Most firefighters think the SWP/ruc (Wespec') is a load of ole bollocks

[joshjosh]

But we are talking about Leninism, the strategy. Not the SWP...

if someone joined the SWP and was told it was democratic centralist what conclusions do you think they'd draq about dmocratic centralism?

 

[mk12]

Yes, I know all the criticisms of the SWP, and agree with many of them. But this thread is discussing the relevance of Leninism - the need for a revolutionary party and democratic centralism.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Yes, I know all the criticisms of the SWP, and agree with many of them. But this thread is discussing the relevance of Leninism - the need for a revolutionary party and democratic centralism.

But there's more to Leninism than the need for a party and democratic centralism...crucially there are the questions of the vanguard nature of the party (and my use of the definitive article is very deliberate), and its relationship to the working class prior to and during the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. Now I know I'm going over old ground here, but no one from a Leninist view point has replied to these questions; questions which I think are crucial to understanding both why Leninism met with the success it did in Tsarist Russia, and why it has not delivered the goods subsequently.

Cheers - Louis Mac

 

[emanymton]

I think I know this one, isn’t it the fault of the working class for not understanding there own historically necessary role is to bring about the destruction of capitalism? As Tony Cliff once said getting socialism would be easy if it wasn’t for the working class.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I think I know this one, isn’t it the fault of the working class for not understanding there own historically necessary role is to bring about the destruction of capitalism? As Tony Cliff once said getting socialism would be easy if it wasn’t for the working class.

Many a true word....

Cheers - Louis Mac

p.s. now what about a proper answer?

 

[butchersapron]

Yes, I know all the criticisms of the SWP, and agree with many of them. But this thread is discussing the relevance of Leninism - the need for a revolutionary party and democratic centralism.

Which ones?

 

[joshjosh]

i'll have a shot at an answer [EDIT: to louis, not butchers], but i don't go on here that often so i might be slow in replying to all the criticisms afterwards.

first of all, i think the goal of leninism should be seen as being to make a revolution. leninists don't think that this can happen spontaneiously (is that spelt right?) because of this the method of the vanguard party and the programme come about.

i think its interesting that louis mentions both that leninism was successful in tsarist russia bt afterwards went downhill. i think that this has more to do with the development of world history than it does with leninism on its own. i think that the curbs on internal democracy in post-revolution russia were the result of the failure of the revolution to spread abroad (lenin said again and again before the revolution that it would only be successful if it spread to an advanced country - i think this was shown to be true, think of how the stalinist bureaucracy fucked up in spain deliberately to prevent a revolution being successful there)

i don't think that lenin ever wanted an isolated revolution that would degenerate, but lenin and the bolshevbiks had to deal with reality which didn't go as they wanted.

 

[emanymton]

Many a true word....

Cheers - Louis Mac

p.s. now what about a proper answer?

I can’t give you one as a year on from leaving the SWP I’m still trying to work out what my politics are and where I stand. I do accept you view (a lest I think it’s your view) that many of the reasons given do seem to blame the working class for the failure of parties, hence my last post.

If I was still in the SWP I would probably have said something along the lines of it is impossible to build a mass revolutionary working class party unless society is in a state of serious crises. Previously when there has been a crisis there has been no ideologically coherent and united party to give a lead to the Woking class. The exception is Russia where both the crises and the part where present (a lie of course I don’t believe the Bolsheviks where all that ideologically united) As we cannot create the crises all we can do is build the party, prepare ourselves for the inevitable crises to come and try to win as many small victories as we can along the way.

This is really bad as it has been so long since I agreed theses things I’ve forgot how I used to do it, plus I’ve been struggling to read seriously for a while know and have really noticed my mental faculties begin to deteriorate. At the current rate in a few months I'll probably just be abele to set in a corner dribbling

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I can’t give you one as a year on from leaving the SWP I’m still trying to work out what my politics are and where I stand. I do accept you view (a lest I think it’s your view) that many of the reasons give do seem to blame the working class for the failure of parties, hence my last post.

If I was still in the SWP I would probably have said something along the lines of it is impossible to build a mass revolutionary working class party unless society is in a state of serious crises. Previously when there has been a crisis there has been no ideologically coherent and united party to give a lead to the Woking class. The exception is Russia where both the crises and the part where present (a lie of course I don’t believe the Bolsheviks where all that ideologically united) As we cannot create the crises all we can do is build the party, prepare ourselves for the inevitable crises to come and try to win as many small victories as we can along the way.

This is really bad as it has been so long since I agreed theses things I’ve forgot how I used to do it, plus I’ve been struggling to read seriously for a while know and have really noticed my mental faculties begin to deteriorate. At the current rate in a few months I'll probably just be abele to set in a corner dribbling

I suspect you won't be dribbling at all...good luck with the critical thinking.

Cheers - Louis Mac

 

[cockneyrebel]

But this thread is discussing the relevance of Leninism - the need for a revolutionary party and democratic centralism.

Really I thought the thread was about: "Most firefighters think the SWP/ruc (Wespec') is a load of ole bollocks"

 

[LLETSA]

Aaaah. The IWCA. Is the IWCA an attempt to build a revolutionary organisation in your opinion?

In my personal opinion (ie not attempting to speak for them): not a revolutionary organisation in the sense that you mean.

Again a personal opinion: I don't think that, at the present time, 'building a revolutionary organisation' is either the most important thing nor even feasible. Given the scale of the defeat suffered by socialism at the end of the last century how could it be? What is regarded as the revolutionary left simply refuses to recognise the scale of that defeat and the contribution to it played by the ideology to which it continues to remain faithful. It is a head-the -sand approach pure and simple. It is not at all clear what types of organisations the working class needs in this new situation, but the idea that one day the working class will flock to the kind of party and ideology that has already gone down to a decisive defeat is, in my eyes, simply beyond belief.

In a situation where all faith in a better kind of future has all but collapsed and the numbers of people who believe in any kind of socialism has dwindled to an insignificant minority, I think that the far left is living in denial and simply trying to put off the day when it will be no more. That is why it continues to chase it's own tail and ignores the working class (that is the working class in the sense that I meant it in an above post - the working class as it is and not how the left would like it to be, and not the working class reduced to the organised labour movement.) In this context the IWCA is to be applauded for going out and approaching the working class directly. While the rest of the left sneers at them for being a small organisation (!) and for not having a programme for world transformation, they are quietly achieving something that the rest of the left is incapable of, by winning the support of working class people for policies that they can clearly see are aimed at making a difference to their lives in the here and now. Without being able to achieve this all the political programmes for complete social transformation remain nothing more than words on paper designed to comfort the leaders and members of sects whose relevance wanes by the day. In short, in my opinion, a programme for complete transformation of society is not at present at all important because, in terms of challenging capitalism things moved back to square one some time ago. Revolution, or complete social transformation, or whatever you want to call it, is not on the agenda. It is all anybody opposed to capitalism can do to even be heard, and the IWCA is clearly making all the running in this.

 

[LLETSA]

Really I thought the thread was about: "Most firefighters think the SWP/ruc (Wespec') is a load of ole bollocks"

Like most threads on most boards it changed as it went along. Mainly through the efforts of some to turn the discussion towards something of relevance instead of the usual complacent chit-chat.

 

[Herbert Read]

Patroninsing anti leninist spot on

 

[audiotech]

In my personal opinion (ie not attempting to speak for them): not a revolutionary organisation in the sense that you mean.

Again a personal opinion: I don't think that, at the present time, 'building a revolutionary organisation' is either the most important thing nor even feasible. Given the scale of the defeat suffered by socialism at the end of the last century how could it be? What is regarded as the revolutionary left simply refuses to recognise the scale of that defeat and the contribution to it played by the ideology to which it continues to remain faithful. It is a head-the -sand approach pure and simple. It is not at all clear what types of organisations the working class needs in this new situation, but the idea that one day the working class will flock to the kind of party and ideology that has already gone down to a decisive defeat is, in my eyes, simply beyond belief.

In a situation where all faith in a better kind of future has all but collapsed and the numbers of people who believe in any kind of socialism has dwindled to an insignificant minority, I think that the far left is living in denial and simply trying to put off the day when it will be no more. That is why it continues to chase it's own tail and ignores the working class (that is the working class in the sense that I meant it in an above post - the working class as it is and not how the left would like it to be, and not the working class reduced to the organised labour movement.) In this context the IWCA is to be applauded for going out and approaching the working class directly. While the rest of the left sneers at them for being a small organisation (!) and for not having a programme for world transformation, they are quietly achieving something that the rest of the left is incapable of, by winning the support of working class people for policies that they can clearly see are aimed at making a difference to their lives in the here and now. Without being able to achieve this all the political programmes for complete social transformation remain nothing more than words on paper designed to comfort the leaders and members of sects whose relevance wanes by the day. In short, in my opinion, a programme for complete transformation of society is not at present at all important because, in terms of challenging capitalism things moved back to square one some time ago. Revolution, or complete social transformation, or whatever you want to call it, is not on the agenda. It is all anybody opposed to capitalism can do to even be heard, and the IWCA is clearly making all the running in this.

There's no 'revolution' around the corner that's clear, but in the long run it's difficult to see how capitalism (as it exists at present - production for productions sake) can avoid it's inherent contradictions? That can (and does) create further crises, and seriously affects the relationship between itself and labour. Let's not forget that fascism has been a short-term method used in the past to alter that relationship in favour of capital.

The question then is the 'same as it's ever been' (to quote Talking Heads) and that question is reform, or revolution? LLETSA, to turn a slogan upside down for a moment, are you of the opinion that capitalism cannot be overthrown it has to be reformed? Is this in both the short and the long term strategies you think relevant to the present?

 

[LLETSA]

There's no 'revolution' around the corner that's clear, but in the long run it's difficult to see how capitalism (as it exists at present - production for productions sake) can avoid it's inherent contradictions? That can (and does) create further crises, and seriously affects the relationship between itself and labour. Let's not forget that fascism has been a short-term method used in the past to alter that relationship in favour of capital.

The question then is the 'same as it's ever been' (to quote Talking Heads) and that question is reform, or revolution? LLETSA, to turn a slogan upside down for a moment, are you of the opinion that capitalism cannot be overthrown it has to be reformed? Is this in both the short and the long term strategies you think relevant to the present?

Certainly capitalism will run into crisis at some point in the future, although it's impossible to say when. What comes along to challenge it or replace it is another matter and one about which we can only speculate.

Therefore, it is pretty pointless in a discussion like this to comment on the matter of reform or revolution. We are, after all, living through a time where meaningful reform isn't even on the cards, let alone revolution. The idea I was trying to get over, and to get people to discuss, was whether pursuing the type of organisation that has already failed, through the kind of activities that have altered not at all over the last few decades, is an appropriate response to this situation by capitalism's opponents.

Personally, I'd say that in terms of labour vs capital we are back to square one and only two things are certain: the lessons of the past are there for all to see and, whether they are learned or not, it won't happen the same as it did last time around.

 

[LLETSA]

Patroninsing anti leninist spot on

It's the way I tell 'em.

 

[audiotech]

Certainly capitalism will run into crisis at some point in the future, although it's impossible to say when. What comes along to challenge it or replace it is another matter and one about which we can only speculate.

Therefore, it is pretty pointless in a discussion like this to comment on the matter of reform or revolution. We are, after all, living through a time where meaningful reform isn't even on the cards, let alone revolution. The idea I was trying to get over, and to get people to discuss, was whether pursuing the type of organisation that has already failed, through the kind of activities that have altered not at all over the last few decades, is an appropriate response to this situation by capitalism's opponents.

Personally, I'd say that in terms of labour vs capital we are back to square one and only two things are certain: the lessons of the past are there for all to see and, whether they are learned or not, it won't happen the same as it did last time around.

So, you don't see history repeating itself?

I don't agree with your point that 'meaningful reform isn't...on the cards', particularly when we have a reformist government in power and when the recent call to 'make poverty history' (clearly, a 'meaningful reform') is so high on the political agenda? It's whether poverty can be made history by capitalism and what happens if that isn't delivered surely?

Lenin and the Bolsheviks were successful, in overthrowing the Tzarist regime, winning a majority in the Soviets and then leading a workers uprising against the Provisional government. Later, under Stalin's leadership, Fascism was defeated in Germany. All this I wouldn't class as 'failing' in any sense of the word.

Isn't it the case that it was the failed revolutions that came after the Russian revolution, which had the most profound affect on Western Communist parties and it was those failings which led to the foundation of totalitarian states in both Russia and Germany? Wasn't this more the result of class collaboration by reformists, rather than Lenin, or Leninism? I would like to suggest that is one lesson from the past worth noting.

 

[poster342002]

I don't agree with your point that 'meaningful reform isn't...on the cards', particularly when we have a reformist government in power and when the recent call to 'make poverty history' (clearly, a 'meaningful reform') is so high on the political agenda? It's whether poverty can be made history by capitalism and what happens if that isn't delivered surely?

You cal this a "reformist government"? Unless you count the "new" meaning of this word - a byword for slashing welfare and rights - this government cannot be said to be anything of the sort. The fact that it has said about "making poverty history" makes no odds. I could say I intended to run a marathon round the UK, but it wouldn't necessarily mean I'd do it.

 

[mk12]

foundation of totalitarian states in both Russia and Germany? Wasn't this more the result of class collaboration by reformists, rather than Lenin, or Leninism? I would like to suggest that is one lesson from the past worth noting.
Agree completely.

 

[LLETSA]

Lenin and the Bolsheviks were successful, in overthrowing the Tzarist regime, winning a majority in the Soviets and then leading a workers uprising against the Provisional government. Later, under Stalin's leadership, Fascism was defeated in Germany. All this I wouldn't class as 'failing' in any sense of the word.

Isn't it the case that it was the failed revolutions that came after the Russian revolution, which had the most profound affect on Western Communist parties and it was those failings which led to the foundation of totalitarian states in both Russia and Germany? Wasn't this more the result of class collaboration by reformists, rather than Lenin, or Leninism? I would like to suggest that is one lesson from the past worth noting.

Probably the only way that Leninism can be said to have been successful in practical terms is as an instrument for seizing power, and this only in its country of origin - for which the Leninist party model was originally devised. As I've said above, it wasn't only, or even primarily, the fault of the new Communist parties that they failed in those countries where the revolutions could have helped to break the Soviet Union's isolation. Class collaboration by the social democrats did, as you say, play a major part. But to say that it was only then that the totalitarian tendancies of the Soviet regime came to the fore is a complete distortion of history; there is ample evidence to say that they were there from the beginning. As for the setting up of totalitarian states in Germany and the USSR, there is also an abundance of evidence to say that Stalin was only building on the foundations laid by Lenin, while the role of the Comintern probably helped to make the Nazis avoidable rise to power a certainty (something I would have expected a Trotskyist like yourself to acknowledge.)

Sure enough, had the Soviet Union's isolation been broken it would have had a profound affect on the western Communist parties. However, I fail to see how this is an argument for continuing with the quest for a Leninist party, over eighty years later, under vastly different conditions and to the exclusion of alternative approaches more suited to the times.

Not sure if your remark about history repeating itself was just flippancy, by the way.

 

[LLETSA]

I don't agree with your point that 'meaningful reform isn't...on the cards', particularly when we have a reformist government in power and when the recent call to 'make poverty history' (clearly, a 'meaningful reform') is so high on the political agenda? It's whether poverty can be made history by capitalism and what happens if that isn't delivered surely?

Further to what the poster above says about this, assuming that pro-capitalist reformist goverments like New Labour meant what they said (which they don't), how is this an argument for the Leninist party being adequate to the task when 'capitalism fails to deliver'?

 

[audiotech]

You cal this a "reformist government"? Unless you count the "new" meaning of this word - a byword for slashing welfare and rights - this government cannot be said to be anything of the sort. The fact that it has said about "making poverty history" makes no odds. I could say I intended to run a marathon round the UK, but it wouldn't necessarily mean I'd do it.

And that's exactly the point with regards to any 'reformist government' throughout history. Its up to revolutionaries to expose their machinations. I see you have, well done!

 

[audiotech]

Further to what the poster above says about this, assuming that pro-capitalist reformist goverments like New Labour meant what they said (which they don't), how is this an argument for the Leninist party being adequate to the task when 'capitalism fails to deliver'?

Because it is the only model that has been successful in practical terms as an instrument for seizing power.

 

[mk12]

And abolishing capitalism.

 

[butchersapron]

Because it is the only model that has been successful in practical terms as an instrument for seizing power.

Is it?

 

[mk12]

please enlighten us butchersapron...we are not worthy of your knowledge.

 

[Pickman's model]

please enlighten us butchersapron...we are not worthy of your knowledge.

how many of you share yr username?

 

[mk12]

We being Leninists...

 

[audiotech]

Probably the only way that Leninism can be said to have been successful in practical terms is as an instrument for seizing power, and this only in its country of origin - for which the Leninist party model was originally devised. As I've said above, it wasn't only, or even primarily, the fault of the new Communist parties that they failed in those countries where the revolutions could have helped to break the Soviet Union's isolation. Class collaboration by the social democrats did, as you say, play a major part. But to say that it was only then that the totalitarian tendancies of the Soviet regime came to the fore is a complete distortion of history; there is ample evidence to say that they were there from the beginning. As for the setting up of totalitarian states in Germany and the USSR, there is also an abundance of evidence to say that Stalin was only building on the foundations laid by Lenin, while the role of the Comintern probably helped to make the Nazis avoidable rise to power a certainty (something I would have expected a Trotskyist like yourself to acknowledge.)

Sure enough, had the Soviet Union's isolation been broken it would have had a profound affect on the western Communist parties. However, I fail to see how this is an argument for continuing with the quest for a Leninist party, over eighty years later, under vastly different conditions and to the exclusion of alternative approaches more suited to the times.

Not sure if your remark about history repeating itself was just flippancy, by the way.

Totalitarian tendencies in Russia were indeed there from the Tzarist period and beyond. However, Lenin was probably one of the first Russians to speak about democracy for the vast majority, rather than an elite oligarchy and was one of the few Bolsheviks to applaud the setting up of Soviets by workers, peasants, soldiers and sailors (others saw them as a threat to the party).

To say that Stalin was 'building on the foundations laid by Lenin' is probably true, but Stalin used those 'foundations' to shore up his own position as head of the bureaucratic state, which Lenin warns of in his last testament. It was Stalin's dictatorial stamp on the Comintern and it's ultra-left turn which paved the way for what happened on Germany. Nothing to do with Lenin as he was dead at the time. His preferred successor Trotsky gave warning on that, despite the difficulties he faced from Stalin's assassins.

There is no 'quest' being sought here. I think the ideas of Lenin and the role of the party need to be examined and learnt from rather than to be thrown out with the bathwater.

Just to be clear I'm not a 'Trotskyist' and I suspect your use of that term in a perjorative way is deliberate. However, your flippancy on that point I will put to one side. I wasn't being 'flippant' by the way.

 

[audiotech]

Is it?

Yes.