Posts Tagged ‘Lenin’
Ipswich Workers’ Militia: Ready for the ‘Actuality of the Revolution’.
“The actuality of the revolution: this is the core of Lenin’s thought and his decisive link with Marx. For historical materialism as the conceptual expression of the proletariat’s struggle for liberation could only be conceived and formulated theoretically when revolution was already on the historical agenda as a practical reality; when, in the misery of the proletariat, in Marx’s words, was to be seen not only the misery itself but also the revolutionary element ‘which will bring down the old order’.”
Counterfire publishes this:
While thousands across the country have been attending rallies for Corbyn, and while the Labour establishment is in unprecedented disarray, some “thoughtful” and prominent former supporters of Corbyn have succumbed to self doubt and pessimism. This article will argue that the arguments they use reflect a way of thinking that has – throughout the last century – meant that many movements with the objective strength to defeat the right have floundered and failed. We will call this way of thinking vertigo and we will show how the great Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs identified the cure for vertigo at the heart of Lenin’s thought.
In Corbyn: momentum meets vertigo Counterfire’s Dave Moyles has no doubt that the main problem of the left is those infected by “doubt and pessimism”.
Standing on the ledge of a great peak, they look at the abyss beneath and not upwards to the heavens.
The fears driving them can be easily summarised:
The waverers typically make two key points. First that when they backed Corbyn for leader last year they never expected him to win, but rather to “shift the terms of debate”.
Second, now that he has won, they argue, we are teetering on the edge of a precipice. The wave of enthusiasm could easily turn to despair. Just as defeat of Michael Foot laid the groundwork for Tony Blair (in a very telescoped, teleological view of history) so will this success be followed by defeat that could see the whole left destroyed. And the cliff on which we are standing is crumbling in the face of attacks from the media, the PLP and the Tories. Be afraid, be very afraid.
Take courage comrades! Look, he asks us, at the Russian Revolution! Or just The Revolution.
The Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs identified the cure to vertigo as the core uniting principle behind Lenin’s thought: the actuality of the revolution.
…seen from the perspective of the actuality of the revolution, the question is how do we maximise the level of political organisation, confidence and radicalism across the mass of ordinary people; how do we turn what has traditionally been the second party of British capitalism into a transformative force; how do we weaken the power of the British state to resist this movement. Then the answer is very clearly Corbyn – and the mass rallies, mass membership, organisation of resistance to the PLP that is going on as part of the Corbyn movement. Then a question like Scotland is easy to answer – don’t be so blinkered as to worry about numbers in Westminster – the Scottish question is about fundamentally weakening the British state.
No need to worry about the bourgeois SNP….nationalism…
It’s all about the ‘state’.
Where to to now?
Counterfire is there to help sort things out..
Counterfire today argues for its members to be at the heart of the movements at the same time as focusing on the big picture – and we ask our members to discuss and debate the best strategy for these movements. Our website and our paper connect the struggle and point to a socialist strategy within them. But it is clear an organisation of the sort Lenin envisaged would have to be far bigger and incorporate many activists who today are part of no organisation – as well as some who are currently part of other organisations. We will need this if the energy and desire for change captured by the Corbyn movement is going to be able to keep rising and achieve real transformative change.
Lukacs and Lenin teach us to be more ambitious – we should be storming the gates of heaven.
Counterfire’s long-standing strategic faults are laid bare in this lyrical article.
They have a common source, Lenin as read through Lukács.
Not just Moyles but their leader Rees has written that we need to grasp “the laws of historical development; to detect the part in the whole and the whole in the part; to find in historical necessity the moment of activity and in activity the connection with historical necessity.” (1)
This approach means that in every “concrete analysis of the concrete situation” one can trace the operation of an inexorable dialectic. Inside of which a revolution is about to burst reality asunder.
Rees has something in common with John Holloway’s views in Crack Capitalism (2010), that capitalism produces an endless series of ‘cracks’ in which revolutionary sparks fly.
The major difference is while Holloway is only too glad to let every sparkle shed its own light, Rees considers that it is the task of the Revolutionary Party/Network to gather them up. It is a kind of filter that collects together all the rational elements of revolt, binds them together, and hurls them against capitalism. It is the fuse that once lit enables the working class to become the ” absolute subject-object of history.”
It is, in short, a practical-theoretical embodiment of class consciousness.
Behind this is a fundamentally awry take on Marxism.
Whatever the merits of Rees’s magnum opus on dialectics, and his analysis of Lukács, from Lenin to History and Class Consciousness, the application of the ‘dialectic’ is not only barely ‘mediated’ by politics, (or more crudely, reality) it is “expressive” at every moment.
Moyles expresses this to the point of caricature: from Corbyn Rally to Revolution it is but a step.
Can we dismiss the weight of right-wing ideology, nationalism, the views of the general public, the rightward drift across the whole of our Continent, the decades long hegemony of conservative ‘neo-liberal’ ideas affecting social democracy itself , the present Tory Government, the lack of actually existing successful example of economic alternatives to capitalism, not to mention the Fall of Official Communism, the failure of ‘anti-imperialism’, the power of Capital?
Are they all about the vanish faced with the cunning of Proletarian Reason?
That the revolution is both actual (in the English sense, real) and ‘actuel’, in the sense used in many European languages, present?
Does anybody else seriously believe that the present disputes in the Labour Party will end with Jeremy Corbyn heralding the Revolution?
That “an organisation of the sort Lenin envisaged” is about to emerge?
People involved with the, the People’s Assembly, the anti-austerity alliance dominated by Counterfire leadership, not to mention the Stop the War Coalition in which the same group is heavily involved, should perhaps be informed of how Rees, German and Moyles consider their role in creating this “organisation”.
And no doubt the ‘Corbyn movement’ as well.
Although given that Rees and mates, echoed in the dwindling People’s Assembly, have claimed that the Tories threatened a “coup” during the last General Election, that the Brexit vote was a great “opportunity” for the ‘left”, it’s unlikely that there are many people around who take this lot seriously.
(1) Counterfire’s Jon Rees outlines his highly individual account of Lukacs in The Algebra of Revolution. The Dialectics and the Classical Marxist Tradition. John Rees. Routledge 1998. See the indulgent review by Alex Callinicos The Secret of the Dialectic (1998).
(2) John Rees (Extracts) Strategy and Tactics: how the left can organise to transform society. Counterfire’s Site). 2010.
Obsolete Leninism: the Left-Wing Alternative.
“Corporate bodies are more corrupt and profligate than individuals, because they have more power to do mischief, and are less amendable to disgrace of punishment. They feel neither shame, remorse, gratitude, nor good-will.”
William Hazlitt. On Corporate Bodies.
The SWP Special Conference is over. An initial assessment states, it “was extremely disappointing, even for those of us who didn’t expect much by way of surprises. The opposition was weak and scant; the level of debate very low and the CC was hardly pressed at all on any single count.” “The problem is not the numbers, comrades, but the party’s deeply entrenched culture of obedience to a (less and less) “charismatic” leadership.” The Corporate body could do not wrong…..
Others are more dramatic,
And so it is that the rigged conference has taken place, the leadership has secured its victory (though it may well be a Pyrrhic victory) and the opposition has been crushed. Rage and despair will be the natural reactions; however, it’s a good time to pause a moment and take stock.
The leadership is morally bankrupt
Let’s be blunt. The most pressing issue facing the SWP is simply this – is it a safe place? On the face of things, no; on the face of things, the majority of delegates today don’t think that is at all important.
The Party’s underlying difficulties remain. The SWP, culture or not, is the largest left organisation to the left of the Labour Party, and is important within many protest campaigns, and, to a lesser degree, in some trade unions. But it has never come close to offering the ‘leadership’ of the working class and oppressed to which it aspires. In over three decades it has not grown beyond a few thousand members. In recent years it has shrunk.
Weeks of debate on the left have shown that the SWP’s politics and organisational culture are widely challenged. Its inability to deal appropriately with allegations of sexual abuse in its own ranks, its bullying, its ad hoc changes in line, its ‘bureaucratic centralist’ methods to deal with dissent, have been talked over in pages of Web and printed criticism. Many have raised fundamental issues, about the SWP’s Leninism (with, or without, inverted commas), feminism, and the role of political parties in the socialist movement.
Now we are at point where some conclusions can be offered about the causes of this crisis. They indicate, as some have argued, that the Leninist political model that the SWP follows, has serious flaws. The view that an injection of democracy – “true” democratic centralism – can help is, this short piece will argue, not an answer to much deeper difficulties. These come from the impasse of the ‘revolutionary party’ project inspired by Lenin and Trotsky in present day Europe.
- Since the 1980s the conditions in which European left politics operate have been fundamentally changing. The State, the instrument of reform, or something to be ‘overthrown’, has been transformed. The EU fulfils an important regulatory role, and the ‘markets’ shape fiscal demands. In every country the pattern of ‘market states’, in which governments do not just privatise utilities, but hive off a large part of their main functions to private companies, has spread. Political institutions continue to express the electorate’s views by representatives, but a large part of public policy is shaped elsewhere, by financial pressure, and by the organised lobbies of the new state funded bourgeoisie. In these conditions those who promote more markets, more funds for these companies, and more privileges for those with money promote their plans as modernising reforms. Against them left-wing genuine reformers and the revolutionaries who once wished to ‘smash’ the state are often united around the defence of the social democratic institutions of equal public services and welfare provision.
- It is often sweepingly asserted that ‘market societies’, and what was once called ‘post-modernist’ culture, mean that the populations of the West have become politically fragmented, ‘atomised’, and resistant to the ‘grand narratives’ of the left. People turn in on their private lives, their families and friends, and lack the ‘ancient republican’ virtue of dedication to public things. Similar claims go back to the 1920s, if not back to the birth of bourgeoisie society. This may be partly rhetoric. But what has clearly altered nevertheless is the decline in mass participation in political and civil society organisations.
- The disengagement from social and community involvement is harder to explain than a few words about individualism or the spin off from ‘commodification’. In the US one of the longest periods of civic engagement began with the pre-Great War Progressive Age, and even peaked during the 1950s Boom years. (Bowling Alone Robert D. Putnam. 2000) By the 1990s this had weakened, people no longer volunteered, and smaller and smaller numbers of people came along to take up positions in ageing organisations. He looked to change though a new generation of “social capitalists”. We could consider David Cameron’s – failed – experiment in the Big Society to be inspired by this call. Parts of Labour’s One Nation strategy, underpinned by initiatives such as Food Banks for the worthy needy backed by Policy Review chief, Jon Cruddas, are also part of this approach.
- Putnam partly charged television with helping to draw people away from civic responsibility. ‘Social capital’ is now being accumulated in radically different ways, some of which may help re-engage people in more radical directions. Technology has been recast through the Web, (which I am using at this very movement) offering ways of connecting. This can give the impression that “it’s all kicking off” via the Net. This can sometimes be proved through real events (the Arab Spring); sometimes it bolsters less substantial movements, like Occupy! Every single day political initiatives are mobilised, meetings held, demonstrations planned, through this means, and people’s views are broadcast and challenged directly across wide geographical areas.
- How do political parties connect to these developments? It would appear that there are reasons to think they may be obstacles. In Political Parties (1911) Robert Michels claimed that there was an “iron law of oligarchy’. Left parties were groups of a mixture of classes (despite their claims to represent the workers) with “special interests” that tended to form “stable and irremovable” leaders, the “domination of the elected over the electors” He based his judgement on the view that as organisations that aimed to capture state power they would adopt the structures of the public administration, of this.
- More recently John Holloway has claimed that Leninist parties reproduce an oligarchy of knowledge, between the “knowers” in the party and the masses. The Party is equipped with Marxist science and the skills to lead. The rest, even if initially ‘self-organised’ are bidden to follow. This “monological political practice” goes against “non-fetishised, self-determining social relations.” (Change the World Without Taking Power. 2nd Edition. 2005)
- There is nothing inevitable about political organisations operating in this way. The modern dominant paradigm for parties is not state administrative bureaucracy nor an all-seeing Knower but the company ‘flexible’ organigramme. The Parliamentary parties themselves are not US style Caucuses, or, miniature Republics of Barons on the model of the French 4th Republic. They are Leadership-run, subject to rare rebellion. The arms-length (proto-hived off) Civil Service Departments limit the Leader’s power, if only in framing the realm of the “possible”. There are some external democratic constraints. There are figures who would like to base their mass membership operations on a small policy team, alert to political marketing, and a loose, affiliated membership that would operate as their sales-teams and, partly, as collectors of public opinion. In the Labour Party a union and constituency influence persists which defies this trend. It has yet to show much success.
- The SWP has not been able to offer an alternative. The Party’s Central Committee acts both as a semi-permanent oligarchy, and the Knower, determined to tell people what to do. In reality its ambitions over the years have become more modest. Public use of the Marxist phrase the ‘united front’ (now for party inner consumption only) gave way to the American expression ‘coalition’ (an alliance of pressure groups) for its campaigns. Its bizarre hostility to the Internet – evident in the Coherence where dissident Blogs were their major problem – is another indication of an inability to think boldly on the present day political terrain.
- An alternative to the SWP, and other Leninist models on the left, would begin from democratic organisation in the era of the Internet. It would not be a Leadership run body, but a democratic socialist project that drew in the left around a bottom-upward synthesis of people’s experiences and ideas about socialism. Lenin is said to have talked of “practical workers” as the key to a socialist party, but today we can all become practical-theoretical workers. The minimum programme needed to transform the Market States of the world into socialist societies should dominate our political framework. In the absence of a ‘party’ we have our practice.
- A project for a democratic ‘citizens’ revolution’, backed a variety of parties, and small groups. exists. In France. It is called the Front de gauche (left Front). It is not democratic centralist, but a bloc of independent bodies and individuals. We could begin by learning from this not from 1917.
Georges Sorel in La Décomposition du Marxism (1908) described the first ‘Crisis of Marxism’. Before the Great War he talked of the absence of a revolutionary proletariat and the growth of “constructive trade unionism”, that is mass reformism, and the support for “evolutionary socialism” this gave. Against this ‘reformist’ trend Sorel developed his theory of ‘myths’, heroic projections of the future that could not be falsified (L’illusion du poltiique. Shlomo Sand. 1984). Sorel fought against le politique, that is the routine administrative work of government, the compromises of state, for la politique a fundamental change in the world. How this was to come about, was left to action, not plans.
The most famous of Sorel’s myths, the General Strike, still has supporters on the United Kingdom left. Another is the Revolutionary Party. The SWP ISOP opposition declares, “The role of a revolutionary party is to fight for leadership in the class struggle. Democratic centralism is based primarily on conviction rather than discipline. The shared political perspectives required to underpin united political action are not something to be imposed, but are achieved through engagement in debate and argument and informed by experience.”
This is a fundamental flaw in a great deal in the debate about the SWP and Leninism. Lenin’s Party and is ‘Democratic centralism’, figures as a ‘myth’ not a historical reality. Or rather when it is talked about historically it is confined to one ‘good’ period – whose date wavers. Rather than discussing what happened when that party, apparently a model, took power, does not get discussed in the tale of the Good Bolshevik Party. It considered largely a separate issue.
Cut way the fist two sentences comrades. We need shared experience. We need united political action. We have had ample opportunity to verify the mobilising myth of Democratic Centralisation.
It has failed.
This is also worth looking at: Is this the Turning Point for the British Far left?
A ‘Heroic Scenario’. Lenin. Lars T. Lih. Reaktion Books. 2011.
“Revolutionary centralism is a harsh, imperative and exacting principle. It often takes the guise of absolute ruthlessness in its relation to individual members, to whole groups of former associates. It is not without significance that the words ‘irreconcilable’ and ‘relentless’ are among Lenin’s favourites. It is only the most impassioned, revolutionary striving for a definite end – a striving that is utterly free from anything base or personal – that can justify such a personal ruthlessness.”
Leon Trotsky (1)
The collected works of Lenin, Lars Lih observes, that line his study, make up an “intellectual mausoleum comparable to the corporeal mausoleum that still stands in Moscow.” (Page 7) If Lenin’s 55 tomes are read thoroughly, it is normally by people with a focused ideological or academic mission. Some continue to treat the writings as an encyclopaedia of Marxist knowledge; others as evidence for the prosecution against Communism. More often Lenin is cited without much fore or afterthought. The “leading political philosophers of the left” in The Idea of Communism (2010) pick from his corpus to embellish their heterodox communism. Slavoj Žižek uses Lenin’s “climbing simile”, no doubt to describe his long march through the media and academy. Bruno Bosteels ponders Lenin’s “clinical-pedagogical” attacks on “leftism”. It is fashionable to refer the ‘Leninist Party’ in terms of Alain Badiou’s critique of ‘Party-State’ form and his conception of the pure ‘Communist hypothesis’. Elsewhere John Holloway has rapidly dispatched Lenin and “the theory of the vanguard party” as the “logical conclusion” of “Engels’” view of scientific socialism. This “consciousness” has to be brought by “those who have this knowledge” into the working class. (2) More direct discussion of Lenin’s far more complex stand on the relationship between Marxism, the party, and the working class, has until recently, been largely moribund.
By contrast, Lih’s portrait of Lenin, Lenin Rediscovered: What Is to Be Done? in Context (2006) account of Lenin, is, even critics agree, at the very least, thorough. It is widely considered a landmark. Lih has shown himself less concerned to support his view by Lenin than to develop a contextual view of Lenin. For those of us unwilling or unable to pay Brill’s steep price for that book and have not ploughed through its dense argument, Lenin Rediscovered’s influence is nevertheless felt. Lih’s demolition of the ‘textbook’ view of Lenin, (reproduced by John Holloway) that those “in the know”, should bear Marxist knowledge to the ignorant working class, has become a reference point. Lih’s Lenin was supremely confident that the proletariat was ready for Marxism, that there would be no division between teachers and taught, and that socialism and the working class would ‘merge’. His presentation of the “broader historical data” about Lenin, Kautsky and 2nd International ‘Erfurtian’ Marxism, has an importance for any assessment of the Bolshevik’s relationship to other forms of socialism. This interpretation has also gained support from sections of the organised left. A large audience is now aware of its outline. (3)
Now, the lucid Lenin, a “biographical essay”, has appeared and introduces Lih’s (un-italiced) Lenin directly to a wider public. Despite Lih’s claim that its portrait of Lenin is not “particularly original”, he develops out of his earlier research much more than a conventional life of a “leading cultural figure” in the Critical Lives series. It is in many respects highly novel. Lenin offers a picture of a “romantic” Lenin, a “stubborn dreamer” as Lih cites Pisarev. He held to a “heroic scenario” of how socialists will overthrow the bourgeoisie. It is not just Lenin’s relationship to Kautsky, but also Lenin’s bond to an emotional and visionary self which makes up the Life.
But what came afterwards? How did Lenin, emotionally wedded to the importance of political freedom for socialism during most of his life, come, under his leadership of the Soviet Government, to deny political and social liberty? Lih considers that Lenin had an instrumental attitude towards democracy – that it is a means towards socialism. But here the difficulties begin. Lih compares the pre-great War Russian Social Democratic Party’s (RSDLP) division into two principal factions – Bolsheviks and Mensheviks – to a Buffy the Vampire Slayer in Season Five. The plot there revolved around Ben, a human, coexisting in the same body with Glorificus, a demon goddess (Page 111). As the RSDLP could be seen as containing two clashing persons, many consider that within Lenin there is a similar conflict within his frame: between the humane, if, as Trotsky indicated, “harsh” and “relentless”, supporter of workers’ democratic power, and the demiurge willing to create socialism at any anti-democratic cost. The post 1912 formalisation of the split in Russian socialism led eventually to the death of the Mensheviks; in Buffy both incarnations die. How did Lenin’s “dream”, invested in this organisation, contribute to a conquering political structure that singularly failed to build democratic socialism? The triumphant faction of the Russian socialist movement was consigned, as is often the case for monsters in Buffy, to Hell, that is to Stalin. What role did the tool used to achieve the victory of the Bolshevik Party, contribute to the eventual triumph of the bureaucratic autocrat?
Althusser once asserted that Lenin never offered a full theoretical account of his political practice. His texts were for “direct political use.” (4) Yet Lenin’s works (writings and acts), as presented by Lih, offer in a practical state material that suggests a real difficulty with democracy, and the nature of his ‘heroic’ projections, at the core of his politics. Trotsky flagged up Lenin’s “revolutionary centralism” as if it had purely personal results; it had effects on the Bolshevik political practice in government about which we still shudder. This essay will deal largely with these topics with a present-day bearing, and not cover the already burgeoning disputes over the historical details of Lih’s writings, which would require a much greater familiarity with the material than is available here. The ‘worry about democracy’ is, for left political activists, as will be seen, the most important issue that Lenin raises, and only begins to respond to.
“The aim of the present biographical essay is to keep the focus on both Ulyanov the flesh-and-blood personage and his rhetorical creation, N. Lenin.” (Page 13) Lenin’s chapters are laid out as if Lenin’s actions were part of an “enacted narrative.” Read the rest of this entry »
In the just issued Historical Materialism journal there is an important ‘symposium’ on Lars Lib’s Lenin Rediscovered ( another useful Review by Mike Macnair here). I have not read the original book – maybe when I have the odd sixty quid to spare I will (revised: $210.00!).
The debate centres on Lenin’s What is to do Done? (1901 and February 1902), and its significance in the development of ‘Leninism’. Lib’s aim was to demolish the ‘myth’ of this text. For many, apparently, Lenin broke from democracy. His pamphlet against the Mensheviks on the need for a centralised structure of the Russian Social Democratic Party showed the germs of a future hyper-centralised and bureaucratic state-party machine. Lenin’s support for centralisation of policy-making and day-to-day decision-taking, along with control over the party paper and tight conditions for membership, was the basis of what later became known as ‘democratic centralism’.
Lib establishes (fairly convincingly) that WITB was did not mark a radical break from 2nd International social democracy. It did not turn towards absolute centralism, and a party monopolised by full-time revolutionaries-by-trade. A degree of centralism and dedication to party-work were part of the building-blocks of any mass movement with a reasonable chance of winning power. Lib argues Lenin’s famous formulation, that socialism has to be brought from ‘the outside’ to the working class is part of ‘Erfurtian’ orthodoxy. That is the form of socialism set out by Karl Kautsky most famously in his commentary on the German SPD’s Erfurt Programme, The Road to Power.
This type of Marxist politics is grounded on the development of history (class struggle), analysis of social structure, and the role of a workers’ party in changing people’s minds, and encouraging their participation in the unfolding of socialist strategy. Lenin, Lars considers (as do most of the other contributors) based himself, in this text and his practice of the period, was democratic. He recognised the complex interaction between mass movements and the need for a professional revolutionary party. But the nature of that relationship, as other participants in the symposium indicate, remains an open question.
There is much in this discussion that will interest only those thoroughly grounded in the history of the Bolshevik Party, and, above all, those wishing to defend this or that aspect of its politics. A few short sentences cannot properly summarise this rich, and largely rewarding, debate. Much turns on Lenin’s efforts to deal with political and working class ‘spontaneity‘ through the famous ‘outside’ party intervention. This again comes down to translation (here), as Wikipedia notes,
Lih argues that even if we examine the controversial passages in WITBD we misunderstand them if we are not alive to the meanings of the words used. Some of these have been translated in such a way as to confuse or even to draw readers to the opposite of what Lenin’s real views were. Pages and pages of Lih’s book therefore are devoted to explaining why and how the word stikhiinyi, when translated as spontaneity, distorts his views; how konspiratsiia does not mean ‘conspiracy’; tred-iunionizm does not mean ‘trade unionism’ and revoliutsioner po professii should not be translated as ‘professional revolutionary.’”
Some points which have more contemporary relevance should be borne in mind.
Lib makes much of his strategy of “making strange” What is to Be Done? through a new translation. This includes an effort to make clear that the key word ‘spontaneous’ has been used (and accept as standard) to stand for the Russian Stikhinost and stikhiinyi. The Russian words have connotations, he says, of “primitiveness, uncontrolled impulses, lack of organisation” and even “violence”.
These are a lot of connotations. Spontaneity in English (and in other European languages which employ it) is understood with a different range of meanings politically, to say, in ordinary life (if we use it). The spectrum of these everyday references includes, “coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned: a spontaneous burst of applause, “given to acting upon sudden impulses”. Then we have scientific layer (of natural phenomena) “arising from internal forces or causes; independent of external agencies; self-acting. “growing naturally or without cultivation, as plants and fruits; indigenous.” In left politics by contrast spontaneity refers largely to self-acted, self-driven and, by inference, unpredictable, since a spontaneous action can crop up any time, any place, within the context that shapes any act.
Lenin both supported and opposed self-activity. Political activity located in individual decision-making t4nded to be conflated with an appeal to unpredictable reasons. The Party-form was defended as a kind of shiled against its contamination by bourgeois ideology. Lenin always, rightly, underlined the collective and taking-sides nature of politics. However, this was not just because of the negative shades of meaning attached to stikhiinyi. In Lenin’s equally important text, One Step Fowards, Two Steps Back (February-May 1904), that he opposed another side of self-decided acts (that is beyond the Marxist party’s organisation) . This is the principle that however collectively elaborated politics needs a bedrock area of individual freedom to dissent and cause upsets. His writing, In One Step…as in many other places, is littered with criticisms of this as ‘autonomism’ ‘anarchism’ and – later – liberalism. It is what became known as the contrary of ‘party-mindedness’. In time this would sanction the elimination of ‘factionalism’ when the strains of the early Soviet State (and its political militarisation) meant that the already weak sanctio for the space of a final autonomous area was swept away.
Lenin may have been as flexible as possible, within the framework of Erfurt socialism, towards the spontaneous actions of the masses (notably the 1905 Russian mass strikes, and thereafter). But he was marked by this continual side-taking against the self-activation of anyone who opposed his particular view of what socialism was.
This was shored up by a belief in the scientific basis, or objective truth, of his version of Marxism in a wide variety of fields. Critics of this aspect of Lenin’s organisational principles may have agreed, or agree, with his writings on say the Development of Capitalism in Russia (the class structure, and the conditions it laid out for socialist change, uniting democratic, working class and peasant demands). But a party-mechanism that is more than just wary of (bad) stikhiinyi but hostile to the ‘self-organisation’ of forces outside and inside Russian social democracy puts ‘scientific’ truth (an important goal – though objective assessments would be a better description) first and neglects the inherently turbulent stasis (conflict) of politics. Lenin, and the Bolsheviks in power, came to define stasis, internal party conflict, through a shift already apparent in Aristotle, as subversion, as a sign of the enemy’s acts.
The problem than about Lenin, shown in What is to be Done? is then greater than this symposium suggests. It is that it showed Lenin attempting to deal with political conflict, opposition to his views on party organisation, throughly hostile to stikhiinyi in a broad sense: the turmoil created by uncontrolled autonomy, of self-acting, of political stasis. Part of his reaction was to support centralisation, backed up by an appeal to Marxist science as a source of authority (first and foremost). Another part was to promote the ideas of Erfurt in a broader way, to encourage people to think in socialist terms and to build a party which was more than a loose federation of the like-minded. This required a seriousness that party-mindedness helped.
The symposium establishes this positive side well. Lenin’s success owes a lot to the second line of march. But other factors, as we have indicated, would later accelerate the importance of the former.
As is suggested by some of the contributors to this discussion Lib’s writings are no a true ‘Cambridge school’ attempt to unearth the contextual and historical meanings of the texts. The debate is dominated by the SWP’s efforts to find early breaks between Lenin and Kautsky – a topic Lars has no difficulty in showing is a dead-end. Lib points out, in the process, the shaky ground of SWP theory. Tony Cliff for example, smuggled in other people’s references to original Russian language sources and presented them as his own in his biography of Lenin.
If this shows how we cannot easily read the political past without our own concerns coming to the fore – perhaps it is impossible. In this potential mind-field there are not just mythologies but real power struggles at work. The author of Lenin Rediscovered does not grapple with the fact that, say, nobody has ever attempted to defend Kautsky’s Foundations of Christianity as a guide to present day debates on religion and socialism, while Lenin’s Materialism and Empirico-Criticism loomed large for a long time in discussions about Marxism and philosophy. One obvious reason is that Lenin gave his entire practical and written corpus the status of party-mindedness, and expected to draw up battle lines on anything he touched on. In this he laid down grounds that made it hard to advocate individual autonomous judgement on the whole gamut of political and theoretical problems that the Bolshevik, and later, the Communist movement confronted. This legacy is not a historical one.
Some consider that the Third International and Bolshevism, the resulting effects on all groups claiming a Leninist legacy, is marked by this tendency to be suspicious of a key aspect of democracy, individual judgement.
Which explains why, when people look at the actions of British left groups trying to create their own fronts for anti-cuts campaigns they refer to the Party deciding the Line, and to Democratic Centralism (all following Party decisions) – a myth maybe, but one made real. Party-mindedness is essential to politics, as are distinctions between friends and enemies, and the reciprocal relations (close to friendship) that a workers’ movement should foster. But Lenin beqeuthed an unattractive feature: a distrust of spontaneity, whether he considered it in terms of stikhiinyi or (since he was discussing in terms of Kautsky’s German SPD) as Spontaneität or Ungezwungenheit (that is the style of un-forced expression).