Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 22:54:23 GMT
From: Chris Burford <cburford-AT-gn.apc.org>
Subject: M-I: Re: Lenin on reforms and revolution


I welcome the points made and the quotations that
Michael and Jason have checked out. 

I think there are some merits in thinking of "revolutionary
reforms" and "reformist reforms". The problem for me is that
some of the changes that are possible and progressive
are so small as to be arguably invisible from the point of view of
revolution. A case in point: when I welcomed the victory of the 
States Attorney Generals over a tobacco company, I was open to
criticism by Doug and others for overstating the significance.
Certainly it was a reform entirely shared with a much wider liberal
constituency, but one which for accidental reasons, I happen
to identify with. Yet I would say in the detail of this
conflict fundamentally there is still the conflict between the 
private ownership of the means of production and the social 
control of the forces of production.

But perhaps in view of the widespread cynicism with government and 
political parties in most developed countries there is not a great
danger in spreading reformist illusions if we struggle for certain 
reforms.

A more major strategic question, is that I happen to believe that
proportional representation in England would make the government more
vulnerable to pressure from the electorate, but it would still 
remain a bourgeois parliamentary system, even if the world had
never heard of Maggie Thatcher as a result.


Jason's post raises another issue: that of violent revolution.
I generally agree with the concrete way Jason discusses the 
question, but this makes the reality of force and the *possibility*
of violence the line of demarcation with revisionism, not the
absolute *inevitability* of violence.
However he also quotes as follows.

>I noticed again the following formulation by Lenin
>on reforms and revolution. Note it does not make
>the touchstone a matter of violence or not.
>

"The supersession of the bourgeois state by the proletarian state is
impossible without a violent revolution." *The State and Revolution*,
Foreign Languages Press (Peking), p. 27.



Now in my edition this is on page 25 and I had to check it out. 
I would argue that here Lenin (writing at the height of his 
polemic with the social-chauvinist opportunists of the second 
international, was bending the wand and falling into the excesses
which he recognised occurred from time to time in polemics.

On the previous page Lenin puts the formula a *little* more carefully -

"We have already said above, and shall show more fully later,
that the teaching of Marx and Engels *cannot* be superseded 
by the proletarian state (the dictatorship of the proletariat)
through the process of 'withering away', but, as a general rule, 
only through a violent revolution." 

Here the phrase 
"as a general rule" is inserted, and allows for the possibility
that violence is not absolutely inevitable.

Just before this Lenin quotes a passage from Engels which he 
calls a panegyric on violent revolution. But Engels' words in 
the passage quoted are that "force" is the midwife of 
every old society which is pregnant with the new, and he 
refers to "the possibility that force will perhaps be
necessary for the overthrow of the economic system of 
exploitation". Engels also refers to the possibility
that in Germany "a violent collision" may be "forced upon the 
people".

This way of presenting the matter seems to me to be closer to 
the way Jason does.

Whether violent revolution is a general rule or absolutely
inevitable, or obligatory to proclaim as a goal in itself, or
is a serious possibility, is
an important point in the history of the Leninist tradition.
The British Road to Socialism by the Communist Party of Great
Britain, 1947 or 1948,  had formulas which if I recall 
correctly without checking, talked certainly about mass movements,
but held out the possibility of socialism being brought about
through the British parliament. It is arguably the first of 
the "Eurocommunist" texts. It is expecially interesting because
there is some evidence that Stalin was consulted about it.

Whether Mao knew this last point is not clear. But if so 
it adds additional irony to the following argument which
distinguishes between a) the probable reality of the the 
conflict of forces leading to violent confrontation and b)
how communists should present the question in their literature

>from the 3rd Plenum of the 8th Central Committee Oct 9th
1957 Selected Works Volume 5 page 495:

"Next, we also disagree with Khrushchov and associates on the 
question of peaceful transition. We maintain that the proletarian
Party of any country should be prepared for two possibilities,
one for peace and the other for war. In the first case, the
Communist Party demands peaceful transition from the 
ruling class, following Lenin in the slogan he advanced during 
the period between the February and October Revolutions. 

Similarly we made a proposal to Chiang Kai-shek for the 
negotiation of peace. This was a defensive slogan against
the bourgeoisie, against the enemy, showing that we want
peace, not war, and it will help us win over the masses. It is 
a slogan that will give us the initiative, it is a 
tactical slogan. 

However, the bourgeoisie will never hand over 
state power of their own accord, but will resort to violence.
Then there is the second possibility. If they want to fight and 
they fire the first shot, we cannot but fight back. To seize
state power by armed force - this is a strategic slogan. 

If you insist on peaceful transition, there won't be any 
difference between you and the socialist parties. The 
Japanese Socialist Party is just like that, it is 
prepared for only one possibility, that is, it will never
use violence. The same is true of all the socialist 
parties of the world. 

Generally speaking, the political parties of the proletariat 
had better be prepared for two possibilities: 
one, a gentleman uses his tongue, not his fists, but 
two, if a bastard uuses his fists, I'll use mine. 
Putting the matter this way takes care of 
both possibilities and leaves no loophole. It won't 
do to do otherwise.

Now the Communist Parties in a number of countries, the
British Communist Party for example, only advances 
the slogan of peaceful transition. We talked this over
with the leader of the British Party but couldn't 
get anywhere. Naturally they may well feel proud, 
for as their leader queried, 'How can Khrushchov
claim to have introduced peaceful transition? 
I advanced it long before he did!' "


The recent confrontations in Germany over nuclear waste
disposal, and in England over road construction, show the
reality of counterposing forces, but also the benefits of 
tactics in winning the sympathy of a wide section of the
population. Much of the skirmishing is about exposing 
who is the first to put violence on the agenda. 

 

Chris Burford






     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---