| Theory |
|
The Leninist Diversion July 9, 2004 by RedStar2000 |
The nagging question about the Leninist paradigm in the "west" is the purpose of a "transitional state" in an already advanced capitalist economy.
However "necessary" it was in Russia or China, would good would it do us?
Not much.
=============================================
It seems to me that there is a material reason for people developing the view that "the movement is everything".
Our human life spans are so short relative to the time of transition from one epoch of production to another that trying to keep one's eyes on the "ultimate goal" is extraordinarily difficult.
The likelihood is overwhelming that none of us will live to see communism.
Leninism and its Maoist variants attempt to overcome this difficulty with a somewhat more immediate goal -- a "proletarian state" that will "manage" the transition to communism -- but even that is quite unlikely prior to the middle of this century (if it happens at all).
Thus, given our temporal limitations, it's difficult to "fault" people for concentrating on more immediate concerns: stopping this imperialist war; freeing these political prisoners; organizing this group of workers right now.
Communists are supposed to be more far-sighted, recognizing and pointing out the "ultimate goal" of every form of proletarian resistance to capitalism. But history is rich in examples of communists who have "lost their way", narrowed their expectations as they grew "experienced", and almost imperceptibly drifted into the reformist camp.
It is well, then, that there emerges a generation of "young communists" every so often...people for whom the ultimate goal is newly-minted, fresh, and achievable. The older generations of the left will view them as "ultra-leftists", "utopians", "semi-anarchist nutballs", "sectarians", etc.
From an objective historical standpoint, the young communists are almost certainly wrong...but it's the right kind of "wrongness", the right kind of mistake to make.
For in the twistings and turnings of history, the time will come when they won't be wrong and their "ultra-left delusions" will be nothing more than plain common sense.
For that lucky generation, the ultimate goal will be right before their eyes...they need but reach out and take it.
And they will!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on May 18, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
This sounds like a Marxist view to me...
Yes, I'm sure you'd like people to think that was the case.
But it really isn't. The views of Marx and Engels on the "dictatorship of the proletariat" were occasional and vague about the details; certainly nothing like the ideas that Lenin put forward or that have since evolved within Maoism.
There's nothing in Marx about a vanguard party at all, much less the suggestion that it should have a "leading role" in the post-revolutionary society. Concepts like "people's democracies" or "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry" are even further removed from Marx.
We do have a rather clear (if mistaken) observation of Engels: the Paris Commune was a dictatorship of the proletariat. (Actually, it appears that the Parisian artisan class played the leading role in the Commune.)
Leninists sometimes argue, not without justification, that their "transitional states" were creative adaptations to backward conditions in Russia, China, etc.
Not creative enough, evidently.
Meanwhile, I consider the totality of Marx's work...in which both he and Engels emphasized the emancipation of the working class in the advanced capitalist countries. Their vision of a proletarian state, to the extent they were explicit, emphasized the need to repress the old ruling class...and not the erection of an immense new bureaucratic state apparatus to dominate and even exploit the working class "in the name of the workers".
Thus it is my view that attempting to apply the Leninist version of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in an advanced capitalist society is misguided on two counts: (1) It is disconnected from objective material conditions here; and (2) It's based on a fundamental mis-reading of how Marx and Engels saw things happening in countries like this one.
I contend that there will be a "transition period" and the old ruling class will be repressed; but that these tasks can and will be accomplished without ever creating a formal state...a "political center of gravity" where elite-wannabes may gather.
I further contend that measures to establish communism will begin at once and be deliberately and consciously extended throughout society by the workers themselves.
Realistically, we will not be able to do "everything" all at once...but I think it is imperative to push forward and not be diverted into the task of creating a "new & improved" version of class society.
The Leninist-Maoist paradigm posits that diversion and insists that it's unavoidable.
Well, we'll see about that, won't we.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on May 18, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I don't see why "dictatorship of the proletariat" would mean anything but a state of some sort.
"Of some sort" is the key phrase here; in Marx's view it was a "state" but one that would begin to "wither" immediately. Its only real "task" was to "finish the job" of suppressing the old ruling class.
I agree with you that in Marxism, methodology is what is really important...not the "sacred words".
Marx and Engels made mistakes...some of them trivial and some of them more serious.
Contemporary Leninist-Maoists might argue, for example, that old ruling classes and their ideologies are much more "tenacious" than Marx and Engels anticipated...that a "fully developed" state, with armies, police, prisons, etc., is required to prevent counter-revolution.
Moreover, they might go even further and say that such a state cannot be "democratic" in the "formal sense" of the word; a vanguard party must be in full control of that state if the present and future class interests of the proletariat are to be protected and extended.
Lenin, Stalin, Mao and yes, even Trotsky, all agreed on this interpretation of Marxism.
I, of course, do not agree.
quote:
Marx and Engels were scientific socialists and did not make a habit of remaining vague, let alone vague on something as central to Marxism as proletarian dictatorship!
Well, if you want the "full text", re-read Lenin's State and Revolution...he cut & pasted every scrap that Marx and Engels wrote on the subject that he could locate.
Later, he publicly complained that all of the previous socialist writers had not explained or explained inadequately "what to do after we've seized power".
Yes, I'm afraid Marx and Engels were quite "vague" about what would happen after the revolution.
quote:
I don't think anyone on this board would claim the Russian and Chinese revolutions were without shortcomings, but what are your objections?
In a single word, they were despotisms.
Neither the workers nor the peasants had any real political power over matters of real substance.
The political trends that did attempt to gain some real power for the workers (the Workers' Opposition in the Bolshevik Party and the Shanghai Commune) were dispersed.
I try to avoid, as best I can, disputes over how benign or malevolent those and similar despotisms were...the issue, in my view, is who really has power? and not the angelology/demonology that is still too popular on the left.
The Leninist paradigm's core assertion is that the party must have the power or..."all is lost".
I think the totality of the work of Marx and Engels asserts that the power must actually be in the hands of the working class as a whole.
Yes, even the "backward ones"...who must be struggled against, of course.
quote:
Sure, but they never ruled out the viability of socialism in other countries... and even if they did, so what? It's viable and it's been done.
Yes, but I think there is a scrap somewhere where Marx briefly reflects on what would happen if you tried to make a socialist revolution in a pre-capitalist or semi-capitalist country...what you'd end up with he called "Prussian socialism" or "barracks communism".
Sure enough, that's what happened.
quote:
How is it disconnected from "objective material conditions"?
Both Lenin and even more so Mao were trying to make revolutions in very backward countries...where the means of production in a modern sense hardly existed at all.
That's obviously not the case for us.
As a crude if limited example, consider the RCP's campaign to "build up" Bob Avakian as a "leader". This obviously derives from Mao's own practice, which "worked" in a country full of ignorant and superstitious peasants. (It "worked" for Stalin as well).
It did not work in Eastern Europe; it has no chance in the "west".
Our material conditions have permanently (I think) subverted the idea of "a great leader", "fountain of all wisdom", etc. We don't think like that any more.
Or, at least, that's the trend and it's accelerating. I've been reading complaints for the last three decades from all over the political spectrum..."people don't respect their leaders", "the principle of legitimate authority is under attack", blah, blah, blah.
If the working class is really going to emancipate itself, this is exactly what you'd expect to find in the very early stages of that process.
As in so many ways, capitalism prepares the ground for its own destruction...and the destruction of the very possibility of any kind of class society ever again.
quote:
How is it based on a fundamental mis-reading?
You know that Marx and Engels, at least in 1847, didn't think communists should even have their own party. Communists should be in other working class parties advancing communist ideas there.
And, in fact, they never formed a political party of their own or held an official position in any party. (Engels worked quite closely with Bebel, Liebknecht Sr., and the young Kautsky of the German Social Democratic Party...but I don't believe he was even a member, unless I am mistaken.)
Why not? I think it's because Marx and Engels essentially focused on the mass uprising of the proletariat in the advanced capitalist countries...and were dismissive of the efforts of small groups to "hasten" that process.
There's an aphorism that may be appropriate here. Marx compared communists to midwives. We could "ease" the birth-pangs of the new society...but that's all. We could not and cannot give birth ourselves; only the proletarian masses can do that.
Thus the idea that a Leninist vanguard could "lead" a massive uprising of the proletariat in an advanced capitalist country makes no more sense than the idea of a midwife "leading a birth".
quote:
But how is the bourgeoisie to be repressed without a proletarian dictatorship?
Is a Leninist state the only possible form that the dictatorship of the proletariat could take?
I think not.
quote:
Proletarian states belong to the international proletariat and exist to advance the international class struggle. A proletarian state must keep this aim at the centre of all its work.
Well, if you want us to form a "red army" and go marching off on a crusade to liberate the rest of the planet (whether they desire liberation or not), then you will very definitely require a Leninist despotism. Nothing else will serve to create a massive conscript army, professional officer corps, advanced weapons of mass destruction, etc.
If your goals are more modest, on the other hand, then you really don't need a state apparatus.
My personal opinion is that making revolution for others is not the way to go.
By all means, we should give reasonable assistance to revolutionaries in other countries where practical and refuge to those who must leave or be killed.
Crusades? No.
quote:
Is this a reference to the new-democratic revolutions in semi-colonial, semi-feudal countries? If so, how would you like to see it done?
Actually, I'm referring to the advanced capitalist countries. Maoism was developed in response to objective material conditions in semi-colonial, semi-feudal countries and...it works!
The "socialism" you'll get will be poor (and won't last) and communism is out of the question...but the imperialists will be expelled, the old colonial bourgeoisie will be exiled, there will be real land reform, modern techniques of production will be introduced, people will learn how to read and write...and see a doctor for the first time in their lives, etc., etc., etc.
Maoism has a "good track record" in bringing backward countries "up to date"...modern capitalism, to be precise.
I have no criticisms to make in that regard...how could I? The colonial bourgeoisie were not going to do it; the old landed aristocracy were not going to do it; and any modernization carried out by the imperialists would be extremely limited and on the worst possible terms for the neo-colony.
So I'm quite happy to cheer for the Maoists in the "third world" from the sidelines; may they kick imperialist ass!
Here, things are...different. Maoism doesn't "fit" here, at all. The working class in the advanced capitalist countries does not need "guidance" or "leadership" from a small elite...and indeed, deeply resents such pretensions.
"Follow me & I'll set you free" provokes scorn and derision, not hope or even respect.
Some (on the left as well as on the right) think that this attitude is the victory of "corrosive cynicism".
I think it's the beginning of real proletarian wisdom.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on May 19, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
============================================ |
|
| |
|
|
Navigation |
·
Welcome
·
Theory
·
Guest Book
·
Hype
·
Additional Reading
·
Links
·
Contact
|
|
Latest Theory
Collections |
· Communists Against Religion -- Part 19 June 6, 2006
· Conversations with Capitalists May 21, 2006
· Vegetable Morality April 17, 2006
· Parents and Children April 11, 2006
· The Curse of Lenin's Mummy April 3, 2006
|
|
Defining Theory
Collections |
·
What Did Marx "Get Wrong"? September 13, 2004
·
Class in Post-Revolutionary Society - Part 1 July 9, 2004
·
Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement November 13, 2003
·
A New Type of Communist Organization October 5, 2003
·
The "Tools" of Marxism July 19, 2003
·
Marxism Without the Crap July 3, 2003
·
What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
What is Communism? A Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
A New Communist Paradigm for the 21st Century May 8, 2003
·
On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts May 8, 2003
|
|
Random Quote |
| The universe was not "built" with a sense of "morality".
|
|
Search |
| |
Statistics |
|
·
Duplicate entry '1152057925' for key 1 | |
