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

[LLETSA]

According to 'Time', Lenin began the Bolshevik tradition of waging war on intellectual dissidents — of exiling, imprisoning and executing thinkers and artists who dared oppose the regime. He was a peculiarly modest figure who wore a shabby waistcoat, worked 16-hour days and read extensively. (By contrast, Stalin did not know that the Netherlands and Holland were the same country, and no one in the Kremlin inner circle was brave enough to set him straight.)

Andrei Sinyavsky, one of the key dissidents of the 1960s stated that Lenin '...was a rather kind person whose cruelty was stipulated by science and incontrovertible historical laws. As were his love of power and his political intolerance.'

This stipulation included him to urge comrades to:

'... Hang (hang without fail, so that people will see) no fewer than one hundred known kulaks, rich men, bloodsuckers ... Do it in such a way that ... for hundreds of versts around, the people will see, tremble, know, shout: 'They are strangling and will strangle to death the bloodsucker kulaks' ... Yours, Lenin."

Revolution, by any historical laws is a nasty business. It is the result of a 'bourgeois virtue' whereby they unleash extreme violence on their own people who then react in kind.

He was right about politics.

But Lenin went further than terrorising the ruling classes. Much, much further. The party, being the sole instrument of historical inevitability, was entitled to do whatever it chose to anybody who got in the way. Including thousands of workers and millions of impoverished peasants who just didn't understand historical inevitability. In the end the party was entitled to do what it wanted even to its own leaders. Lenin, on his deathbed, could see this coming and was horrified at what he'd set in motion.

 

[LLETSA]

Andrei Sinyavsky, one of the key dissidents of the 1960s stated that Lenin '...was a rather kind person whose cruelty was stipulated by science and incontrovertible historical laws. As were his love of power and his political intolerance.'

Even Lenin's bitterest enemies acknowledge that he was not cruel in his personal dealings with people and that he had no interest in the material trappings of power. But don't you think that Sinyavsky's comments are meant to be a condemnation rather than a justification?

 

[LLETSA]

Interestingly, a google search about that 'hang, hang' quote has four hits. Two from 'Time magazine' and a couple from 'quotes/anecdotes' websites. One arguing - "Lenin created a model not merely for his successor, Stalin, but for Mao, for Hitler, for Pol Pot..."

Hitler?!?

It is widely known that Hitler admired the ruthlessness and discipline of the Bolsheviks, as well as the efficiency of their methods of repression.

 

[rednblack]

hitler didnt fall from the moon

 

[LLETSA]

Interestingly, a google search about that 'hang, hang' quote has four hits. Two from 'Time magazine' and a couple from 'quotes/anecdotes' websites. One arguing - "Lenin created a model not merely for his successor, Stalin, but for Mao, for Hitler, for Pol Pot..."

Hitler?!?

In any case, you make it seem like you can just about stomach the crimes of the other three.

But Hitler?!?!

 

[audiotech]

I'm sure that it can be firmly established that his agenda was undoubtedly evil, if not sponsored directly by the CIA.

On the other hand he might, as a Marxist, have had valid criticisms to make of the Bolshevik interpretation of Marx:

"Born and educated in Russia, David Shub joined the Social Democratic Party as a very young man and frequently met Lenin and other leaders abroad. After taking part in the Russian revolution of 1905 he was exiled to Siberia but escaped to the USA. Thereafter he still kept up his contact with the revolutionary leaders, with many of whom he was personally acquainted."

That's from the cover of the Penguin edition of Lenin, by David Shub and is all I know about him. The book is a good read if you've got an open mind.

Yes, I'll try and get a copy.

 

[LLETSA]

Lenin wanted to go further than both the Mensheviks and SR's (who had weak leadership) so, for him, compromise was out of the question.

But this going further and alienating allies brings us back to square one. Especially when you consider that it necessitated putting in place the apparatus which would later be used to bring on the nightmare of the purges and all the rest of what Stalin gifted the revolution.

 

[LLETSA]

Why indeed should it continue to be the model for capitalist opponents to follow? Because, to be anti-capitalist you wish to see an end to that corporate edifice and create something better, based on equality and liberty. An organisation that is made up of individuals with the aim of achieving that purpose is more likely to succeed. With the hindsight of history it's easier to avoid bureaucratic distortions.

Why has there never been a Leninist party in the true sense of the word coming to power in the way that it did in the Russian empire ever since the Bolsheviks did it themselves? Could it be because Bolshevism was a Russian phenomenon, suited to the circumstances of that country but no other?

 

[mk12]

I think it is because pre-1917, the working class leaders in various other countries refused to build a party based on the Bolsheviks, sowing illusions in social-democracy. For example, in Germany. The divisions in the Second international show this. If the ground work had been done by working class leaders before 1917, then revolutions could have succeeded. The Bolsheviks only gained mass support in the months before October. If a truly revolutionary party like the Bolsheviks had existed in Germany, Italy etc...then who knows what could have happened.

I am not saying that it is all about 'leaders', but the Bolsheviks had a huge well of working class knowledge and experience (from 1903), whereas the KPD was quickly formed in the post-WW1 situation. If there was a party like the Bolsheviks in Germany, it could have broken the illusions in the SPD. But because of the small numbers and lack of links with the working class, the KPD couldn't quite have the same effect on the workers.

That's what I think anyway, I am willing to accept other arguments!

 

[Chuck Wilson]

I think it is because pre-1917, the working class leaders in various other countries refused to build a party based on the Bolsheviks, sowing illusions in social-democracy.

What you seem to be saying is that 'pre-lenin' there was no revolutionary movement.I find it hard to believe for example that James Larkin or the IWW's main contribution was to sow illusions in social democracy.

 

[butchersapron]

Aside from the fact that the western European parties were also rapidly bolshevised in the revolutionary years post-1917...and guess what? They never led revolutions. The point undermines itself. I know what the answers going to be once again though - objective factors are to blame, it's never bolshevik ideology acting as a material force though, never....

This thread is making me tear what's left of my hair out.

 

[audiotech]

But you acknowledge that the Mensheviks supported the Red Army against the Whites and that the left SR's supported the October revolution prior to their being banned by the Bolsheviks. Room for compromise there surely?

Interestingly, Lenin specifically condemned suggestions that the Bolsheviks were willing to cooperate militarily with forces politically loyal to the provisional government (the Mensheviks and the Socialist Revolutionaries) against counterrevolutionary mobilisations. That would have meant that there was a certain bloc, alliance or agreement between the Bolsheviks and the defencists [of Kerensky] (VI Lenin CW Vol 25, Moscow 1977, p247). Quoted in a letter published by Weekly Worker.

As the writer noted: 'You do not conclude agreements or make blocs with people who have deserted for good to the enemy camp.'

 

[audiotech]

Even Lenin's bitterest enemies acknowledge that he was not cruel in his personal dealings with people and that he had no interest in the material trappings of power. But don't you think that Sinyavsky's comments are meant to be a condemnation rather than a justification?

Certainly, but this condemns Lenin's actions against the enemies of the revolution. What was Lenin supposed to do welcome them with open arms?

 

[audiotech]

Why has there never been a Leninist party in the true sense of the word coming to power in the way that it did in the Russian empire ever since the Bolsheviks did it themselves? Could it be because Bolshevism was a Russian phenomenon, suited to the circumstances of that country but no other?

Your first part has been answered, it has do with Stalinism, class collaboration, the development of social democratic parties in the west and the tiny revolutionary forces acting against it. As to revolution being a 'Russian phenomenon' (afterall, that's what distinguished Bolshevism from any other current)? Well historical circumstances dictated events in Russia at the time (learned from 1905), so, yes you can argue that it was a 'Russian phenomenon, suited to the circumstances of that country', but as for 'no other'? That needs to be discussed further?

 

[mk12]

BUTCHERSAPRON-"Aside from the fact that the western European parties were also rapidly bolshevised in the revolutionary years post-1917...and guess what?"

That wasn't really my point. The Bolsheviks had been a vanguard party since 1903, sticking by its principles. Although other European parties were 'rapidly' Bolshevised, that wouldn't suggest that people would simply leave their social-democratic parties, and flock to the new 'bolshevised' parties. My point was, the Bolsheviks had gained 15 years of experience, and worked within the class. Parties like the KPD in Germany were working within the SPD until 1917-18...hardly similar to the Bolsheviks in Russia.

 

[Pickman's model]

That wasn't really my point. The Bolsheviks had been a vanguard party since 1903, sticking by its principles.

this suggests that they weren't a principled party if they changed their principles so significantly in 1903.

 

[Pickman's model]

the Bolsheviks had gained 15 years of experience

of what?

 

[mk12]

They split with the Mensheviks in 1903...because they disagreed over membership.

 

[butchersapron]

BUTCHERSAPRON-"Aside from the fact that the western European parties were also rapidly bolshevised in the revolutionary years post-1917...and guess what?"

That wasn't really my point. The Bolsheviks had been a vanguard party since 1903, sticking by its principles. Although other European parties were 'rapidly' Bolshevised, that wouldn't suggest that people would simply leave their social-democratic parties, and flock to the new 'bolshevised' parties. My point was, the Bolsheviks had gained 15 years of experience, and worked within the class. Parties like the KPD in Germany were working within the SPD until 1917-18...hardly similar to the Bolsheviks in Russia.

So you point out the differences with the Russian experiences of the european working class in order to demand that those in those vastly different conditions adopt those of the Russians? That those tactics are applicable everywhere no matter what the conditions?

As for the Bolsheviks working "within the class" where do you think the millions of SPD members worked? Who on earth do you think made up their membership? And why did the Bolsheviks sit in the same international and defer to their authority from 1903 onwards if they were such different beasts.

I'm sorry, but none of your points logically follow nor repsond to the posts of others - in fact it's quite hard to know what point you're trying to make.

 

[butchersapron]

They split with the Mensheviks in 1903...because they disagreed over membership.

See last line of above post.

 

[Pickman's model]

They split with the Mensheviks in 1903...because they disagreed over membership.

being a membership organisation is not necessarily the same as being a vanguard organisation.

 

[montevideo]

being a membership organisation is not necessarily the same as being a vanguard organisation.

depends how big your central committte is

 

[mk12]

I'm sorry, but none of your points logically follow nor repsond to the posts of others - in fact it's quite hard to know what point you're trying to make.

I was trying to give an answer to LLETSA's question - why didn't the Communist Parties which were quickly organised in the West become mass parties like the Bolsheviks...

As for the Bolsheviks working "within the class" where do you think the millions of SPD members worked?

Of course they worked within the class, but they were sowing illusions in social-democracy. There was no Bolshevised party in Germany, because Marxists put their faith in the SPD, not because Bolshevism was simply a 'Russian' idea.

 

[butchersapron]

What the fuck do you think the Russian Social Democratic Party were doing?

I think you need to go back at look at the basic underlying and fundamental agreements between all of the 2nd International parties on the major issues in the 20 years before WW1.

 

[mk12]

But the Russian Social-Democrats split...Bolsheviks wanted a vanguard party ('Bolshevised' party as LLETSA was referring to), whereas the Mensheviks wanted a broader party. For example, Mensheviks opposed the working class and peasantry who were in open revolt in 1905. They weren't a unified party.

 

[butchersapron]

Oh really i hadn't quite grasped that. And no the Mensheviks still wanted a Vanaguard Party, just not one that Lenin and his mates could dominate organisationally.

The Bolsheviks were still the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party and they were in the 2nd International along with the other Social Democrats who they were in substantial agreement with - and who were also organised into various forms of vanguard (internal) organisations derived directly from the bastardisation of the writings of Marx by Kautsky (the real father of Vanguardism and a German!), Plekhanov, the elder Liebknicht (another German!) and the other 'Popes of Marxism' - it was not a purely Russian developement - in fact it was a German developement. It just took on a more extreme form in the material conditions of Tsarist Russia.

The whole 2nd International was already vanguardist - and it was a failure because of this, a very costly failure for the working class at that.

Again, this is no response at all to my post.

 

[mk12]

The whole 2nd International was already vanguardist - and it was a failure because of this, a very costly failure for the working class at that.
When LLETSA talks about the 'Bolshevised' Party, he is referring to a Leninist revolutionary party. He asks why a 'Bolshevised' Party didn't succeed in other countries apart from Russia. Although you claim the International was vanguardist, this doesn't mean it wasn't dominated by reformist currents, such as the SDP.

I'll go back to original question - So you point out the differences with the Russian experiences of the european working class in order to demand that those in those vastly different conditions adopt those of the Russians? That those tactics are applicable everywhere no matter what the conditions?

I would suggest that if a Bolshevik-type party had existed in Germany for years before 1917-18, then a revolution would have been successful, yes. It was clear that the failure of a revolutionary party, with mass support, plus the illusions in a mass-reformist party which claimed it was socialist, was the reasons for the failure of the German revolution.

 

[oisleep]

i thought kautsky was of czech origin