From: dr.bedggood-AT-auckland.ac.nz Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 04:26:22 +0000 Subject: M-I: Lenin in context Louis, Allright this is a serious attempt to explain your politics. Sorry I missed it first time. That was probably when you were gunning for Maleki and I wrote you off as a NY `lunchtime' revolutionary. Anyway I can see where you are coming from. My problem is that your analysis doesnt go deep enough. Lenin in context is fine. But what context? You don't even take the context Lenin himself places on events, but select onesided impressions. What's this about the united party? This is not the issue. In 1903 the issue was the emerging division between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. The split at the second congress was a symptom of this. Lenin explains in " One Step Forward and Two Steps Back" that Martov et al are for a party of the whole class in which every "striker" and "intellectual" can nominate themselves members of the party. Your Martov quote which you think is insignificant implies this very clearly. Anyone can be a member of the party, as long as "directed" by some party organ. This is like the SWP today. Fill in the coupon and join up! Lenin and Co wanted members to be "participants" in one or other party organ. That is, be an active member, fighting for the programme in practice. The reason for the difference is not incidental but central. In "What is to be Done" Lenin explains that marxism is a science which the vanguard party must inculcate in the working class which left to the daily struggle remains trapped in bourgeois ideology. How can the party lead the class, if the class is also the party? Most objections to Lenin's concept of democent is that it is elitist, is imposed from above, bureaucratic, intellectualist etc. But as Lenin explained in WITBD, this is only how things appear to those who are "economists". Yes economists are the same family as mensheviks - and opportunists, and sectarians. Economists are more than those who originate with small scale industry. They are not just old fashioned, but reflect the petty-bourgeois intellectuals view of class struggle as unfolding according to some historic installment plan, in which the working class evolves from unions to super-unions to federalist parties etc.but where the p/b intellectuals run the show. If this is your view of history, then your party is the all class, federalist and necessarily bureaucratic party, which as Lenin recognised was what was really at stake in the struggle between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Thats why the mensheviks are not just the minority in the class of 1903, but the petty bourgeois opposition ever since! Its true that there is no contradiction between democent and the party which is the "tribune of the people". The reasons why vanguard parties since have failed to live up to this conception is because they have been mainly mislead by mensheviks who claim to be democent, but are in reality bureaucent. My point is that it is necessary to arrive at an understanding of the type of democent party that is necessary as an expression of marxism in practice. Democent means membership limited to marxists, otherwise how can centralism, which is united practice to apply programme ever test the programme, and the theory and method on which it is based? This doesnt mean that marxists stand in isolation of the whole class, quite the reverse. Marixists participate in every struggle at all levels to infuse marxism into the movement and direct the struggles in the interests of the whole class. This is what I mean by Bolshevism. It means a party of conscious marxists, with many roots into the mass struggles. It means taking positions on all struggles, but not unity with the whole class as you appear to want on a `common' programme. Bolsheviks don't endorse the programme of the whole working class because it is necessarily bourgeois. Bolsheviks would not have capitulated to national chauvinism as Cannon did during the war. Bolsheviks would not have capitulated to Stalinism in Yugoslavia in 1948. Bolsheviks would not have liquidated themselves into the Stalinist parties or labour parties during the 1950s and 1960's; they would have stood firm on permanent revolution against the popular front politics of the period. They would give critical support in all progressive struggles, such as national struggles in Ireland, Palestine etc, but always criticise the bourgeois or petty bourgeois leaderships of such struggles and seek to organise and arm the workers independently. You raise Peru. Bolsheviks give unconditional support to the Degenerated Workers States without any political support of the Stalinist bureacracy including that of Mao. Maoists are mensheviks too. They substitute the peasantry for the working class in the leadership of the revolution. This would be like Lenin saying, "Lets stop with the Constituent Assembly in October 1917 and have a break for a few decades" . Bolsheviks give critical support to national revolutions and peasant struggles against imperialism and bourgeois dictatorships, but oppose the bourgeois and petty bourgeois leaderships which counterpose to the permanent revolution, peasant guerrilla wars. Why do Bolsheviks take all these positions? Their programme is not a spontaneous amalgam of every struggle into one large struggle, but the result of the lessons learned in many past struggles, and which reflect the method, theory and programme of the healthy communist movements. For example, Lenin and Trotsky changed their positions in mid 1917 to arrive at the Bolshevik-led permanent revolution. That is the single most important gain to marxists in the 20th century. We have to rescue that ideological victory for workers, along with the other major theoretical/practical breakthoughs of the Bolsheviks and the Trotskyist movement before it collapsed after WW2. These include the Leninist position on imperialism and the national question; Trotsky on stalinism and the degenerated workers state; the analysis of the popular front in the 1930's; fascism and imperialist war etc etc. Yes the Trotskyist movement has trodden all over this heritage too. But as I argued earlier, the mensheviks and stalinists are to mainly to blame, not the pathetic `leaders' of the various sects thrown up in the post-war period. As always the question of leadeship comes back to class. Against all the pessimism and defeatism of the petty bourgeois, which also creates the motivation for adventurism as Lenin explained, and fascism as Trotsky explained, the working class is the revolutionary class. The Bolsheviks are the conscious vanguard of the working class, representing its class interests against all of the bourgeois influences and agents in the working class. The gap between the objective conditions of an aging crisis ridden capitalsm, and the absence of a subjective world Bolshevik party, is greater today than ever before. That's why Bolsheviks must build a new world party on the firm of foundation of democratic centralism so next time when faced with mounting wars and revolutionary situations, the Bolshevik party will lead the working class to permanent victory. --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005