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.
 
Not got round to reading it yet, but a review of the book by Jasper Bernes here:

WCH have a podcast discussion with Bernes about the book as well but it's paywalled:
 
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.
Democratic centralism is where you're wrong. There is in fact democracy within the party. Debates are a thing within the party apparatus.
 
Yes, but Lenin took it on board and interpreted it his way.
Theory and Praxis are necessary despite both being contradictory to each other. One cannot function without the other. Without theory, Lenin would have been a vulgar empiricist while Marxism without Leninist praxis would be idealist.
 
Not got round to reading it yet, but a review of the book by Jasper Bernes here:

WCH have a podcast discussion with Bernes about the book as well but it's paywalled:
final para

"If We Burn wants to attribute the failures of the “mass protest decade” to ideology but it does not investigate the material origins of this ideology. Is it really true that protesters in Turkey and Hong Kong chose to barricade streets and fight the police rather than engage in strikes and boycotts because that is what they saw happen in American mass culture? Bevins views protesters as unreasoning automatons mimicking what they see and hear, but was there no reasoning to these struggles, no invention, no imagination? Where did the shared tactic of occupying squares come from? Which movie is that? Another line of analysis might attempt to locate these tactics in the underlying material conditions which protesters faced, attributing the lack of strikes to declining membership in unions as well as the domestication of those unions by capital. Was this a choice or rather a matter of protesters availing themselves of the tactics and possibilities at hand, many of them as old as capitalism? Is the comparative absence of working-class parties and unions—of the sort that could be expected to mediate revolutionary conflicts in the twentieth century—really the result of ideology alone or does this ideology itself originate from a change in the character of class struggle in late capitalism, resulting from the ongoing global reorganization of labor?"

Which is right but doesnt change the fact they failed

This line though " Perhaps needless to say, whatever preparatory work had been done, such an organization would need to be almost entirely a product of the revolution itself, if it were to include its revolutionaries." ....I guess its a chicken and egg argument....and then there's Podemos.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LDC
Has anyone read or heard Vincent Bevins speak about his latest book
TLDR version is 21st century has seen historically high volume of revolutionary street movements seeking to overthrow governments/dictators, .. book concentrates on Tunisia,Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Turkey, Brazil, Ukraine, Hong Kong, South Korea,and Chile.... all mass participatory and tending to be organised on horizontal lines, and all failing to different degrees. I think he makes the claim it is the decade with the most protests in human history.

The lesson he draws is that such movements need a stronger degree of party organisation or else they get brushed aside by those better organised and therefore more powerful.

Whether intentionally or not it becomes a deep criticism of anarchism in revolutionary practice.

I'm wondering if anyone has their own countercriticism of the case being put or any other thoughts
I think their "failure to different degree" is when concessions are made. The bourgeoisie and the proletariat do not have any consensus for the class struggle at all because they are fundamentally opposed to each others interests. Proletarians want to keep more of their savings, the bourgeoisie wants to profit some more. This class struggle cannot be "reconciled" and can only be done with by a revolution, which in turn, solves the fundamental contradiction but creates a new one out of a dilemma on whether will the proletariat be the same or will it abolish classes once and for all. It is the negation of the negation.
 
I think their "failure to different degree" is when concessions are made. The bourgeoisie and the proletariat do not have any consensus for the class struggle at all because they are fundamentally opposed to each others interests. Proletarians want to keep more of their savings, the bourgeoisie wants to profit some more. This class struggle cannot be "reconciled" and can only be done with by a revolution, which in turn, solves the fundamental contradiction but creates a new one out of a dilemma on whether will the proletariat be the same or will it abolish classes once and for all. It is the negation of the negation.
these were revolutionary attempts, failed ones, this is all about how to achieve that.
Now post a lenin quote, i dare you........
 
these were revolutionary attempts, failed ones, this is all about how to achieve that.
Now post a lenin quote, i dare you........
Revolutionary and failed? That means that they clearly were close but not good enough to satisfy the material conditions of such. Or, these failed revolutions turned reactionary.

"It is the duty of the revolution to put an end to compromise, and to put an end to compromise means taking the path of socialist revolution."

- The Extraordinary All-Russia Congress Of Soviets Of Peaseats' Deputies
 
Yeah, the entertainment value was gone anyway but they definitely don't contribute anything to serious threads.
 
Back
Top Bottom