Serious Questions About Bolshevism

[Chomskyan]

I´ve been making questions and notes on Bolshevism, in my attempt to understand how it functioned in the USSR, how it´s theorists (Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin) thought, behaved, understood their position and role in history etc.

These are questions I have that I want to ask Bolsheviks and ask about because I am genuinely curious as to the answer:

• What did Marx mean by a global communist revolution and how does that compare and contrast with Leninist policies/theories which were focused on regions and individual countries? What justification would Leninists give for this policy of Leninism? (In other words, did Leninist policy maintain Marx´s understanding or did it modify it in some way?)
  
• I find Marxism-Leninism as legitimate in the contexts of global and local material conditions of the USSR at that time not as a dogma which must be followed at all times and places and not as innately characteristic of Communist/Socialist theory or practice in all times and places. (Responses or replies to this point of view?)
  
• I view Marxism-Leninism as a doctrine, practice, history and tradition that socialists/communists can learn from and ought to but not as a infallible dogma or practice. (Responses?)
  
• Are Leninism and it´s derivatives necessary or more suitable to understand, for the analysis of future or current socialist/communist theory and organization rather than purely Marxist theory? Why or why not?
  
• In other words, why can´t one simply look at Marx´s theory of organization? Is Leninism a more ´complete´ theory or understanding? Is it a more suitable one? Why or why not?
  

These are questions I have that I´ve thought about in studying Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism. Thanks for your helping me understand.

[ckaihatsu]

What did Marx mean by a global communist revolution and how does that compare and contrast with Leninist policies/theories which were focused on regions and individual countries? What justification would Leninists give for this policy of Leninism? (In other words, did Leninist policy maintain Marx´s understanding or did it modify it in some way?)

My understanding is that adverse historical circumstances forced the Bolsheviks, like Lenin and Trotsky, to have to take up matters of geopolitics with the capitalist nations, given the revolution being halted from any further momentum.

I find Marxism-Leninism as legitimate in the contexts of global and local material conditions of the USSR at that time not as a dogma which must be followed at all times and places and not as innately characteristic of Communist/Socialist theory or practice in all times and places. (Responses or replies to this point of view?)

Agreed -- the historical circumstances of the '20s and '30s meant that 'Stalinism' was a *fallback*, at best, and should not be taken or used as a *model* for future revolutionary strategy, like a pre-circumscribed socialism-in-one-country.

I view Marxism-Leninism as a doctrine, practice, history and tradition that socialists/communists can learn from and ought to but not as a infallible dogma or practice. (Responses?)

I view present-day 'Marxism-Leninism', or Stalinism, to basically be synonymous with 'national liberation', in the best sense of the term. (Consider the Naxalites in India, for example.)

Are Leninism and it´s derivatives necessary or more suitable to understand, for the analysis of future or current socialist/communist theory and organization rather than purely Marxist theory? Why or why not?

Just offhand, Lenin's theory of imperialism was a theoretical development.

In other words, why can´t one simply look at Marx´s theory of organization? Is Leninism a more ´complete´ theory or understanding? Is it a more suitable one? Why or why not?

You may want to be more specific here.

These are questions I have that I´ve thought about in studying Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism. Thanks for your helping me understand.

[Chomskyan]

I´ll restate my last question this way:

Is there anything inherent in Leninist theory/principles (Trotskyist or Stalinist) that is superfluous juxtaposed to classical Marxist theory? On the inverse, is there anything inherent in Leninist theory/principles that I, as a Left Communist, would be lacking a proper analysis or principle of, that Leninist theory/principles alone supplement?

This is essentially asking, ´Why Leninism?´ Why Leninism + Marxism and not simply Marxism? What does Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky etc. provide that I (or rather, Left Communist analysis/classical Marxist analysis) lack?

I mean, Lenin´s imperialist theory is useful to learn from. But it is something that I should uphold as doctrine? Do I need to be a Trotskyist/Marxist-Leninist to acknowledge the benefits of Lenin´s contribution of imperialist theory? I don´t believe so.

[ckaihatsu]

I´ll restate my last question this way:

Is there anything inherent in Leninist theory/principles (Trotskyist or Stalinist) that is superfluous juxtaposed to classical Marxist theory? On the inverse, is there anything inherent in Leninist theory/principles that I, as a Left Communist, would be lacking a proper analysis or principle of, that Leninist theory/principles alone supplement?

This is essentially asking, ´Why Leninism?´ Why Leninism + Marxism and not simply Marxism? What does Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky etc. provide that I (or rather, Left Communist analysis/classical Marxist analysis) lack?

I mean, Lenin´s imperialist theory is useful to learn from. But it is something that I should uphold as doctrine? Do I need to be a Trotskyist/Marxist-Leninist to acknowledge the benefits of Lenin´s contribution of imperialist theory? I don´t believe so.

I *hear* you, but you're just restating what you said before.

You may want to specify *what kinds of policies and/or approaches* would be at-issue.

[Chomskyan]

For example, Vanguardism, Democratic Centralism, One-Party State, Socialism in One Country and the ´Communist State´. These are not all purely Leninist ideas, but they derive from Leninism.

Those are problematic ideas for me.

On the other hand, I can respect some Leninist ideas such as the Leninist theory of imperialism, Maoist Third Worldism and Trotskyist Transitional Programme.

However, with regards to the latter ideas, I simply look at their positives and negatives and learn from them what I should learn from them.

In order for me to ´accept´ Leninism as ideology, and not simply as a set of principles I can learn from, I need to know why such ideas are necessary or more reasonable and not merely beneficial.

[Guardia Rossa]

What did Marx mean by a global communist revolution and how does that compare and contrast with Leninist policies/theories which were focused on regions and individual countries? What justification would Leninists give for this policy of Leninism? (In other words, did Leninist policy maintain Marx´s understanding or did it modify it in some way?)

First of all, this is totally false. Lenin never once said that Russia could build Socialism alone, on the contrary, he (As most Russian communists) was literally obsessed with the German Revolution. Invading Poland, ordering the KPD to make the German Revolution even when there was no way of doing it, and to copy and translate part of a history book I just read, (WARNING: IT'S MY TRANSLATION, so it's surely horrible to read in english)

As soon as they arrived in Moscow, the germans [KPD] surprised themselves with the enthusiasm brought by the imminence of the revolution in Germany. The city was covered in posters inviting the russian young to learn german, in order to aid in the revolutionary tasks. In the factories, universities, schools, every day there were reunions on how to help the german proletariat. Bukharin was applauded by students when he called them to swap their books for rifles. Resolutions in factory assemblies said that the russian proletariat renounce to salary increases and even accept salary reduction in order to contribute to the German Revolution. This are just a few examples provided by the french historian Pierre Broué, showing the hope deposited by the russians in the revolution in their neighbor, which will allow them to quit the isolation they were in.

And to quote Bordiga/Bordigists

Yet 1923 isn't an arbitrary point of reference [for the victory of the Stalinist counter-revolution] for it marked the definitive defeat of the German Revolution. With this, the last chance for an immediate extension of Communism in Europe fades away. The shattering significance of this fact was so well understood, that in the Russian party the news provoked suicides

(The emphasis is mine)

I find Marxism-Leninism as legitimate in the contexts of global and local material conditions of the USSR at that time not as a dogma which must be followed at all times and places and not as innately characteristic of Communist/Socialist theory or practice in all times and places. (Responses or replies to this point of view?)

I completely disagree, and this was one of the points in the group I created (Before I removed it in order to re-write) that I consider completely reactionary.

This is the myth of Jugoslavia and Jugoslavism. It was not more "democratic" or more "socialist" because it had de-centered economy. The same in China. Their "Chinese path to Socialism" could not evolve into nothing else than their present, absurd form of Capitalism. These "Socialisms adapted to their 'material' conditions" were never Socialism, they was just a DIFFERENT kind of an inherently CAPITALIST economy.

I view Marxism-Leninism as a doctrine, practice, history and tradition that socialists/communists can learn from and ought to but not as a infallible dogma or practice. (Responses?)

Communists cannot learn nothing from Marxism-Leninism. They can denounce it's fruitless tactics. Can they learn anything from Stalin? What could they? Homophobia? Betraying and CONDEMNING Russian, Greek, Chinese, Western European Revolutionaries? Brutally exploiting the Russian proletariat and creating a wholly new CAPITALIST IDEOLOGY?

They can only learn that there is a different "form" or "manifestation" of Capitalism, different from the "Liberal", the "Monopolist-Imperialist", the "Corporatist", the ""Technobureaucratic"", or whatever other titles/divisions/etc... you have for the "forms", developments of Capitalism during particular time and space throughout history. Stalinist State-Capitalism was another peculiar and somewhat ironic form of Capitalism, because it emerged of theoretically Socialist revolutions.

Are Leninism and it´s derivatives necessary or more suitable to understand, for the analysis of future or current socialist/communist theory and organization rather than purely Marxist theory? Why or why not?

Lenin was a Marxist and used Marx's method very successfully, we can learn how he used it. "Pure" Marxism (i.e. rejection for Leninism) is reactionary insofar as you can only reject Lenin if you absorb the bourgeois ideology, if you are a pacifist, a democratic "socialist", etc.

In other words, why can´t one simply look at Marx´s theory of organization? Is Leninism a more ´complete´ theory or understanding? Is it a more suitable one? Why or why not?

Leninism is not a theory different from Marxism. It is an historical development in Russia during a particular time. We can learn from it much, we can learn from his method and his will, we can learn from his denounces of reactionaries. We can't blindly apply the tactics he developed for the particular time he was in, however, we must create new ones with the same method he used: Marxism.

I leave deeper discussions (Vanguardism, Democratic Centralism) to more developed theorists.

[Chomskyan]

I was trying to be fair to MLs which is why I tried to cut down the anti-ML sentiment in my questioning. But, I agree with you insofar as they are concerned. Although, I think your rhetoric and position is a little uncritical. No matter who it is, we can learn something from them. That´s proper dialectic. We can learn how wrong they were, but that´s still learning something.

As far as Leninism simply being Marxism, then I don´t understand why Marx didn´t write about it. Marx was not interested in politics (social democracy) until the end of his life. He believed proletarian communist revolution was necessary, not that a specific political party would orchestrate a communist revolution. I think that´s very different from Marx´s point of view. Call me reactionary if you will.

Leninism seems more interested in the orientation of the political unit of Vanguardism than proletarian revolution, unless I am misunderstanding Leninist theory somehow.

In any case, this is isn´t an attack on Lenin nor Lenin´s ideas. I am just wondering why I personally should accept them as ideology. My view of Lenin and Trotsky is actually more positive than negative, and my views of Stalin and Mao are not as negative as yours.

[Guardia Rossa]

I was trying to be fair to MLs which is why I tried to cut down the anti-ML sentiment in my questioning. But, I agree with you insofar as they are concerned. Although, I think your rhetoric and position is a little uncritical. No matter who it is, we can learn something from them. That´s proper dialectic. We can learn how wrong they were, but that´s still learning something.

Of course, I heard Mao wrote some stuff about dialectics that ain't worthless, and I plan on reading some of Hoxha's texts on Imperialism. I am just critical because many Marxists consider them a viable marxist theory, but it is not. Doesn't matter how many shiny red-golden badges they wear.

As far as Leninism simply being Marxism, then I don´t understand why Marx didn´t write about it. Marx was not interested in politics (social democracy) until the end of his life. He believed proletarian communist revolution was necessary, not that a specific political party would orchestrate a communist revolution. I think that´s very different from Marx´s point of view. Call me reactionary if you will.

Leninism seems more interested in the orientation of the political unit of Vanguardism than proletarian revolution, unless I am misunderstanding Leninist theory somehow.

Marx was a Philosopher. Marx was an Economist. Marxism was not a formed method/theory. However, Marx participated in the First International and he fought the Anarchists. Marx didn't formed a theory on how the revolution would occur because he couldn't: there were no revolutions happening. What he COULD scientifically, realistically develop on what should be the tactics of a revolutionary proletarian, he DID.

And Lenin wrote a vast amount of theoretical work, too. He built a Vanguardist and Democratic Centralist movement because he NEEDED TO, because of particular conditions in the politics of the Russian Empire that forced the Party to be abnormally militant, closed and disciplined, or die. That's why I said: I leave the matter of whether Vanguardism and Democratic Centralism are still necessary for other theorists, but due to the objective conditions in the Russian Empire it was the ONLY -VIABLE- way.

[Chomskyan]

And that's fine. That's why I said: "I find Marxism-Leninism as legitimate in the contexts of global and local material conditions of the USSR at that time not as a dogma which must be followed at all times and places and not as innately characteristic of Communist/Socialist theory or practice in all times and places. (Responses or replies to this point of view?)"

The same could be said of Leninism proper in my view, although you'd reject it as descriptive of Marxism-Leninism as in the case above.

My point is, just because it works in a particular time and place doesn't mean it's a theory and principle that I should adhere to in all times and places.

That's what I am asking. Why should I accept Leninism as an ideology and not simply as a particular practice that existed in a particular time and place?

I'm not interesting in analyzing why it was necessary for them at that period of time, I'm asking why it's important for me as an ideology.

[Alet]

Understanding Leninism means understanding Marxism. The true legacy of Lenin is his orthodox insistence on communism and that he understood its concrete, practical implications. We have a lot to learn from Lenin. To quote Lukacs:

"It is therefore completely justifiable to speak of Leninism as a new phase in the development of the materialist dialectic. Lenin not only re-established the purity of Marxist doctrine after decades of decline and distortion by vulgar Marxism, but he developed, concretized, and matured the method itself. If it is now the task of Communists to continue in Lenin’s footsteps, this can only be fruitful if they attempt to establish the same active relation to him as he had to Marx. The nature and content of this activity are determined by the problems and tasks with which history confronts Marxism. Its success is determined by the degree of proletarian class-consciousness in the party which leads the working class. Leninism means that the theory of historical materialism has moved still nearer the daily battles of the proletariat, that it has become more practical than it could be at the time of Marx. The Leninist tradition can therefore only mean the undistorted and flexible preservation of this living and enlivening, growing and creative function of historical materialism. That is why – we repeat -Lenin must be studied by Communists in the same spirit as he studied Marx. He must be studied in order to learn how to apply the dialectic; to learn how to discover, by concrete analysis of concrete situations, the specific in the general and the general in the specific; to see in the novelty of a situation what connects it with former developments; to observe the perpetually new phenomena constantly produced under the laws of historical development; to detect the part in the whole and the whole in the part; to find in historical necessity the moment of activity and in activity the connection with historical necessity.

Leninism represents a hitherto unprecedented degree of concrete, unschematic, unmechanistic, purely praxis-oriented thought. To preserve this is the task of the Leninist. But, in the historical process, only what develops in living fashion can be preserved. Such a preservation of the Leninist tradition is today the noblest duty of all serious believers in the dialectic as a weapon in the class struggle of the proletariat."

I recommend reading the whole text to have a general understanding of Leninism and why it is essential for communist theory and practice today: https://www.marxists.org/archive/luk...ks/1924/lenin/

As to Stalinism, you already know my position. Bordiga helps to comprehend its nature.

[Chomskyan]

I agree with Lukacs that Leninism should be studied. What I don't agree is that it should be an ideology. That's where I'm drawing the line.

In Lukacs saying we should read Lenin as we would read Marx, I would be fine with reading Lenin as I would read Marx.

I just don't know why I'd be a Lenin-ist; Someone who upholds Lenin's ideas as gospel. In any event, I think we did a pretty good job with this thread.

I got most of the answers I needed, and my own conclusions were pretty similar with what I'm hearing here.

[ckaihatsu]

I agree with Lukacs that Leninism should be studied. What I don't agree is that it should be an ideology. That's where I'm drawing the line.

In Lukacs saying we should read Lenin as we would read Marx, I would be fine with reading Lenin as I would read Marx.

I just don't know why I'd be a Lenin-ist. In any event, I think we did a pretty good job with this thread.

Since you seem open to various approaches, you may want to posit your own understanding of class struggle, to give the rest of us something to go by regarding your position on it.

I'll proffer the following as a quick-and-easy framework, perhaps as a starting-point to refer to....


Political Spectrum, Simplified

[Chomskyan]

Well, I actually don't particularly care how it happens only that the capitalist class must be overthrown and the working class empowered.

But I believe that we don't want to repeat Marxism-Leninism as it existed in the Soviet Union. I understand that (as MLs say) Stalin had it rough, he wanted to do the right thing, there were many material conditions inhibiting the success of socialism in the USSR and so on.

However, that was then and this is now. So, we want to formulate a theory which will abolish capitalism and bring forth socialism in a way that we don't recreate a failed system on accident, and in so doing, our actions would indirectly work toward maintaining the capitalist system, instead of discrediting and abolishing it, by continually discrediting socialism by supporting 'nascent', 'underdeveloped', 'deformed' socialist ones such as the USSR.

In supporting Marxism-Leninism or other unrealized praxis within leftist thought, I think we do more to maintain capitalism than abolish it.

[ckaihatsu]

Well, I actually don't particularly care how it happens only that the capitalist class must be overthrown and the working class empowered.

Okay.

But I believe that we don't want to repeat Marxism-Leninism as it existed in the Soviet Union.

Yes, agreed.

I understand that (as MLs say) Stalin had it rough, he wanted to do the right thing, there were many material conditions inhibiting the success of socialism in the USSR and so on.

It's 'complicated'. (grin)

However, that was then and this is now. So, we want to formulate a theory which will abolish capitalism and bring forth socialism in a way that we don't recreate a failed system on accident, and in so doing, our actions would indirectly work toward maintaining the capitalist system, instead of discrediting and abolishing it, by continually discrediting socialism by supporting 'nascent', 'underdeveloped', 'deformed' socialist ones such as the USSR.

In supporting Marxism-Leninism or other unrealized praxis within leftist thought, I think we do more to maintain capitalism than abolish it.

Okay, good point.

You're aware of this aspect of the history, I take it -- ?

The success of the October Revolution transformed the Russian state into a soviet republic. A coalition of anti-Bolshevik groups attempted to unseat the new government in the Russian Civil War from 1918 to 1922.

In an attempt to intervene in the civil war after the Bolsheviks' separate peace with the Central Powers, the Allied powers (United Kingdom, France, United States and Japan) occupied parts of the Soviet Union for over two years before finally withdrawing[citation needed]. The United States did not recognize the new Russian government until 1933. The European powers recognized the Soviet Union in the early 1920s and began to engage in business with it after the New Economic Policy (NEP) was implemented.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octobe...ution#Outcomes

[Alet]

I just don't know why I'd be a Lenin-ist; Someone who upholds Lenin's ideas as gospel.

The same could be said about Marxists in general: that they are people who uphold Marx's ideas as gospel. Nevertheless, we are not ashamed of calling ourselves Marxists. The "-isms" are just labels, and, indeed, most people who identify with Leninism don't even know what this actually means. Of course, you are right, we should critically assess Lenin etc. - that's ultimately the reason why classical Marxism is bullshit. But this is a platitudinous statement. The reason we approach socialists is that, as we are in a tradition, they are presently practically relevant. What we can learn from them, especially from Lenin, exceeds banalities like: "Then we know their mistakes, and that's still learning" etc. After all, he understood what it means to be a practical socialist. This is not about historical judgements, it is about the spirit that lives on.

Stalin was not equal in that he assumed a completely different role. As I said, he was not a socialist but a bourgeois revolutionary. Stalinism was a phenomenon that is unique to the Soviet Union. We don't have such predicaments today: Our task is not to deliberately industrialize a backward society but we have to revive communism, i.e. practical communist politics. There is no legacy that Stalinism bequeathes, no method we can apply, no spirit that exceeds silly identities.

My point is ultimately that you don't have to "identify" as a Leninist. What matters is that you are one, in the meaningful sense of the term (what Lukacs was suggesting).

[Chomskyan]

Yes, I am aware that the US occupied Russia in the early 1920s.

@Alet In Lukacs sense then, I would consider myself a Leninist. I think learning from his theories is an important venture.

[LionofTepelenë]

The same could be said about Marxists in general: that they are people who uphold Marx's ideas as gospel. Nevertheless, we are not ashamed of calling ourselves Marxists. The "-isms" are just labels, and, indeed, most people who identify with Leninism don't even know what this actually means. Of course, you are right, we should critically assess Lenin etc. - that's ultimately the reason why classical Marxism is bullshit. But this is a platitudinous statement. The reason we approach socialists is that, as we are in a tradition, they are presently practically relevant. What we can learn from them, especially from Lenin, exceeds banalities like: "Then we know their mistakes, and that's still learning" etc. After all, he understood what it means to be a practical socialist. This is not about historical judgements, it is about the spirit that lives on.

Stalin was not equal in that he assumed a completely different role. As I said, he was not a socialist but a bourgeois revolutionary. Stalinism was a phenomenon that is unique to the Soviet Union. We don't have such predicaments today: Our task is not to deliberately industrialize a backward society but we have to revive communism, i.e. practical communist politics. There is no legacy that Stalinism bequeathes, no method we can apply, no spirit that exceeds silly identities.

My point is ultimately that you don't have to "identify" as a Leninist. What matters is that you are one, in the meaningful sense of the term (what Lukacs was suggesting).

Originally I was super-opposed to Lenin, as you may have seen from earlier posts. I saw him as the creator of the ''dictatorial vanguardism'', which I still don't agree with, but I have begun to feel differently about Lenin as of lately. I understand now that Lenin had made much progress even in the situation he was in. What I am now against is the Stalinist image of Lenin, as a sort of ''founding father'' in a nationalist sense. He was essentially turned by Stalin into something he never wanted himself to be, a saint, something that Mattick did a good job in talking about.

As for Stalinism, it was indeed the dying breath of a strangled revolution. With nationalism and state over internationalism and communism, the epitome of a bourgeois-revolutionary. However Stalinism is indeed a special product of the USSR, not one country could completely replicate it. I believe it is a throwback to the autocratic rule of the Tzars, and their militancy in aggression and maintenance of Russia's vast landmass. Stalinism is a thing of the past now, gone for good and preferably so. I just wish something like it will never happen again.

[Blake's Baby]

Hmm, one of those times that the quote function isn't working.

I may have missed something.

What makes you think you're a Left Communist?

[LionofTepelenë]

Hmm, one of those times that the quote function isn't working.

I may have missed something.

What makes you think you're a Left Communist?

To sum it up, I pretty much agree with its basic tenets. Although I deviate from it in some ways.

[Blake's Baby]

Sorry LionofTepelene, I actually meant that to be addressed to Chomskyan.

Though I'm quite surprised that you do too, given your hostility to Left Communism not 2 months ago.