forworkerspowerfrombelow

28 02 2010

The following text was published in1982,overthenameCormack.

Itisanattempt todrawlessonsfromtheBolshevikexperience,notonly
fortheabstract theoryoftheparty,butalsofortheconcreteproblems
of communist organisation we face in the here and now, when any
emergenceof anything you might call a revolutionary party is far,
far over the horizon.

ThearticlewaswrittenbyamemberoftheCommunistBulletinGroup,
agroupwhichhad splitwiththeBritishsectionoftheInternational
CommunistCurrent.Thearticleisthereforeframedinpartasacritique
of the ICC and, tangentially, the Communist Workers Organisation,
anothergroupintheleftcommunistmilieu.Wearenotrepublishing
this article, however, for what it says about intraleft debate (the
criticismsmayormaynothavebeenvalidforallweknow).However,
the criticisms raised will be familiar to many who have adopted
dissident positions within any of the major revolutionary left
organisations.
ThefirstobjectiveofthearticleistoshowthattheBolshevikswerefar
moretolerantandpluralistintheirinternalpolitics(duringtheyears
when open revolutionary activity was possible) than is commonly
supposed; a fact which can be confirmed in detail by Alexander
RabinbowitchsbooksPreludetoRevolutionandTheBolsheviksCometo
Power.Theywereclearlysubstantiallymorelibertarian,forexample,
than the contemporary Socialist Workers Party, who justify their
organisationalauthoritarianismwithreferencetotheBolsheviks.The
article shows how strong centralising trends sat side by side with
strong decentralising trends, themselves a product of the real
immersionoftheBolsheviksinthelifeandstrugglesoftheworking
class. While criticising the monolithism on which so many
organisations rely today, the text is nonetheless concludes by
advocating a centralised party: though the careful reader will be
awarethatnotallconceptionsofcentralismareidentical,andmanyare
fromtheclassicalTrotskyistpointofviewpositivelydecentralised.

JoeThorne

AnotherLookattheOrganisationQuestion

Introduction

The one clear lesson that emerged from the recent traumatic and
confused splits within the International Communist Current is the
pressing need for a fresh look at the most central problem which
confrontstherevolutionarymovementtodaythatis,thequestionof
revolutionaryorganisation.Thesplitsweretheproductofnotsomuch
thelargenumberofpoliticaldierenceswhichbegantosurfacelatterly
in the internal debates of the ICC, nor because of the gravity and
seriousness of these dierences, but because of the inability of the
organisationtodealwiththosedierencesasafruitfulandnecessary
part of its life. Instead the dierences were finally perceived as
threateningandalienforceswhichhadtobecutoutofthebodyofthe
organisation.Inthisprocessthetendenciestowardsamonolithicand
bureaucratic practice which had always been present, became
absolutelydominant.

Thebackgroundtotheemergenceandheighteningofthedierences
withintheICCwastheupsurgeofclassstruggleatthestartofthe80s
beginningwiththeFrenchSteelStrike,movingonthroughtheBritish
oneandculminatinginthePolishexplosion.Thiswaveofstrugglewas
seen,moreorlessclearly,asasignalthatwehadenteredaqualitative
changeofperiodwithacorrespondingchangeofemphasisinourwork
as revolutionaries. Up until then the overriding priority within the
revolutionarymovementwhichhadappearedtowardstheendofthe
60s was the urgent struggle for programmatic clarity for the
reappropriation of thetheoretical lessons which had been produced
from the last revolutionary wave, and, hand in hand with that, the
struggletointegratethatclarityinthebuildingofanorganisationfrom
themassoffragmentedelementsmakingupthemilieu.BoththeICC
andtheCWOarethefruitsofthisprocess.Thescaleanddepthsofthe
class upsurge triggered o with the French Steel strike produced
undeniabletensionsinthewholeoftherevolutionarymovementaswe
triedtograpplewiththetaskoftransformingourpoliticalclarityinto
concrete and eective interventions. Within the ICC these tensions
manifestedthemselvesontheonehandasabelief thatthemodeof
functioningwehadevolvedappropriatetothesearchforprogrammatic
clarityleftusillpreparedforeectivesensitivityto,andinterventionin
thedeepeningstrugglesoftheclass,itwasfeltthatweweretooinward
looking, too concerned with the doings of endless commissions and
committeesandspenttoomuchtimeandeortspeakingtoourselves
andthatallofthisconstitutedabarriertooureortstounderstandthe
reality of the struggle. On the other hand there was the fear that
opening up to the class and attempting to relate more closely to its
activity would necessarily compromise our clarity and that we were
bending the stick too much towards intervention. These concerns
formedthebackgroundtotheincreasinglyacrimoniousdebatesonnot
onlyourinterventionsinthewaveofstrugglebutalsoonmanyofthe
ICCsanalysesoftheconjuncturalsituation.TheCourseofHistory,the
LeftinOpposition,Machiavellianismetc.

Bytheendof1981,ithadbecomeclearthatthesedebatescouldnotbe
fruitfullyconductedwithintheICC,letaloneresolvedthere.Thistextis
nottheplacetorehashortoproveallthebitterdisputeswhichledto
thesplits.Itissucientmerelytostateherethatthedebatesfoundered
on an increasingly monolithic fear of political dierences being
expressedwithintheorganisation.Debatescontinuallycameupagainst
the barrier of central organs which, in practice, and despite much
rhetoric to the contrary, tended to substitute themselves for the
organisationasawhole.Clarity,(andtheorganisationitself)wasseen
as the property of the central organs whose simple task was to
disseminate(andimpose)thatclarityontherestofus.Timeandtime
again,everycontributionofthecentralorganstothedebate,eventheir
openingcontributiontodebateswhichhadnotevenbeendefined,let
alonematured,wasconsideredtobetheICCpositionwhichhadtobe
defended against dissidents. Any notion that the central organs
shouldbetheexpressionandsynthesisoftheorganisationasawhole
was completely absent. For the ICC, clarity is produced by the
internallifeofthecentralorgans.Certainly,therankandfilearefreeto
saywhattheylikeinanendlessfloodofinternalbulletinsbutallofthis
isworthlessinthefaceofcentralorganswhotreatitlikeaschoolmaster
treatshispupilsessays,Sixoutoften.Musttryharder.

Not only was there a faulty understanding of centralisation at work

withinallthis,inwhichthemechanicsofcentralisationwasseenand
usedasadevicetosettlealldebateinfavourofthecentralorgans,butit
wascompoundedbythefactthatcentralisationwasinseparablefrom
theoperationofpersonalcliques,aHolyFamilyofcarefullyselected
spouses and chums. Central organs were selected for their
homogeneity and their ability *to work together with the bizarre
result that at a time when the organisation was being torn apart by
ferocious debates, the central organs were totally isolated from the
dierencesinanislandofpeacefulhomogeneity.Theendresultofall
this,awelterofliesandslanders,accusationsofacomradebeinga
policeagent,breakins,theftandtheparanoidsearchforenemieswho
areouttodestroytheICC,isfamiliartoeveryoneintherevolutionary
movement.Itsperhapsworthwhileaddingherelestanyonethinkthat
itsmerelysourgrapesofsplittersatwork,thatthesecriticismsofthe
operationofcentralisationintheICChasbeenmademanytimesby
elementswhostillremaininsidetheICC.

Alloftheforegoingisthebackgroundtowherewefindourselvestoday
indesperateneedoflookingattheabcsoforganisationonceagain
(andalsoindesperateneedofavoidingthetemptationofjustwashing
ourhandsofitallbysayingthatallorganisationareracketsorthat
politicalcentralisationissynonymouswithmonolithism.Itsimportant
thatmountingacritiqueoftheICCdoesntobscuretheveryrealand
considerablegainsmadebyitoverthepastdecade.

Thereforewhatwewanttodointhistextistolookonceagainatthe
lessons of the last revolutionary wave and in particular at the
experienceoftheBolshevikParty.Ratherthantakingadetailedlookat
thetheoryoforganisationorevenatthehistoryofthedebates,wehave
therathermoremodestaimofattemptingtolookagainatthehistorical
context of the debates as a start to looking at their relevance for
revolutionariestoday.

Therearethreebasicareaswewanttolookat:

1. The internal life and organisation of the Bolsheviks what was

theorised at any given time, and how that related to their actual
practice.

2. Theirrelationshiptotheclassanditsstrugglesinaneorttomapout
theparametersofwhatwemeanbyapartytakingupaleadingrolein
thosestruggles.

3. And finally a brief comparison of the general material context of

revolutionaryactivitythenandinthepresentsothatwecanbeginto
lookattheconsequencesofthedierences.

TheInternalLifeoftheBolsheviks

Its necessary to point out to both the epigones and the critics of
Bolshevism that Lenins position on the organisation question was
neverasimplecutanddriedinvariantwhichcanbeliftedandapplied,
more or less wholesale, by revolutionaries today. On the contrary,
Lenins theories, and Bolshevik practice, was a living, evolving
dynamic,inextricablylinkedtothelifeoftheclassandrootedinthe
changingmaterialcircumstances.Comradeswhoshouldknowbetter,
quitewilfullyengageinthemosthorrifyingahistoricisminorderto
justifytheirownorganisationalfantasies.

Both the councilists and the partyists have an overwhelming

tendencytofreezeLeninstheoriesatasinglepoint,usuallyatthepoint
ofWhatistobeDone,andthenusethatasadistortingprismtolook
at the unfolding of the revolutionary wave and the role of the
Bolshevikswithinit.Butthereality,ofcourse,ismuchmorecomplex
than that, both in terms of how the theory shifted and evolved in
responsetothematerialsituationandintermsofbeingabletosituate
thetheoryinitsoriginalcontextinthefirstplace.Andinadditionwere
faced with the added complexity that there frequently existed a
yawninggapbetweenwhatwassaidandwhatwasactuallydone.

Beforelookingmorecloselyatthetheory,itsnecessarytorealisethat
Leninsstartingpointwastheceaselessfightagainsttheopportunismof
aSocialDemocracyrapidlymovingintothecampofthebourgeoisie.
Leninsfightforanelitist,vanguardpartydrawnnarrowlyfromthe
ranks of professional revolutionaries has to be set against this
backgroundofthefightagainstconceptionsoforganisationwiththeir
roots in a period which was rapidly passing and which would
eventually have to be jettisoned. Everyone else within the then still
proletarian camp was arguing for mass organisations with no clear
organisational distinction between the hard core of activists and the
generalmassofsympathisersandgeneralsupporters.Leninwasclear
thatthiswasamodeoforganisationtotallyinappropriatebothforthe
needsofrevolutionaryinterventionandforthestruggleforclarity.The
wholehistoryoftheBolsheviksroleinthedebateonorganisationisthe
historyofthegrowingclarityontheneedforcompleteautonomyofthe
expressionofworkingclassinterestsandthusthegrowingpressurefor
organisationalseparationfromtheoldanddyingworkersmovement
which still clung to compromises end alliances with the liberal
bourgeoisie.Ithardlyneedstobesaidthatforrevolutionariestoday,
the argument has been won. Noone today, within the communist
movement, is arguing for mass parties with a broad and fuzzy
definition of membership nor for any kind of alliance with
progressiveelementsinthebourgeoiscamp.Andyetwestillfind
today,Leninsfightforseparationfromamovementpassingintoan
aliencampbeingquotedasadefenceforsectarianpracticestodaywithin
thecommunistmovement.Thuswesaw,forexample,theCWOatthe
beginning of their existence, refer back to the Bolsheviks fight for
separationandtothelaterfightbytheKAPDtosplitfromamovement
again passing into an alien camp, to justify their organisational
separation from the ICC. Its just one example of the tendency to
ahistorically appropriate positions from the past of the workers
movementthatweintendtodealwithinthistext.Letsbeclear.The
fightforunitytodayintherevolutionarymovementisnotthesame
unity that Lenin fought against from 1903 onwards. Bolshevik
sectarianismwasabletocontainwithinit,asweshall,see,gigantic
dierences both in theory and in practice. The need to separate
revolutionary activity from reformism and the opportunism that an
alliance between them brings is NOT on the same scale as the
dierencescurrentlyexistingwithintherevolutionarymovement.

Theory:WhatIsToBeDone

Ifwenowturntoacloserlookattheevolutionofthetheory,again,its
erroneous and ahistorical to think that Lenin and the Bolsheviks
produced the definitive blueprint for organisation in 1902 and then
proceeded to implement it and thus finally produced the successful
partyof1917.Evenacloserlookatthe19021908period(letalonethe
1917period)showshowfalsethisis.TheLeninof1903atthepointof
theoriginalBolshevik/MensheviksplitistheLeninofWhatistobe
Done?andOneStepForward,TwoStepsBack.ItistheLeninmost
familiar to the revolutionary movement and the Lenin that the
libertarians love to hate. Its the period of the fight for military
discipline within the party and of All Power to the Central
Committee.InLeninsownwords:

the organisational principle of revolutionary Social Democracy . . .

strivestoproceedfromthetopdownwardsandupholdsanextension
oftherightsandpowersofthecentreinrelationtotheparts.

There was to be no room in a revolutionary organisation for

democraticprocedures.Hecommentedthatthe2conditionsforthe
existenceofthebroaddemocraticprinciplefullpublicityandelection
toalloceswasUtopianandcouldonlybenefitthepolice.(Although
itsclearthattheconditionsofillegalityandclandestinityhadahuge
role to play in this vision, its necessary to realise that it was also
theoreticallybuttressedbyanappropriatetheoryofclassconsciousness
whichsawrevolutionaryconsciousnessaproductoftheintelligentsia).
Thiswasalsotheperiod,asweshallseelater,oftheworkingclassonly
beingcapableofaTradeUnionConsciousness.ForLuxemburg,Lenins
positionmeanttheblindsubordination,inthesmallestdetail,ofall
party organs, to the party centre, which alone thinks, guides and
decidesforall.PlekhanovcalledhimaBonapartistandTrotskycalled
himadictator.

Theresnoquestionthatwecanseeheretheemergenceofatheoryof
organisationfundamentallyatoddswiththeoneheldbythevastbulk
oftherestoftheRSDLP,butatthesametimeweshouldbeawarethat
thetheoryandpracticewerentidentical.

YetnothingabouttheBolshevikorganisationasitactuallyexistedat
thattime,justifiedTrotskyintalkingofadictatorship...Truethere
wasnointernaldemocracyintheRSDLPofthattime,butthisfactwas
quiteunconnectedwithLeninism.Intheirdaytodayactualpractice,
therewaslittletochooseinthisrespectbetweentheBolsheviksandthe
Mensheviks.DowntotheRevolutionof1905theybothemployedthe
samemethodsinwhichcooptionofleaderswastheruleandelection
theexception.
Liebman:LeninismUnderLenin

However,whenwecometotheuprisingof1905,allischanged.Both
factions,butespeciallytheBolsheviks,appliedthemselveswithvigour
to getting the elective principle accepted. We find Lenin saying
approvingly:

The,StPetersburgworkerSocialDemocratsknowthatthewholeParty
organisationisnowbuiltonademocratic basis.Thismeansthatallthe
Partymemberstakepartintheelectionofocials,committeemembers
andsoforth,thatallthePartymembersdiscussanddecidequestions
concerningthepoliticalcampaignsoftheproletariatandthatall the
PartymembersdeterminethelineoftacticsofthePartyorganisation.
(originalemphasis)
Handinhandwiththiswentadeterminedeorttocurbthepowersof
theCentralCommittee.TheBolshevikCongressof1905declareditself
infavouroftheautonomyoflocalcommitteesinrelationtotheCentral
Committeewhichsawaseriouspruningofitsauthority.Thatsnotto
saythatthePartywaswholeheartedlybehindthechangeLeninfound
himself joining arms with the rank and file of the Party against the
dogmatism and conservatism of the very committeemen he had
foughtsovigorouslyforpriorto1905.Butthedefenceoforganisational
dogma stood no chance against the most important feature of the
Partysresponseto1905andthatwasthedramaticopeningupofthe
Partytotheworkingclass.InJanuary1905therewere8,400Bolsheviks.
By spring of 1906 there were 34,000 with the vast majority of new
membersbeingworkers.ItwascleartoLeninthat,inthefermentofclass
struggle on such a scale, the rules of membership appropriate to the fight
againstthe opportunismofthe old Social Democracy, constituteda barrier
betweenthepartyanditsrelationshiptotheclass.Accordingly,hefoughtto
allowthethousandsofworkerscirclesthathadsprungup,entryinto
the Party, providing only that they were not avowedly antiSocial
Democratic. There wasnt any question either of the workers being
recruited as cannonfodder. At the 3rd Congress in 1905, Lenin is
arguing for bringing workers onto the committees in a ratio of 8
workers to 2 intellectuals. By November, hes calling that obsolete
anddemandingaratioofseveralhundredtoeverysingleintellectual.
Theresaclearunderstandingalso,thatthisopeningupoftheparty
meansachangeinstructureandinfunctioning.

Thenewformoforganisation...mustbedefinitelymuchbroader...
thenewnucleuswillmostlikelyhavetobealessrigid,morefree
morelooseorganisation
(fromthefirstletterLeninwroteonreturnfromExileinNov1905.)

DemocraticCentralismnow:

implies universal and full freedom to criticise. . . and if we have

resolvedtodrawthemassesoftheworkersintointelligentdecisionsof
partyquestionswemusthavethosequestionsdiscussedinthepress,at
meetings,incirclesandatgroupmeetings.

Thenewattitudetodebateanddiscussiontookconstitutionalformat
the1905Congresswhereitwasresolvedthat:

The Minority now has the unconditional right, guaranteed by the

Party rules, to advocate its views and to carry on an ideological
struggle.

TheresverylittlelefthereoftheBolshevismofWhatIsToBeDone.
The impact of the mass class struggle and, just as importantly, the
opennessoftheBolshevikstothatclassmovement,transformedtheold
Party of 1903 and allowed it to transcend the mode of existence
appropriatetodoctrinalconflictsandinternalquarrelsandmoveonto
theterrainofanopenoensiveagainsttheclassenemy.

Howevertheyearsofreactionwhichfollowedthecollapseofthe1905
revolution saw the return of monolithism and sectarianism with a
vengeancetotheBolshevikparty.ThecallnowwasStrengthenthe
Organisation which meant in reality, Strengthen the Central
Committee.Thedrivewithinthepartywasforabsolutehomogeneity
and adherence to the party line. The constitutional guarantees for
minoritiesandfreediscussion,thoughformallystillinexistence,were
abandonedinpractice.Itwasduringthisperiodin1909thatBogdanov
andtheVperedgroupwereunconstitutionallyexpelledfordisagreeing
with Lenins policy on the use of the Duma. It was the period of a
viciousness and unscrupulousness in polemics which wouldnt be
surpassed until the Party of the Counterrevolution, with Lenin, for
example,accusingMartovofbeingobjectivelyinthe$serviceofthe
Tsars police. The de facto split with the Mensheviks, temporarily
abandoned in 1905, reasserted itself once again and was formally
recognisedin1912.

WhenwelookinthenextsectionattheactualpracticeoftheBolsheviks
wecanseeonceagainthestunningandtransformingeecttheclass
upsurgein1917produced.ForthetheoryandpracticeoftheBolshevik
Partyitwas1905alloveragainbutonafarlargerscale.ThePartyonce
againflungitselfopentotheworkingclass,growingtenfoldinless
thanayear.InJanuary1917therewereslightlyover23,000Bolsheviks;
byAugustmostestimatesputthetotalmembershipatsomethingover
200,000. Again a very large proportion of the new members were
workers.Themonolithicandsectarianpracticesoftheyearsofreaction,
theyearsofrigidobediencetothepartyline andthedictatesofa
hierarchicalcentralism,wereshruggedoasiftheyhadneverexisted.
Throughout1917thePartycouldnthavelookedlessmonolithicthanit
did. The Party became openly the Party of Tendencies with almost
every single issue giving rise to a plethora of more or less formal
factions at every level of the Party organisation. The practical
suppressionofminoritieswhichhadtakenplaceintheyearsfollowing
the collapse of 1905 was swept away under the fresh impact of the
revolution.Throughoutthisperiodthedebateswerefierce,openand
publiconalmosteverymajorissuefromthedierencesofopinionover
the July Days, through the debates on the seizure of power, to the
polemicsoverBrestLitovsketc.TheBrestLitovskdebates,forexample,
tookplaceinthepagesofPravdaandevenwhenthedecisionhadbeen
madetheSiberianPartyorganisationrefusedtorecognisethesigningof
theTreaty.

Again,like1905,themonolithic,obedient,rigidlycentralisedpartyso
reveredbytodayspartyistsandhatedbythelibertariansisnowhereto
beseen.

Practice

IntryingtodrawlessonsfromtheexperienceoftheBolsheviks,were
not only dealing with the complexities of a changing theory
dialecticallylinkedtotheebbandflowoftheclassstrugglebutwere
also faced with the added complication of a practice which was
frequentlyatoddswith(andignored)thestatedtheoryandfrequently
ranaheadofitinamannerwhichtransformedit.Notonlyisitnecessary
tohistoricallylocatethetheoryitsalsonecessarytolocateitwithinits
actualpractice.Withoutdoingthis,thecallsforgreatercentralisationor
morelocalautonomyetc,cantmeananythingtous.Adetailedand
developedexaminationofthisisobviouslybeyondthescopeofthistext
andallwecanhopetodohereisprovideafewillustrativeexamples
whichthelietothetendencytoseetheBolsheviksonedimensionally.

MinoritiesandTendencies

Ifwelookatthequestionofhowdebateanddierenceswerehandled
withintheBolshevikParty,eventhetheorywouldbeenoughtocurlthe
hairoftheICCortheCWO.Wevealreadyseenhowtheimpactofthe
1905 revolution produced a formal commitment to the right of
tendenciestoexistandfunctionwithintheParty.Asweveseenalready
withthewaythatthedebateonBrestLitovskwascarriedoninthe
pagesofPravda,theexistenceoftendenciescarriedwithitamoreor
lessautomaticaccesstothepublicpress.ToquoteLeninin1905:

Thereisnoquestionthatliteratureisleastofallsubjecttomechanical
adjustmentorlevelling,totheruleofthemajorityovertheminority.
There is no question either that in this field greater scope must
undoubtedlybeallowedforpersonalinitiative,individualinclination,
thoughtandfantasy.

Moreover,asamatterofcourse,minoritieswererepresentedonboth
theexecutiveanddeliberativeorgansoftheParty,fromdelegationto
Congresses, to the makeup of the Central Committee and the
Politburo. In September 1917, for, example, Lenin is arguing
strenuously that all elections within the party should be conducted
aroundthequestionofsupportforversusoppositionto,participation
inthePreparliament.Thisformalconfrontationoftendencieswastobe
foundoneverylevelandbranchoftheParty.

almost all the local organisations formed into majorities and

minorities.
TrotskyquotedinLiebman

ThisincludedtheorgansofthePressalso.Thenotionthathomogeneity
withincentralorganswasdemandedbytheneedsofeciencydidnt
enterBolshevikthinkinguntilthedaysofcounterrevolutionwellafter
1917.Toquoteonecommentator:

In reality, the history of Bolshevism is a history of the struggle of

factions. And indeed, how could a genuinely revolutionary
organisation setting itself the task of overthrowing the world and
uniting under its banner the mostaudacious iconoclasts, fighter and
insurgents, live and develop without intellectual conflicts, without
groupingsandtemporaryfactionalformations?
JohnMolyneux:MarxismandtheParty

Ofcourse,therewereformallimitstothefunctioningoftendencies:

In the heat of battle, when the proletarian army is straining every

nerve,nocriticismwhatevercanbepermittedinitsranks.
However,ithastobesaidthat,fortheBolsheviks,unliketheICC,the
heatofbattlewasntdefinedasanyoldrunofthemillstrikewhich
after all was the common currency of Bolshevik life, but rather the
insurrection itself. And for Lenin, at least, it wasnt the central
committeeorPolitburowhichcoulddecidewhentosuspenddebatebut
the Congress. It also has to be said, that when the Party finally did
plungeintotheheatofbattleintherevolutionitself,farfromdebate
beingsuspended,thatwastheverytimethatdebatebecamefiercest
andmostpublic.ThedisappearanceofdebateinthehistoryoftheParty
isinextricablytiedupwiththeyearsofretreatanddefeat.

Whatalsohastobegraspedisthedegreetowhichtheemergenceand
functioningoftendencieswasntaproductofthetheoreticalclarityof
thecentralorgansbutwasfundamentallytheproductofthepressure
and influence coming from the lower ranks of the Party who were
closest to the class. As much as anything, the formal guarantee of
minorityrightswasnotsomuchmorethatareluctantrecognitionofa
defactosituation which couldnt be changed. The opening up of the
Party to the class swept away the monolithic tendencies and the
hierarchicalrespectforthecentralorganswhichinanycasewasmuch
lesssubstantialthenisusuallyimputed.

WhatisstrikingabouttheBolshevikParty(evenduringthepost1905
year of reaction) is the stunning (to our eyes} degree of sectional
autonomywhichexisted.Thepartywasstructurallydividedonmany
levels,bothhorizontally;andvertically.TherewasaTradeUnionwing,
aMilitaryOrganisation(itselfsubdividedintoarmyandnavalwings),
FactoryOrganisationsetc,and,mostofthesedivisionswere,duplicated
in the local level. In Shlyapnikovs memoirs we can find a detailed
description of the Bolshevik organisation in Petrograd which is
mindboggling in its complexity. In addition to the factory
organisationsandthevariouscentralisingorgansspringingfromthem,
there existed separate colleges for propaganda and agitation, for
literaryworkandfororganisation.Therewerealsothelegalinsurance
and hospital fund organisations and, in addition, there were many
nonterritorial groups like the Marxist Building Workers, and the
PetersburgRailwayOrganisationoftheRSDLP.Evenwithinthesingle
city of Petersburg many of these sections of the Party functioned
virtually independently with their own centralising organs and their
own means of publication the Hospital Fund even ran its own
newspaper.Thissituationwasduplicatedacrossthecountryonahuge
scalewiththetendencytowardautonomymassivelystrengthenedby
communications and clandestinity. For example, even after the
revolution, as late as 1919 the central committee had managed to
maintain regular communication with only 52 out of 219 uyezd
committees.

ThereexistedwithinthePartyalongtradition,eventhroughtheperiod
of monolithism, of jealously guarding the high level of local and
sectional autonomy which resulted from this situation. The Military
Organisation,forexample,hadalmosttotalautonomyandpublished
itsownpaper,SoldatskayePravda.Throughout1917itfunctionedasan
organisedtendencyoftheLeft,openlydefyingtheCentralCommittee.
DuringtheJulydayswhentheCentralCommitteewascallingforcalm,
theMilitaryOrganisationuseditspresstocallforaction.Somuchfor
unity in the heat of battle!! After the July Days, the Central
Committeetriedto exert control and despatched Stalin to insist that
theirdecisionsmustbecarriedoutwithoutdiscussion.Hewasbluntly
informedthatthiswasquiteunacceptableandtheCentralCommittee
hadtoretreatwithasmuchgraceasitcouldmuster.Duringthesame
period,thePetrogradCommitteedemandeditsownpressbecauseof
the timidity of Pravda and when the Central Committee refused, it
blithelywentaheadwithacquiringapublishingcompanyandpress.

It must be stressed that these werent isolated examples nor was it

confinedtothepoliticallymoremuscularsectionsoftheparty.Itwasa
commonplace,forexample,thatmanysmalllocalcommitteeshappily
ignoredtheformalsplitwiththeMenshevikfractionsandcarriedon
jointworkwiththemaslateasAutumn1917andinthecaseofOmsk
and Irkutsk, up until October! Space forbids any more examples
sucetosaythattheycouldbemultipliedindefinitely.

Noneoftheforegoingisanattempttoobscuretheundeniablestruggle
waged by Lenin and the Bolsheviks for the establishment of
centralisation as a principle of revolutionary organisation. But its a
strugglewhichcantbetakenoutofcontext.Itexistedsidebysidewith
aparalleltendencytowardsdecentralisationandsectionalautonomy.
The balance between the two wasnt achieved by recourse to, some
infallible blueprint for organisation invented by Lenin, but by a
dialecticalinterplaybetweentheparty,theclassandtheupsurgeofthe
revolution. The emphasis shifted according to the period and the
demands of the class struggle. In the periods of class quiescence or
defeatthestruggleagainstpoliticalopportunismtookprecedencewith
an invariable closing down of the organisation and a growth of
sectarianpractices.Withtheupsurgeofclassstruggleallthiswasswept
asidebytheinfluxofmembers.Apartywhichdoesntopenitselfupto
theclassinsuchaperiodandwhichdoesntturninresponsetoclass
pressure cant survive as a revolutionary organisation. But a party
whichdoesopenitselfuptotheclassinvariablyfindsthattheweightof
thecentralorgansdiminishes.Inthetaskofrespondingtotheclass,of
being sensitive to the class it is the lower levels of the party, the
sectionsinclosestcontactwiththeclasswhichcomeintotheirown.The
centreisinvariablymoreisolatedinthisprocessandinevitablyhasless
of a role to play. Within the Bolshevik Party we can see the formal
recognition of this in the fundamental changes which took place in
structureandfunctioningwhichtookplacein1905and1917.

Whatstandsoutaboveallisthetotalfalsenessofthemyththatthe
BolshevikPartywasawelloiledmonolith,foundedinthedisciplined
implementation of an infallible and invariant blueprint drawn up in
1902. With this myth a starting point, any attempt to draw the
appropriatelessonsfortheperiodisboundtobedoomedtodisaster.
Ontheonehandwehavethelibertarianswhomechanicallyconnect
Kronstadtto1902andontheotherhandwehavetheBordigistswho
equallymechanicallydrawalinefrom1902to1917.Andinbetweenwe
havetheelementsliketheICCandCWOwhoahistoricallypickand
choosethefeaturestheywanttoappropriateordisown.

IntheICCwehaveanorganisationwhichpridesitselfsmuglyonthe
rejectionofthemonolithismofBolshevikdemocraticcentralism.Butin
realityithascreatedamonolithicpracticeofallpowerfulcentralorgans
beyondthewildestdreamsofLeninathismostcentralised.Itsonly
deep into the counterrevolution that we see the Bolshevik Party
approachanythinglikethemonolithism,rigidityandfearofdebatethat
currentlyresidesinsidetheICC.Wewouldaskallthecomradesofthe
ICCtocomparethevitality,confidenceandfreedomofdebateofthe
Bolsheviksinternallife{evenwithalltheviciouspolemicsandinternal
guerrilla warfare), with the fear and timidity with which the ICC
approachesthepossibilityofexpressingdierencesatPublicForumsor
inthePress.Acomparisonofthetreatmentoftendenciesandfractions
initself isinstructive.FortheBolshevikswevealreadyseehow the
interplay of factions and tendencies was the very life blood of the
organisation.FortheICC,accordingtoitsstatutes,theappearanceof
organiseddivergencesmustbeunderstood:

as a manifestation either of the immaturity of the Current or of a

tendencytowardsdegeneration.

Inpracticetendencieshavenorightofrepresentationoncentralorgans,
theyhavenorighttoseparatemeetings)andcorrespondence,andcan
onlyexpresstheirdivergencesinpublicunderthecontrolanddecisions
of the Central organs, which tends to mean not at all. At the
appearanceofthelastTendencyintheICC,itwasevensuggestedthat
it was up to the organisation as a whole, (i.e. the central organs in
practice)todecidewhetherornotdivergencesshouldbecrystallisedin
the formation of a Tendency! Not surprisingly, in the face of this
practicalsuppression,noTendencyinthehistoryoftheICChasever
managedtosurvivemorethanashorttimewithoutsplitting.

InorganisationsliketheCWO,wehavetheothersideofthecoin.The
monolithismandrigidcentralismoftheBolsheviksistobeembraced
becauseit(1)allowedtheBolshevikstophysicallysurvivetheyearsof
reactionandcontinuetofunctionasapoleofclarityand(2)itwasa
methodoforganisationwhichproducedtheunityofactionnecessary
totheirvisionsofleadingtheclass.Wewilldealwiththislatterpointin
thenextsectionofthetext.Onthefirstpoint,wewanttosayfirstly,that
their own nightmare vision of monolithism and centralism, like the
ICCs,isamillionmilesfromthevitalityandfecundityofthelifeofthe
Bolsheviks.Onthequestionofsurvival,thepartyistswouldhaveus
believethatthegreatercohesionanddisciplineallowedtheBolsheviks
tosurvivetheyearsofreactionbetterthantheirrivalsintherestofthe
proletarian movement. It was a position much defended by Lenin
himself.

Of all the defeated opposition and revolutionary parties, the

Bolsheviksaectedthemostorderlyretreat,withtheleastlosstotheir
armywithitscorebestpreserved.
Lenin;LeftWingCommunism
Butitisdiculttofindanyrealityintheclaim.Alloftherevolutionary
organisationscameclosetobeingwipedoutafterthefailureof1905.In
1909,forexample,theBolshevikshadnomorethan6localcommittees
leftinthewholeofRussia.Certainlywiththerenewalofclassstruggle
and the outbreak of war, they had significantly reestablished
themselves but actually, so had the Mensheviks, the SRs and the
Anarchists, etc. We wouldnt dispute that the Bolsheviks played the
decisiveroletheydidintherevolutionbecauseofthecorrectnessof
theirpoliticalpositionsbutevenatthebest,itsarguablethatthisclarity
wasaproductoftheirsectarianism.Thereisafaircasetobemadethat
the Bolshevik Party of 1917 was constituted fundamentally on the
centralquestionsprovokedbythewar,inparticular,theespousalofa
revolutionary internationalism in opposition to the various forms of
defencism, and had little to do with the pre1914 sectarian debates.
Certainly,itsundeniabletheBolshevikPartyhadundergoneamassive
transformationby1917bothintermsoftheirpoliticalpractice(aswe
havealreadyseen)andintheircomposition.Inadditiontothehuge
influxofworkers,therehastobeaddedtheabsorptionofmany,many,
otherpoliticalcurrents liketheMezhraiontsy andelementsfrom the
leftwingoftheMensheviksetc.Allofthesehadaprofoundinfluence
ontherolethattheBolshevikPartyplayedIntherevolution.Thereis
notanyquestioneitherthatoneofthemostdecisiveelementsintheir
appropriationofclaritywaspreciselytheirabilitytoturntheirbackon
sectarianismatthevitalmomentandopenuptotheclass.

Wearenottryingtoargueherethattherewasnoconnectionbetween
the Bolsheviks of 1903 and 1917, nor that there can be a separation
between organisational functioning and the clear defence of class
positionsWehavealreadysaidinthistextthatinonesensethehistory
oftheBolshevikPartycanbeseenasthehistoryofthefightforthe
autonomyofworkingclassinterestsandtheirespousalofthatcantbe
separatedfromtheformoftheirorganisationalworktheiremphasison
factory work as opposed to Parliamentary manoeuvres etc. Their
achievementofclarityisbotharesultof,anddialectically,acauseof
their implantation in the heart of the class, in combination with the
massive and real freedom of debate which existed in the Party and
which, at the vital points inthestruggle, frequentlywentagainst its
centralised hierarchy. As weve already pointed out, Leninist
sectarianismwasaimedatthedegeneratingSocialDemocracyofthe
time and cant be applied to the current debates dividing the
revolutionarymovement.

The point we have tried to make throughout this section is that the
Bolsheviksdidnotplaythedecisiverolethattheydidasaresultof
somemagicformulaoforganisationwhichcanbeahistoricallylifted
andappliedbyrevolutionariestoday.Certainlywecanandmustuse
theexperienceofourrevolutionaryforebearsasafoundationforour
activitybuttheyhaventbequeathedussomeeternallyvalidformof
organisationwhichwecanhappilyapplywillynillytothebestofour
resources.Theeortsbytheseelementsintherevolutionarymovement
whoaretryingtorebuildtheBolshevikPartytodayorliketheICCwho
are building Byzantine, convoluted bureaucratic structures in
preparationforfutureneeds,owelittletoaMarxistunderstandingof
thecrucialproblemswhichconfrontus.

PartyandClass

Althoughthistextisprimarilyconcernedwiththeinternalaspectsof
organisation,itwouldbetotallyartificialtotrytoseparatethatfrom
theBolsheviksrelationshiptothe Class andfromtherolethat they
played in the revolutionary process. The understanding of how
revolutionariesorganiseisinextricablytiedupwithanunderstanding
ofhowarevolutionaryclassconsciousnessemergesandoftherelative
rolesofpartyandclassintherevolutionitself.Onceagain,itwouldbe
totallyfalsetoimaginethatthereexistssomesingleinvariantblueprint,
articulated by Lenin in 1902 and which, when rigorously applied,
allowed the Bolshevik Party to play their indispensable role in the
revolutionof1917.Thedialecticalandhistoricallyrootedunfoldingof
Bolshevik clarity and practice which we traced out in the foregoing
sectionhastoberepeatedwhenwelookattheirexternallife.

Thefightforarigidcentralismthatweveseenin1902inWhatistobe
Done,isinextricablytiedupinaviewwhichseestheworkingclass
capableofachievingonlyaTradeUnionconsciousness.Revolutionary
andsocialistclarityisseenastheproductoftheintelligentsiawhoare
chargedwithinjectingthisclarityintotheclassfromwithout.TheParty
isfundamentallythePartyoftheintelligentsia.Althoughitstruethat
What is to be Done has to be situated in the context of the fight
against the Economists and against their tailending of economic
struggles,andthatthethrustismore againstanattempttoseparate
working class activity from political activity than it is against the
potential of the class, theres no doubt that Lenins understanding
laggedfarbehindthatoftheGermanLeftandRosaLuxemburg.Her
critiquesoftheBolshevikcentralismofthistimeandherMassStrike
text remain an excellent and valid analysis of the inextricable
connection between the economic struggles of the class and its
politicaldimension.

However, the reality of the class upsurges in 1905 and even more
importantly,in1917,fundamentallytransformedLeninstheoriesand
Bolshevik practice. In Two Tactics of Social Democracy, written
immediatelyafterthe1905events,hesacknowledgingnotonly:

ThereisnottheslightestdoubtthattherevolutionwillteachSocial
DemocratismtothemassesoftheworkersinRussiaAtsuchatime,
the working class feels an instinctive urge for open revolutionary
action.

butalsothat:

The elementary instinct of the working class movement is able to

correcttheconceptionsofthegreatestminds.

Therevolutionof1905andthehaltingroleplayedbytheBolsheviks,
forced Lenin to a recognition, not only of the vast revolutionary
potentialoftheautonomousactivityoftheworkingclass,butalsotoa
glimmeringoftheveryreallimitationsonthecapacityofaParty.The
fermentof1905emergedfromtheclassitselfquiteindependentlyofthe
revolutionary fractions, who for the most part, were taken aback by
events and for months after, very hesitating about supporting them.
There could be no denying the greater boldness, dynamism and
radicalism of the working class, nor the way a revolutionary
politicisation arose inevitably out of the day to day ferment of the
struggle.Economicstrikesflowedintopoliticalonesandfromthe
factoriesoutontothestreetsandagainstthestate.Leninwasforcedto
recognisethatitwastheproletariatwhowerethefirsttorealisethe
objectiveconditionsofthestrugglewerematuringanddemandingthe
transition from thestriketo theuprising. True,it was theBolshevik
Party which eventually called for the rising in Moscow but it was
broughtaboutbytheinexorablepressureonthembeingexertedbythe
workers.Asmuchasanything,itwasacaseofendorsingtherisingor
beingsweptasidebyit.

Bolshevikconfusionandtimidityisperhapsbestsummedupintheir
initialresponsetotheSovietphenomenon.

ThePetersburgCommitteeoftheBolshevikswasfrightenedatfirstby
suchaninnovationasanonpartisanrepresentationoftheembattled
masses,andcouldfindnothingbettertodothantopresenttheSoviet
with an ultimatum: immediately adopt a Social Democratic
programme,ordisband.ThePetersburgSovietasawhole,including
the contingent of Bolshevik workingmen as well, ignored this
Ultimatumwithoutbattinganeyelash.
TrotskyStalin

Despite the lessons learned from 1905, this same hesitancy and
confusionwithintheBolshevikPartywastoberepeatedin1917.Time
andtimeagain,wefindtheBolsheviksandparticularlytheircentral
organs, lagging behind the impetus and radicalism of the class. The
crucial February 23d strike in Petrograd broke out against the
instructionsoftheParty,although,whenconfrontedthefollowingday
withthespectacleof200,000strikingworkers,theymanagedareluctant
endorsement. But their intervention was always to try to calm the
struggle. When Bolshevik workers began to demand arms,
Shlyapnikov,onbehalfoftheCentralCommittee,refusedpointblank.
Itwasntuntilthe27ththattheymanagedtoproducealeafletandthat
wasinextremelylimitednumbersandmerelycalledforaProvisional
Government with no mention being made of Soviets. Until Lenins
arrival,thestrongrightwarddriftoftheupperhierarchyoftheParty
tendedtodominateitslife,despitetheradicalismofmuchofitsrank
andfile.Intheearlydaysof1917,theBolshevikswerefindingdiculty
in separating their policies from those of the Mensheviks with a
constant tendency towards support for the Provisional Government.
Therewaseventheemergenceofarightwingtendencyarguingfora
policyofnationaldefenceandreunificationwiththeMensheviks.The
fightwagedagainstallthisbyLeninfromtheAprilTheses,through
thesplitsoftheJulyDaysandallthewaytotheseizureofpoweris
familiar to us all. As in 1905, we can search in vain for the welloiled
Bolshevikfightingmachinewithsharppoliticalclarityandadisciplinedunity
of action, leading their worker troops into the revolution. Far from
presentingamonolithicblocofclaritytheBolshevikswerepubliclyand
fiercelysplitalmostcontinuallythrough1917.

Their initial views of a class capable of only a Trade Union

consciousnessweretotallyconfoundedbythespectacleofarevolution
beingmadebythatveryclass.

The February revolution . . . was the spontaneous outbreak of a

multitudeexasperatedbytheprivationsofwar...Therevolutionary
partiesplayednodirectpartinthemakingoftherevolution.Theydid
notexpectitandwereatfirstsomewhatnonplussedbyit.Thecreation
at the moment of revolution of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers
Deputieswasaspontaneousactofgroupsofworkerswithoutcentral
direction.
E.H.CarrTheBolshevikRevolution

The reality was undeniable. We have Lenins famous quote of the

periodabouttheworkersandpeasants:

(theyare)athousandtimesmoreleftwardsthantheChernovsanda
hundredtimesmoreleftwardsthanweare.

Thisawarenessmarchedhandinhandwiththeopeningupoftheparty
totheworkingclassthatweIvechronicledinthefirstsectionofthis
text.Thehistoryofthisperiod,from1914onwards,andespeciallyin
1917,isthehistoryoftheBolshevikPartybecomingthepartyofthe
workingclass,ineverysenseoftheterm.Wecanseethismanifestedat
everylevel,fromthehugeinfluxofworkersintothepartythatweve
alreadynoted,throughtotheelectoralsuccessesintheSovietsinthe
latterhalfof1917,totheircompletecontrolofthefactorycommittees.
By September 1917, there were only Bolsheviks to be found on the
factorycommittees,withtheMensheviksandSRscompletelyrouted.
Despite the disputes and vacillations of the Bolsheviks, from 1914
onward, their stance on the war separated them sharply from their
rivalsinfrontoftheclass.OnlytheBolsheviksstoodunhesitatinglyfor
theclassstruggleinthefaceofthewar.Whileeveryoneelsedenounced
thediscordandthethreatthatclassstrugglebroughttothepolicyof
nationaldefencism,theBolshevikswerewholeheartedlybehindit.The
consistentpolicyoffightingfortheautonomyofworkingclassinterests
ledthePartytobeingdeeplyimplantedintheheartoftheclassby1917.

They were among the masses, at the factory benches, every day
without a pause. Tens of speakers, big and little, were speaking in
Petersburg,atthefactoriesandinthebarracks,everyblessedday.For
the masses, they had become their own people because they were
always there. The mass lived and breathed together with the
Bolsheviks.
SukanovquotedinM.Liebman:LeninismunderLenin

Itwasthisopennesstotheclass,thisvulnerabilitytothepressuresof
theclass,whichwasfinallyresponsibleforsweepingawaythetimidity
andconservatismoftheBolshevikcentralorgans.Almosteverywhere
it was the rank and file of the Party, the ones closest to and most
sensitivetotheclasswhowerethemostconsistentradicalelements.
TheBolshevikMilitaryOrganisationwasoneofthebestexamplesof
this.Asweveseen,itfunctionedconsistentlyin1917asaleft,radical
factionoftheParty.Composedofsoldierswhohad,forthemostpart,
onlyrecentlyjoinedtheParty,itwasindirectandintimatecontactwith
theclass.WhereasthemaincentralbodesofthePartytheCentral
Committee etc. were free from direct pressure from workers and
soldiers,theMilitaryOrganisation,bornofrevolutionaryevents,was
more exposed to the radicalising eect of popular exasperation and
coulddrawitsargumentsagainstthetimidityand,conservatismofthe
central organs directly from working class pressure. Its an irony of
historythatLenin,whooriginallysetouttobuildaPartybasedona
rigidcentralismasaguaranteeofpoliticalcohesion,andclarityinorder
to provide a sharp edged tool of action, found himself in the
revolutionaryprocesshavingtoreachovertheheadsofthosecentral
organstoappealtothelowerranksofthePartyandeventotheclass
outside.

Classconsciousworkersmusttakethematterintotheirownhands,
organisethediscussion,andexertpressureonthoseatthetop.
Lenin,quotedinLiebman

Inaveryrealsense,thepoliticalclarityandcorrectnessofBolshevik
slogans throughout the period came almost directly from the class
itself.

Whenweturntotheperiodfollowingtheseizureofpower,wefindthe
sameprocessmultipliedahundredfold.Despite,orperhapsbecauseof,
theformalassumptionofstatepowerbytheBolshevikParty,wecan
seeabsolutelyclearlyinLenin,therealisationthatthecarryingthrough
oftherevolution,thebuildingofanewsociety,isfundamentallyinthe
hands,oftheclass.Atthe2nd CongressofSovietsinNovember1917,
Leninisarguing:

Wemustallowcompletefreedomtothecreativefacultiesoftheclass.

andinPravdathatsamemonth,hewrites:

Comrades,workingpeople!Rememberthatnowyou,yourselvesareat
thehelmofstate.Noonewillhelpyouifyouyourselvesdonotwait
and take into your hands all aairs of state . . . Get on with the job
yourselves;beginrightatthebottom,donotwaitforanyone.(Original
emphasis)

InhisStateandRevolutionofthesameperiod,thewholeemphasisis
on the fundamental role of the class in the tasks ahead. The Party
hardlyratesamention.Andtheresnothingsurprisinginthisstance.It
wasfundamentallynotmuchmorethantherecognitionofthesocial
realityinfrontofhiseyes,foronceagaintheclasswererunningahead
of the Party. While the Bolsheviks, for example, were still tied to a
policyofnationalisingonlythecommandingheightsoftheeconomy
andwereexploringthepossibilityofsomeformofcollaborationwith
themoreamenablecapitalistsintherunningoftheeconomy,theclass
weresurgingaheadwiththeexpropriationofthemeansofproduction.
ThesloganofWorkersControlanditsapplicationsprangdirectlyfrom
theautonomousactivityoftheclassandforcedtheBolsheviksontoa
muchmoreradicalstance.AccordingtoLiebman,forexample,ofthe
500oddenterprisesthathadbeennationalisedbyJune1918,about400
weretakenoverasaresultoflocalactionthattheBolshevikshadeither
triedtoholdbackordivert.

On the land question, the Decree of Land Division merely followed

after the virtually totally uncontrolled seizure of the land by the
peasantsthemselves.Manyofthefirstcollectivesonthelandwerealso
theproductoflocalinitiativeindependentofPartywishes,aswerethe
actualsettingupoftheCommitteesofPoorPeasants.

Ateverylevelofsociety,thisprocesswasatwork.Intheadministration
ofjustice,hundredsofpopulartribunalswithelectedjudgessprangup
spontaneously:inthequestionofhousing,expropriationwentaheadin
anuncontrolledfashionandtheeducationalsystemwasthrownopen
bythedynamicupsurgeofthemassesthemselves.Committeesinevery
conceivable area of social life sprang up spontaneously. Lenin was
speakingonlytheliteraltruthwhenhesaidatthe7thPartyCongressin
March1918:

Whatourrevolutionisdoingisnotaccidentalitisnottheproductof
a Party decision but (is) a revolution that the masses themselves
createbytheirslogans,theireortsSocialismcannotbeimplemented
by a minority, by the Party. It can be implemented only by tens of
millionswhentheyhavelearnedtodoitthemselves.

Whatever illusions might have still lingered in the Bolshevik Party

abouttheirroleinthebuildingofthenewsociety,thereality,following
ontheseizureofpowerrapidlydispersedthem.Howeverpotentatool
the party might have been for intervention in the class struggle in
October 1917 they certainly werent physically capable of taking the
entire administration of the state into their hands. In Petrograd, for
example,theCentralCommitteehadanocestaof4.Evenby1919it
was still only 15. At local levels there were virtually no permanent
apparatusinexistence.IntheearlymonthsfollowingonOctober,the
assumptionofpowerbytheBolshevikswastoalargeextentsymbolic.
Stalin as Commissar for the Aairs of the Nationalities had at his
disposalonetableandtwochairsinasharedoce.TheCommissarfor
Agriculture wasnt even that lucky. He had to borrow a table from
Lenins oce. In addition to all this, as weve already seen,
communicationsthroughoutthecountrywereverybadandevenwhere
theywerepossiblethelocalorganisationsfrequentlychosetoblithely
ignoreinstructionsfromthecentre.ToquoteLiebmanagain:

Ingeneral,thedrawingupoflawsanddecreeswas,asarule,only
symbolic in character, or rather it served merely propagandist aims,
sincetheBolshevikswerewithoutthemeansofmakingtheirlegislative
decisionseective.

Throughoutthefirstyearoftherevolution,themostsubstantialforcein
politicsandsocietywasthedirectactivityofthemassesthemselves,
withmoredynamismandeectivenessthananyotherfactorinpublic
life.Inthisperiod,theinterventionoftheclasswasdecisive,continuous
andwaseectedwithoutmediation.Throughouteverylevelofsociety,
asweveseen,workerscontrolappearedbeforethelawthatlegalised
andpersistedwithoutregardtoocialattemptstodivertit.Thetheory
andpracticeofBolshevism,atthefullfloodoftheclassinrevolutionary
action,coulddolittleelsebutabsorbandreflectthatreality.Insteadof
thecustomarypictureofaunified,monolithicanddisciplinedGeneral
Stadirectingthecourseoftherevolution,weseeaPartysweptupinto
thedynamismoftheclass,becomingalivingexpressionoftheclass,
open to it, expressing in fierce public debate all the confusions
attendantuponthat,butmostimportantly,becomingradicalisedbyit.
Itwasthedisappearanceofthisupsurgeandthedisappearanceofthe
working class from the stage that concretised the tendencies in the
Bolshevik Party towards monolithism, rigid centralism, party
dictatorshipandabsolutehegemonyofthecentralorgans.

RoleoftheParty

Wereawarethatthistextis,of,necessity,seriouslyunbalanced.The
indispensability of the Party to the revolutionary process and the
necessityforcentralisationwiththatParty,aretakenasgiven.Thepoint
ofthetextwastotrytolaythebasisforcounteringthewidespread
mythsofthemonolithicpartyandlookatthelimitationsonboththe
roleofthepartyandtheoperationofcentralism.Butwedonthaveany
illusionsthatthegiganticupsurgeofthemasses,asthoroughgoingasit
was,aspoliticallyradicalasitwas,asinfluentialasitwasontheclarity
oftheBolsheviks,wasanymorethanjustonesideoftheequation.

Itwasthepolitical intervention of revolutionaries which was vital in

giving shape and direction to that upsurge. It was revolutionary
intervention which ensured that class response to the war and the
privationsimposed,remainedonaproletarianterrainanddefinedthe
consequenceswhichflowedfromtheiractivity.Werenotarguinghere
either,thatitwasjustaquestionofclearcommunistpropagandawhich
persuadedtheworkingclassbutthataninextricablepartofthatwas
theactionsoftheParty.TheBolshevikswereafightingpartoftheclass
struggle.

Theirroleintheplanningforarmedinsurrection,theseizureofpower
andthedissolvingoftheConstituentAssembly,wasanindispensable
part of the revolution. It set the parameters for class action and
eliminatedthenegative alternativesin a waythat propagandanever
could have. Only a Party could act like that andonly a Party could
providethenecessarydepthofpoliticalclarity.OnlyaParty:

foreseesthewholestruggle,locatesandestablishestactics,exercises
persuasionovertheremainderoftheproletariat.itseeksrevolution
alone,regardseverythingfromthisperspective,alwaysputsthegeneral
causeofrevolutionaboveallotherinterestsbothinthenationalandthe
internationalstruggle.
GorterTheorganisationoftheProletariatsClassStruggle
For, no matter how advanced and radical the class might be in the
revolution,theirconsciousnessisboundtoreflect,tosomeextent,their
fragmentedmaterialpositionundercapitalism.ToquoteGorteragain
speakingagainstthecouncilisttendencies:

Cantheydenythattheclassconditionoftheproletariatenablesonlya
small section of the proletariat to develop broad and deep
understanding? Can theydeny that large sections within the factory
organisations will therefore always be opportunistic, individualistic,
Utopian and insuciently developed? No. And that, therefore, the
factoryorganisationcannevermakeorleadtherevolutionalone.
(Ibid)

Of necessity also, this heterogeneity in the consciousness of the

proletariatmeansthatthePartycanonlybeafractionoftheclass,a
minority.Gortersquitewellawarethattheconceptionofmassparties
belongtothepast.

Therefore,asmallPartyeverywhere.
(Ibid)

Hegoesontosay:

Canthisonesmallpartysimultaneouslyrulethismightyadversary,
massivelyarmedcapitalism,andthemightyproletariat?Canitbethe
dictator,thedespoticrulerofboth,ofadversaryandproletariat?The
verynumbersinvolvedruleitout.
(Ibid)

AndLuxemburgherselfmakesclearthatitsnotsimplyaquestionof
numbers.TheabilityofthePartytofunctionastheorganiserofthe
classstruggle,astheordergiver,islimitednotjustbysizebutbythe
veryactivityoftheclassitself.Weveseentimeandtimeagain,how
oftenandhowcrucially,theinitiativeanddynamismsprangdirectly
from the class, catching revolutionaries completely unaware. This
doesnt mean, and didnt for the German Left either, that
revolutionaries cant or shouldnt involve themselves in direct
organisationofmomentsoftheclassstruggle.Certainly,aspartoftheir
intervention, revolutionaries will call for strikes, for demonstrations
and for armed uprisings. The German Left did so. Sometimes
successfully, sometimes not: just like the Bolsheviks. Theres no
questionoftheGermanLeftbeingnothingbutsomeformofsuper
propagandists. The point is that weve seen historically that this
organisingrolecanonlybeaPARTofthestruggleandbynomeansthe
decisivepart.Themovementoftheclassinrevolutionjustdoesntlend
itself to detailed plans of action which can be implemented by an
omnipotent Party. The twists and turns, the sudden outbursts and
periodsofquiescence,canneitherbeforeseenorcalledintoexistenceby
anyParty,nomatterhowsharpordisciplined.Whatisessential,and
uniquetotheParty,isthepoliticalintervention.Andevenherethereare
no blueprints. Weve seen how even that most centralised and
homogenousparty,theBolsheviks,wereinrealityconstantlydivided
abouttheiranalysisandintervention.Ofcourse,thegeneralguidelines
canbepickedout,buttheunderstandingofwhatthatgeneralclarity
meansinthedaytodaystruggle,onlycomesonthemarch.

Its fundamentally the class themselves who pose the questions and
giveaguidetotheanswers.Itcantbeforeseeninadvance.Aparty
whichunderstandsthisandrealisesitcantpretendtohavetheanswer
toeverythinginadvanceisapartywhichmustbeopentotheinfluence
oftheclassinrevolutionaryaction.Atsuchatime,rigidcentralismis
entirelyinappropriate.Itsthelayersofthepartyclosesttotheclass
whichmakestherunning,andweveseenthatthattendsNOTtobethe
centralorgans,whichfrequentlyatthevitalpointplayaconservative
role.Inaddition:

The political purpose of an organ having such great powers is

understandable only if those powers apply to the elaboration of a
uniformplanofaction,ifthecentralorganassumestheinitiativeofa
vastrevolutionaryact.
LuxemburgLeninismorMarxism

If,onthecontrary,thepoliticaldimensionofthepartysinterventionis
seenascentral,thenthatfabledunityofaction,sodeartotheLenin
of1902,isseenasachimera.Whatsimportantisthepartyspolitical
contribution which demands a party open to the widest possible
debate. What weve tried to demonstrate in this text is that the
Bolsheviksplayedsuchadecisiverolepreciselybecausetheirpractice
andtoacertainextenttheirtheory,atthehighpointsinclassstruggle
was in accord with the criticisms of the German Left. We know, of
course,thatthataccordhadafragileexistenceanddidntsurvivethe
removaloftheclassfromtherevolutionarystage.

What weve tried to do in the text so far is situate the questions of

monolithism, centralism and the nature of the partys leading role,
withinaconcrete,historicalframework,clearedofmythandwishful
thinking.Withoutthat,thequestionoforganisationmustbedoomedto
remainontheplaneoftheabstract.Wehopethatwevedemonstrated
that the party of history was neither the nightmare monolith of
libertarianslandernorthesuperb,unified,decisive,fightingmachine,
therevolutionaryGeneralStaofthepartyistswishfulthinking.

ThenandNow

Itsimpossibletodrawanyaccuratelessonsfromthematerialweve
just dealt with unless were aware of how crucially our material
situationdiersfromthatoftheBolsheviks.Evenonastraightforward
quantitative level, the gap between revolutionaries today and the
Bolsheviks pre1917 is so huge and unthinkable it tends to be
universally ignored by the political milieu. In 1903, the Party could
aord to pay about 30 fulltime distributors of Iskra. (Thats
considerably bigger than many entire organisations today.) By 1905,
therewerejustunder10,000Bolsheviks.Asaresultoftheinsurrection
thatroseto34,000by1906.Inthesameperiod,therewereabout14,000
Mensheviks. In the RSDLP as a whole, in 1907 there were 84,000
excluding the Bundist, Polish and Lettish sections. Bolshevik
membershipfellduringtheyearsofreaction,butbythebeginningof
1917itstoodatabout20,000.ByAugustofthatyear,therewerealmost
aquarterofamillionmembers.Allthishastobesetagainstatotal
workingclasspopulationofperhapsthreeandahalfmillion.

Butthenumbersreallyonlygiveahintofthevastdierencesbetween
thenandnow.Revolutionaryfractionsingeneral,andtheBolsheviksin
particular,wereimplantedintheclassinawaywecantevendream
about today. Even when the Bolsheviks were finding little direct
supportintheclass,theirargumentsandpoliticsweretotallyfamiliar
totheclass.Revolutionarypositionsanddebatewerepartandparcelof
workingclasslife.Fortheflavourofwhatthismeantinconcretereality,
its worth reading the memoirs of Shlyapnikov. Although anecdotal,
manyoftheanecdotesareverytelling..In1914hereenteredRussia
disguised as a Frenchman and began work in a Petrograd factory.
Within days, he was at the centre of a lively and vigorous debate
surroundedbyworkersnotonlykeentodiscusspoliticalactivity,but
demanding to know about revolutionaries in exile like Martov and
Lenin.InhistravelsthroughoutRussia,eveninthemostremoteand
isolatedofvillageshe hasno dicultyfindingpoliticallyactive and
committedworkers.NotalwaysBolsheviksofcourse,butthepolitical
traditionwasthere.

Theentireproletariatwerehighlypoliticised.Whenstrikesbrokeout,
asamatterofcourse,theworkerscooptedmembersofrevolutionary
fractions onto their strike committees. We all know the stories of
Bolshevikleafletsbeingpassedfromhandtohanduntiltheprintwas
rubbedoandthepaperwasintatters,ofworkersinfactorieswho
would handwrite copies of newspapers and even pamphlets in the
absenceofduplicatingfacilities.Revolutionarypartieswereseenbythe
classastheirparties(evenwhentheydisagreedwiththem.)By1917,of
course, it was the Bolshevik Party which predominantly held this
position.WevealreadyquotedSukhnovsevocativedescriptionsofthe
masseslivingandbreathingtogetherwiththeBolsheviks.

Aswevepointedoutelsewhereinthetext,oneveryconceivablelevel,
the Party was seen as the Party of the working class. Even on a
straightforwardsociologicallevel,thevastmajorityofitsmemberswere
workers.Evenasearlyas1905,over6o%ofmembersweredrawnfrom
the industrial working class. (D.Lane The Roots of Russian
Communism)Thispercentageincreasedintheyearsofreactionasa
resultoftheexodusofintellectuals.Insomeareasasmanyas12%ofall
factoryworkerswereactualmembers.(L.Schapiro.)Eveninthedarkest
daysfollowing1905whenthepartywasindisarrayanditsrankswere
decimated the milieu was unimaginably dierent from today. Even
with workers demoralised and shunning the party for fear of
repression, the fertile soil still existed in terms of the hundreds of
thousands of workers with a revolutionary background and a
familiaritywiththepoliticalarguments.

All the debates and polemics of the period about organisation,

regroupmentandtheroleofthepartyonlymakesenseifwecangrasp
thisgeneralbackground.Obviously,wemustdrawlessonsfromthe
period,butitcanonlyleadtodisasterifwethinkwecantransposethe
argumentsandpositionsdirectlyontoourpresentsituation.

Today,werenottalkingaboutthousandsortensofthousandsinour
fractionalone,surroundedbyhundredsofthousandsofothermilitants,
allworkinginaclassofonlyafewmillion,moreorlesstotallyfamiliar
withthedebatesandfiercelycommittedandpartisan.Onthecontrary,
were faced with a few hundred militants throughout the world,
workinginaclassgiganticallybigger,whichdoesntknowweexistand
istotallyunfamiliarwithrevolutionarypositions.Wearetiny,isolated
and remote from the class in a way which would be unimaginable
before1917.Itwasourstartingassumption,(alargelyunspokenone),
intherevolutionarymovementof10to15yearsago,that,yes,wewere
tinyandisolatedbuttheprocessofdeepeningcrisisandclassstruggle
wasinseparablefromagrowthinsizeandinfluenceofrevolutionaries.
Sofarweveseennosignofthat.Wethinkwevereachedthepoint
wheretherevolutionarymilieumustconfrontthatopenlyanddecide
howitaectsouractivity.Itseemsclearthatdierenttypesofactivity
andorganisationmightflowfromaninitialassumptionofprogressive
growththanfrombelievingthattheorganisationwillonlygrowatthe
pointofrevolution.

Isolation

Itsclearlyanattempttograpplewiththisproblemthatisatleastpartly
responsibleforthepathschosenbyelementslikeWildcatandNoWaR
whohaveargued,inpracticeifnotinopentheory,thatcentralisationin
ourpresenttinystatecanonlybesynonymouswithmonolithism.Ina
dierent way the CWO fantasies about factory groups and
transmissionbeltsareobviouslyanotherresponsetothisproblem.
Whatevertheprosandconsoftheutilityandroleoffactorygroupsina
periodwhenwehavesucientinfluenceintheclasstobeabletoset
them up, to put them forward in the present period as a means of
creatingthatinfluenceinthefirstplace,isclearlyadelusionbasedon
desperation.TheCWOdonthaveanyfactorygroupsandtheyhaveno
meansofgettingany.Nooneintherevolutionarymilieuhas(including
Battaglia Communista, notwithstanding their token factory groups.)
Onemightaswellarguethatifwehadamultimillioncirculationdaily
paper, or 10,000 man sections in major cities, it would increase our
influenceintheclass.Itwould,butitallbelongstotherealmoffantasy.
Itsimpossibletohaveanyrespectforanorganisationwhichindulges
in this sort of makebelieve. However, perhaps the CWO can be
forgiven their desperation given their conceptions of organising the
class.WevealreadyseenhowtheBolsheviksthemselveswereunable
toundertakethisrolesoitshardlysurprisingtoseesignsofstressin
thedozenorsomembersoftheCWO.

Theplaintruthisthatasrevolutionarieswehavetofaceuptothefact
thatthereareNOmagicaldevicestoshortcircuitourisolationfromthe
class. Certainly, we must intervene in the class to the limits of our
abilitiesbutthedestructionofourisolationdoesntresideinourhands.
Wecantchangethat,nomatterhowselfimportantwebecome,orhow
ouvrierist or activist, and no matter how hard we try to make our
languageandpressmoreaccessibleetc.Allwecandoisrealistically
assessthemateriallimitationswhichconfrontus,asaguideplanning
ourworkonasaneandbalancedbasis.

MonolithismandSectarianism

Thefightagainstmonolithismandsectarianismmustalsotakeaccount
of our tiny size and isolation. We can reproduce the Bolshevik and
GermanLeftrhetoricaboutpartydemocracy,aboutopeninguptothe
massesetcandwecanreproducetheirintentions(thebestofthem),but
we cant reproduce the social and political reality .which gave the
Bolshevikstheirvitality.Theirtendenciestowardsmonolithismandthe
substitutionismoftheircentralorganswerealwayscounteredbytheir
size,implantationintheclass,andtherelativeautonomy(inpractice)of
the various elements which made up the party. The vigour of the
debatesinsidetheBolsheviks,theirabilitytoretainrelativelyenormous
dierencesinsidethepartywithoutsplittingit,cantbereproducedina
groupnumberedindozensandremotefromtheclass,despiteallthe
bestintentionsandallthedetailedconstitutionalsafeguards.Without
theinvigoratingcontactwiththeclassenjoyedbyrevolutionariesinthe
lastrevolutionarywave,itshardlysurprisingthatthemilieuisracked
bysectarianism.

While we remain small and isolated, the pressures towards

monolithism, family cliques and sectlike behaviour must be
enormous.But,howeverpowerfultheymightbe,wecanthopetoeven
starttodealwiththemunlesswecanfirstrecognisetheirexistence.The
sectarian practices, guerrilla tactics and vicious unscrupulousness
employed by Lenin towards fellow revolutionaries might have been
acceptableinthefertilityofpre1917,butinthefragilityandisolationin
whichwefindourselves,itscriminal.Ourprioritiesmustbeafraternal
husbandingofourstrength,ofreachingoutandembracingasmuchof
therevolutionarymilieuaspossible,whileatthesametime,reconciling
that with a method of organisation which allows and promotes a
rigoroussearchforclarity.Anyattempttoattainonewithouttheother
canonlybepoliticalsuicide.

Perspectives

Thistextisnottheplacetopresentadetailedplanforthefutureof
revolutionary activity, but we can begin to sketch out the general
frameworkofwherewestand.

1. We remain committed tothe beliefin the necessity fora separate

organisationofrevolutionarieswhichwillplayanindispensablerolein
therevolutionaryprocess.Nothinginthehistoryoftheworkingclass
orinourunderstandingoftheoperationandroleofclassconsciousness
leadsustobelievethatcommunistrevolutionispossiblewithoutthe
existenceofaparty,howevermomentoustheupsurgeofclassstruggle
mightbe.TheupsurgeanddeclineofstruggleinPolandconfirmsusin
thatbelief.Wethinkacommunistintervention,howevertinyinsuchan
upsurge,canhaveadecisiveimpactoutofallproportiontoitssize.In
addition,theexperienceoftheBolsheviksin1905and1917showsthe
enormousspeedatwhichanorganisationcangrowinsuchasituation.

Onthequestionofwhatitmeanstoplayaleadingrole,wereentirely
withLuxemburgandtheGermanLeftinthebeliefthattheinfluenceof
the Party over the working class is exercised primarily through its
ideas,itsprogrammeanditsslogansratherthanthroughthepowerof
itsorganisationanditsowninitiationofaction.Thelattertwoelements
areundoubtedlypartoftheactivityofaParty,buttheycanneverbethe
defining part. Certainly, in our present tiny size and isolation, any
attemptstoorganisetheclasscanonlybefantasy.

2. Withoutelaborationhere,thebodyofclasspositionscontainedmore
orlessinthePlatformoftheICCareinseparablefromrevolutionary
activity,andwouldformthenecessaryfoundationofpoliticalclarity.

3. Federalism and localism are incompatible with communist

organisation, which can only be centralised. Weve already tried to
demonstrateinthetextthatwedontthinkitspossibletorummage
through working class history and produce a blueprint for
revolutionaryorganisationwhichcanbeappliedwillynilly.

Centralisminthesocialistsenseisnotanabsolutethingapplicableto
anyphasewhatsoeverofthelabourmovement.Itisatendencywhich
becomesrealinproportiontothedevelopmentandpoliticaltraining
acquiredbytheworkingmassesinthecourseoftheirstruggle.
LuxemburgLeninismorMarxism

The accusations of the ICC to the contrary, when we left that

organisationwedidntturnourbacksoncentralisation,butonaform of
centralisation which had substituted itself for the organisation as a
whole.WeareFORcentralisationwhichallowsthewholeorganisation
tospeak,tothinkandtoact.WearewithLuxemburgwhenshesays:

TheUltraCentralismaskedbyLenin[oroftheICCapparat]isfull
ofthesterilespiritoftheoverseer.Itisnotapositiveandcreativespirit.
Leninsconcernisnotsomuchtomaketheactivityofthepartymore
fruitful,astocontrolthepartytonarrowthemovementratherthanto
developit;tobindratherthantounifyit.
(Ibid)

4. We reject the notion that defence of clarity on the class lines and
commitmenttoacentralisedmodeoforganisationissynonymouswith
monolithismandsectarianism,alongthelinesoftheICCandtheCWO.
One of the lessons weve tried to draw in this text is that an
organisationcantsurviveasanorganoftheclasswithoutthewidest
and most thoroughgoing freedom of debate both internally and
publiclyandthatisinseparablefromthefreeoperationoftendencies
and fractions. Far from seeing this as a sign of immaturity or
degenerationastheICCdo,wethinkthisisaninevitablesignofthe
health of an organisation. As weve pointed out elsewhere in this
Bulletin(inthelettertotheCWO),apracticalrejectionofsectarianism
muststartbyunderstandingthatinamilieuastiny,fragmentedand
remotefromthelifeoftheclassasours,thereisalmostnothingtostand
inthewayofarbitrarinessintheadoptionofpositions.Therefore,we
should exercise a profound seriousness and responsibility about the
gravityoftakingupapositionorganisationally,andaprofoundcaution
about the way we choose to defend those positions in the political
milieuinwhichwework.Butstandingalongsidethiscautionmustbea
positive boldness about opening up debate publicly. The whole
revolutionarymovementhastoputawayitscurrenttimidity.Itsthe
suppressionofdebatewehavetofear.Themilieuistootinyandweak
to be able to aord the bottling up of debates inside individual
organisations.Wehavetoexorcisethenotionthatpoliticalclarityand
cohesiondemandseitherthetotalagreementofeveryoneoneverything
(as in the old CWO vision of programmatic centralism), or the
presentingofaunitedfronttotheexternalworldasintheICC.We
dontpresentthistextasafinalclosedpositionbutasacontribution
and we hope, a focal point, in the debates opened up by the clear
sharpeningofthetasksoftheproletariatanditsrevolutionaryfractions
atthebeginningsofthe1980s.Wewouldwelcomeallcommentsand
responses.

Cormack

2 03 2010
billj (12:22:36):
Veryinterestingarticle.Itmustbeintheair.Werelookingatthe
samething.

2 03 2010
peterstorm (19:05:11):
Thisisindeedhelpfulforfindingawayonpartyyes/no,andifnot,
whyandwhatthen.Thanks.

5 03 2010
 Darren (10:58:27):
SorryifImissedthelinkinthepostitselfbutyouknowallofthe
CBGmaterialisarchivedatthefollowinglink:

http://cbg.110mb.com/index.html

5 03 2010
c0mmunard (12:49:26):
yeah,thelinkisinthefirstesentenceunderpublished

6 03 2010
Barry (12:47:03):
TheHistoryoftheBolshevikpartyisnotsimplyahistoryofCorrect
politicalleadership,topdowncentralismandirondisciplineforthe
partymembers.Thatisamythastheeventsof1905and1917
demonstrated.ButitisamythLeninhelpedtocreate.Inleftwing
communismaninfantiledisorderLeninputtheHistoricalsuccess
oftheBolsheviksdowntothecorrectnessofpoliticalleadership,
centralismanddiscipline.ButthatwaswhatBolshevismcameto
representinthesovietUnionandinthethirdinternationalbefore
Leninsdeath..

InthatsensethereisacontinuetywiththeBolshevismof1903/4and
1907/12.ForLeninthevaluesofcorrectpoliticalleadership,
centralismanddisciplineforthemembershipwereenduring.
OrganisationalDemocracywasseenasaluxuryorvaluedinan
instrumentalsense.Itcouldbedispensedwith.

Nowitcouldbearguedthatthetopdowncentralismwasafunction
ofthecircumstancesofanautocraticregimeandwerecommontoall
factionsofsocialdemocracyin1903/04and1907/12.Thisistrue,but
leninmadeavirtueofit.Inanycasetopdowncentralismhasnot
alwaysbeenthebestwaytoorganiseinconditionsofdictatorshipor
lackofdemocracy.ifthecentreispenetratedasthebolshevikcentre
wasbyMalinovsky,thiscouldleadtoseriousorevenfatal
consequencesforanorganisation.

Alsoitisnotpossibletoexplaintheunconstitutionalexpulsionof
BogdanovfromtheBolshevikfactionin1909bythepressureof
circumstances.NorisitpossibletoexplainwhyLenincould
denouncetrotskyasanultraleftwindbagandworsewhenhehad
notreadthetheoryofpermanentrevolutionordidnotreferto
it.Freedomofexpressionandfactionalorminortyrightsandnot
simplyafuctionofcircumstances.

Lenindidstandforminorityrightsin1906whentheBolsheviks
wereinaminorityintheunifiedRussiansocialdemocraticlabour
party.Inthisperiodhedefineddemocraticcentralismasfreedomof
discussionthenunityinaction.whowoulddecidewhendiscussion
orcriticismendedandactionbegan.Notthemajorityorthe
mensheviksontheunifiedpartycentralcommittee,buttheparty
congress.ThisgavetheBolsheviksfreedomtocriticisethe
menshevikmajortyleadership.
 Leninsrecordonminorityrights1907/12wasnotimpressive.Lenins
expulsionofBogdanovfromtheBolsheviksfortacticaldierences
in1909wasjustifiedonthespuriousgroundsthatalthoughthe
Bolshevikswerebuildingthepartyandactingasapartytherecould
benotacticaldierencessinceafactionneededfullagreementon
tacticsaswellasstrategy.Thatistheleaderslinehadtobefollowed.
Thisresurfacedin1921whenLeninsfactionwasbackincontrolof
thepartyorganisation.

ThecongressorconferencewhichfoundedBolshevismasaseparate
party,apartfrombeingundemocraticallyorganised,didnot
representabreakfromOpportunism.Itwasnotapure
revolutionaryvanguard.Alltheopportunistleadersof1917were
present.Stalin,zinoviev,andkamenev.ThesewereLeninsYESmen.
Theyareoftencalledcommitteemenasiftheyhadnoconnection
withLeninspartybuildingmethods.Againhowwouldyouexplain
thepromotionandcooptionofstalintotheleadershipbyLenin
againstthewishesofthemembersasafuctionofcircumstances?

LeninalsopromotedStalinfollowing1917.Atonepointhewas
givingstalinnumerouspositionstokeepouthiscriticsfromkey
positionsaspiatikovobserved.TheTradeuniondebatewassetup
toputtheoldleninistfactionbackincharge.Thebanonparty
factionsin1921wasnotanaberration.Howcantheseundemocratic
methodsbejustifiedbyreferencetoeconomicbackwardness?After
therevolutionLeningavetoolittlerespecttoworkersdemocracy.

whentrotskyJoinedtheBolsheviksinJuly1917,hedidsoby
declaringthattheBolshevikpartyhadbecomedebolshevised.The
Bolshevikssuccessin1917hadlittletodowithstrictcentralismand
irondisciplineintheBolshevikpartywhichhardlyexisted.TheTiny
Bolshevikcentrewasoverwhelmedbythemassinfluxofnew
members.Thesenewmembersvaluedtheirautonomyandacting
independentofanyordersfromabove.Therewasmassgrassroots
freedomfrombelow.ThestrengthoftheBolsevikswasnotiniron
disciplinebutinpoliticalexremisminthedesireforrevolution.
famouslystalindemandedthatapartycommitteeinpetrograd
followtheinstructionsofthecentralcommitteewithoutquestion.
Hewastoldwheretoputhisinstruction.

ToputthelackofdemocracyinBolshevismsimplydownto
isolationandeconomicbackwardnessdoesnotexplainwhythe
counterrevolutionoriginatedinthetopdowncentralismandthe
partyelitefollowing1917.Leninsstateandrevolutionhadno
bearingonpre1917BolshevismortheLeninismafter1917.Lenin
cametodefinedemocraticcentralismasthecongresschoosesthe
leadersandtheleadersleadandthemembershipfollowinstructions
fromthetop.Butwhentheleadersorganisethecompositionofthe
congressandareincontrolbetweencongressescentralismisnot
democratic.

8 03 2010
billj (10:20:26):
 Fairpoints,butitremainsthecasethattheBolshevikParty,albeit
withtheadditionofkeysupporterslikeTrotsky,remainstheonly
revolutionarypartytohavecarriedoutthesocialistrevolution.
Leninbuiltthatpartyandthepositivelessonsfromthathistory
needtobelearnt.Trotskysrecordonpartybuildingwasnotgreat
incomparisonafterall.
ItsalsoeasytounderstandTrotskysreluctanceorinabilitytohavea
roundedcritiqueoftheearlyperiodofBolshevisminpower,hewas
concernedtoemphasisethequalitativedierencebetweenitand
Stalinismandasapersonalparticipantwasprobablytooclosetothe
actiontostandapartfromitall.
Theessenceoftheerrorseemstometopointtotheobjective
circumstancesofthedegeneration,isolation,poverty,civilwaretc.
andthentoseparatethemfromthepeoplewhocarriedoutthe
actionswhichflowedfromthosecircumstances,thatisparticularly
theleadershipofthepartyandthearmy,i.e.LeninandTrotsky.By
thesametokenonecouldputtherevolutiondowntoobjective
circumstances,feudalism,tsarism,waretc.butontheupsidepeople
donotusuallydiscounttheroleoftheindividuali.e.Leninand
Trotsky.
Thatisnottosayanyonecouldhavedonedierentorbetter,
certainlynoonedid,butitistosaythatweshouldlookatthe
politicallessonsofthatperiodandhowtheyshapedsubsequent
organisationandpoliticsafterit,thatishypercentralism,rudeness,
intoleranceofoppositionandlackofdemocracyetc.

8 03 2010
Barry (22:51:19):
OK,letslookHistoricallyatthepartyLeninBuilt.

AfterthesecondcongressLeninwasalone.wellbrieflyhehad
Plekhanovonhisside,butPlekhanovdesertedhim.Therewasno
fundamentalpoliticaldierenceinthesplit,notwasitasplit
betweenrevolutionariesandreformistsoropportunistsand
revolutionaists.

OnLeninssidewasPlekhanovwhowastobecomethemostright
wingleaderintheRSDLP.Hedenouncedtherevolutionof1905and
inparticularthemoscowinsurrectionoftheBolsheviksand
famouslydenouncedtherevolutionof1917.AgainstLeninonthe
othersideofthesplitwasTrotskythepracticalleaderofthe
revolutionin1905/17.

Asforthepartyrulesonmembershiptherewasnofundamental
significancesincetheMensheviksacceptedLeninsversionofthe
rulesin1906attheunitycongressoftheRSDLP.

Asforthepoliticaldiernces1903/4,whatistobedoneandone
stepforward1904wereshowntobewrongandhopelessly
schematicintherevolutionaryeventsof1905.TheBolsheviksand
LeninsnewcomradesBogdanovandlunacharkyfoundthemselfs
isolatedbytryingtoapplytheschemaofWITBD.Workershad
spontaneouslygonebeyondtradeunionconsciousnessinRussianot
 onlyin1905butbeforethatandinBritain(chartism)

Inthereactionaryperiodfollowingthedefeatofthe1905revolution
1907/12theBolshevikfactionoftheRSDLPwasreallyestablished.
ThiswaswhentheBolshevikleadershipwasestablished:kamenev
Zinovievandstalin.ThiswasthepartyorsectLeninBuilt.Thiswas
theleadershpof1912whenthepartywasformedordeclared.Stalin
wascooptedagainstthewishesofthecongressof1912.

AsyouknowalltheoldBolshevikleadershipfromthisperiodwith
theexceptionofLeninwerelukewarmtotherevolutionin1917or
opposedit.kamenev,zinoviev,Radek,Tomsky.Alltheold
Bolsheviksorthepartyleninbuilt.TheywereasTrotskysaid
Democratswithmarxistleanings.WellhesaidthatabouttheIskrists
in1902.Hecalledthemsimplydemocratsin1917.

Soin1917leninhadtoacceptintotheleadershipoftheBolshevik
partyalltheultraleftwindbagsandunreliableBolshevikslike
Bukharinwhohehadpreviouslydenoucedasasemianachist(
BukharinrediscoveredtheCommunestate)andhundredsof
thousandsofgrassrootsactivists.NotthepartyLeninbuilt.

9 03 2010
Chris (23:35:36):
Thereistendencyinthewesternleft,andhistorianstoidentifythe
historyofBolshevismwiththatofLeninandLeninism.Itismyth.In
SoviethistorythisdatesfromStalinseortsafter1924todefeatthe
LeftOppositionandlegitimisehisownpolices.Duringthe1920s
thisStalinistviewoftheRussianCommunistPartyanditsorigins
didnotgounchallenged.Bukharinarguedin1925the
RKP(Bolsheviks)wereanegotiatedfederationbetweengroups,
groupingsandtendencies,Lunacharskyarguedin1926theleft
communismof191821wasanendemictendencyinBolshevism.By
thelate1920scommunisthistoriansbegantocompletelyreconsider
LeninsplaceinthehistoryofBolshevismandin1931Stalin
intervenedtoprohibitsuchresearchintothepastanddiscussionof
LeninsrolethewideraspectsofthoughtinBolshevism.Itwasthe
startofPartiinostwherehistorybecameasourceoflegitimacyfor
theregime.

Consideringthisandcommentsabovewecandowelltostearclear
suchmythsofthehistoryofBolshevismandLenin.Bolshevismasa
faction/partychangedandwaschangedinnumerousoccassionsand
latertransformedintoitsopposite.Leninwasneveragodhead
withinBolshevisminhisownlifetime,indeedduringthecivilwar,
aftertheintroductionofWarCommunism,therewasstillmore
freedom,morediversityofopinioninsideBolshevismwithallits
restrictionandcentralismthanexiststodayintheCPB,SPEWand
SWPintheUK!

Leninalsochangedhisviewsconstantly,unlikehisepigonesof
today.Ofparticularvaluewhichiscompletelyignoredinallthe
aboveishisreorganisationofhisthoughtin19141917thathis
 engagementwithHegeliandialectics.Whichunderpinnshisbest
worksonStateandRevolution,Imperialismandaspectsofnational
liberation.BukharinasGramscipointedoutanadherentoftovery
woodenandmechanisticpointofview.Bukharinfailedto
appreciatetheimportanceofnationalliberationstrugglesinthe
epochofimperialism,whichprovedadisasterouspolicywhen
implementedbyhissupportersinUkrainein19171919!Oftenin
directoppositiontoLenin.LeninsHegelstudieswereuniqueinthis
period.Itisofsignificantimportanceintermsofhisapproachtothe
revolutionaryprocesswhichunfoldedin1917.

10 03 2010
billj (14:26:56):
Wellthatsobviouslyonesided.Nooneelsebuiltapartynowdid
they?NotTrotsky,notPlekhanov,notBukharin,notMartovwell
hedidbutitwascounterrevolutionarysonotsohot?
ThereisobviouslyarelationshipbetweentheBolshevikspreand
postrevolution,theywereafterallleadbythesamepeople,butthe
historicalcontextwasfundamentallydierent.Onewasapartyof
revolution,albeitflawed,onewasapartyofgovernmentalbeitvery
flawed.
Byassertingthatweneedtolearnfromwhatwaspositiveaboutthe
prerevolutionaryBolshevikpartyIwasntsuggestingthatwebe
uncritical,butthatwedontthrowthebabyoutwiththebathwater.
Thatalsomeansbeingfarmorecriticalofthepostrevolutionary
periodandthedegenerateorganisationtheBolshevikshadbecome
frominmyopinion,thebanningoffactionson.Aproposalwhich
wasofcoursechieflyadvocatedbyLeninandsupportedbyTrotsky.

11 03 2010
Barry (00:04:21):
TheidentificationofLeninwithBolshevismdoesnotbeginwith
Stalinandtheleftopposition.Thatisjustpost1917Trotskyist
mythology.BolshevismanegotiatedfederationofGroups!1903/4?
1907/12?1916?1921!!

In1909therewasnoroomforLunacharskywhowasdenouncedas
agodbuilderforwritingaboutreligiousalienation.therecouldonly
beonetacticallineatthisperiodandthatwasLenins.

In1917theBolshevikfactionoftheRSDLPdidinasensebecamea
federationofleadershipgroupsfollowingthemassinfluxof
workersandfailureoftheleadershipfactionLeninbuiltinthe
revolution.ButtheLeninleadershipFactionregainedcontroland
thiswasconsolidatedbythebanonfactionsorratherthebanon
noneleninistfactions.

Pre1917TrotskydididentifyBolshevismwithLeninandalackof
democracyortolerationforrivalleaders.

iwillreturntothiswhenIhavegotmoretime.

11 03 2010
billj (14:05:12):
 Itistruethatthisdidnotallstartafter1924.By1924theUSSRhad
alreadydegeneratedaccordingtoTrotsky.ThemythofLeninism
wascreatedbyZinoviev/Stalinfrom1921onwards,itconsolidated
theholdoftheapparatusoverthepartyandstateandensuredthat
thecollapseofdemocracywithinitwasastonishinglyrapid.Bythe
endof1923itwasprettywellallover.
IdontbuythisideathatLeninradicallychangedhisphilosophyin
WWI.SurehestudiedHegel,buthehaddonethatbeforetoo.IMO
MaterialismandEmpirioCriticismremainsanexcellentwork.Its
alsowrongtolookatthedebatesaroundtheseissuesthroughthe
prismofLenin.Bukharinscontributiononthestatewasground
breakingandbrilliant.Hewasessentiallyresponsibleforallofthe
theoreticalinnovationsLeninbuiltintoStateandRevolution
positionswhichLeninhadabandonedbyaroundayearlater.He
disagreedwithLeninonselfdetermination,hewasnttheonlyone.
Andthedisputesarounditwerenotreallyresolvedeventhrough
thecourseofthecivilwar.LeninintervenedintheUkrainetocrush
oppositioninmuchthesamewaythatStalindidinGeorgia.
ButallofthisdoesnotalterthefactthattheBolshevikswerethe
onlymassrevolutionarypartytotakepowerever.AndthatLenin
centrallycontributedtobuildingthem.Thatiswhywemustnotlose
thislegacyintherushtocriticisethepostrevolutionaryrecordof
theBolshevikswhichwasultimatelyframedbyanastonishingly
adversesetofmaterialcircumstances.

12 03 2010
Barry (22:22:51):
yesIagreeZinovioevandstalincreatedthemythofLeninsm.But
theHistoricalproblemwasthis:Trotskybecametrappedinthecult
ofLenin.TrotskyarguedthathewasthebestLeninistafterLenin.
StalinZinovievandkamenevhadneverunderstoodLenin.
Whereas,Trotsky,asheclaimedintheLessonsofoctober1924,had
beentheonlycomradewhounderstoodLenin.Butleninlefthimself
vulnerabletothechargethathehadneverbeenanoldBolshevik
Leninist.StalinkamenevandZinovievwereoldBolsheviksand
historicallyTrotskywasnot.

OnthesubjectofphilosophyItwassignificantthatLeninbrokewith
thecrudematerialismofPlekhanovandthesecondinternationalin
thephilosophicalnotebooks.

13 03 2010
billj (03:34:07):
Soyousay.PersonallyIdontthinkPlekhanovsmaterialismwas
crude.InfactIthinkitwasprettyspoton.Afterallittraineda
wholegenerationofMarxistsincludingofcourse,Leninand
Trotksy.
Trotskydidnthaveaclearpositiononthedegenerationofthe
Russianrevolutionandhisoppositionwasinchoateandincoherent
attimes,thatsclear,andcertainlyareasonforrevaluatingthe
Trotksyistlegacy,butthingswerebynomeansclearatthetimeor
indeedsubsequentlyandIdontthinkhecanbeblamedforthat.
13 03 2010
Barry (10:09:44):
LenindidthinkPlekhanovwasspotonin1908.InturnPlekhanov
thoughtEngelswasspoton.Marxistphilosophywasseentobe
abouttwogreatcampsmaterialismversesidealism,ideaswerethe
copyofthematerialworld.Butthiswasnottheviewofmarxwho
didnotacceptthiskindofmechanicalmaterialism.ForMarxthere
wasaninterationbetweenmaterialismandidealismorthe
subjectiveandobjective.MarxrejectedFeuerbachsmaterialism.His
treatmentofitwasdierentthantheviewofEngels.AsEngels
wrotehewaslesstalentedthanMarx.

Leninsrediscoveryoftheimportanceofidealismorsubjectivityin
thePhilosophicalnotebooksledhimtoconcludethatPlekhanovhad
notgotitspoton.Inhisprivatenotbooksin,Ithink1922,hesaid
PlekhanovhadbotchedMarxistphilosophy.Leninspolemicwith
Bogdanovin1908isnoclosertoMarxthanBogdanovanditmight
havebeenbetterforLenintohavestucktopartyororganiational
Neutralityonphilosophicalissueswhichhadbeenthelinefrom
1903until1908.

OntheissueofonlyLeninbuiltthepartyitshouldberemembered
thatthepartyfrom1903until1917wastheRussianSocial
DemocraticLabourparty.Whatevertheirpretentionstobetheparty
fortheyearsupto1917theywereafactionofawidersecond
internationalparty.Evenin1917thetitleofthepartywasSDLPand
inbrackets(Bolsheviks)theBolsheviksfedoawidermovement
ratherthanstandingalone.

In1903to1905leninbuiltasmallsectonthefalseschemasofwhat
IstobeDoneandoneStepForwardtwostepsback.Thissectguided
byleninstheorywereleftbehindbytheeventsof1905.The
mensheviksdidbuildthepartyin1905andforaperiodwere
influencedbyTrotskystheoryofpermanentrevolution.Lenin
reorganisedtheBolsheviksbyabandoningWhatistobedoneand
onestepforwardbutnotquiterejectinghishistoricaltwostage
theoryoffirsttheBourgeoisrevolutionthenthesocialistrevolution
whichhadbeeninspiredbyPlekhanovsevolutionism.

Butheorganisedfromafarandithastobesaidfromsafety.Ittook
himtenmonthstoreturnfromexileandhisroleinthesovietswas
minorcomparedwithParvusandTrotsky.Trotskyinhisnotebooks
fromexileexpressedpuzzlementaboutleninslackofpractical
involvementintheMoscowinsurrection.Butleninhadalways
admiredtheroleoftheleadersofGermansocialdemocracywhen
theleaderskeptcontinuetyofthemovementduringthepolice
outlawingoftheparty.

TheorganisationstrenghoftheMenshevikswasthebasisofthe
comingtogetherofthefactionsin1906.Butoncetheperiodof
reactionsetintheRSDLPsplitupintofactionsagain.Leninswho
hadbeentaughtpoliticalarroganceandrudenessbyPlekhanovthen
excelledinbuildinganastysectarianlittlegroupingwiththehelpof
 StalinandZinoviev.Theyexcelledinfalseabusivepolemics.whileit
waspossibletohaveablockwiththemostrightwingtheoristofthe
RSDLPPlekhanovwhohaddenouncedtheMoscowinsurrectionof
1905andtheBolshevikfighters,therecouldbenounitywith
LunacharskyandTrotskythefuturepracticalleadersoftheRussian
revolution.

Againinfebruary1917theBolseviks,thefactionLeninbuilt,wereall
atseaandtryingtofightthebourgeoisrevolution.Themensheviks
wereorganisationallystrongwiththeirfocusonsovietsorworkers
parliaments.Thiswaswhytherewasdualpowerandnotpower.
LeninonceagainjettisonedhispreviousMistakentheoryonthe
natureoftherevolutionandwonmotionstobolshevikconferences
foraperspectiveofworkerspoweralthoughtheirwasalotof
confusionaboutthethreewhalesofBolshevim,theminimum
programme.MostoftheleadershipLeninbuitwerestillnot
convincedbytheperspectiveofsocialistrevolution.

LeninhadtoturntoTrotskylunacharskyandothershehad
denoucedasuselesstotherevolution.Trotskyhadbuiltsomthing
andtheleadersfromtheinterdistrictgroupplayedthekeyrolein
thepracticalorganisationoftherevolutioninPetrograd.Theother
keygroupwereinmoscowledbyBukharin.Leninhadnotbuilt
BukharinsideasandhehadregardedBukharinasunorthodoxand
ultraleft.Itwasnotaquestionofwhatleninhadbuiltbutthefact
thatleninandTrotskyexpressedthecreativityofthemassesand
theirdesireforworkerspowerin1917.

Whateverleninbuilthehadnotbuiltanythingintheconditionsofa
modernBourgeoisdemocracy.

19 03 2010
billj (11:29:01):
Leninsopiniononphilosophyisofcourseinteresting.Butnota
reasonformetochangemymindinandofitself,Imsureyou
wouldagree.
ThecriticismsofPlekhanovareIMOaproductofpostAlthusser
whichtrytoabandontheeconomicbasisofMarxismonthegrounds
thatitwascrudeormechanicalofeconomistic.
Incidentallyyourdivisionbetweenmaterialismandidealismis
wrong.Materialismincludesideaswithinit,butsaysthattheyare
corporeal,aproductofmatter.Humanscreategod.Idealismsaysits
theotherwayaround.
Theissueofagency,thesubjectiveimpactoftheindividualisof
coursegermanetothisdiscussion.LeninandTrotskyarecredited
withtheirindividualcontributiontotheoverthrowofcapitalism
andtherevolutionof1917,butthenareabsolvedoftheirindividual
contributiontoitsdecline,whichisattributedtoobjectivefactors.
Ofcourseinbothcasesitwastheinteractionbetweentheindividual
andtheobjectivewhichwasimportant,butthatwastrueontheway
downaswellasonthewayup.
Trotskywritingaboutdialecticsinthelate1930ssaysthatadoesnot
equala.Counterposingthistowhathesaidwastheformallogicof
 aequalsa.Thiswashisrationalisationforthereasonwhythe
syllogismLenincreatedtheapparatus,theapparatuscreatedStalin,
thereforeLenincreatedStalinwaswrong.Infactifwerebeing
dialectalitismoreaccuratetosay,Lenindidanddidnotcreate
Stalin.AequalsAanddoesnotequalAatthesametime.
IthinkitsfairtocriticiseLeninbefore1917,butwhilethese
criticismsarelinkedtopost1917,thecontextisquitedierent.One
wasarevolutionarytryingtotakepower,onewasarulertryingto
retainpower.
BTWyourealsowrongtosaythatLenindidnotacceptBukharins
ideas.Heexplicitlydid,theyarethebasisforTheStateand
Revolution.

InhisphilosophicalnotebookswrittenduringWWIhesaidthatthe
lawsoflogicdevelopedbyAristotle,thesyllogyismetc.werethe
lawsofhumanthoughtitself.

20 03 2010
Barry (14:25:50):
Ideasarenotaproductofmatter.Thisconceptofmatteris
metaphysical.Thisisplekhanovsdialecticalmaterialism.Mostof
Marxsphilosophicalviewsinmanuscriptssuchas1844mauscripts
andthegrundrissa,werelockedawaybytheGermansocial
democratswhoputthemdowntomarxsyouthfulviewsbecause
theydidnotconformtothematerialistviewsofkautsky.

ThePhilosophyinCapitalwasmisunderstoodasleninsaidinthe
philosophicalnotebooks.InthenotebooksLeninexaminedthe
creativeroleofideaascausation.ideasthatgripthemassesbecome
amaterialforceisnotideasasaproductofmatter.

Marxhadbeenverycriticalofthematerialismoffeuerbachas
undialetical.seethesisonfeuerbach,whereasEngelshadamuch
morepositiveviewofmaterialismandscience.Marxhadcriticised
thedehumanisedorabstractnatureofHegelsphilosophybuthedid
notcounterposeidealismandmaterialismastwoopposingcamps.
ThiswasEngelswhowasfollowedbyPlekhanov.

Trotskydidnotstudyphilosopyasleninhad.Hewasunconfident
aboutphilosophyandalthoughmanyofMarxsphlosophical
manuscripsbecameavailableduringTrotsky;sexilehewasunable
togivethemprioritytostudythem.insteadheadvocatedinavery
dogmaticwaythedialecticalmaterialismofPlekhanov.Herepeated
plekhanovwhorehashedEngelswhoechoedHegelondialectical
logicofA==Aandsoon.ButHegelsgreatestworkonThe
phenomenologyofmindorthelogicarenotaddressedletalone
Marxsviewofthem.

TrotskywasreluctanttoaknowledgeLeninsroleincreatingstalin.
lenincreatedthebolshevikmachinethemachinecreatedstalinsays
Trotsky.ButheworriedawayatthisconundrumbecauseStalinwas
keycomponentofthemachinethatLeninbuilt.AsTrotskywrote
leninpromotedStalinagainsthimselfandothercomrades.
 circumstancesdonotexplainstalinsprominanceinBolshevik
history.Leninlikethosearoundhimtocarryouthisideasand
instrucions.BukharinwasnotoneofLeninsyesmen.

21 03 2010
billj (11:10:04):
Ideasareaproductofmatter.Apieceofmattercalledthebrain.The
brainsecretesthoughtinthesamewaythatthepancreassecretes
bile.InfactthesedayswithECTmachinesandwhatnottheycan
actuallyshowideasinthebrainasitreactstovariousexternal
stimuli.Iftheyarenotaproductofmatterthentheydonotexist.In
whichcasetheyareaproductofgod.Imguessingyoudontbelieve
ingodBarry?
Butthisisallbythebyactually.IagreeTrotskywasreluctantto
acknowledgeLeninsroleincreatingStalinafterallTrotskytoo
hadaroleincreatingStalin,theybothwerepartofthemilitarisation
ofthestatewiththecivilwar.ButLenincreatedtheapparatus,the
apparatuscreatedStalinandthereforeLenincreatedStalin.The
syllogismispowerfulbecauseitistrue.
Butifwewanttobedialecticalwecanadd,Leninbothdidanddid
notcreateStalininasmuchastheactionshetooktodevelopthe
apparatuswerearesponsetotheobjectivecircumstancesofthecivil
war.AnteCiligiasintheRussianEnigmadiscussesallthisina
veryinterestingcontributionIthink.Hedrawstheanalogybetween
LeninandCromwell,asboththeleaderoftherevolutionandthe
creatorofthermidor.

21 03 2010
Mark (12:33:12):
Thefollowingisratherotopicwithregardtotheorganisation
questionbutgiventhatthediscussionhasinterestinglystrayedinto
philosophicalterritoryIdthoughtIdmakeabriefphilosophical
interjection.

Withregardtothematerialism/idealismdebatemyviewisthat
eitherMarxismneedstoupdateitsphilosophicalbasisorabandon
theattempttobeatotalisingphilosophy.WithintheMarxist
paradigmwetendtousematerialismandidealisminspecificways
andasBarrymentionstheyhavealotofanitywithobjectiveand
subjective.Butwemustbecarefulnotassumethatconceptsof
matterandcausationcaneasilybecarriedoverfromcurrently
acceptedphysicstoamaterialistphilosophy.Forexample,the
conceptofmatterhaschangedquitedrasticallysincethenineteenth
century.Theindefinitenessofastateofaparticle(itisbothspinup
andspindownuntilmeasured),theindistinguishibilityofparticles
suchaselectrons,thewavelikebehaviourofaparticlehaveall
servedtounderminetheclassicalconceptionofmatterasapassive
substanceonlymovedbysomephysicalforce.Indeed,forceitself
isseenasamanifestationofparticulartypeofparticle(e.g.the
photonisacarrieroftheelectromagneticforceandwhichhasno
mass).Soifwearematerialists,thenthequestionastowhatwe
meanbymatterandwhythatisimportantforMarxismisadicult
onetoanswer.Ithinkweoughttoconfinetheideaofmaterialismto
 historicalmaterialismasaspecificparadigmforunderstanding
humansociety.

Theconceptofcausationisjustasthornyanissue.Whatdoesone
makeofcausationwhenparticlescanappearanddisappear
spontaneously(i.e.withoutcause)fromthequantumvacuum.Or
thatameasurementofaparticlecaninfluencetheoutcomeofa
measurementofanotherparticlewithoutanyinterveningmedium,
processorforce,aslongasthetwoparticlesareinanentangled
state?Inotherwords,howdoessomethingwhichhappensat
particleA(thecause)influenceparticleB(theeect)whenthereis
nointerveningspacetimetrajectoryofasetofinterveningevents
whichcancarrythecausetotheeect?Theseproblemshaveled
sometogiveuptheideaofcausationintherealmoffundamental
physics.

Thephilosophicalissuessurroundingquantummechanicsare
subtleanddicultandIdontpretendtohaveanythingbuta
superficialacquaintancebuttheydochallengeanymaterialism
basedonanoutdatedCartesian/Newtonianconceptionmatter.

IfwewanttoretainelementsofHegelsmetaphysicsorEngels
dialecticalmaterialismthenweneedtoengagewithwhat
fundamentalphysicsistellingusabouttheworld.Eitherthatorwe
abandonMarxismasatotalisingphilosophy.

Withrespecttothesubject/objectormind/matterdistinction,
againthisisareallydicultproblem.Therearenotheorieswhich
areadequatetotheproblem.IfyouareinterestedinthisId
recommendWilliamSeagerTheoriesofConsciousness:an
IntroductionandAssessment,inwhichhetakesapartmaterialist
reductionism,Cartesianmind/matterdualism,emergentismin
whichthemindsomehowarisesonthebasisofasuciently
complexconfigurationofmattersuchasabrain,panpsychismin
whichmindandmatterarecoexistentinallthingsetc.,and
franklyadmitsthatthereisnocurrenlycompellingtheory.

Allthisisafarcryfromthedebateswegetintowhenwediscuss
materialismandidealismandtheirrelationtoMarxism.Itwouldbe
betterforustoconfineourdiscussionoftheroleofideasvisavis
socioeconomicconditionswithintheframeworkofhistorical
materialismratherthanappealtoanoutdatedmetaphysics.Thisis
nottosaythatweshouldnotattempttoupdateourmetaphysics
withoutabandoningtheinsightofHegel,orMarxandEngelsonly
thatthenatureofmodernphysicsmeanswehavealotofcatching
uptodo.

22 03 2010
billj (00:05:16):
Ireallydontunderstandyourobjectiontomaterialism.Materialism
simplyassertsthateverythingthatexistsispartofamaterialworld,
thatisithasanobjectiveexistence,includingideas.
Ourunderstandingofthathaschanged.Nosweat,that
 understandingisalsopartofamaterialworld.Thatisatotal
philosophy.Itsgotnothingtodowithanappealtooutdated
metaphysicsinfact,quitetheopposite.Metaphysicsarenot
physics,thatisnotmaterial,andthereforeideal.Wecannotupdate
metaphysicsbecausemetaphysicsdonotexist.Theycannotbe
updated.Justasastrologycanneverbeascience.
Itsliketheattemptofcriticalrealismtocombinetheentityand
thenonentitythatistheexistentandthenonexistent,two
mutuallyincompatiblethingsthatcannot,bydefinition,havea
relationship.
Allaconsequenceoftheabandonmentofthetotalnatureof
materialism,Imafraid.

22 03 2010
Mark (14:17:31):
Iamnotnecessarilyobjectingtomaterialism,asIdonthaveenough
knowledgeofthedebatestomakethatjudgement.ButIthinkitis
usefultoseehowitstandsuptoourcontemporaryscientific
theories.SoIguessmyfirstquestioniswhatdoyoumeanbythe
materialworld?Doyoumeaneverythingthatexistsintheuniverse,
includingbothphysicalandmentalprocesses?Thatsoundsrightto
meifitmeansthattherearenosupernaturalentitiesandIwould
agreewithyouonthis.

Butwhycontinuetocallthisphilosophicalstancematerialism,
exceptasapositionagainstsupernaturalism?Youcouldjustcallit
naturalism.Unlessofcourse,itrevolvesaroundtheconceptof
matter.Maybeyouarerighttosaythatourchangingunderstanding
ofmatterhasnorelevanceontheadequacyofamaterialist
philosophy.ButIthinkthedangeristhatMarxisttheoristsmayjust
assertthiswithoutanunderstandingofhowthatconcepthas
changed.Forexample,Idontknowwhetherwritersonmaterialism
suchasSebastianoTimpanarohavetakenthisintoaccountbut
maybeIshouldreadhisbook:)Anyway,thefactthattheconcept
ofmatterhaschangeddrasticallysincethenineteenthcenturyhas
ledatleastonephilosopherofscience,NorwoodHanson,totalk
aboutthedematerializationofmatterincontempraryphysics.
Thereareothers,bothphilosophersandphysicists,whonolonger
seematterasthebasicsubstanceoftheuniverseinsteadphysicists
suchasJohnWheelerhavewrittenthatinformationisthebasic
substanceoftheuniversenotmatter.Imnotsayingthatthese
peopleareright,onlythatMarxistsshouldengagewiththese
developmentsandseewhethertheconceptofmaterialismisstill
adequate.

Theotheraspectofphilosophicalmaterialism,asidefromits
emphasisonmatter,isthatitreducesconsciousnessandallmental
processestomatterandhowmaterialprocesseschangestateover
time.Atleast,asfarasIamaware,thisisthedominantnonMarxist
variant.Butthisisahope,ratherthanadescriptionofourbest
theoriesofconsciousness.Itisahopebecausesofarithasnotbeen
possibletoelimininatementalactsbyreferencetoaphysical
processes,althoughasaresearchparadigmthisisamotivationfor
manycognitivescientists.Sowhileitmayyetturnouttobethecase
thatthisbecomespossible,materialisminthissense,ismorebased
onametaphysicalstanceratherthananythingintheworldtelling
usthatconsciousnessreallycanbereducedinsuchamanner.(More
onwhyIcallthismetaphysicsbelow).

IknowthatitissaidthatMarxhadamoresophisticatedmaterialist
philosophyandindeedthisisthecasewhenitcomesto
understandingsocietyandthewaypeopletransformtheirsocial
conditions.Soforexample,thedenialoftheprimacyofideasin
historicaldevelopmentseemstometobeamorefrutifulviewthan
thatofanyidealistphilosophyofhistory.ButasfarasIamawarehe
hadlittletosayaboutabroaderphilosophicalmaterialismoutside
ofthesocialdomain.WhileIthinkthathistoricalmaterialismisa
usefulframeworkforanalysingsocialconditionsandhistorical
developments,Iamnotsurewhetheritisnecessaryorfruitfulto
subscribetoawiderphilosophicalmaterialism.Oratleastwe
shouldntassumethatthisisthecase.

Engelsmadealaudableeorttointegratethescienceofhisday,
notablyDarwinism,intoawidermaterialistphilosophy.Butarehis
eortsstillvalid?Forexample,itseemsthatEngelswasnota
reductionistinthesensespecifiedabovebutbelievedthat
consciousnessemergedfrommatter.However,asIpointedinmy
previouscommentthereisnoevidencethateitherreductionismor
emergentismisanadequateexplanatoryframeworkfor
consciousness.Ofcourse,thereisnoharminusingtheseasthebasis
forresearch,butonlyifthatiswhattheyareseenasareasonable
assumptionwhichmaybearfruitthroughpainstakingresearch.
Panpsychism,theviewthatallnatureissentientinsomesenseisyet
anotherphilosophicalframeworkwhichmaybeusedtoguide
researchintothenatureofconsciousness.Thereislittleorno
evidenceforit.Butthatcannotcountagainstitinrelationto
reductionismoremergentismneitherwhichhavelittleevidencein
theirfavoureither.Itmaybeoutlandishviewbutwhenhasthatever
stoppedotherratheresotericresearchparadigmsfrombeing
advancedsuchasthemanyworldsinterpretationofquantum
mechanics?LikethemanyworldsinterprationofQM,panpsychism
isnaturalistic,itdoesnotrefertospiritorothersupernatural
entities.Ittriestogroundconcsiousnesswithintheuniverse.So
whichmaterialismarewetalkingaboutwhenwesubscribetoitasa
philosophicalposition?Andwhy?

Questionscanbeaskedaboutwhatexistencetoo.Forexample,what
doyoumeanwhenyousaysomethingexists?Dopasteventsexist
orhavetheyceasedtoexist?Dofutureeventsexist?ImustadmitI
strugglewiththisone.Evenifwesaywhatexistsdoessoonly
now,thatisonlytrueforobserverswhosharethesameinertial
referenceframe.Accordingtospecialrelativitythereisnoabsolute
now.Aneventperceivedbyoneobservermaystillbeinthefuture
foranother.Sotheconceptofexistenceisproblematic.Butyour
referencetorealismmakesmeunsureastowhetherbyexistence
youmeanwhatisreal.Alsobecauseyoumentionobjective
existenceIassumethatyoumeanthatcanbecontrastedwith
subjectiveexistence.Sopossiblyadistinctionbetweenrealityand
fantasy.Isthatright,orhaveIgotthatcompletelywrong?Imnot
familiarwithcriticalrealismsoIcantcommentonit.Itdoesseema
bitoddfromwhatyousayaboutit.Isthistheviewpropoundedby
RoyBhaskar?

Icanunderstandyourscepticismtowardsmetaphysics.Metaphysics
hasabadnameandrightlyso.Theideathatyoucansomehow
comeupwithwhattheworldislikejustthrougharational
considerationofsomebasicconceptsignoresthewholescientific
endeavour.Unfortunately,mostmetaphysicsislikethisthe
developmentofphilosophyinalmostcompleteignoranceofcurrent
science.Butifwetakesomekeyconceptssuchascausation,time,
determinismetc.thereareconflictingunderstandingsoftheseterms
withindierentscientifictheories.Soforexample,causationseems
quitewelldefinedwithinspecialrelativitybutthereismuchdoubt
aboutitsecacyasanexplanatoryconceptwithinquantum
mechanics.Sophilosophersofphysicstendtotryandworkoutwhy
thesametermisoftenusedinconflictingorevencontradictory
wayswithinascientificdomaininthehopeofsheddingsomelight
ontheconcept.Physiciststendtonotworryaboutthesemore
abstracttermsbutfocusonhowatheorymaybeimprovedinthe
lightofsomeempiricalevidence.Butwealsohavetorememberthat
metaphysicalbeliefs(i.ethosenotbasedonprevailingscientific
theory)oftenmotivatescientificresearchparadigms.Soforexample,
themetaphysicalbeliefthattheworldisdeterministicinsome
mannerisoneofthemotivationsforthesearchforhiddenvariables
toexplainawaythetheindeterminisminquantummechanicsinits
standardinterpretation.Cognitivescientistswhosearchfor
correlationsbetweenbrainstatesandmentalphenomenaaredriven
byametaphysicalbeliefinmaterialistreductionism.Noneofthis
antiscientific,allitshowsisthatthereareextrascientificandoften
metaphysicalreasonswhysomeresearchparadigmsarefavoured
overothers.Itisthetaskofmetaphysicstosubjectthesebeliefsto
rationalscrutinyandtoseehowwelltheyfitwiththescience.

Sorrythatthisreplyissolongandapologiesfordraggingthe
discussionotopicbutIthoughtitmightbeusefultosay
somethingaboutmaterialisminthecontextofourcurrentscience
becauseitmayhaveimplicationsastowhetherwereevaluatethe
materialismofMarx,Engels,PlekhanovandLenintoday.
Personally,IdontthinkthisaectsourevaluationofMarxbecause
heheconfinedhismaterialismtoaspecificunderstandingofsocial
development.However,Engels,PlekhanovandLeninwidenedthe
scopeofmaterialismtothenaturalworldandthereforeweoughtto
subjecttheirviewstocriticalscrutinyinthelightofour
contemporaryscienceforasmuchasitcanttellusasforwhatit
can.IcantsayhowthoughbecauseIonlyhavearathersuperficial
understandingofthescienceandtobehonestonlyapassing
acquaintancewiththeviewsofEngels,PlekhanovandLeninonthe
subject.ButIdbesurprisediftheirviewsdidntneedupdatingor
abandoninginthelightofourcurrentknowledgewhichhas
 changedconsiderablysincetheirtime.AsyouwillhavegatheredI
dontthinkthathistoricalmaterialismisdependentuponawider
philosophicalmaterialismwhichencompassesthenaturalworld.
Butagain,thisisnottosaythelatterisfalse,onlytosaythatthecase
isnotproven.Materialismisametaphysicalpositionafterall
becauseitgoesbeyondthescientificevidence:)Unlessofcourse
whenwesaymaterialismwemeanscientificbutthenwhynot
justsaythelatter?

23 03 2010
billj (00:17:37):
ImafraidImnotreallygoingtobeabletodoyoujusticeonhere
Mark,butjustafewcomments.Ihaventbotheredtoreallyengage
withanyofthisuntilIwentbacktoUniformyPHDthisyear.
Philosophyorwhattheycallphilosophyisaprettycentralpart
toitall.Andfranklywhattheyteachisatotalmess.Itisareflection
ofthedefeatofMarxisminthe1990sanditsreplacementbypost
modernism.Thatisinturncollapsingbecauseitsbasicallyuseless
andsillyandbeingreplacedbychaos.
Materialismhasalwaysembracedthelatestdevelopmentsin
science,itwasafterallinventedbytheGreeks.Soneithertheatom
ortheuniversehadevenbeendiscoveredthen.JustasDNAwas
unknowntoMarxandEngelsandthetheoryofrelativityand
quantumphysics.
Mypersonalopinionisthatwedonothavetotakeapositionon
whichoranyoftheseisnecessarilycorrect,theyareallattemptsto
moreorlessaccuratelydescribeaworldthatexistsindependentlyof
us,thatiswhichhasanobjectivematerialexistence.Marxnotedin
histhesesonFeuerbach(number2);

Thequestionwhetherobjectivetruthcanbeattributedtohuman
thinkingisnotaquestionoftheorybutisapracticalquestion.Man
mustprovethetruthi.e.therealityandpower,thethissidedness
ofhisthinkinginpractice.Thedisputeovertherealityornonreality
ofthinkingthatisisolatedfrompracticeisapurelyscholastic
question.

Whensophistsarguetoprovetheirexistence,orthatofanyobject
definitivelythemakeexactlythisscholasticquestion.Itisnot
necessarytoknowthechemicalformulaofanappletoeatit.Butitis
necessarytoknowitsanappleandthatitcanbeeaten.
Weshouldrejectmetaphysicsforexactlythisreason.Materialism
encompassesthematerialworldinitsentiretyincludingthoughtas
apartofit.Metaphysicsexistsoutsideofthematerialworldand
thereforeitdoesnotexist.Ifitdoesnoexist,thenitisnonexistent,
soithasnomaterialreality,soitcannotbeunderstood.Infactthere
cannotbeanymetaphysicalbeliefsmetaphysicsdonotexistso
theycannotexistbutonlybeliefsinmetaphysics.Thatisreal
beliefsinnonexistentthings.Inotherwordspeoplecanbelievein
ghostseventhoughtherearenoghosts.
Intheenditallcomesdowntotheoldquestionwhenthetreein
theforestcrashestotheearthdoesitmakeasound?Forthe
materialistsyessoundisashockwavetransmittedthroughtheair,
 thetreehasamaterialrealityseparatefromhumancognitionofit..
Fortheidealistsnosoundissomethingproducedbythehuman
ear,withoutthecognitionofthethingthethinghasnoexistence.

23 03 2010
Barry (21:20:39):
Theconceptofmatterhaschangedwithdevolopmentsinscienceas
Markcomments.ThiswastheissueBogdanov(whenhewasa
leadingBolshevik)raisedintheearlyyearsofthe20thcentury.He
regardedPlekhanovsmaterialismbasedontheenlightenments
mechanicalmaterialismasoutdatedandunconvincing.

Marxsownphilosophicalapproachwasnotatotalising
philosophicalworldviewashissuppressedmanuscripts,which
RiazanovrescuedfromGermansocialdemocracyinthe1920s
showed.Plekhanovwasadogmatist.Marxhadalowopinionofhis
originalgroupdescribingthemasdoctrinair.whenZazulich,oneof
Plekhanovscollaborators,wrotetoMarxabouthisopinionsonthe
futuredevelopmentoftheMir,Marxdidnotbasehisviewson
technologyorproductiveforcesdeterminism,butthesocialor
communalrelationshipsofthemir.Russiadidnothavetogo
throughthestageoffullydevelopedindustrialcapitalismtogetto
socialism.

TheletterMarxwrotewashiddenbythesedogmatistsand
Plekhanovalwaysdenieditsexistencebecauseitsoobviously
conflictedwithhisownphilosophicalviewswhichowedmoreto
spinozathanMarx.Itwasnoaccidenttouseanoldphrasethat
PlekhanovwasontheextremerightwingofRussianSocial
Democracywithhisevolutionistandstageistviews.

WhileBogdanovsphilosophicalviewswerecompetenttherewereat
oddswiththeapproachofMarx.Butasfarasirememberhedid
researchandusethelatestscientificworkofthetime.InContrast
Leninwroteoneofhisworstbooksrootedinthe18thcentury
materialismandtreatingEngelsassomekindofgod.Marxhad
gonebeyondthiskindofonesidedmaterialism.Itsalongtimesince
ilookedattheseissues,butleninjustgotthingPlainwrong.

WhatdistinguishedMarxfromplekhanovandphilosophical
materialistswastheinfluenceofHegelandthedialectic.Hedidnot
rejectidealismbutHegelsabtractidealism.Lookattheviewofmarx
onAlienationandestrangedlabourandthecommodityasa
mysteriousmetaphysicalthing.Thisisnotproductiveforces
determinismorphilosophicalmaterialism.Bolshevismafter1917
wasallaboutamericantechnologyandfollowinginstructionsfrom
above.

23 03 2010
billj (22:53:52):
Yourejustwrong.MarxexplainedinthethesesonFeuerbach,
amongstotherplacesthathestoodontheplatformofthenew
materialism,theses9
 Thestandpointoftheoldmaterialismiscivilsociety;the
standpointofthenewishumansociety,orsocialhumanity.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses
/theses.htm

BogdanoviswhatwouldtodaybecalledaSocialConstructivist
hebelievethecollectivemadethethingthroughtheirconsciousness
ofit.HewasanobjectiveidealistinotherwordsakaErnstMach.

24 03 2010
Barry (00:05:48):
whenyousayIamwrongyoumustbeawarethatthisphrasedoes
notaddressthepointsImade.

iwillreturntosomedetailedargumentation.Butletmeleaveyou
withLeninsconclusioninthePhilosophicalnotebooks:

Intelligentidealismisbetterthanstupidmaterialism(Plekhanov)

24 03 2010
billj (14:25:55):
HeyLeninwasrude.Thatshardlynews.

24 03 2010
Barry (21:46:09):
Heyyoudonotrespondtopointsmade.

Forworkerspowerandthepeoplelockedoutoftheorganisations
oceforhavingalesspessimisticviewoftheeconomiccrisis,your
attitudeisparforthesectariancourse.

Iwillenddiscussionorattempteddiscussionthere.Adiscussionfor
otherswithmorepoliticalculture.

GoodluckwithyourPHD.

25 03 2010
billj (14:54:36):
YouresorttoclichesandImsupposedtobeimpressed?
YouneedtomakeyourmindupaboutLenin.Ontheonehandhes
anautocrat,mechanicalmaterialistandsoon.Ontheotherhandits
enoughtoquotehimwhenhesbeingrudeaboutPlekhanov.
Thisisntgettingusveryfar.YouhaventexplainedhowMarx
wasntamaterialistwhenhedefinedhimselfasone.Youhavent
explainedhowMarxthoughtthatideaswerenotofthematerial
world,whenhesaidtheywere.Youhaventexplainedwhatallthis
hasgottodowithanythinganyway.Whathasit?Doyoubelieve
thatacorrectphilosophyguaranteesyouagainstpoliticalmistakes?
Icantseehowitwould.
Youclaimedthatyouwouldreturntothesepointsyouhavent.
OhyeahandnewsflashitsnottheGreatDepression.

25 03 2010
Barry (20:53:44):
 youarestillarrogantafteralltheseyears.Leninwasnotbeingrude
aboutPlekhanov.Youareobviouslyuninformedasyouwerein
youryoungstudentdays.Leninmadetheobviouspointin
philosophicalnotebookswhichyouhavenotstudied,hesimply
madethegeneralpointthatintellegentidealismissuperiorto
unintellegentmaterialism.Marxdidnothaveascientificmaterialist
philosopyoradialecticalmaterialistoutlooklikeplekhanovwhohe
disliked.Healsohadalowopinionofkautskyandhismaterialist
outlook.marxdidnotdefinehimselfasadialecticalmaterialist.

AsforLeninwellhewaslikethecuratesegg;hewasgoodinparts.
Thestateandrevolutionisoutstandingandarticulatedthecreativity
oftherevolutionaryRussianworkersin1917.Itsallabout
communismfrombelowwhichthecommunestandsfor.Butthe
dictatorshipoftheoldpartyguardovertheclassassomekindofof
guaranteeofasocialistfuture,onemanmaangement,thebannon
nonLeninistfactionsandsoon,thesearenotpoliticswewantto
emulate.

certainlyLeninarguedthatacorrectphilosophyguaranteedagainst
politicalmistakesin190812.Thiswasthejustificationforhisblock
withthemostrightwingleaderofRussianSocialDemocracy,
PlekhanovandhisvitriolicpolemicsaganistBogdanov.Thenwe
haveTrotskywhodogmaticallyrepeatedPlekhanovdialectical
materialismwhenheflounderedwhenfacedwithcritisimofhis
workersstatetheorieswhichwerebasedonRicardoratherthan
Marx(seperationproductionanddistribution)andGERMANsocial
democraticviewsonnationalisation.

iamnottryingtoimpressyoucomrade.Thathasbeenandwould
beadiculttask.Iamsimplytryingtoputforwardacriticalview
ofBolshevism.

26 03 2010
billj (12:01:04):
Ouch.Whereasyoureanangel.ActuallyIhavereadLenins
philsophicalnotebooks,whichare,notebooks.Thatisnotes.
Impressions.Jottings.Thinkingsoutload.Notnecessarily
consistent.Notnecessarilyrigorous,butworkingsout.Not
somethingtobequotedasthelastword.
Intelligentidealismisnotnecessarilybetterthanunintelligent
materialism.Itreallydependswhatyouretalkingabout.
TrotskystheoryoftheUSSRwasnotbasedonRicardo.InfactI
cantthinkofasinglereferencetoRicardohemakesanywhere.It
wasbasedonthecombinationofhispersonalsituationasapartof
theapparatus/leadingstratumwhowasnonethelesstryingto
analysewhatwentwrong.Thereforeitwashesitant,notfully
workedout,onlyslowlygrapplingwiththetruth.
Hisuseofdialecticsinthelate1930storefutethesyllogismLenin
createdtheapparatus,theapparatuscreatedStalin,thereforeLenin
createdStalin,isanexampleofwhereintelligentidealismisnot
superiortounintelligentmaterialism.
LeninbothdidanddidnotcreateStalin.