Leninism 21 – Paul Le Blanc on the revolutionary party today

Dredging the internet for articles addressing the question “are Lenin’s ideas relevant today”, the name of US activist and academic and Paul Le Blanc comes up a lot.

He has written two books that address this issue, 1989’s “Lenin and the Revolutionary Party” and “Marx, Lenin, and the Revolutionary Experience” in 2006, and these have been widely referenced and reviewed, particularly by socialists who, like Le Blanc himself (and UNITYblog) place themselves in the Trotskyist tradition.

In addition to this article, there’s an interview with Le Blanc from Monthly Review and a statement from him about why he decided to join the International Socialist Organization last year.

This article was published on the Canadian website Socialist Voice on June 25, 2008, the comments there are also worth reading.

Lenin and the revolutionary party today

by Paul Le Blanc

Paul Le Blanc was a guest speaker at the “Socialism 2008” conference of the International Socialist Organization in Chicago, June 20, 2008. This article is based on his talk.

We are focusing here on someone generally acknowledged to have been one of the greatest revolutionary theorists and organizers in human history: Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, whose intimates knew him affectionately as “Ilyich,” but whom the world knew by his underground pseudonym — Lenin. He was the leader of the Bolshevik wing of the Russian socialist movement, and this revolutionary socialist wing later became the Russian Communist Party after coming to power in the 1917 workers and peasants revolution.

For millions Lenin was seen as a liberator. Appropriated after his death by bureaucrats and functionaries in order to legitimate their tyranny in countries labeled “Communist,” he was at the same time denounced for being a wicked and cruel fanatic by defenders of power and privilege in capitalist countries — and with Communism’s collapse at the close of the Cold War it is their powerful voices that have achieved global domination. But the ideas of Lenin, if properly utilized, can be vital resources for challenging the exploitation of humanity and degradation of our planet.

There are Marxist-influenced democratic socialists who would argue that “whoever wants to reach socialism by any other path than that of political democracy will inevitably arrive at conclusions that are absurd and reactionary both in the economic and political sense.” In fact, these are the words of Lenin himself. Many critics of Lenin have pointed to his repressive policies of 1918-1922, when the early Soviet republic was engulfed and overwhelmed by multiple crises, accusing him of being the architect of the Stalinist totalitarianism of later decades. Much of my recent book Marx, Lenin, and the Revolutionary Experience (Routledge 2006) is devoted to disproving this grotesque distortion. Contrary to the claims of his detractors, Lenin’s writings reveal a commitment to freedom and democracy that runs through his political thought from beginning to end. They also reveal an incredibly coherent analytical, strategic, and tactical orientation that has relevance for our own age of “globalization.”[1]

In my remarks today I would like to do three things. First, I want to touch briefly on what I think are essentials of Lenin’s thought. Second, I want to touch on a couple of major problems that have cropped up in efforts to build organizations aspiring to be Leninist. Third, I want to talk about the necessity of building such an organization.

Leninism 21 – Hugo Chávez’s latest gift idea

Over the next month or so UNITYblog will be examining “Leninism in the 21st Century”.

We’re seeking the views of socialists and other radicals on the relevance of the Russian revolutionary’s theory of party organisation in today’s struggle against capitalism.

This week, we will start by posting articles from Marxists in the Leninist tradition who have taken a new look at Leninism over the last few years.

First up is “Hugo Chávez’s latest gift idea”, published in the US newspaper Socialist Worker, where researcher Lars Lih outlines his retranslation and re-interpratation of Lenin’s classic “What Is to Be Done?”

Has anyone heard if Chavez has presented “What Is to Be Done?” to Obama?



Hugo Chávez’s latest gift idea

Lars Lih, the author of Lenin Rediscovered: “What Is to Be Done?” in Context, which offers a new interpretation of Lenin’s 1902 book, comments on the news that Hugo Chávez has a new book ready to present to Barack Obama.

June 9, 2009

HUGO CHÁVEZ, the president of Venezuela, has announced on Venezuelan television that the next time he meets with President Barack Obama, he will give the American head of state a short book written in 1902 by one Lenin, entitled What Is to Be Done?

A surprising announcement. The last time Chávez showed his willingness to fill out Obama’s reading list, he gave him a topical book on the situation in Latin America. But what topical interest can be found in a book over a century old, written under the drastically alien circumstances of Tsarist Russia?

Besides, many of us will remember being taught about this book in a poli sci or history class. Isn’t What Is to Be Done? a “blueprint for Soviet tyranny”? Isn’t this the book in which Lenin expressed his contempt for workers--or, in any event, his worry that the workers would never be sufficiently revolutionary?

These worries, so we are told, led Lenin to advocate a party of “professional revolutionaries” from the intelligentsia that would replace a genuine democratic mass movement. All in all, isn’t What Is to Be Done? something of an embarrassment for the left--a book much better forgotten than thrust into the hands of world leaders?

Leninism 21 – Are Lenin’s ideas relevant in the 21st Century?

During the month of May (and possibly beyond) UNITYblog will examine “Leninism in the 21st Century”, and we’d like you to participate.

Contributions from Leftists (both Leninist and not) from Aotearoa (New Zealand) and around the world will be posted from the second week of May (In the first week we’ll post some existing articles off the net) [OK, running a bit behind schedule on that one!].


Old debates

Last Century versions of Lenin’s ideas were followed by socialists around the world. Many others, from left to right condemned Leninism as a fast road to dictatorship.

Even among those who call themselves Leninists, there are many interpretations of Lenin’s theory of socialist organisation. Some argue he wanted a “small party of professional revolutionaries” others a mass party of rank-and-file workers, but one where all members were committed to the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. Some say the aim of this party was to take all power in to its own hands, other to lead the working class to take power for itself.

These are old debates, but still important to anyone who sees Lenin’s ideas as relevant today – either as a guide to action, or something to argue against.

It’s the relevance of Lenin’s ideas, specifically his theory of party organisation, that UNITYblog would like your views on. What (if anything) should socialists, revolutionaries and other radicals take from Lenin and apply to the struggles of today, and what (if anything) should we reject?


New context

The context for asking these questions, include the rise of broad left parties and alliances in many countries, including Venezuela and Bolivia, where socialist revolutions are being led by broad alliances of parties and social movements, not a single Leninist organisation.

In a number of Western countries, some well-known Leninist groups appear to be abandoning Lenin’s principle of an exclusively revolutionary organisation.

Broad Left parties such as Denmark’s Red Green Alliance, Portugal’s Left Blog and German’s Left Party include revolutionary and non-revolutionary groups and individuals.

In France the Revolutionary Communist League (LCR – one of the world’s biggest Trotskyist groups) dissolved itself in order to establish the broader New Anti-Capitalist Party. Over in Australia, the Democratic Socialist Party (DSP) has also dissolved itself into the Socialist Alliance, which includes revolutionary and non-revolutionary socialists.

Here in Aotearoa, Socialist Worker, (publishers of UNITYblog) is one of several socialist groups who traditionally identify as “Leninist”. But we are also advocates of a broad left strategy and hope to see the formation of a “new workers party” or “broad left party” that includes not only reformist socialists, but also opponents of neo-liberal economics who are not socialists at all.



What is to be done (today)?

In raising the question of Leninism in the 21st Century? we are asking for your views on “what is the best way for the Left to organise today?” and “what is the relevance of Leninism to that?”

We’re asking these questions of a wide range of Leftists, many who are current or former members of Leninist groups, some who are not. So I am anticipating a wide range of interpretations about what Leninism is, let alone what is of value today.

You may find it helpful to answer the following questions, or you may prefer to address these issues in your own way. Either is fine by me:

• Are you (or have you ever been) a Leninist?

• How would you sum up Lenin’s ideas on socialist organisation?

• What are the greatest challenges facing the the Left today?

• Are Lenin’s ideas on organisation relevant in the 21st Century?

• How should we organise to meet those challenges?

Those of you who identify as Leninists or Marxists may also like to consider the following questions raised in UNITYblog’s first post on this topic Happy birthday Lenin:


• Have the former members of the LCR and the DSP have abandoned Leninism? Does it matter?


• What is the role of revolutionaries and Marxists within these broader reformists (or not explicitly revolutionary) parties?


• Was Lenin wrong to advocate organisational separation of Marxists from other socialists? Or was this idea right at the time, but not now?


Awaiting your response with interest,

David Colyer | colyer@pl.net
editor www.UNITYblognz.com

Offensive images?

A picture of Lenin in a party hat cropped from the first of these images accompanied last week’s post Happy Birthday Lenin, which announced UNITYblog’s up-coming discussion on Leninism in the 21st Century. A lively debate has already begun.

One contributor, Don Franks objected to the image of Lenin, seeing it as symbolic of UNITYblog’s supposed rejection of Leninism.

He writes:

“What is the point of that? Political images are not chosen randomly. To me it looks like you are putting some previously fun childish thing [Leninism] aside before getting on with the grown up business of the day.”

As I have said in the comments on this post, I chose the image because, “Making fun of an authority figure can open up space for critical discussion, which is my intention. I feel that this picture may help cut through the unhelpful duality of Lenin as a idol beyond question or a dictatorial hate-figure. I want to promote debate on Lenin’s legacy, from a wide range of Leftist perspectives.”

So for those who have not seen them before, here are the two “Communist Party” images. My only objection to them is that they include Stalin and Mao.

Meanwhile I have sent an open invitation to join the discussion on Leninism in the 21st Century to just about every Lefty on my email list and all members of the UNITYblog Facebook group. I'll be posting it here in a day or two.


David
UNITYblog editor

Happy birthday Lenin

April 22 was the birthday of Russian Marxist Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known to the world as Lenin.

Lenin was the founder of the Bolsheviks (later the Communist Party) and became president of USSR as a result of the 1917 October Revolution. The success of the Bolsheviks in founding the world’s first socialist government won wide support for Lenin’s ideas on how a socialist party should be organised.

But as an advocate of the overthrow of the social and economic order, Lenin was always going to be a hate figure for defenders of capitalism. Today the mainstream view (shared by many on the Left) is that Lenin was a dictator who, if not quite as bad as Stalin, certainly paved the way for him.

As for Lenin’s idea on party organisation, these are often seen as a blueprint for dictatorship, both within the party and in any country unfortunate enough to fall under Communist control.

Lenin’s fans – including UNITYblog – hold a different view. We remember that Lenin argued that “democracy is indispensable to socialism”, that he wanted “every cook” to help govern the new socialist state. That the Russian Revolution failed to achieve this goal, we argue, was because of many factors beyond Lenin and the Bolshivik’s control.

What about Lenin’s theory of party organisation?

The fundamental point was that revolutionary socialists / Marxists should form their own parties, independent from the “reformists” who rejected the idea of revolution, believing instead that the problems of capitalism could be solved through gradual reform.


Abandoning Leninism?

In the Western countries, a number of the most most well-known Leninist groups appear to be abandoning Lenin’s principle of an exclusively revolutionary organisation.

Broad Left parties such as Denmark’s Red Green Alliance, Portugal’s Left Blog and German’s Left Party include revolutionary and non-revolutionary groups and individuals.

In France the Revolutionary Communist League (LCR – one of the world’s biggest Trotskyist groups) dissolved itself in order to establish the broader New Anti-Capitalist Party.

Over in Australia, the Democratic Socialist Party (DSP) has also dissolved itself into the Socialist Alliance, which includes revolutionary and non-revolutionary socialists.

Here in Aotearoa, Socialist Worker is one of several socialist groups who traditionally identify as “Leninist”. But we are also advocates of a broad left strategy and hope to see the formation of a “new workers party” or “broad left party” that includes not only reformist socialists, but also opponents of neo-liberal economics who are not socialists at all.

This raises some big questions about Leninism and its relevance today:

Have the former members of the LCR and the DSP have abandoned Leninism? Does it matter?

What is the role of revolutionaries and Marxists within these broader reformists (or not explicitly revolutionary) parties?

Was Lenin wrong to advocate organisational separation of Marxists from other socialists? Or was this idea right at the time, but not now?

Over the next month or so UNITYblog will examine the problems of Leninism in the 21st Century.

We will start by posting several international articles from Marxists in the Leninist tradition who have taken a new look at Leninism, before sharing the views of leftists (both Leninist and not) from Aotearoa and elsewhere.