On the Slipperiness of Leninists

This as bothered me recently.

I am not going to take apart the SWP because I am of the opinion they are not leninists. They have a very transient recruitment policy which impacts and also reflects the leadership of the organisation, in that its a strictly political organisation and it fails on countless occassions to instill not even their tradition in its members, but anything other than some opportunist dross which is essentially a liberal tinge of trotskyism.

A few years ago I used to regularly encounter some of the CPGB people (Weekly Worker) and I was of the opinion they believed that contrary to the actions of Lenin and the Bolsheviks et al that they were in fact in favour of workers democracy. And when I tried to discuss critically, it amounted that he was wrong to ban factions somewhere down the line, something about being akin to 'arguing with a loaded gun' and that was set back for the revolution because Lenin would soon be carted away and parts of the bureaucracy would take over. Now that does strike me as slightly un-marxist and shows a keen inability to read critically into history, but I guess thats de-facto of some leninists history.

What strikes me is that Leninists do regularly borrow from anarchists and grass roots movements outside of themselves (despite their claim to represent the class, and the inability of the class without a party etc) but its only glaringly obvious when the instance is in the open/wider public demain, and unfortunately the anarchist movement* as a long way to go before were even close to even footing and these examples are clear cut.

From my experience, Leninists are intoxicated by the same kind of thirst for power/control that the Bolsheviks were. They are also utterly seduced by the figures of Lenin and Trotsky as the alpha-male heroes of the Russian revolution. Lenin, of course, was effective at saying what people wanted to hear - "all the power to the soviets" when it suited him, followed shortly after by the one-party dictatorship, forced famine, the Red Terror. The CPGB's youth wing often displays a huge red banner with Lenin thrusting his fist forward like some fucking messiah, it's pathetic and cultish.

The likes of the SWP are fine if you're kind of person who likes to take orders and do things for the sake of doing things (selling papers, waving placards, shouting hysterical slogans, organising/attending endless meetings etc). What passes for the Libertarian Movement in the UK has a responsibility to show that there is a different way of doing things by promoting solidarity, direct action and working-class self-organisation on a non-hierarchical, anti-authoritarian basis.

I'd have to disagree with this, in April 3rd 1917 when Lenin first declared "All power to the soviets" he truly meant it. He put himself on the line with declaring this, as he was called a Bakuninist by his comrades and his April Theses were later rejected by the Bolsheviks.

In the same way that some Marxists believe in worker self-management. While some State Socialists like to take specific quotes of Marx to defend the idea that Marx was a Statist, more Libertarian Marxists pick a quotes which defend the idea of workers self management. In the end it's hard to tell, as what Lenin did when he was in power, may have not was agreed with what he really wanted. So Leninists pick at his "theoretical" approach to the question rather what he did when in power.

From the Leninists I've meet they seem to agree that the situation of revolution will no doubt decide what method of management is best for proletariat. They conclude that dual forms of management may necessary, as we see in Venezuela.

In all due respect he was tailing ending the masses, some of whom had already adopted this slogan ad hoc or at least were moving to it. To have campaigned on anything less than a full programme would have been disastrous for the Bolsheviks. And we have to remember the Bolsheviks were debating whether to launch an insurrection while outside the revolution was in its opening stages. To paint them as anything less than opportunist would be a mistake, because the party made a clear trajectory towards substituting itself for the class.

Now whether I believe that the assortment of trots and leninists today believe in workers self-management, I would have to say some of them seem sincere, but they haven't the right tools for the job. I am very much in agreement with Pannekoek, I think centralised parties can't offer anything for the class and the idea they offer any form of leadership is a parody.

For almost twenty years I was in a leninist organisation (IS tendency group in the Netherlands, sister group of the SWP). After I left, I remained a leninist for a year and 9 months. All those years, I basically thought 1 . we need workers concils etcetera , both as fighting organisations for working class power and as the basis of post-relutionary society. 2. we needed a revolutionary vanguard party, basically to overthrow the old state and open the road for the power of the workers' councils, after a majority in the counclils wanted such power and supported the party. The 1917 scenario, as it were (and blaming what went wrong on 'circumstances').

I think that fairly summarizes the convictions of other IS members and sympathisers a well. Workers councils as the goals, vanguard party to bring the goal about. I think that this conviction is, for most of these people, sincere, as it was for me. People don t belong to these kind of organisations becuase they are power hungry or hypocrites but because they believe that this is the best way to bring a revolution closer.

Now, as I came to see, the idea is wrong. The vanguard party gets in the way of true working class liberation. The means obstructs the end. And it is important to criticize leninism for exactly this wrongheadedness. But we will only be convincing if we take leninists at the better part their convictions, the "I-want-workers'-councils" part: you want workers' council power? Then 'building the party' is counterproductive.

This means we should treat leninists generally as sincere people, not as hypocrites or liars or something like that. Of course there are true horrible party hacks around. They should be critcized as such. But most individuals in the SWP of similar groups are no party hacks but people who want revolution but whose party practice gets in the way.

Speaking of 1917 scenarios, that was pretty much the position of a lot of, if not most, anarchists after the bolsheviks took power; the results were amply demonstrated at Kronstadt (among other places). You may say that this is all ancient history, but I have no doubt that if another great revolutionary upheaval was to come about and the leninists somehow found themselves leading the struggle, it would be deja vu all over again.
Personally I do not care how working-class and "sincere" these people are; in the current context it is easy to see them as "comrades" I suppose given that their manipulation of struggles, when they have the chance to weasel their way into them, is often interpreted by some anarchists as a genuine effort towards workers' emancipation. In a revolutionary context however (and I realize that this is a strictly hypothetical scenario albeit no less plausible for that reason) they would not be "on the same side" as those seeking to bring about actual communism, in spite of how sincere some of the rank-and-file may be (the Party is after all set up so as to be immune to precisely this sort of "bourgeois" sincerity). The leninists who call for revolution today will be nothing but the useful idiots of the "left-wing" reaction tomorrow.

It doesn't really matter if someone has "sincere" ideas about leninism, this is not what makes one a leninist or not. It is rather his "social existence" or his practices that will make that label remotely useful. It's not just a matter of making that or another analysis of the russian revolution, but specially a number of awful political habits that come with the whole "communist vanguard" deal.

It isn't necessary to delay the concern with the CP people, trotskist and maoist types until the "revolutionary situation". It seems to me that they, like most of the other reformists and bureaucrats in these times, get in the way of any meaningful discovery and struggle as it is.

That is, they actively push for reformist agendas and struggle to isolate those who try to work for the revolution on the present conditions as petty-bourgeouis dreamers and fanactics, while at the same time using some badly mangled "revolutionary" rhetoric that only serves to make people reject as boring or irrelevant anything that resembles radical theory and practice.

On the other hand, they may offer a headway, an introduction to possible radical perspectives. But that's rare when the political organizing is done in such a way to perpetuate certain patterns of behavior in the Party.

Couldn't have put it better myself (at this time of night).

I agree, the Leninists have had their shot. The burden of proof is on *them*. Parole, as it were.

You could say the same about "the Anarchists" though.

I don't want to open a potential can of worms here but isn't it the case that there's leninism, and then there's leninism??

Clearly there is a difference between the various national M-L parties and partyist left-communists, no??? The term "leninism" applies to both does it not??

I think your missing where I was coming from. I was trying to understand why socialist activists were getting involved with leninists groups when history as clearly demonstrated they in practice don't believe in workers self-management. Pointing out there is a gulf between content and form is hugely important and highlighting where the left capitulates and hi-jacks struggles is about best we can hope for given our respective size to them.

I doubt wether I expressed myself clear enough. I am NOT saying that leninistst should be trusted just because they may be sincere. I agree that, in a revolutionary crisis, leninist organisations will damage (or worse) the revolution, and the best of intentions of their members will not be protection against that. What I AM saying is that, if we are trying t convince members of leninist rganisations, we should (unless otherwise proven) treat them as sincere but wrongheaded on a vital issue (as I was sincere a but wrongheaded on that issue all those years) - NOT als conscous betrayers, hypocrites or something like that. We want to convince, not just dismiss, many of these people, don't we?

Briefly, I think that the term 'Leninist' is about as explanatory as the term 'anarchist,' All sorts of political animals describe themselves as 'Leninist', and when further questioned they would describe themselves as Trotskyists or Marxist-Leninists (Stalinists) or Maoists or sometime another political variant. The more pertinent question is what positions they hold on unions, on nationalist movements, on parliament, rather than their theoretical views on the party and the state. The question of the role of a party is irrelevant in the face of a party which supports Obama, irrelevant in the face of a party which supports voting for a bourgeoisie political party like Labour. I think the opening description of 'Leninism' is a strawman, and one which most 'Leninists' would dispute. As for 'direct democracy' in the workplace, I don't see communism as 'direct democracy' in the workplace. If communism was synonymous with direct democracy in the workplace, then I'd be an advocate of small business, but I'm not. I see communism as the abolition of the market & private property, the abolition of labour power as a commodity. A revolution which made me vote on every mundane matter is barely worth having. Levels of hierarchy in the workplace very likely exist post-revolution, even if the way in which they are appointed differs from today.

I don't have any problem with a vanguard, because a vanguard isn't a theory but a historical fact; in all revolutionary & non-revolutionary periods there are sections of classes which see the historical process more clearly, are more advanced and hence argue for a complete revolutionary transformation of society. Whether that vanguard manifests itself as a party with 'iron discipline' or whatever ridiculous phrase you use, or as an almost spontaneous out bursting of revolt doesn't concern me. Revolution isn't a question of the form of organization...

While we're on the topic of Leninists and Marxists, I never understood the anarchist objections to the concept of "dictatorship of the proletariat". I assume it's because most people make the misconception that dictatorship is meant literally, when Marx meant dictatorship as in the class that had the most power in society, just as the bourgeois have the power in modern parliaments. The "state" that Marx meant was never intended to be the same state of bourgeois society, but a brand new one that fit for the rule of the working class. Of course, this means that it was supposed to be a lot more decentralized and direct, through a commonwealth of workers' councils and communes. Even though these ideas are a far more libertarian approach to Marxism, it seems these were the ideas as they were meant to be. Would these ideas still be compatible with most anarcho-communist ideas? I personally believe so.

See this is why I think your off cue about Leninism. There's masses of difference between a political informed minority in the class and a political component who tries to direct struggles down the same worn path. Our role is to act within and facilitate the spread of ideas and point out potential strategies and tactics the class can develop. There is ample evidence that revolutionary parties always chase the class and not the other way round. As I pointed out previously Lenin's call for all power to the soviets was taken straight out of a demand which was already being circulated by anarchists in Russia at the time. There is nothing ambiguous about the relationship of revolutionaries to the class, its what separates revolution from counter-revolution.

When I discuss this, as someone who as moved away from that tradition I am on about someone who is following the logic laid down in 'What is to be done', party building, professional revolutionaries, democratic centralism, vanguardism etc. And 'iron discipline' is something Lenin refers to. Most but not all Trots are Leninists, see my earlier point about the SWP. I also think due to the nature of the party building project and the downtown of the SWP, the Trots have had to rely quite heavily on a number of different radical bases that have developed - climate camp, tuition fees, anti-war. This as made them slightly more inclined to work with other projects. For the first time in my memory the SWP tried to initiate a campaign with anarchos around the G20 events, but as always they tried to give the impression they were the lead.

anarchists want to abolish class society not preserve it. the dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't negate the proletarian condition but universalise it while preserving class society, which makes the dictatorship over the proletariat inevitable.

Agree with the comrades above. Pannekoek put it pretty well in Party & Class...

"The belief in parties is the main reason for the impotence of the working class; therefore we avoid forming a new party—not because we are too few, but because a party is an organization that aims to lead and control the working class. In opposition to this, we maintain that the working class can rise to victory only when it independently attacks its problems and decides its own fate. The workers should not blindly accept the slogans of others, nor of our own groups but must think, act, and decide for themselves."

Further to TheGonzoKid contribution a 1942 Socialist Standard article discussed Anton Pannekoek's position on political parties.

The article went on to say that it was not parties as such that had failed, but the form all parties (save the SPGB) had taken “as groups of persons seeking power above the worker” and the SPGB continued:

Pannekoek in other writings wished workers' political parties to be “organs of the self-enlightenment of the working class by means of which the workers find their way to freedom” and “means of propaganda and enlightenment”.

Almost exactly the role and purpose we as members envisaged for the SPGB .Regardless of how you view the SPGB's politics , credit must be due to the fact that the SPGB as a political party with agreed goals and principles have maintained an existence without a leader , and maintained an organisation with an Executive Council and a General Secretary that cannot decide policy . Conference decisions require a referendum of the full membership to provide the final approval .In keeping with the tenet that working class emancipation necessarily excludes the role of political leadership , the party that the working class use as a tool to gain political control must be organised on a democratic basis.Its policies and administration must be entirely in the hands of its members, there should not be leaders and those who are designated to perform different functions must be accountable to members. Full free and frank discussion of party policy should exist .

The structure of the socialist party has to reflect the democratic nature of the society it is seeking to establish.

If socialism is understood as a free society based on voluntary work and free access to all the fruits of this work, it is clear that socialism can only be established by the conscious action of the majority. The voluntary cooperation and social responsibility that socialism would require cannot be imposed by a minority of leaders . The principle of leadership is anti-socialist.

The SPGB would claim that it is not a conventional political party but the model for a revolutionary political party.

[and that's the end of the political party election broadcast on behalf of the SPGB standing in the Vauxhall constituency against the SWP breakaway group Workers Power , represenatives of the 5th International ]

Without commenting on anything else in your post, this is really well stated. I will almost certainly steal it at some point. Free access to the fruits of this work and all . . .

hmm, devil's advocate here... leadership is not the same thing as rule.

There's nothing magical about 51% which gives that section a privilege to act as they see fit. When communists argue for strikes, or argue for any other radical stance, then they are attempting to direct struggles down the 'same worn path.' There's nothing wrong with this.

Yes it is, but we're not just 'propagandists.' We are the working class, so we can direct, lead, organize as we see fit. One method, amongst others, is the use of a party. I think the sort of views which come from Councilists result in an anti-party and anti-organisation framework. It doesn't matter if you call it a party or you call it a federation or whatever, its purpose is the same.

On the contrary, there is ample evidence that whether revolutionary parties chase the class or are chased (which, in my opinion, you have incorrectly divided into a false dichotomy, since in my view a party IS a segment of the class, its most advanced) really depends on the circumstances. In 1914 and thru to 1917, depending on the issue, the Bolsheviks tended to be more radical than the working class, although they were sometimes surprised by events. On the other hand, in Germany the working class was far more advanced than their so-called working class party the SPD. I don't think you can make an absolute on it, like you have said.

And if you want proof that it is us that is being chased then look around you; we are a minority of the working class in a non-revolutionary time.

And unfortunately very few listened, maybe they should've followed Lenin's model and striven for a mass party?

And this is exactly what Trotskyists say: the question of revolution is the question of leadership (i.e. 'correct leaders). Only, you have approached it from the opposite, but equally absurd, angle that it is the existence of parties/leadership which dooms a revolution to counter-revolution.

That is liberal trash. Revolutions are mass changes in economic and therefore social organization. The existence of a party, or its absence, isn't going to fate it one way or the other.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

- Marx.

Incidentally, I think WITBD is taken out of context (i.e. an autocratic Tsarist Russia which frequently infiltrated radical groups). In such an environment, a group which was highly centralized, which had onerous requirements for full time members was only to be expected. They didn't have the benefit of living in Germany which had far more democratic rights at that time.

Yes, and its stupid. As if iron will alone will change material circumstances. Anyway, I've never heard any Leninist use it, and I belonged to a Youth Leninist organization.

I don't think so. I've never heard a Trotskyist claim that they're not a Leninist, but I've heard the same claim from Stalinists. As for whether Trotsky or Stalin indeed did follow in the same path of Lenin and are therefore the rightful 'Leninists' is an endless debate which doesn't offer anything.

Wrong.

This organization of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently, into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier.

Communist parties themselves arose from the strengthening understanding amongst workers of a mutual class based interest. Communist parties themselves are weapons furnished by workers to struggle for their interests. It is not 'separate' nor does it negate the working class' independence, but is a very expression of that independence.

P.S: Whilst we're quoting Pannekoek:

This bourgeois method of thought, which, being anti-dialectic and anti-materialistic, is opposed to Marxism, has acquired some practical importance in the socialistic movement of countries where by lack of economical development the class-consciousness of the workers is hindered by relics of the narrow-minded views of the class of little producers – as in France and Italy under the name of reformism. In Germany where it could not obtain much practical importance it presented itself mostly as a theoretical struggle against Marxism under the name of revisionism. It combines bourgeois philosophy and anti-capitalist disposition and takes the place formerly occupied by anarchism, and, like anarchism, it again represents in many respects the little bourgeois tendencies in the fight against capitalism.

***

The entire workers movement during its ascendant phase was stuffed full of bourgeois ideas which it can only slowly rid itself of in the course of development, through the practice of struggle and increasing theoretical understanding. This bourgeois influence on the workers movement, which in other countries has assumed the form of revisionism or anarchism, necessarily took the form of nationalism in Austria...

can you give some examples?

E.g. the Bolsheviks opposed the war from the beginning, didn't fall for the nationalist rhetoric of Tsarism. E.g. the Bolsheviks supporting a socialist revolution, the working class not until later on.

What about Bloody Sunday, the wave of strikes and the setting up of the first soviets in 1905? the massive anti-war strikes of 1915 in which many workers lost their lives? Those were not engineered by the bolsheviks. Nor did the bolsheviks engineer the retreat from WWI out of the blue; the working class and the peasantry were already massively against the war given the staggering losses and shortages that they had to deal with as a consequence of the war.

.

Yes, the Russian working class really loved the war.

edit: cross-posted with Vlad