Russian revolution October 1917

62 posts / 0 new
Last post
Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Sep 22 2007 09:50

Agree with the most of the last post but we have to put Lenin's remarks on state capitalism in context. In the debate with the left communists in 1918, he was right to criticise a certain tendency on their part to think Russia in isolation could immediately install 'communism' (cf Bukharin's theorisations about war communism). His recognition that Russia was essentially installing a form of state capitalism was more accurate. But he was mistaken to think
- that state capitalism was a kind of 'antechamber' to socialism, rather than the form of organisation taken on to preserve a mode of production which had become regressive on a global scale. Thus he was wrong to see state capitalism as progressive.
- that the party/state could control state capitalism in the interests of the workers.
Here the intuitions of the left communists (cf the Ossinski quotes posted by Devrim) were fundamentally correct.

Towards the end of his life Lenin began to realise that the notion of 'directing capitalism in the interest of the workers' had failed: hence the well-known passage in 1922 where he says, in effect, 'we thought we were driving this car, and it turns out that it was driving us'.

Our book on the Russian communist left has a number of chapters which go into these discussions in some detail.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Sep 22 2007 10:50
Demogorgon303 wrote:
Another quick response concerning the quote from Lenin.

Firstly, Lenin certainly is saying that "state capitalism" (by which he means the model adopted by the capitalist states in WW1) is progressive in the fact that it increases the socialisation of labour. In general, Marxism holds that socialisation of labour brought about by capitalism is historically progressive, because it creates the groundwork for communism.

Is he right though?

Essentially you're saying he was in charge of the process which led to the state acting against the Bolsheviks, set it all in motion, yet couldn't possibly have realised what was happening - if this was after October then that process had already started though.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Sep 22 2007 10:55
Alf wrote:
His recognition that Russia was essentially installing a form of state capitalism was more accurate. But he was mistaken to think
- that state capitalism was a kind of 'antechamber' to socialism, rather than the form of organisation taken on to preserve a mode of production which had become regressive on a global scale. Thus he was wrong to see state capitalism as progressive.

But it wasn't just Russia installing state capitalism - it was a concerted effort at which he was at the head - it's clear that both 1. he thought it was a good thing 2. he put it into practice.

If you're going to excuse him simply as being mistaken, then you'll have to excuse all the social democrats at the time who tried to do the same thing (although in less dramatic circumstances) - how far do you take this? The Labour Party around the same period? The Fabians?

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Sep 22 2007 19:12

The difference is obvious.
1. The Bolsheviks had remained in the proletarian camp during the first world war, with Lenin on their left wing. The Labour party had acted as recruiting sergeants for the war
2. The Bolsheviks had been in favour of proletarian revolution in 1917, with Lenin on their left wing. The Labour party had been opposed to the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism
3. the Bolsheviks were faced with an unprecedented historical situation: the economic content of a proletarian revolution had never been clarified in practice. Neither had it been made clear by the experience of the working class that the party's role was not to take power in the new 'Commune state'. The Labour party was campaigning for power inside an existing bourgeois state.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Sep 22 2007 19:24
Alf wrote:
The difference is obvious.

It was a rhetorical question - the fact is you're saying that having good intentions excuses someone from the suppression of up to that point the highest expression of class struggle so far. I think Lenin's actual actions are far more important than what he said from the safety of neutral Switzerland during the war.

Marx appears to have managed to revise his conception of the state following the Paris Commune, we have to wonder why Lenin was still fixated on the methods of 1789-93.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Sep 23 2007 09:19

"The suppression of the highest expression of class struggle so far".

How were the 1917 April Theses - proclaimed in opposition to most of the existing leadership of the Bolshevik party, who had been drfiting towards support for the Kerensky regime and participation in the war - "suppressing" the class struggle? And were they issued from the safety of Switzerland or from the Finland Station?

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/089/April-theses

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Sep 23 2007 10:17

Let's see:

"revolutionary war" (the stance Demogorgon has been ridiculing in the Kommunist lot less than a year later).

Nationalisation of land and the setting up of "model farms".

Lenin wrote:
The immediate union of all banks in the country into a single national bank, and the institution of control over it by the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies.

It is not our immediate task to “introduce” socialism, but only to bring social production and the distribution of products at once under the control of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies.

And not a single mention of the factory committees. I think we can see pretty clearly the dislocation between Lenin's ideas and the reality of class struggle in Russia at the time - and the continuity with what was to happen once he got into power.

You appear to pin everything on him denouncing the war, and being to the left of some other social democrats in the Bolshevik party. The way he actually dealt with that with at Brest-Litovsk is ultimately far more important than some 'nice phrases', and by no means is it sufficient to understanding his role in events as a whole. You seem unable to deal with the fact he was writing this denouncing the war at about the same time he was talking about national self-determination - which had tragic consequences both for the revolution and and afterwards

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Sep 23 2007 10:46

No, I can see that there were contradictions between his position on the imperialist war and his position on national self-determination (as there were with Rosa, but the other way round as it were).

His approach to the problem was to ask 'how do we bring about the unity of workers between 'oppressing' and 'oppressed' nations?' His answer was incorrect given the change in period, but he started from a class standpoint - the same as the one which led Marx to support Irish independence, for example.

On the economic questions: Lenin was right to say that they couldn't introduce socialism in Russia. Nationalisation etc was universally seen by marxists as a transitional measure at that time. Again Luxemburg would have to be dismissed as a state capitalist counter-revolutionary for the same reason.

On revolutionary war: the question was
- no defensism of a bourgeois regime, which was the fundamental class line
- the question of revolutionary defence - or offense - could only be posed once the the proletariat had taken power.

No mention of the factory committees? They're implicit in the idea of workers' control of production. Later Lenin considered that the insurrection could be carried out by the factory committees because the soviets were in danger of being strangled by the mensheviks et al. But the soviets were the key issue because they represented the potential for the centralised power of the working class. If the factory committees were to become organs of insurrection, they would essentially had to have become become new soviets.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Sep 23 2007 11:36
Alf wrote:
No, I can see that there were contradictions between his position on the imperialist war and his position on national self-determination (as there were with Rosa, but the other way round as it were).

Well since this thread isn't entitled Vladimir vs. Rosa I don't see your point. In Brest-Litosvk we see the unity of those positions - the sacrifice of vast areas to the Germans and Whites under this formulation. This isn't an abstract discussion, those 'contradictions' had real world effects on the revolution, not to mention generations of leftists repeating them ad nauseum (often to equally tragic effect) after his death.

Quote:
His approach to the problem was to ask 'how do we bring about the unity of workers between 'oppressing' and 'oppressed' nations?' His answer was incorrect given the change in period, but he started from a class standpoint - the same as the one which led Marx to support Irish independence, for example.

The whole concept of "'oppressing' and 'oppressed' nations" belies starting from a 'not class' standpoint. In what way was the working class and peasantry in Russia 'oppressing' other nations? In what way were the ruling class in those nations oppressed?

Quote:
Lenin was right to say that they couldn't introduce socialism in Russia. Nationalisation etc was universally seen by marxists as a transitional measure at that time.

Well then the marxists at the time were universally wrong, weren't they. Being wrong along with a load of other people doesn't make Lenin not wrong.

Quote:
Again Luxemburg would have to be dismissed as a state capitalist counter-revolutionary for the same reason.

If Luxemburg had got into power in Germany and started a massive programme of nationalisation, whilst crushing the workers councils, instead of being killed by the Social Democrats, then yes we'd have to. I'm not a Luxemburgist so I'm confused as to why you keep bringing her up, unless it's to say "look, she was wrong too!".

Quote:
No mention of the factory committees? They're implicit in the idea of workers' control of production.

No they aren't. "Workers control" and "self-management" have their own meanings which we're both familiar with. Lenin I think was for "'workers' state' control" - instituted from above via the soviets and unions - i.e. that which coincided with what actually ended up happening (with the party existing above both those organs). This is consistent with nationalisation. In fact in April I'm pretty sure the Bolshevik leadership entirely ignored the factory committees, not even noticing them, let alone mentioning them implicitly.

There was also contradictions between the parties even within the factory committees on what exactly workers control meant - was it checking management, acting as a factory (or shop) level union? Or actually running production themselves. Smith's book suggests the membership of those parties went quite a long way towards the later in some shops (including Menshevik and SR militants who went against their own parties) - the furthest along of the committees was well ahead of all three, and activily opposed by them.

Have you seen Chris Wright's essay on State and Revolution? Seems relevant to this discussion:

here
and here

Quote:
Later Lenin considered that the insurrection could be carried out by the factory committees because the soviets were in danger of being strangled by the mensheviks et al. But the soviets were the key issue because they represented the potential for the centralised power of the working class. If the factory committees were to become organs of insurrection, they would essentially had to have become become new soviets.

That just sounds like an awareness of where the Bolsheviks were strongest and could exert influence at the time- Politics - not a genuine
shift.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Sep 23 2007 14:10
nekken003 wrote:
hey. i got some homework for my AS history and one of the questions is: "do you think you can have a revolution without leaders?" can someone please help me with the answer??

Thats a pretty good homework essay title. Meh don't remember having any titles that interesting when i dd AS history. I would guess the first thing your going to have to do to answer the question is in the intro define the words 'revolution' and 'leader'. Not that those two words are easy to define, coz a leader could simply be someone who'se a good public speaker who people listen to a lot who has informal authority or to put it better ''influence'', yet a leader could also be the head of dictatorial clique or committee with formalised authority and the problem is there a whole load of shades of grey inbetween those.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Sep 23 2007 14:11

My point about Rosa is that it is illogical for 'libertarians' who cannot stomach Lenin to have a soft spot for Rosa.

What's missing from all your responses is any sense that the communist programme has emerged and developed, through the experience of the class and the reflection of revolutionaries on this experience. Communist Manifesto - just state capitalism, it talks about nationalising the banks. Nationalist and frontist too, it talks about supporting bourgeois parties. And so on. And before you respond with the ritual jibes about ascendance and decadence, let's recall that many of these clarifications were not limited to the change from one era to the next - as for example with Marx's clarifications about the need for proletarian autonomy after the 1848 revolutions and the recognition of the need to destroy the capitalist state after the1871 Commune.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Sep 23 2007 15:48
Alf wrote:
My point about Rosa is that it is illogical for 'libertarians' who cannot stomach Lenin to have a soft spot for Rosa.

I think the difference lies in their actual historical roles - like I said if Rosa had come to power rather than been killed in Germany, then I think her ideas would have had closer (and far less sympathetic) scrutiny.

Quote:
What's missing from all your responses is any sense that the communist programme has emerged and developed, through the experience of the class and the reflection of revolutionaries on this experience. Communist Manifesto - just state capitalism, it talks about nationalising the banks. Nationalist and frontist too, it talks about supporting bourgeois parties. And so on. And before you respond with the ritual jibes about ascendance and decadence, let's recall that many of these clarifications were not limited to the change from one era to the next - as for example with Marx's clarifications about the need for proletarian autonomy after the 1848 revolutions and the recognition of the need to destroy the capitalist state after the1871 Commune.

Clearly things have developed as time goes on. Lenin however contributed to a stuntification of that development, to one of the biggest mystifications of the twentieth century. Even the least bad of his writing, examined on its own shows clear limitations that many of his contemporaries had already got beyond.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Sep 23 2007 19:51

What about a public debate? In November?

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Sep 23 2007 19:54

I mean in the flesh of course. Not that this is not already public.

By coincidence the ICC has booked a room at Conway Hall for November...17

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Sep 24 2007 02:54
Marx wrote:
I am not a Marxist

Once again, it is so ironic that the ICC is so quick to denounce just about anyone who doesn't fantasise about killing nationalists and the bourgeoisie 24/7, yet the moment Russia comes into it, they jump to Lenin and Trotsky's defence quicker than you can say "recuperated revolution".

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Sep 24 2007 08:28

It's even more ironic that so many anarchists get more upset about our defence of Lenin and Trotsky 90 years ago than about fellow anarchists whose positions line them up with the 'Trotskyists' and 'Leninists' of today. Which is more important?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Sep 24 2007 08:36

yes, because leftist, nationalist anarchists have it easy on here confused

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Sep 24 2007 09:33
Alf wrote:
No mention of the factory committees? They're implicit in the idea of workers' control of production.

Well this is one of the earlier references to the factory committees I can find from the Bolsheviks (The metalworkers union, chaired by Shlyapnikov (he of the workers opposition)) in June:

Central board of the petrograd metalworkers union, 11 June. wrote:

"The union is the highest and only organisation responsible for the conduct of workers in a particular branch of production. It alone as the right to put demands on the organisations of capitalists and on the state on behalf of the whole profession. It alone has the right to conduct either general or partial disputes. It alone may put demands on the state concerning social security. It alone can express the will of the whole profession on questions concerning the forms of regulation and control of production... Local factory committees occupy a position of subordination to the trade union, within the general framework of organisation of the branch of production and ... by enterprise. However the central organisation of the whole trade union must be constituted so taht the preponderance of union representatives over individual factory representatives is guaranteed. The strenghth of factory committee representation must be broadest where the union is acting as regulator and controller of production, and narrowest where the union is pursuing purely militant aims."

The S.A. Smith book I'm reading at the moment has a whole raft of similar statements from Bolsheviks - most often demanding only 'regulatory' or 'informational' control rather than 'responsible' control by the factory committees, and trying to turn the committees into appendages of the trade unions and/or the state (which is in fact what happened). So not implicit at all.

Alf, I can think of few things I'd rather do less than a panel debate on the Bolsheviks in Conway Hall, against the ICC or anyone else. Also as JK points out, you'll find thousands and thousands of posts on here against various forms of stupidity by anarchists including out and out leftism,and they're usually far more vitriolic than these occasional ones with defenders of Lenin and Trotsky.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Sep 24 2007 10:41

I agree that there is an increasing ability to defend class positions on libcom and that the lines between internationalist anarchism and leftist anarchism are being drawn more clearly. I do however think that questions about 'Bolshevism' etc create a false united front among anarchists and libertarians which ends up blurring the line again. But this isn't the focus of this thread.

If a question is worth debating online it is worth debating in the flesh, whatever the particular format you might choose. But if the tendency towards politicisation of the class struggle develops, more and more face to face meetings will happen one way or the other.

On the factory committees: carry on with your research by all means, but the central question February to October was not workers' control or workers' self-management as such, but the question of political power.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Sep 24 2007 11:25
Alf wrote:
I agree that there is an increasing ability to defend class positions on libcom and that the lines between internationalist anarchism and leftist anarchism are being drawn more clearly. I do however think that questions about 'Bolshevism' etc create a false united front among anarchists and libertarians which ends up blurring the line again. But this isn't the focus of this thread.

I think the only thing which allows you to say this is the lack of Trots on this thread - in which case it'd be quite easy to reverse the analogy.

Quote:
On the factory committees: carry on with your research by all means, but the central question February to October was not workers' control or workers' self-management as such, but the question of political power.

Well it goes from 'implicit' in Lenin's April Theses, to 'not a central question' when counter-examples are produced then does it?

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Sep 24 2007 11:28

It wasn't a central question in the April Theses either - on the other hand, the call for soviet power was.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Sep 25 2007 22:37

Just re-read this text by Bordiga on the Antagonism site. It's pretty relevant to the discussion on this thread:

SEIZE POWER OR SEIZE THE FACTORY? - BORDIGA

The working-class disturbances of the past few days in Liguria have seen yet another example of a phenomenon that for some time now has been being repeated with some frequency, and that deserves to be examined as a symptom of a new level of consciousness among the working masses.

Instead of abandoning their jobs, the workers have so to speak taken over their plants and sought to operate them for their own benefit, or more precisely without the top managers being present in the plant. Above all, this indicates that the workers are fully aware that the strike is not always the best weapon to use, especially under certain circumstances.

The economic strike, through the immediate harm it inflicts on the worker himself, derives its utility as a defensive weapon for the worker from the harm the work-stoppage inflicts on the industrialist by cutting back the output which belongs to him.

This is the state of affairs under normal conditions in the capitalist economy, when competition and price-cutting force a continual increase in production itself. Today the profiteers of industry, in particular the engineering industry, are emerging from an exceptional period in which they were able to amass enormous profits for a minimum of effort. During the war the State supplied them with raw materials and coal and, at the same time, acted as sole and reliable purchaser. Furthermore, through its militarization of factories, the State itself undertook to impose a rigorous discipline on the working masses. What more favourable conditions could there be for a fat profit? But now these people are no longer disposed to deal with all the difficulties arising from shortages of coal and raw materials, from the instability of the market and the fractiousness of the working masses. In particular, they are not disposed to put up with modest profits which are roughly the same or perhaps a bit below their pre-War level.

This is why they are not worried by strikes. Indeed they positively welcome them, while mouthing a few protests about the absurd claims and insatiability of the workers. The workers have understood this, and through their action of taking over the factory and carrying on working instead of striking, they are making it clear that it is not that they have no wish to work, but that they have no wish to work the way the bosses tell them to. They no longer want to be exploited and work for the benefit of the bosses; they want to work for their own benefit, i.e. in the interests of the work-force alone.

This new consciousness that is emerging more clearly every day should be held in the highest regard; however, we would not want it to be led astray by vain illusions.

It is rumoured that factory councils, where they were in existence, functioned by taking over the management of the workshops and carrying on the work. We would not like the working masses to get hold of the idea that all they need do to take over the factories and get rid or the capitalists is set up councils. This would indeed be a dangerous illusion. The factory will be conquered by the working class - and not only by the workforce employed in it, which would be too weak and non-communist - only after the working class as a whole has seized political power. Unless it has done so, the Royal Guards, military police, etc. - in other words, the mechanism of force and oppression that the bourgeoisie has at its disposal, its political power apparatus -will see to it that all illusions are dispelled.

It would be better if these endless and useless adventures that are daily exhausting the working masses were all channelled, merged and organized into one great, comprehensive upsurge aimed directly at the heart of the enemy bourgeoisie.

Only a communist party should and would be able to carry out such an undertaking. At this time, such a party should and would have no other task than that of directing all its activity towards making the working masses increasingly conscious of the need for this grand political attack - the only more or less direct route to the take-over or the factory, which if any other route is taken may never fall into their hands at all.

II Soviet, 22 February 1920, Vol.III, No.7.

http://www.geocities.com/antagonism1/bordiga5.html

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Sep 26 2007 09:13
Alf wrote:
It wasn't a central question in the April Theses either - on the other hand, the call for soviet power was.

Which was my point. Class society is reproduced in the everyday social relations of production. Whilst capitalist social relations remain, the question of state power (which if you remove self-management from the equation is all you're left with), is just a simulacra of class struggle. This isn't to fetishise self-management in isolation outside of wider class movements like the soviets - self-management of our own exploitation, but that wasn't the situation in Russia at the time. Also I'd be happy to say that the factory committees singularly failed to generalise their attempts into a wider theoretical conception of revolution. Not to mention contradictions and factions within the movement, and some degree of disconnect between the committees and the mass meetings they were ultimately responsible to and recallable to; leading to their failure to remain independent from the unions and resist the statification that was going on, 'nationalisation from below' - which they thought would lead to complete self-management but was the final nail in the coffin for it.

Lenin and Trotsky's conception of socialism centred entirely on the 'proletarian' nature of the state - with Trotsky in 1920 saying it had 'nothing' to do with social relations in the factory. It showed a complete misunderstanding of Marx (back to Kautsky again) which offers nothing in relation to the production and reproduction of capital. Capital is seen as a neutral actor in history - simply charged with raising the productive forces (again with Lenin and Trotsky we have a purely productivist reading of this). And yes I do think your very odd views on Russia are tied into your views on the 'ascendence' and 'decadence' of Capital, allowing you to make special exceptions for the Bolsheviks and Social Democracy which have nothing to do with their subjective actions during the period.

Not read the Bordiga yet, so more later. I think you owe me a response to the Chris Wright first though.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Sep 26 2007 10:47

OK, I'll take a look at Chris Wright's essay and get back to this later.

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Sep 26 2007 11:10

I agree with Alf's suggestion of a face to face discussion on this issue - it has to be worth the effort. I can't say I really understand what your position is Catch in relation to the organisation and centralisation of the working class in insurrectionary upheavals. Does it centralise? If there are clearer revolutionary elements of the working class do they organise? The weaknesses, vacillations, mistakes - some of them deadly, of all revolutionaries, not just the Bolsheviks but anarchists and others, were legion. As were those of the working class. But we have to see the catalyzing role of bolshevism world wide - with all the errors of party, class and state as far as the Bolsheviks were concerned - that revolutionary organisation made.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Sep 26 2007 12:07
Quote:
I can't say I really understand what your position is Catch in relation to the organisation and centralisation of the working class in insurrectionary upheavals. Does it centralise? If there are clearer revolutionary elements of the working class do they organise?

This is the same tack taken with Mikus over on the fictitious capital thread which substitutes for a response to the questions raised. Also you must have missed the 100+ post long thread I started on revolutionary organisation only a couple months back, perhaps you could refer to that and continue that aspect of the discussion there?

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Sep 27 2007 10:39

What?
Why is it 'avoiding the question' to ask you your position on revolutionary organisation in a discussion about the Bolsheviks?

Still haven't had time to read Chris Wright's essay. Printing it off now.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Sep 27 2007 11:20
Alf wrote:
What?
Why is it 'avoiding the question' to ask you your position on revolutionary organisation in a discussion about the Bolsheviks?

It avoids the specific questions raised on this thread in relation to the Bolsheviks. Given that's what this thread has been about, and that there is a whole other recent thread, started by me, devoted to the question of revolutionary organisation in the here and now, it seemed odd that Baboon would use his first and only post on the thread to ask that, unless he didn't bother reading either.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Sep 27 2007 13:11

On Chris Wright's essay: I'll probably be accused of further evasion but I don't have time for a major response. But basically:

Although Chris makes some valid criticisms of Lenin's State and Revolution, in particular where it puts forwrd the notion of 'socialism' as a kind of intermediate mode of production between capitalism and communism, (which elswehere Lenin saw as the next 'progresive' step from state capitalism), I reject this whole approach of seeing a fundamental 'rupture' between Marx on the other hand, and Engels and Lenin on the other. This is not to deny that there were differences, sometimes quite major ones, but this approach individualises these figures and divorces them from the real workers' movement and its tortuous path towards clarity.

For example: there are scattered through Marx's works some very profound insights into the state as an expression of alienation, formulations about the revolution being a movement against the state, all states, etc etc. But in 1872 the Marx who had just written the Civil War in France, where some of these formulations can be found, was also prepared to envisage the possibility of a peaceful conquest of power, of the parliamentary state, in certain countries like Britain and the USA (Lenin later criticised these ideas). Similarly, the Engels who is identified by Chris as being the source of Lenin's 'state socialist' errors also made some of the most pertinent criticisms of the idea that state control equals socialism.

Chris's point of departure stands outside the real historical circumstances which gave rise to State and Revolution. What was fundamental about this text - and Lenin himself claimed little more - was that it 'excavated' the marxist poistion on the need to destroy the capitalist state which had been buried to an extraordinary depth considering that the Paris Commune was a mere 40 years in the past (ie, for us, the equivalent of May 68). By the time Lenin wrote State and Revolution, any idea of destroying the capitalist state was identified with anarchism. Pannekoek had caused a small scandal in social democracy before the war by re-asserting this position - initially Lenin had strongly criticised him along with all the revisionists. And yet in the high tide of the revolution, Lenin was ready to admit that Pannekoek had been right and he had been wrong. Thus by simply reaffirming what Marx and Engels had written he helped to take the whole revolutionary movement a crucial step forward on the burning issue of the day - the question of political power. But he did more than reaffirm, because he also saw that the Soviets were the modern foundation of Marx's 'Commune' state.

We have written more on this particular question in the second volume of the series on communism, unfortunately not online yet. Our article certainly doesn't consider State and Revolution beyond criticism, and points to some of the contributioins of the communist left (particulalry Bilan) who tried to take it forward in the light of the Russian experience. But it remains a key reference point.

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Sep 28 2007 12:18

One of the things about revolutionary politics Catch, is you have to keep repeating yourself - there's nothing wrong with that. And a public discussion is just that. Goldner's text was a refreshing and, more importantly, eminently concrete (though he apologised for it) position on decadent capitalism, the development of imperialism and the development of debt and credit. I don't think revolutionaries, Marx, Luxemburg amongst others could have imagined that capitalism would go on for so long but on the other hand we have over a hundred years of concrete and practical lessons on the development of capitalism from the early 1900s. Of course there should always be ways to develop analyses and theory, lessons to be learned from texts and earlier struggles, as wellas the manipulations of the bourgeoisie, but there's a concrete experience of nearly one hundred years to draw on. I thought that Mikus hijacked the discussion and became so obscure that he became incomprehensible.
Similar for the discussion on the Russian Revolution. No one has looked at, discussed and written about the degeneration of the Russian Revolution and the mistakes of the Bolsheviks more than the ICC. Not from a working class point of view anyway. Basing itself on criticisms from opposition inside Russia to developments in Germany, Italy, France, Belgium and Britain, the ICC has developed a profound critique of the failure of both the revolution and the Bolshevik party. What makes sense to me is that out of this discussion on theory flows practice, real practical lessons for organisation. I will try to look at the posts you suggest though I have a limited time on the internet. If you could try to sum up your position on organisation today, and the question of organisation fully belongs to any discussion on the Bolsheviks, it would be very useful.