Marx & Engels "On Leninism"

[redstar2000]

On occasion, I'm not above a little self-flattery concerning my critique of Leninism...it doesn't seem to me that too many others have anticipated a lot of the things I've said about them.

But recently, my attention has been drawn (by the left-Menshevik Julius Martov) to some things that Marx and Engels had to say...both "about" Leninist parties and "about" the kinds of states they inevitably give rise to.

I know it appears "theological" to argue from "quotations"...and, as you know, I normally don't do that.

But just this once...

The Party and the Masses

If conditions have changed in the case of war between nations, this is no less true in the case of the class struggle. The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of masses lacking consciousness is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organisation, the masses themselves must also be in on it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are fighting for, body and soul.

Introduction to Karl Marx's The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850 by Frederick Engels (1895) (emphasis added)

This strongly suggests a very limited role for a "communist party"...surely far less ambitious than the Leninists proposed in the 20th century or now.

If the masses "must be conscious" (of the communist goal) then the "communist party" would simply dissolve itself (more or less rapidly) into the masses in the course of the revolutionary process.

Leninists might respond that it is not sufficient for the masses to be conscious of the goal of communism; they need "instruction" on "how" to get there...instruction by Leninist "experts", of course. But "instruction" is not the same as "command" -- which is what Leninists really intend.

Nor does "instruction" require a "disciplined core" of "leaders". Anyone of normal intelligence can learn the basics of communism and "instruct" others as interest grows.

The Party and the Revolution

The Blanquists [in the Paris Commune] fared no better. Brought up in the school of conspiracy, and held together by the strict discipline which went with it, they started out from the viewpoint that a relatively small number of resolute, well-organized men would be able, at a given favorable moment, not only to seize the helm of state, but also by energetic and relentless action, to keep power until they succeeded in drawing the mass of the people into the revolution and ranging them round the small band of leaders. This conception involved, above all, the strictest dictatorship and centralization of all power in the hands of the new revolutionary government.

On the 20th Anniversary of the Paris Commune by Frederick Engels (1891) (my emphasis)


Doesn't this parallel Lenin's outlook from October 1917 until his death? And haven't Leninists advocated this ever since...and implemented it whenever they had the opportunity?

They will force the proletariat to be "communist"...whether they like it or not. All "for their own good", of course. Think of it as ideological "toilet training".

What happens when Leninism fails?

All revolutions up to the present day have resulted in the displacement of the rule of one class by the rule of another; but all ruling classes up to now have been only small minorities in relation to the ruled mass of the people.

As a rule, after the first great success, the victorious minority split; one half was satisfied with what had been gained, the other wanted to go still further, and put forward new demands, which, partly at least, were also in the real or apparent interest of the great mass of the people. In isolated cases these more radical demands were actually forced through, but often only for the moment; the more moderate party would regain the upper hand, and what had been won most recently would wholly or partly be lost again; the vanquished would then cry treachery or ascribe their defeat to accident.

Introduction to Karl Marx's The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850 by Frederick Engels (1895) (emphasis added)

Isn't this the constant lament of contemporary Leninists? "We were stabbed in the back" by Stalin or by Khrushchev or by Tito or by Chou en-Lai or by...whoever (the list is very long). "The revolution was betrayed!"

What really happened?

Incidentally, if the bourgeoisie is politically, that is, by its state power, “maintaining injustice in property relations”, it is not creating it. The “injustice in property relations” which is determined by the modern division of labour, the modern form of exchange, competition, concentration, etc., by no means arises from the political rule of the bourgeois class, but vice versa, the political rule of the bourgeois class arises from these modern relations of production which bourgeois economists proclaim to be necessary and eternal laws. If therefore the proletariat overthrows the political rule of the bourgeoisie, its victory will only be temporary, only an element in the service of the bourgeois revolution itself, as in the year 1794, as long as in the course of history, in its “movement”, the material conditions have not yet been created which make necessary the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production and therefore also the definitive overthrow of the political rule of the bourgeoisie. The terror in France could thus by its mighty hammer-blows only serve to spirit away, as it were, the ruins of feudalism from French soil. The timidly considerate bourgeoisie would not have accomplished this task in decades. The bloody action of the people thus only prepared the way for it. In the same way, the overthrow of the absolute monarchy would be merely temporary if the economic conditions for the rule of the bourgeois class had not yet become ripe. Men build a new world for themselves...from the historical achievements of their declining world. In the course of their development they first have to produce the material conditions of a new society itself, and no exertion of mind or will can free them from this fate.

Moralizing Criticism and Critical Morality 1847 The underlinings are Marx's; the bold is my emphasis.

This "nugget" is from a very obscure text that I had never come across before...but it makes a point that I have repeatedly raised: material conditions prevail!

The strength of "will" that the Leninists emphasize so much is futile if the material conditions for communist society are not present. Since all of the Leninist parties that actually made their own revolutions made them in semi-capitalist or pre-capitalist countries, they made them "in the service of the bourgeois revolution itself."

As we have seen.

Today, the only remaining viable Leninist parties are Leninist-Maoists...which lead or strongly influence peasant rebellions in a number of "third world" countries. What will happen if they win?

Marx just told you.#nosmileys#nosmileys

[eat the world]

It is helpful to identify (and criticize) the legacy of religious dogmatism among Marxists.

By that I mean the tendency to view Marx (or Lenin, or Mao etc.) in a religious way -- as if their writings were prophetic revelation. And as if Marxism is reducable to "whatever Marx said."

This is sometimes called "whatever-ism."

This is not a scientific approach -- since the knowledge of people develops (through struggle and the summation of new experience.) And so many things that are important to Marxism are not "what marx said" but are developments (and even negations) of somethings marx thought was true.

This comes to mind, because of the way Redstar raises some writings of Marx and Engels in opposition to modern Marxism (i.e. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism).

So it is useful to examine this -- cuz Redstar is discussing important issues, and using a dogmatic method that is important to criticise.

Redstar even writes: "I know it appears "theological" to argue from "quotations"

And this is true. And it raises the question: If you know this is a wrong method, why use it?

Anyway, lets deal with some of the issues:

Redstar quotes Marx saying: "The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of masses lacking consciousness is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organisation, the masses themselves must also be in on it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are fighting for, body and soul."

Redstar writes: "This strongly suggests a very limited role for a "communist party"...surely far less ambitious than the Leninists proposed in the 20th century or now."

This is exactly wrong. In fact the need for such consciousness among the masses is exactly the reason why communist work (led and carried out by organized communsts) is so necessary. In THIS revolution, (unlike the bourgeois revolutions like the French or the U.S. Civil War) the masses must not be simply "cannon fodder" or "shock troops" for the victory of new ruling classes -- they must themselves increasingly grasp their own historic goals. And this can only be done when the most advanced and conscious forces of our class organize themselves -- to spread this consciousness and win more and more of the workers to this understanding.

Redstar writes: "Nor does "instruction" require a "disciplined core" of "leaders". Anyone of normal intelligence can learn the basics of communism and "instruct" others as interest grows."

This is typical confusion: The masses need to be conscious (increasingly so), but this does not negate the need for them to be organized and for them to develop, train and follow a tested leadership.

Anyone who thinks about revolution (for a few serious minutes) realize that even if the masses become highly conscious of their goals and needs -- they still need organization and leadership. And as they become conscious, they also become conscious of their need for communist organization and leadership.

Redstar quotes Engels saying: "The Blanquists [in the Paris Commune] fared no better. Brought up in the school of conspiracy, and held together by the strict discipline which went with it, they started out from the viewpoint that a relatively small number of resolute, well-organized men would be able, at a given favorable moment, not only to seize the helm of state, but also by energetic and relentless action, to keep power until they succeeded in drawing the mass of the people into the revolution and ranging them round the small band of leaders. This conception involved, above all, the strictest dictatorship and centralization of all power in the hands of the new revolutionary government."

Redstar writes: "Doesn't this parallel Lenin's outlook from October 1917 until his death? And haven't Leninists advocated this ever since...and implemented it whenever they had the opportunity?"

The answer, not surprisingly, is NO. Leninists do not advocate coups, but "people's wars."

Lenin led an insurrection (not a coup) which was just the opening shot of a much larger peoples war (waged as a civil war of millions).

To portray Lenin, or Leninism, as Blanquism is typical, but wrong.

Lenin (hearing similar attacks) remarked that any revolutionary who isn't called a Blanquist by his enemies probably isn't worth shit.

(continued in part 2)

[eat the world]

Redstar quotes Marx saying "In isolated cases these more radical demands were actually forced through, but often only for the moment; the more moderate party would regain the upper hand, and what had been won most recently would wholly or partly be lost again; the vanquished would then cry treachery or ascribe their defeat to accident."

Redstar writes: "Isn't this the constant lament of contemporary Leninists? "We were stabbed in the back" by Stalin or by Khrushchev or by Tito or by Chou en-Lai or by...whoever (the list is very long). "The revolution was betrayed!"

Typically redstar is wrong. He has clearly not understood the MLM summation of how capitalist restoration.

So typically, Redstar invents a stupid, superficial theory, claims this is the view of MLM, and then accuses MLM of being stupid and superficial.

Don't put words in our mouths. It is a wrong method.
An old game.

It is however true that revolutions have struggle between revolutionary forces who want a new society, and reformist forces who just want "regime change."

If the revolutionaries lose, it is from different reasons: sometimes their methods were wrong, soemtimes the forces alligned against them were simply too strong.

It does not make sense to blame enemies for your defeat. (Anarchists often do this). They are your enemies.... and they will tryt to defeat you. If they succeed, it is not because "they betrayed you" -- it was your job to detect their methods and goals, and reveal that to the people, and lead struggle to defeat them.

I won't list Redstar's last quote.... you can read it yourslef in his post. But it is a long quote from marx that redstar distorts (yet again) to argue that revolution is bound to fail. And if the masses can't "do it" on their own, then it is just to early.

This is, yet again, an argument for embracing defeat, not straining the "limits of the possible" and not sensing the urgency of this moment.

How far can we go in any moment? this is not knowable in any moment, without trying.

Redstar's arguments are always arguments for doing nothing. For accepting whatever the masses currently think as the limits of what we can do. It is an argument for living under oppression much longer than we have to.

And, in this case, he used a tired, dogmatic method (raising Marx against Lenin) to do this.

Look: we need science, and science develops.

What would you think if you saw a headline: "Quotes from Newton Disprove Einstein"? You would say "well, einstein dealt with issues and problems and experiences that Newton didn't know about."

Or if you saw a headline: "Galileo's insights disprove Hubble Photos"?

Engels wrote in the late 1800s that streetfighting was outdated. That rebellious people couldn't defeat a modern army. (Redstar makes this argument elsewhere.)

But the answer to that is "Engels was wrong." And he was proven wrong over and over for the next century.

Is this a big problem? Not for me. Engels was summing up what he knew, and the experience of the 19th century. And we are a century further down, with a much much richer experience of revolutionary struggle (dozens of uprisings, insurrections and civils wars szince then.)

Isn't it tired, religious dogma to assume that Engels is automatically right, and the communists since then (Lenin, Mao, Avakian) must be wrong? Puleez.
Incidentally, if the bourgeoisie is politically, that is, by its state power, “maintaining injustice in property relations”, it is not creating it. The “injustice in property relations” which is determined by the modern division of labour, the modern form of exchange, competition, concentration, etc., by no means arises from the political rule of the bourgeois class, but vice versa, the political rule of the bourgeois class arises from these modern relations of production which bourgeois economists proclaim to be necessary and eternal laws. If therefore the proletariat overthrows the political rule of the bourgeoisie, its victory will only be temporary, only an element in the service of the bourgeois revolution itself, as in the year 1794, as long as in the course of history, in its “movement”, the material conditions have not yet been created which make necessary the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production and therefore also the definitive overthrow of the political rule of the bourgeoisie. The terror in France could thus by its mighty hammer-blows only serve to spirit away, as it were, the ruins of feudalism from French soil. The timidly considerate bourgeoisie would not have accomplished this task in decades. The bloody action of the people thus only prepared the way for it. In the same way, the overthrow of the absolute monarchy would be merely temporary if the economic conditions for the rule of the bourgeois class had not yet become ripe. Men build a new world for themselves...from the historical achievements of their declining world. In the course of their development they first have to produce the material conditions of a new society itself, and no exertion of mind or will can free them from this fate.

Moralizing Criticism and Critical Morality 1847 The underlinings are Marx's; the bold is my emphasis.

This "nugget" is from a very obscure text that I had never come across before...but it makes a point that I have repeatedly raised: material conditions prevail!

The strength of "will" that the Leninists emphasize so much is futile if the material conditions for communist society are not present. Since all of the Leninist parties that actually made their own revolutions made them in semi-capitalist or pre-capitalist countries, they made them "in the service of the bourgeois revolution itself."

As we have seen.

Today, the only remaining viable Leninist parties are Leninist-Maoists...which lead or strongly influence peasant rebellions in a number of "third world" countries. What will happen if they win?

Marx just told you.

[eat the world]

correction:
In my last post -- the final 200 words or so are left over pastes from Redstar's post. My comments end with the word "Puleeez."

I'm sorry it is confusing. Here is a reposting of that last comment, with redstar's words removed from the butt-end)

Part 2

Redstar quotes Marx saying "In isolated cases these more radical demands were actually forced through, but often only for the moment; the more moderate party would regain the upper hand, and what had been won most recently would wholly or partly be lost again; the vanquished would then cry treachery or ascribe their defeat to accident."

Redstar writes: "Isn't this the constant lament of contemporary Leninists? "We were stabbed in the back" by Stalin or by Khrushchev or by Tito or by Chou en-Lai or by...whoever (the list is very long). "The revolution was betrayed!"

Typically redstar is wrong. He has clearly not understood the MLM summation of how capitalist restoration.

So typically, Redstar invents a stupid, superficial theory, claims this is the view of MLM, and then accuses MLM of being stupid and superficial.

Don't put words in our mouths. It is a wrong method.
An old game.

It is however true that revolutions have struggle between revolutionary forces who want a new society, and reformist forces who just want "regime change."

If the revolutionaries lose, it is from different reasons: sometimes their methods were wrong, soemtimes the forces alligned against them were simply too strong.

It does not make sense to blame enemies for your defeat. (Anarchists often do this). They are your enemies.... and they will tryt to defeat you. If they succeed, it is not because "they betrayed you" -- it was your job to detect their methods and goals, and reveal that to the people, and lead struggle to defeat them.

I won't list Redstar's last quote.... you can read it yourslef in his post. But it is a long quote from marx that redstar distorts (yet again) to argue that revolution is bound to fail. And if the masses can't "o it" on their own, then it is just to early.

This is, yet again, an argument for embracing defeat, not straining the "limits of the possible" and not sensing the urgency of this moment.

How far can we go in any moment? this is not knowable in any moment, without trying.

Redstar's arguments are always arguments for doing nothing. For accepting whatever the masses currently think as the limits of what we can do. It is an argument for living under oppression much longer than we have to.

And, in this case, he used a tired, dogmatic method (raising Marx against Lenin) to do this.

Look: we need science, and science develops.

What would you think if you saw a headline: "Quotes from Newton Disprove Einstein"? You would say "well, einstein dealt with issues and problems and experiences that Newton didn't know about."

Or if you saw a headline: "Galileo's insights disprove Hubble Photos"?

Engels wrote in the late 1800s that streetfighting was outdated. That rebellious people couldn't defeat a modern army. (Redstar makes this argument elsewhere.)

But the answer to that is "Engels was wrong." And he was proven wrong over and over for the next century.

Is this a big problem? Not for me. Engels was summing up what he knew, and the experience of the 19th century. And we are a century further down, with a much much richer experience of revolutionary struggle (dozens of uprisings, insurrections and civils wars szince then.)

Isn't it tired, religious dogma to assume that Engels is automatically right, and the communists since then (Lenin, Mao, Avakian) must be wrong? Puleez.

[redstar2000]

eattheworld wrote: Lenin (hearing similar attacks) remarked that any revolutionary who isn't called a Blanquist by his enemies probably isn't worth shit.

I thought I'd heard most of Lenin's "standard quotes", but this is a new one for me.

Are you summarizing, or did he really say "isn't worth shit"?

The remainder of your criticism is methodological, of course.

And in general, as my posts on this board have demonstrated, I rarely resort to arguments from quotations precisely because they do (or at least can) become "theological". Indeed, I think an objective tally would indicate that you guys quote from Avakian far more than I have ever quoted from Marx or Engels.

I considered these particular quotations of interest precisely because they anticipated Leninism and its consequences with extraordinary accuracy.

I fully expected you to disagree with that assessment and say, in one fashion or another, that Marx and Engels were "wrong" and Lenin, Mao, and Avakian were/are "right".

We normally expect the "newer science" to be better than the "older science" -- it's the "natural" course of events.

But it is not always that way; sometimes the "old theory" makes a startling come-back because the "new theory" turns out to have insurmountable difficulties.

The "nebular hypothesis" of the origins of the solar system furnish an example. First proposed by Immanuel Kant towards the end of the 18th century, it was thought for well over a century that the solar system began as a large mass of rotating gas that gradually condensed into the sun, the planets, etc. Then, problems arose, and a new hypothesis was advanced; the solar system originated as a consequence of a near collision between the sun and another passing star. In the 1940s and 1950s, this is what astronomy students were taught as "the latest thing".

But that hypothesis ran into even more severe problems...while the nebular hypothesis benefited from new mathematical methods, the ability to model complex processes on computers, etc.

And now, the "old theory" is once more the "new theory" and is more solid than ever; gas disks surrounding new-born stars have actually been photographed and measured...and perhaps we will soon have the photographic technology to actually "catch" new planets in the process of forming.

Kant turned out to be right, after all.

Thus, my contention that Marx and Engels were right and Lenin & Co. were wrong is not really "unprecedented" in the history of science...it's just unusual.

And it certainly should not be taken to mean that Marx and Engels were "right about everything"...as there are some rather glaring matters that they were quite wrong about.

But on this one, I think they "got it right". #nosmileys

[JC]

Arrgh , well im just going to say why your analogy fails . Redstar , your a man of faith , becuase wether or not you accept computer proofs is a matter of faith .