Vandelay]

Perhaps it a point would have been that the highly repressive political climate of of Tsarist Russia necessitated the sort of party described in WITBD? which many "Leninist" sects use as a blueprint for how their own parties should operate (ignoring that the Bolshevik party didnt even conform to this in 1917 anyway)

This is simply false. Just now, over 100 years later, are we finally getting WITBD properly translated and put into context. Only now are we finally gaining an understanding on what it was that Lenin meant in the text.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

Well, criticism is always valid, but what bothers me is the criticism for the sake of criticism. I mean, the author claims that 'Leninism' is dead but offers nothing but vague words such as the following:

Rather than being weighed down by Leninist organizational forms and norms, and by Leninist slogans and costumes, socialists today need to begin the real work of building a mass socialist movement fit for present conditions—not those of Tsarist Russia. Leninism has been tried. It has failed. It is time to try something else.

The author also writes:

To hear them say it, the success of the Russian Revolution is almost entirely due to the “organizational forms and norms associated with Leninism”; Lenin unlocked the secret to revolutionary success, and what we must do is apply it. This same account is applied to explain the degeneration into reformism of the social-democratic parties of the Second International: the Social Democrats had the wrong type of party, which is why they became reformist; the Bolsheviks had the right type of party, which is why they were able to seize power when the time was right (the particular historical circumstances in which the Russian Revolution took place are looked at almost as an afterthought).

Who even says that?

[goalkeeper]

This is simply false. Just now, over 100 years later, are we finally getting WITBD properly translated and put into context. Only now are we finally gaining an understanding on what it was that Lenin meant in the text.

Well if you think a properly translated text from 100 years ago is now going to help you organise for the revolution properly, good for you. I, however, am a bit sceptical.

The only importance that can come from better analysis and translation of WITBD is for historical purposes. THis statement perhaps leaves me open to the charge that why don't i just ignore the even older writings of Marx, but the value of Marx's writings are larger theoretical issues which are more enduring than a pamphlet on political organisation. I would throw away Lenin's writings on Imperialism, they are pretty irrelevant to understanding the nature of the world economy and militarism today.

[Red Enemy]

What's more bewildering is the negligence in recognizing that the Bolshevik model was based off of that of the German SPD, not a direct reflection of 'Russia''s agrarian condition. Actually, the success of the Bolsheviks, their arm didn't come from the peasantry but from the revolutionary industrial proletariat (and the soldiers).

In that, we must also recognize the failure of the German model in Germany.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

Well if you think a properly translated text from 100 years ago is now going to help you organise for the revolution properly, good for you. I, however, am a bit sceptical.

The only importance that can come from better analysis and translation of WITBD is for historical purposes. THis statement perhaps leaves me open to the charge that why don't i just ignore the even older writings of Marx, but the value of Marx's writings are larger theoretical issues which are more enduring than a pamphlet on political organisation. I would throw away Lenin's writings on Imperialism, they are pretty irrelevant to understanding the nature of the world economy and militarism today.

I think Lenin, and every other influential marxist, should not be thrown away. If marxism is not a religion, if it is the concrete analysis of a concrete situation, theory must emerge from passed and actual practical experiences and contradictions. Lenin's book on Imperialism, for example, may not explain imperialism today, but it shows the development of imperialism; it gives the foundation to understand today's imperialism.

Learn from the classics does not mean follow everything written in there.

[blake 3:17]

What's more bewildering is the negligence in recognizing that the Bolshevik model was based off of that of the German SPD, not a direct reflection of 'Russia''s agrarian condition. Actually, the success of the Bolsheviks, their arm didn't come from the peasantry but from the revolutionary industrial proletariat (and the soldiers).

But what needs to be understood is that a large portion of the most radical sections of the urban industrial proletariat were those closest to the peasantry -- most often young workers/peasants who went back and forth between city and country.

[Art Vandelay]

In that, we must also recognize the failure of the German model in Germany.

Of course and we must analyse why and under what conditions did the German SPD stray from the organizational foundation that they layed and the Bolsheviks continued on, leading to their success in 17'.

[Art Vandelay]

Christopher Hitchens once said that the first condition which should exist before any polemics can be engaged in, is that each side should be able to succinctly and accurately articulate the oppositions viewpoint; I must say that I think you fail in this regard and as a former anti-Leninist (I used to be in the 'Fuck Lenin' usergroup on Revleft, I do understand anti-Leninism; an infantile paradigm that I am glad I overcame).

Well if you think a properly translated text from 100 years ago is now going to help you organise for the revolution properly, good for you. I, however, am a bit sceptical.

Skepticism is a good thing comrade, however you actually have to engage with the theories before refuting them.

The only importance that can come from better analysis and translation of WITBD is for historical purposes.

This is simply false, as is the accusation in the article the the organizational model of the Bolsheviks could only be successful in the largely agrarian Russia in the early 1900's. This ignores the fact that the RSDLP, was in fact based off of the German SPD which was tailored for Germany, one of the most industrialized capitalist countries in the world.

THis statement perhaps leaves me open to the charge that why don't i just ignore the even older writings of Marx, but the value of Marx's writings are larger theoretical issues which are more enduring than a pamphlet on political organisation. I would throw away Lenin's writings on Imperialism, they are pretty irrelevant to understanding the nature of the world economy and militarism today.

I'm guessing that if you're willing to 'throw away Lenin's writings on Imperialism' (not that I don't have my own critiques of them as well, after all no work is a holy gospel) then you probably don't have much of an understanding of imperialism and exactly what it entails.

[Thirsty Crow]

Of course and we must analyse why and under what conditions did the German SPD stray from the organizational foundation that they layed and the Bolsheviks continued on, leading to their success in 17'.

In what way did this organizational foundation change actually? From what I read about the period and the party, there was actually organizational continuity, and not an abrupt rupture which could then be decried as "betrayal" (though, for sure, I can understand the shock and outrage of revolutionaries when the party finally gave its blessing to the biggest bloodbath yet - and capitalism with it; but that does not mean that this reaction is something more than a gut reaction, clinging to the failing revolutionary tradition of the movement).

So in what way did this "straying" occur?

[Art Vandelay]

In what way did this organizational foundation change actually? From what I read about the period and the party, there was actually organizational continuity, and not an abrupt rupture which could then be decried as "betrayal" (though, for sure, I can understand the shock and outrage of revolutionaries when the party finally gave its blessing to the biggest bloodbath yet - and capitalism with it; but that does not mean that this reaction is something more than a gut reaction, clinging to the failing revolutionary tradition of the movement).

So in what way did this "straying" occur?

I'll have to get back to you on this, as its been a long time since I've seen the resources outlining it. I'll have to ask Grenzer or someone else for a link.

[Conscript]

Why bury what a lot of revolutionary theory is based off of?

[Let's Get Free]

Some Leninists just dont want to learn from the lessons of history that are staring them in the face and, as somebody said, if you dont learn from history you are doomed to repeat its mistakes. The so called state capitalist road to socialism we now know is a complete dead end - a historical cul de sac. We are not in 1905 Tsarist Russia anymore. We now need to move on from endlessly repeating the same tired old dogmas of Bolshevism and look at the world with fresh eyes

[Red Enemy]

Some Leninists just dont want to learn from the lessons of history that are staring them in the face and, as somebody said, if you dont learn from history you are doomed to repeat its mistakes. The so called state capitalist road to socialism we now know is a complete dead end - a historical cul de sac. We are not in 1905 Tsarist Russia anymore. We now need to move on from endlessly repeating the same tired old dogmas of Bolshevism and look at the world with fresh eyes

Honestly, you've been refuted over and over again.

Move on.

[Let's Get Free]

Honestly, you've been refuted over and over again.

so has Leninism