Rescuing Lenin from the Leninists

[Die Neue Zeit]

Again, not my article per se, but a more recent anti-sectarian read than "There is no Stalinism or Trotskyism anymore":

http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/02...the-leninists/



by Chegitz Guevara

I’ve mentioned several times that I think Mike E has touched on something fundamental across the left. There’s a yearning by many comrades for something different, something new. We’ve been doing the same damn thing for eight decades and we haven’t gotten different results. Our movement is withering away.

What I think many comrades are grasping at is that Leninism as we understand it is fundamentally flawed and what a few are discovering is that Leninism as Lenin practiced it is something entirely different than we understand.

Hal Draper’s little pamphlet, What They Did to ‘What is to Be Done?’ apparently went unnoticed and has been rediscovered only recently. Paul Le Blanc’s book, Lenin and the Revolutionary Party, didn’t make that much of an impact. Lars Lih’s new book, Rediscovering Lenin: ‘What is to Be Done?’ in Context, (the link goes to the 1st part of a 6-part review) seems to be getting more notice. It has been a theme of Lou Proyect’s writing for at least a decade and I still remember the email on the old Marxism email list when he said he’d discovered that what we think of as Leninism was first articulated by Zinoviev. Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, Castro, etc., all had the same conception of what Leninism was in practice despite disagreements on much else.

Did we all get it wrong? We must have. Lenin’s party had no where near the sectarian splitting, maneuvering, and expulsions that all the parties that bear his name have had. Lenin never practiced Leninism as we know it. He frequently attacked the Bolsheviks in the party press when he thought they’d made a mistake or got things wrong, or even in other papers if the party press wouldn’t publish his articles (imagine Revolution refusing to publish a piece by Avakian!). What Leninist group would allow that? The Bolsheviks only expelled one person, Bogdanov. And why? He stole money from the party for his workers school in Capri. Groups *joined* the Bolsheviks, they didn’t split away, Trotsky’s group, the Independent Mensheviks, etc. While this understanding and feeling to me seem to be widespread, an actual political articulation of it is not.

This is something the 9L addressed, but not openly, perhaps not even consciously. At lot of what is wrong with the RCP is wrong with so many other groups, many groups that consider themselves Leninist. This is why Mike’s critique of the RCP could just as easily be a critique of the Sparts, WWP, the SEP, etc. Just change a few names (Robertson, Marcy, North), a little history, it’s done. These groups all have two things in common: one, they’re all cults, two, they all consider themselves Leninist groups. All, though, have the same source for their understanding of Lenin: Zinoviev’s pronouncements in the 1920s.

This, of course, is the beginnings of an idealist understanding of the crisis of Leninism, and not one upon which I wish to place too much emphasis. More important has been, of course, the completely isolation of the revolutionary movement from the working classes, so that our bad ideas could not be corrected in practice. The two influence each other, though. Our bad ideas keeps us isolated and our isolation keeps us from testing our ideas in practice.

The flip side, of course, is been groups like Solidarity and FRSO which have retreated completely from Leninism, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Their theoretical error is the same, though, as the RCP’s and other groups. They have the same misunderstanding of Lenin. Instead of embracing it uncritically, they reject it uncritically. Both sets of groups aren’t completely wrong and do get something of Lenin right. The RCP has a disciplined, committed cadre. Solidarity seeks to bring revolutionary socialists together and to be part of the workers’ movement. If we could bring those aspects together, it would create a much healthier left, which would have a much better chance at being able to intervene positively in struggle.

Even with such an organization, it is no guarantee that we would succeed. Capitalism is ascendant and has recovered. The long slump of the 70s to 90s is over, and despite an incredible level of ineptitude in the administration and the recession it appears we are now in, capital is not in trouble. This is just one of its periodic hiccups. Even with the right line, the masses may not be ready to move. Avakian is correct on this point, though he states it as if it were the masses fault. Nor I do I agree his line is correct. I have read that Lenin’s organization shrank to 50 members at one point, and I wouldn’t argue that Lenin had the wrong line. One could even have the wrong line and succeed, look at Cambodia. Having the right line and the right organization, however, shifts odds in our direction.

I remain a committed Leninist. Mike E as well, I’m sure. Like Marx and Trotsky, I suspect Lenin would be no Leninist. In fact, I think he wrote a whole book on the subject, “Left-Wing Communism.” So how do we rescue Lenin from his followers? That is the task ahead of us.

your comrade,

chegitz guevara
SUN! SURF! SOCIALISM!

[Leo]

Like Marx and Trotsky, I suspect Lenin would be no Leninist. In fact, I think he wrote a whole book on the subject, “Left-Wing Communism.”

I fail to understand what Lenin's book on "Left-Wing Communism" has to do with all this.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I think he MAY have been referring to this chapter about Great Britain. Nevertheless, said chapter has nothing to do with anti-sectarianism within the revolutionary movement.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

What came about following Lenin's death [the various splittings from the party, eliminations of party members, tendencies formed within - i.e. left opposition, marxism-leninism], much of what Lenin himself avoided [allowing personal conflicts to disrupt the party's ability to function as a whole]. Stalin was incapable of doing so. The differences between party members were brought out through these conflicts. The formation of the left-opposition shows this. Much of what Lenin mentioned in various works/ speeches , warning party members of various conflicts that could weaken the party- came into existence after his death. Nevertheless, thank you, comrade, for posting!

[Winter]

Great post companero! I totally agree. The Left has totally isolated themselves from the common worker. I believe the problem is mainly due to misconceptions and capitalist exagerrations about Lenin himself. I've tried to approach co-workers about socialism, but they seem to believe it is an impossible point to get to, as if it were somekind of idealistic utopia. And to even mention the big "C" word, well, people often equate that with satanism or something.

The other night, I asked a female co-worker, "Wouldn't you like a society where there was no money and everybody worked for there fellow humans and community?" She said "Yeah" so I called her a Communist.

People have no idea what Communism really is. Most workers/people think of it as somekind of dictatorial police state. I think we must work hard to save the term Communism from western propaganda.

~ Winter

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Alternatively, we could abandon that word and use something like "proletocratic."

[coda]

you mean politocratic.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Nope. Some comrades have invented a new word with Greek and Roman origins that effectively combines "workers' democracy" without translation problems associated with the Germanic word "worker" (rabochii in Russian).

The bonus is that "social proletocracy" is superior to even the original, non-reformist "social democracy" (because of the class emphasis of the former).

[Winter]

^^^ Alternatively, we could abandon that word and use something like "proletocratic."

Interesting. I think we would have to update our terminology, and Proletocratic sounds very nice. The term Communism may just be beyond saving.

Your articles shed a lot of light on the Left's current situation, I appreaciate them.

[chegitz guevara]

I fail to understand what Lenin's book on "Left-Wing Communism" has to do with all this.

Lenin's book is largely a polemic against groups in Western Europe aping the Bolsheviks' methods, arguing that the Bolsheviks did what they because were forced to do by the restraints placed upon them by Tsarism, and that in Western societies, they had much more freedom to pursue different methods of struggle. He argues argues against making a principle of necessity. Whereas most Leninists take What is to be Done? as Lenin's one and only pronouncement on the structure of a revolutionary party, the reality is not only do they misunderstand WitbD? but that they ignore all the rest of Lenin's history. Left-Wing Communism is basically a slap to the head to tell comrades to think for themselves instead.

[chegitz guevara]

Great post companero! I totally agree. The Left has totally isolated themselves from the common worker.

That's not actually my position. I would argue that we were forcibly isolated from the working class, mainly by McCarthyism as well as the long boom of the late 40s through the early 70s. There are real, material reasons, why we are outside the working class now. Some of it has to do with our ideas and methods of organization, but largely it is due to forces outside our control. Our internal problems, however, don't help the situation and even hinder what ability we do have to return to the working class. Within this limited arena, our bad ideas led us to make bad decisions. These bad decision lead to bad actions, and those bad actions help to continue to contract the amount of space in which we have operate.