File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1996/96-12-27.212, message 53


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 ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005