Lenin's Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder

[RedFlag32]

Ok comrades this is the first study subject. Below is the full document. It is up to you if you want to read the whole thing or not but i would ask you not to discuss anything other than the sections we are on at the time.

Full Document
www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm

Here is the first two sections, to be studed and read by next tuesday, at that time we will spend a week discussing them and the following tuesday we will progress onto the next sections.

This way we will have a week of study and a week of discussion,it will hopefully break it up a bit and make the reading of the next section something to look forward to.

Happy learning revolutionaries

Section1
www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch01.htm


Section2
www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch02.htm

[dangeresque]

since the first two passages are so short, would anyone mind reading them sooner than Tuesday - say Saturday?

[RedFlag32]

Yes i think thats a good idea mate,so anyone who has any questions or anything they want to say about this section of the article can fire away.I think we will see how the discussion is going aswell during the week,i might put the next section up sooner than we planned. I am in the process of moving my pc comrades so my activities in this first two sections may be limited,dont think im not interested,as soon as my pc is in my new place ill be back as normal.

[RedFlag32]

I took from these sections two things. One was the importance of or realizing the inevitability of social revolution around the world (internationalism of the Russian revolution) and second was the absolute importance of discipline within a revolutionary party.

I'm not sure if i got the first stab at what he was saying correct so I'm open to criticism of my take on it. He was talking about the international element in the revolution in the first section,what was peoples take on what he was trying to say?

The second section dealt specifically with the party as an instrument for workers emancipation, he put discipline,the class-consciousness of the party,its ability to merge with the working class,and the correctness of its theory as absolutes if it wants to succeed.

This throws up a few questions,he states that the dictatorship of the proletariat was successsfull in the revolution in Russia,but was it?

Another statement which i would like others opinion on is where he talks about the "backward strata" of the working class and how the influential sections of the working class can carry them along.Can we apply this to the "backward strata" within the Irish working class,namely "unionism" or am i completely wrong?

[quirk]

In the first paragraph when Lenin talks of the "historical inevitability of a repetition, on an international scale, of what has taken place in our country. It must be admitted that certain fundamental features of our revolution do possess that significance. " the fact is that history has proven him wrong. I think communism has(or at should have) moved beyond a belief that it is inevitable in the sense in which Lenin is talking of here although I have read that communism is inevitable in the sense that it will either happen or the world will be destroyed by capitalism/imperialism and the horrors which arise from it such as war and enviromental degredation. revcom.us/a/1266/avakian-martin-post-inevitablist-marxism.htm

Chapter 2 points out the necessity of a disciplined vanguard party (leninist party) without which he correctly points out the revolution would not have been sucessful or have survived. The problem which he cannot possibly realise at this time is that counter revolution can and will come from within this party as happened in both the USSR and China

[dangeresque]

Comrades through up a lot of great points here, and I'll respond fully as well as adding my own thoughts tomorrow.

[dangeresque]

redflag32 said:

This throws up a few questions,he states that the dictatorship of the proletariat was successsfull in the revolution in Russia,but was it?

I would say it undeniably was a dictatorship of the proletariat early on, but was constructed under the worst conditions possible and so suffered a lot of defeats and reversals of the gains made.

redflag32 said:

Another statement which i would like others opinion on is where he talks about the "backward strata" of the working class and how the influential sections of the working class can carry them along.Can we apply this to the "backward strata" within the Irish working class,namely "unionism" or am i completely wrong?

I think that's a good application of that theory, and an example of why imperialism is such an impediment to class consciousness.

[dangeresque]

quirk said:

In the first paragraph when Lenin talks of the "historical inevitability of a repetition, on an international scale, of what has taken place in our country. It must be admitted that certain fundamental features of our revolution do possess that significance. " the fact is that history has proven him wrong. I think communism has(or at should have) moved beyond a belief that it is inevitable in the sense in which Lenin is talking of here although I have read that communism is inevitable in the sense that it will either happen or the world will be destroyed by capitalism/imperialism and the horrors which arise from it such as war and enviromental degredation. revcom.us/a/1266/avakian-martin-post-inevitablist-marxism.htm

Chapter 2 points out the necessity of a disciplined vanguard party (leninist party) without which he correctly points out the revolution would not have been sucessful or have survived. The problem which he cannot possibly realise at this time is that counter revolution can and will come from within this party as happened in both the USSR and China

I think history is not far enough along to say whether or not Lenin was correct about the inevitability of communism. The prediction is made based on dialectics, that quantitive changes (the world gains a proletarian majority) become qualitive changes (proletarian majority builds socialism).

If we were sitting around in the early 19th century, it would be easy to say, the democratic revolutions were a failure, since France and most the other democratic revolutions were overturned by counter-revolution. Folks just like us would be tempted to say, we're never going to achieve the republic, and the aristocracy will always be around. Then came 1848 and a wave of democratic revolutions swept Europe. Most revolutions are initially overturned and reversed - it takes a few major revolutions before they 'stick'.

Your second paragraph brought up some really insightful points about a disciplined party being a double edged sword. You're correct that the disollution of the SU came from just a few bureaucrats at the top who couldn't be stopped by the people below them. We've got to find a way to keep the party truly democratic and more importantly in touch wtih the masses as Lenin advocated.

I'll come back in a bit with some of my own thoughts.

[quirk]

I think history is not far enough along to say whether or not Lenin was correct about the inevitability of communism. The prediction is made based on dialectics, that quantitive changes (the world gains a proletarian majority) become qualitive changes (proletarian majority builds socialism).

I think when Lenin talked about the inevitability of revolution he was talking of the immediate future. In this he was wrong. Also I think that capitalism has found new ways of coping with its internal contradictions which Lenin could not have foresaw at this time.

I still hope we will and can achieve a communist world but even if this does happen does it mean that it was inevitable in the first place?

[dangeresque]

quirk said:

I think history is not far enough along to say whether or not Lenin was correct about the inevitability of communism. The prediction is made based on dialectics, that quantitive changes (the world gains a proletarian majority) become qualitive changes (proletarian majority builds socialism).

I think when Lenin talked about the inevitability of revolution he was talking of the immediate future. In this he was wrong. Also I think that capitalism has found new ways of coping with its internal contradictions which Lenin could not have foresaw at this time.

I still hope we will and can achieve a communist world but even if this does happen does it mean that it was inevitable in the first place?

ok, yeah I'd agree with you there. That was also the mistake Marx made; it says in the communist manifesto that proletarian revolution would immediately follow bourgeois revolutions. Marx didn't realise what a massive role imperalism would play in stunting revolution and Lenin pointed this out - and how it could be dealt with.

I would argue its inevitable due to the rise of the proletariat and changes at the point of production that make capitalism a less effective economy system than a gift economy would be.

[quirk]

Well you could be right but just because capitalism is less effective does not mean that it will not survive. There is also the fact that a large number of the prolatariat have become bourgeoisified.

[dangeresque]

Maybe this sounds like a stupid question, but sevearl times he says he uses the phrase internationalism 'in the narrowest sense'. Does anyone know what that means?

from Lenin (quoting Kautsky):

To Western Europe, Russia has long ceased to be a bulwark of reaction and absolutism. I think the reverse is true today. Western Europe is becoming Russia’s bulwark of reaction and absolutism.... The Russian revolutionaries might perhaps have coped with the tsar long ago had they not been compelled at the same time to fight his ally—European capital.

I think this is a valid observation that can be applied to many situations today- in a number of countries the workers and peasants could have coped with 'their own' ruling class were there not imperialists to intervene against them. The ruling class is international, so we can't win until we are as well.

the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is increased tenfold by their overthrow (even if only in a single country), and whose power lies, not only in the strength of international capital, the strength and durability of their international connections, but also in the force of habit, in the strength of small-scale production. Unfortunately, small-scale production is still widespread in the world, and small-scale production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale. All these reasons make the dictatorship of the proletariat necessary, and victory over the bourgeoisie is impossible without a long, stubborn and desperate life-and-death struggle which calls for tenacity, discipline, and a single and inflexible will.

Although I mostly agree with him, there's a portion of this at least that is out of date. Aside from agriculture, small scale production is no longer the norm. That's actually one tremendous advantage we have over revolutionaries in earlier time periods. It's much more difficult to organise and overcome a million little bosses in a variety of workshops than a few big ones.

The first questions to arise are: how is the discipline of the proletariat’s revolutionary party maintained? How is it tested? How is it reinforced? First, by the class-consciousness of the proletarian vanguard and by its devotion to the revolution, by its tenacity, self-sacrifice and heroism. Second, by its ability to link up, maintain the closest contact, and—if you wish—merge, in certain measure, with the broadest masses of the working people—primarily with the proletariat, but also with the non-proletarian masses of working people. Third, by the correctness of the political leadership exercised by this vanguard, by the correctness of its political strategy and tactics, provided the broad masses have seen, from their own experience, that they are correct. ... They are created only by prolonged effort and hard-won experience. Their creation is facilitated by a correct revolutionary theory, which, in its turn, is not a dogma, but assumes final shape only in close connection with the practical activity of a truly mass and truly revolutionary movement.

I think that passage is extremely vital to understand and can't be overestimated in how important it is to a revolutionary party. Without a connection to the masses to guide us we'd become elitists and ultimately irrelevant.