Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Anarchism vs Bevin's 21st century catalogue of revolutionary failures

What are you defining as Leninism and why will it inevitably fail?
A dead quick definition, based on a bit of history and an interpretation of Marxism. Dictatorship of the proletariat after the revolution. Industrial proletariat, of course, excluding peasants, pastoralists, nomads, hunter-gatherers - the bulk of the population. The proletariat can only be represented by the Party, excluding other progressive or alternative voices. The Party follows the advice and instruction of the Party leadership, who will interpret the holy scriptures of Marxism to the masses. That can lead to the murderous excesses of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the North Korean dynasty. Or the stultifying conformity of the Brezhnev era. Or to dictatorships everywhere paying lip service to 'socialism'. When you remove any chance of free discussion or democratic accountability you end up with nothing good.
 
A dead quick definition, based on a bit of history and an interpretation of Marxism. Dictatorship of the proletariat after the revolution. Industrial proletariat, of course, excluding peasants, pastoralists, nomads, hunter-gatherers - the bulk of the population. The proletariat can only be represented by the Party, excluding other progressive or alternative voices. The Party follows the advice and instruction of the Party leadership, who will interpret the holy scriptures of Marxism to the masses. That can lead to the murderous excesses of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the North Korean dynasty. Or the stultifying conformity of the Brezhnev era. Or to dictatorships everywhere paying lip service to 'socialism'. When you remove any chance of free discussion or democratic accountability you end up with nothing good.
That's a misrepresentation. The idea of a vanguard party is not to exclude anyone. It is to listen to the working class and help develop class consciousness. This is very clearly supported by the fact that sociaty, certainly ours, is not class conscious. There are people/groups that are, but most are not. So the working class must organise.
 
That's a misrepresentation. The idea of a vanguard party is not to exclude anyone. It is to listen to the working class and help develop class consciousness. This is very clearly supported by the fact that sociaty, certainly ours, is not class conscious. There are people/groups that are, but most are not. So the working class must organise.
My 'misrepresentation' describes what actually happened in Russia, and then elsewhere. Your comment does not describe what happened in Russia at all, in the slightest. You would like the world to have worked in a certain way. But it didn't.
 
My 'misrepresentation' describes what actually happened in Russia, and then elsewhere. Your comment does not describe what happened in Russia at all, in the slightest. You would like the world to have worked in a certain way. But it didn't.
Why are you putting the word in quotes? I quite clearly said it. If you want to read something uncharitable into it then that's on you. I don't really care what happened in Russia at this point since we don't live in anything like that society and it was over a century ago. Do you not think that, even if I grant your description, that socialism has evolved since then? Including through the work of people like Lenin.
 
Why are you putting the word in quotes? I quite clearly said it. If you want to read something uncharitable into it then that's on you. I don't really care what happened in Russia at this point since we don't live in anything like that society and it was over a century ago. Do you not think that, even if I grant your description, that socialism has evolved since then? Including through the work of people like Lenin.
You asked me my definition of Leninism. I gave it to you. As you claim not to care what happened in Russia in the past I wonder why you had even a passing interest.
 
You asked me my definition of Leninism. I gave it to you. As you claim not to care what happened in Russia in the past I wonder why you had even a passing interest.
For the reason I stated: we don't live in soviet russia in the 1920's. Leninism, if it is to be discussed, must surely be done so in the context of where we are. I mean, by that logic Lenin's dead; why discuss him at all? Surely you think his ideas, for better or worse, bear some scrutiny today, and clearly there are modern day Leninists and socialists influenced by him. I know some of them and they do not advocate the kind of approach you represented
 
For the reason I stated: we don't live in soviet russia in the 1920's. Leninism, if it is to be discussed, must surely be done so in the context of where we are. I mean, by that logic Lenin's dead; why discuss him at all? Surely you think his ideas, for better or worse, bear some scrutiny today, and clearly there are modern day Leninists and socialists influenced by him. I know some of them and they do not advocate the kind of approach you represented
Leninism is a product of 1920s Russia, not 2020s UK or anywhere else. Although it has been somewhat re-interpreted since then, all of its flaws, its fundamental authoritarian tendency towards tyranny remain pretty much unchanged. If you can't discuss Leninism in the past, then you have no chance of understanding its present versions.
 
A dead quick definition, based on a bit of history and an interpretation of Marxism. Dictatorship of the proletariat after the revolution. Industrial proletariat, of course, excluding peasants, pastoralists, nomads, hunter-gatherers - the bulk of the population. The proletariat can only be represented by the Party, excluding other progressive or alternative voices. The Party follows the advice and instruction of the Party leadership, who will interpret the holy scriptures of Marxism to the masses. That can lead to the murderous excesses of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the North Korean dynasty. Or the stultifying conformity of the Brezhnev era. Or to dictatorships everywhere paying lip service to 'socialism'. When you remove any chance of free discussion or democratic accountability you end up with nothing good.
"Dictatorship of the proletariat" is not specifically Leninist. It was a concept formulated by Marx and Engels.
 
For the reason I stated: we don't live in soviet russia in the 1920's. Leninism, if it is to be discussed, must surely be done so in the context of where we are. I mean, by that logic Lenin's dead; why discuss him at all? Surely you think his ideas, for better or worse, bear some scrutiny today, and clearly there are modern day Leninists and socialists influenced by him. I know some of them and they do not advocate the kind of approach you represented
I think Dauve is worth reading on Leninism and Kautskyism. Probably fair to say that among the defining features of Leninism are a set of ideas about organisation, consciousness, and where consciousness is located, which when applied in the UK in the 2020s may not have the same results as in early 20th-c Russia, but are still deeply flawed imo:
It is clear that this much desired union of the working class movement and socialism could not be brought about in the same way in Germany as in Russia as the conditions were different. But it is important to see that the deep divergences of Bolshevism in the organisational field did not result from different basic conceptions, but rather solely from the application of the same principles in different social, economic and political situations.

In fact far from ending up in an ever greater union of the working class movement and socialism, social democracy would end up in an ever closer union with capital and the bourgeoisie. As for Bolshevism, after having been like a fish in water in the Russian Revolution ("revolutionaries are in the revolution like water in water") because of the revolution's defeat it would end in all but complete fusion with state capital, administered by a totalitarian bureaucracy.

However Leninism continues to haunt the minds of many revolutionaries of more or less good will who are searching for a recipe capable of success. Persuaded that they are "of the vanguard" because they possess "consciousness", whereas they only possess a false theory, they struggle militantly for a union of those two metaphysical monstrosities, "a spontaneous working class movement, bereft of any theory" and a disembodied "socialist consciousness."

...
If in recent times the weakness of the intellectual has been to believe that proletarians remain passive because they lack "consciousness"; and if they have come to believe themselves to be "the vanguard" to the point of wanting to lead the proletariat, then they have some bitter disappointments in store.

Yet it is this idea which constitutes the essence of Leninism, as is shown by the ambiguous history of Bolshevism. These ideas were in the end only able to survive because the Russian revolution failed, that is to say because the balance of power, on the international scale, between capital and proletariat, did not allow the latter to carry through its practical and theoretical critique...

After Lenin's death, Zinoviev, Stalin and so many others would have to develop it whilst insisting ever more strongly on "iron discipline" and "unity of thought and unity of action". The principle on which the Stalinist International rested was the same as that which formed the basis of the reformist socialist parties (the party separate from the workers, bringing them consciousness of themselves), whoever rejected the Lenino-Stalinist theory fell into "the morass of opportunism, social-democracy and Menshevism". For their part, the Trotskyists clung to Lenin's ideas and recited What Is To Be Done? Humanity's crisis, is nothing but the crisis of leadership, said Trotsky: so a leadership must be created at any cost. This is the ultimate idealism, the history of the world is explained as a crisis of consciousness.
 
Back
Top Bottom