Was Leninism "Inevitable"?

[redstar2000]

Since ideology is the product of material conditions, could we not then say that Leninism was "inevitable" in the Russia of the Czars?

This was a question addressed to me recently by a "desperate Leninist". He was implying, I suppose, that my criticisms of Lenin are "too harsh" -- Lenin could not be other than what he was, given the material reality of his times.

At the beginning of the 20th century, it was obvious to everyone in the tiny Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party that functioning in the way that social democratic parties functioned in Europe was simply impossible in Czarist Russia.

Even possession of Marxist literature was a crime in Russia then; there was certainly no way a "legal" political party could exist that promoted even western bourgeois ideas, much less Marxism.

But if you are compelled to operate "underground", what changes are required in your political and practical methods to make that "work"?

The first major controversy that Lenin became involved in was a very practical one -- how should a member of the RSDLP be formally defined? Lenin put forward a very "strict" definition: a member was defined as "one who works under the direction of a party group".

If you are operating underground, you want no "loose cannons" rolling about the countryside apt to do or say anything that might hurt the struggle.

Lenin went on to develop this insight into a theory of the revolutionary party as a "combat organization" waging a war against the Czarist autocracy.

Combat organizations have officers and soldiers; those who command and those who must carry out their orders or (quite literally) die trying.

Whether commanders or soldiers, they must be trained professionals -- Lenin heartily despised "amateurs" and "part-timers".

Combat organizations are not "talking shops" or "debating circles" (or, for that matter, internet message boards). The senior members of the party -- "the General Staff" -- might have many heated discussions on the best way forward. They almost all lived in exile and were free to meet as often as they wished, had time to write theoretical articles, etc. But "in the front lines", there's no time for debate and, indeed, it is actually dangerous. Meetings take place only to accomplish immediate practical tasks...too many gatherings can attract police attention.

It's unlikely that Lenin's ideas were "perfectly realized" -- politicized people "like" to argue politics and, especially in the larger Russian cities, I'm sure there was discussion and argument between party members. The Bolshevik wing of the RSDLP was not nearly as "monolithic" in practice as it was "on paper".

But balanced against this must be the fact of Lenin's personal charisma -- his admirers and supporters in the party were, by contemporary accounts, extraordinarily impressed with the man and gave his opinions "the benefit of the doubt".

This in spite of the fact that his conception of a revolutionary combat organization was actually less successful than the somewhat "looser" ideas of his rival Mensheviks -- at the time of the great uprising in Petrograd (February 1917), there were considerably more people (including workers) who supported the Mensheviks than who supported the Bolsheviks.

Of course, the Mensheviks also operated "underground" as did nearly everyone who actually wanted to do anything. But the Mensheviks did not really have a "Lenin" -- their leader, Martov, was much more a "first among equals" than a "man of destiny".

Further, Menshevik politics were "flabby" and often incoherent; they frequently combined a sound Marxist analysis with a bourgeois practical response. (!)

Consequently, when Bolsheviks and Mensheviks struggled with each other for control of the soviets during the summer of 1917, Lenin's "disciplined" approach and more consistent politics "paid off". The armed detachments formed by the factory committees and the soviets as well as the units of the old army that remained "took orders" from the Bolsheviks that they would probably never have taken from the Mensheviks -- even if the Mensheviks could have brought themselves to "give orders" in the first place.

When Lenin decided to "seize power" (stage a coup) on the evening before the first meeting of the All Russia Congress of Soviets, he was able to "order it done" and it was done.

So that's essentially what happened...could it have happened otherwise?

Both the actual material conditions and Russian revolutionary traditions suggest that underground political resistance, more or less disciplined, was indeed inevitable. Had Lenin not existed, someone "like" him would have almost certainly come forward to argue a similar perspective -- that the only "practical" way to carry out underground resistance is with a highly disciplined, professional, and centralized "combat organization".

Once you form such a group, its evolutionary path is obvious (to us, not necessarily to people living in those times). Because combat organizations are not "talking shops", talk gradually ceases...except at the top. It doesn't happen all at once, of course...it can take quite a long time. Then it stops at the top as well...you get a Stalin or a Mao.

This is especially likely in a country emerging from autocracy...it is "easy" to slide back into despotism. Many in the Russian countryside, again by contemporary reports, referred to Lenin as "the new Czar" -- it was intended as a compliment.

Material conditions can tell you a lot: Russia was not as peasant-dominated as China was -- but it did produce its own "early Mao". The peasant anarchist Nester Makhno, an enormously skillful guerrilla commander, would have almost certainly became "the new Czar" had his forces been victorious over the Bolsheviks...and today it would be anarchism that would be tarred with the brush of despotism rather than communism -- Makhno would have been compelled to do much of what Lenin did to "save the revolution".

As a unrepentant Marxist, I'm really sorry that Makhno didn't win.

[morpheus]

The actual experience of the Makhnovists shows that this is false. The Makhnovists didn't carry out the totalitarian actions that the Bolsheviks did, they did everything possible to maximize self-management and freedom for the peasants & workers. The Bolsheviks started suppressing soviets & factory committees in spring 1918, before the civil war started. They also stepped up repression of groups to their left, including anarchists. In May they began the grain requisitions. I have seen no evidence to indicate that this was caused soley by "material conditions." The Makhnovists on the other hand, though they did suppress Whites & anti-smitites, maintained more freedom of speech than any of their rivals. Several non-anarchist groups had their own papers in Makhnovist Ukraine, including both left & Right SRs and the Bolsheviks. The Makhnovists promoted the formation of free soviets and encouraged self-management, unlike the Bolsheviks who suppressed them. There were no Makhnovist forced grain requisitions like the Bolsheviks did. And the Makhnovists were in even more difficult material conditions than the Bolsheviks. The claim that Makhno would have become another Czar is not supported by evidence.

In addition, this "material conditions" spiel ignores the fact that different areas of the Russian empire took different paths. Many areas broke off from Russia and set up independant nation-states. These were in largely the same material conditions as Russia, yet most became right-wing dictatorships. There were two exceptions: Ukraine, which went anarchist, and Georgia, which went Menshevik. Both of these were suppressed by Bolshevik invasions. The material conditions were largely the same, yet there were four different courses followed.

In addition Redstar2000 is ignoring the fact that there were more than a few revolutionary groups involved. October wasn't just a Bolshevik coup. The toppling of the Provisional government was the work of an alliance of Bolsheviks, Left SRs, Maximalists and anarchists. The Bolsheviks were the biggest of the four (but the left SRs were a close second) but it wasn't solely their work. Had the left SRs broken with the right earlier they may have been able to secure their own supremacy instead of the Bolsheviks. Had the anarchists been better organized they may have been a larger faction and been able to fend off post-October Bolshevik repression. There is more to history than just "material conditions." People make history.

The result of Marxists seizing state power was predicted by anarchists long before the Russian Revolution. All Marxist revolutions have confirmed this theory. Marxism is unscientific.

[redstar2000]

morpheus wrote: The Makhnovists didn't carry out the totalitarian actions that the Bolsheviks did...

That's not what I was implying or suggesting. Makhno "in the field" was one kind of guy; I'm suggesting that in the Kremlin he would likely have been quite another. Material conditions would have left him "no choice".

For example, the Makhnovists did not requisition grain, that's true. Neither did the Maoists in China. If your movement is peasant-based, then you do not steal from the peasantry...unless you are a fool.

I quite agree that the Leninists began their despotic actions prior to the actual beginning of the civil war...as I indicated, they were "predisposed" in that direction.

My point was simply that a "Leninist-like" political current was indeed inevitable under Russian conditions. That doesn't mean they were "destined to win" by the "forces of history" or anything silly like that. There were many contingencies that resulted in Bolshevik victory.

But had the Bolsheviks been defeated -- by any of the other "players", what sort of regime would they have been compelled to establish?

My assertion that they all would have come up with a variation on Lenin's "New Economic Policy"...and that the urban working class in Russia would have ended up the "net losers" no matter who the "winners" were.

morpheus wrote: These were in largely the same material conditions as Russia, yet most became right-wing dictatorships.

Yes, but that was mostly due to foreign assistance, was it not? That is, France, Britain, and Japan supplied not only their own troops but the money and equipment to field peasant conscript armies and "proclaim republics" in occupied areas; "republics" that were actually military despotisms as you indicate.

My impression is that their "rule" did not extend beyond the territory that their armies were standing on at any given moment (I think that's also true of Makhno's forces).

In other words, those regimes resulted from a slightly different set of material circumstances than the Bolshevik regime...but the practice was not all that different.

They might have proven viable alternatives to Bolshevism had it not been for the fact that they openly intended to restore the landed aristocracy...their peasant armies melted away as fast as they could be conscripted, and then even faster.

I am not sufficiently well-informed to explain the Menshevik victory in Georgia...it's definitely an anomaly. I'm sure there are material explanations, but I simply don't know what they might be.

It could have had something to do with tribal structure and alliances in that region...but I'm guessing.

morpheus wrote: The toppling of the Provisional government was the work of an alliance of Bolsheviks, Left SRs, Maximalists and anarchists.

I have no doubt that among the ranks of those who took part in the October coup there were many who supported or who were inclined to support other political trends besides the Bolsheviks. But I frankly don't see how anyone could argue that it did not take place on the initiative and under the direction of the Bolshevik leadership and, first of all, of Lenin himself.

The Left Social Revolutionaries (based on the poorer and more radical peasantry) were indeed part of the initial coalition that constituted the Soviet government -- but I think it's fair to say they were never more than "junior partners".

The Bolsheviks "ran the show".

morpheus wrote: There is more to history than just "material conditions." People make history.

Indeed they do..."but not under conditions of their own choosing".

morpheus wrote: Marxism is unscientific.

As far as I can tell, it beats the hell out of whatever's in second place. #nosmileys#nosmileys

[morpheus]

Makhno "in the field" was one kind of guy; I'm suggesting that in the Kremlin he would likely have been quite another. Material conditions would have left him "no choice".

And you have presented zero evidence to support that claim. You haven't even specified what exactly these "material conditions" were. Your original post discusses what the material conditions of Russia allegedly force sucessfull revolutionaries into a Leninist mold but 90% of Makhnovist organizing was done after the revolution had already begun. The Makhnovist movement wasn't the outcome of a group of revolutionaries who had been organizing underground for a long time. It was the outcome of a spontaneous insurgency against the Austro-German occupation & their puppet government. Makhno & other anarchists participated in it but they did not create it. Before 1917 Makhno was in prison, he got out because of the post-February amnesty. The anarchist federation in the Ukraine, Nabat, wasn't organized until 1918. None of the main features of the Makhnovist movement could possibly have been shaped by the forces you claim shaped Bolshevism because the they postdate the annhiliation of those forces.

Ending up with the NEP would have been nearly impossible with a Makhnovist victory since the NEP had state-controlled industry and the Makhnovists didn't have the bureaucracy to do such a thing. And they were ideologically against it and didn't really have the means to develop such a bureaucracy. Nor have you presented any evidence to support the claim that NEP was inevitable. There's evidence that disproves it - some countries that broke off from Russia & stayed independant implemented a normal market capitalist system instead of NEP.

For example, the Makhnovists did not requisition grain, that's true. Neither did the Maoists in China. If your movement is peasant-based, then you do not steal from the peasantry...unless you are a fool.

And the reason the Bolsheviks had a bad relationship with the peasants was ideological. They saw the workers as being the forefront of the revolution and neglected organizing among peasants. This had a big impact on the evolution of the Bolshevik regime, it impacted the social structure of Russia. Hence, ideology can affect material conditions. So much for determinism.

And if Leninism was inevitable under the conditions of Russia why did it not develop earlier in societies with similar conditions? Revolutionaries in France prior to 1789 face a situation very similar to revolutionaries in Russia prior to 1917. Yet Bolshevism did not develop in France prior to 1789 nor did Authoritarian Socialists come to power. If it's all just about material conditions why should this be?

Yes, but that was mostly due to foreign assistance, was it not?

Sometimes, but not always. The creation of independant rightist nation-states began prior to the end of WW1 and the imperialists were too busy beating each other up at that time to make significant interventions. Major interventions came later. They also intervened in Russia itself, supporting the Whites. They intervened in multiple countries, yet in some the Bolsheviks came to power and in others the right came to power. Same material conditions, two different results. And many of the "blues" (local nationalists) were not created by foreign powers. They had genuine local support, often from the local bourgeoisie and/or landlords.

They might have proven viable alternatives to Bolshevism had it not been for the fact that they openly intended to restore the landed aristocracy

There's no "might have been" about it, many survived the civil war and are still around today. Like Finland & Poland, for example.

I have no doubt that among the ranks of those who took part in the October coup there were many who supported or who were inclined to support other political trends besides the Bolsheviks. But I frankly don't see how anyone could argue that it did not take place on the initiative and under the direction of the Bolshevik leadership and, first of all, of Lenin himself.

It took place under the initiative and direction of the Military-Revolutionary Committees, which contained members from many different factions. The picture of Lenin commanding everything and launching a disciplined army into a well-planned coup is a myth. In addition, October was more than just the defeat of provisional government. Workers & peasants, without direction from Lenin, moved to rapidly expropriate the land & factories which had not already been expropriated. It was therefore not a coup.

The Left Social Revolutionaries (based on the poorer and more radical peasantry) were indeed part of the initial coalition that constituted the Soviet government -- but I think it's fair to say they were never more than "junior partners".

Actually, in the beginning if they allied with other non-Bolshevik factions they could outvote the Bolsheviks. And why do you think the Left SRs were smaller than the Bolsheviks? They were based on the peasantry, who vastly outnumbered the workers. Their problem was that it took them too long to break from the right SRs and take a militant stand in favor of revolution. They didn't actually form a different party until after the election lists for the constituent assembly were drawn up. Had they broken in, say, July they would have (a) had a much larger and more committed following (b) stood a good chance of winning the Constituent Assembly elections and (c) made the Bolsheviks their junior partner, not vice versa.

Indeed they do..."but not under conditions of their own choosing".

Those conditions leave open a range of different possibilities, they do not constrain it to one as the determinists claim. In the Russian Revolution we actual examples of at least 5 different possibilities: Bolshevism (Russia), Menshevism (Georgia), the Greens (parts of Siberia, the Volga, elsewhere), anarchism (Ukraine) and the right. Technically there's more than five, since there were several different flavors of the later. You can't reduce all of history to material conditions.

[redstar2000]

In a desperate attempt to avoid writing an entire book on this subject, I'll reply to this point...

morpheus wrote: It took place under the initiative and direction of the Military-Revolutionary Committees, which contained members from many different factions. The picture of Lenin commanding everything and launching a disciplined army into a well-planned coup is a myth. In addition, October was more than just the defeat of provisional government. Workers & peasants, without direction from Lenin, moved to rapidly expropriate the land & factories which had not already been expropriated. It was therefore not a coup.

The "Military Revolutionary Committee" was technically under the authority of the Petrograd Soviet...but the soviet did not "vote" on an insurrection; the MRC -- which was effectively dominated by the Bolsheviks -- acted under the direct instructions of Lenin and his closest associates.

It was a coup.

That it was or was not "disciplined" and "well-planned" in the abstract is a non-question; by the standards of October 1917, it was "disciplined" and "well-planned" enough.

The expropriation of factories probably did increase in frequency after the coup...when capitalists fled, expropriation was the only way to keep a factory running.

I agree this was not done under the direction of the Bolsheviks or Lenin himself -- in fact, I think there's some fragmentary evidence to suggest that the Bolsheviks discouraged expropriation unless the capitalist owners had fled.

As to the land, that was being seized by the peasantry continuously from February 1917 forward (probably began in 1916)...the Bolsheviks never had anything to do with this process at all and it would have continued even if there had never been an October coup.

Neither of those developments really has any bearing on the fact that the Bolsheviks dispersed the provisional government, arrested and imprisoned its leaders, and presented the All-Russian Congress of Soviets with a fait accompli.

That says coup to me.

morpheus wrote: You can't reduce all of history to material conditions.

I never said one could. The details of history are clearly a matter of chance...or contingency, as the bourgeois historians say.

I am not arguing that material conditions "decreed" that the Bolsheviks "had" to "win". I'm simply arguing that material conditions in Czarist Russia made it highly probable that something like the Bolshevik Party would emerge and be significant.

(Even in the example of revolutionary France that you mentioned, I think one could argue that Robespierre and his closest supporters demonstrated "proto-Bolshevik" tendencies.)#nosmileys

[morpheus]

redstar2000 said:

The "Military Revolutionary Committee" was technically under the authority of the Petrograd Soviet...but the soviet did not "vote" on an insurrection; the MRC -- which was effectively dominated by the Bolsheviks -- acted under the direct instructions of Lenin and his closest associates.

It was a coup.

Why does that make it a coup? The head of the committee was a Left SR, btw.

The expropriation of factories probably did increase in frequency after the coup...when capitalists fled, expropriation was the only way to keep a factory running.

And the workers saw the revolution as legitimizing the takeover of factories. And they expected it to soon be legalized (it was). And the destruction of the old state made it very difficult to stop workers from doing so.

As to the land, that was being seized by the peasantry continuously from February 1917 forward (probably began in 1916)...the Bolsheviks never had anything to do with this process at all and it would have continued even if there had never been an October coup.

It started before October, as did factory takeovers, but also accelerated greatly with the October revolution.

Neither of those developments really has any bearing on the fact that the Bolsheviks dispersed the provisional government, arrested and imprisoned its leaders, and presented the All-Russian Congress of Soviets with a fait accompli.

I don't see how any of this makes it a coup. The congress approved the October insurrection and it was supported by most of the population.

I am not arguing that material conditions "decreed" that the Bolsheviks "had" to "win". I'm simply arguing that material conditions in Czarist Russia made it highly probable that something like the Bolshevik Party would emerge and be significant.

Earlier you said it was inevitable, now you say it is merely "highly probable." You also asserted that this would lead the Makhnovists to establish a dictatorship like the Bolsheviks, but you have provided no evidence for that assertion. I think material conditions made it much more probable that a peasant-based party would win, not the Bolsheviks. Peasant parties often have a better chance of winning in peasant countries 'cause there's more peasants!

Your arguement, as I understand it, is that:
(1) The conditions of Russia encouraged revolutionaries to adopt Bolshevik-style organizational structures
(2) This organizational structure enabled them to defeat their competitors and come to power
(3) This organizational structure is also what caused the situation to degenerate into totalitarianism

(1) is false since there are other historical examples from other countries which didn't cause this. (2) is also false for the same reason. You provide no evidence to support (3). I think the Bolsheviks came out on top, playing the biggest role in October, due to a combination of luck and the fact that they were best organized & the largest (in February 1917) of all the groups which called for the overthrow of the provisional government. The reason it created a new ruling class is because the Bolsheviks created a new state. See my piece Russia: Revolution, Counter-Revolution

(Even in the example of revolutionary France that you mentioned, I think one could argue that Robespierre and his closest supporters demonstrated "proto-Bolshevik" tendencies.

Once they came into power, but IIRC the Jacobins did not adopt the kind of Vanguardist organization that the Bolsheviks did.

[JC]

This thread is based on superfloues foundations ! The motion drafeted by lenin was "A party member is one "who recognizes the Party's programme and supports it by material means and by personal participation in one of the Party's organizations."

In Fact the following motion was authored by the menshivik Martov "who recognizes the Party's programme and supports it by material means and by regular personal assistance under the direction of one of the party's organizations."

By lenins Defenition a Proffesinol Reveloutanary is one Who "Donate's Most (Prefrebly all ) of there free time to reveloutionary affairs"

To Qoute louis Procyet "The best discussion of democratic centralism I've ever seen is in chapter seven of Paul LeBlanc's "Lenin and the Revolutionary Party". He explains that the term predates Lenin by many years and was first used in 1865 by J.B. Schweitzer, a Lassallean.



Furthermore, in Russia it was first used by the Mensheviks at a November 1905 conference. In a resolution "On the Organization of the Party" adopted there, they agree that "The RSDLP must be organized according to the principle of democratic centralism." A month later the Bolsheviks embraced the term at their own conference. A resolution titled "On Party Organization" states: "Recognizing as indisputable the principle of democratic centralism, the Conference considers the broad implementation of the elective principle necessary; and, while granting elected centers full powers in matters of ideological and practical leadership, they are at the same time subject to recall, their actions are given broad publicity, and they are to be strictly accountable for these activities.""

The Dispute between the menshiviks and the bolshiviks obviously didnt arise from an orginizatinol one !

And regarding Wether or not the machochovists would have been diffrent , the ansewer is not at all . Infact the machochivists would have simply lead to a brutal bourgoise bonapartism , the fact of the matter is you cant have state power if your the petit bourgoise !

[morpheus]

Infact the machochivists would have simply lead to a brutal bourgoise bonapartism

Youv'e presented no evidence to support this claim.

the fact of the matter is you cant have state power if your the petit bourgoise !

The point is to destroy state power.

[JC]

You havent even attempted to refute any of my claims excluding Machova = Bonaparte .

I base this on the fact that besides crushing the landlords , he didnt do any thing reveloutionary especialy in regards to the working class . His Millitia resembles more of sadr's then of a Working Class Popular Millitia . He was Cut off from the prolatariat and the bourgoise . he was a petit bourgoise democrat. He was impotent .