Moved from /c/genzedong since the rules are a bit different.
This community is meant to educate, and people from any instances federated with Lemmygrad are welcome.
Rules:
You can read the text on ProleWiki.
You can post questions or share your thoughts at any time. When we move on to a new text, this thread won't be locked.
Leninism is Marxism of the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution.
Not sure why but this line hit really hard. Like he spent the first 2 paragraphs setting up just to say this line.
Lenin called imperialism "moribund capitalism". Why? Because imperialism carries the contradictions of capitalism to their last bounds, to the extreme limit, beyond which revolution begins.
Of these contradictions, there are three which must be regarded as the most important.
1. contradiction between labour and capital
Imperialism is the omnipotence of the monopolist trusts and syndicates, of the banks and the financial oligarchy, in the industrial countries. In the fight against this omnipotence, the customary methods of the working class-trade unions and cooperatives, parliamentary parties and the parliamentary struggle-have proved to be totally inadequate. Either place yourself at the mercy of capital, eke out a wretched existence as of old and sink lower and lower, or adopt a new weapon-this is the alternative imperialism puts before the vast masses of the proletariat. Imperialism brings the working class to revolution.
2. contradiction among the various financial groups and imperialist Powers in their struggle for sources of raw materials, for foreign territory.
Imperialism is the export of capital to the sources of raw materials, the frenzied struggle for monopolist possession of these sources, the struggle for a re-division of the already divided world, a struggle waged with particular fury by new financial groups and Powers seeking a "place in the sun" against the old groups and Powers, which cling tenaciously to what they have seized. This frenzied struggle among the various groups of capitalists is notable in that it includes as an inevitable element imperialist wars, wars for the annexation of foreign territory. This circumstance, in its turn, is notable in that it leads to the mutual weakening of the imperialists, to the weakening of the position of capitalism in general, to the acceleration of the advent of the proletarian revolution and to the practical necessity of this revolution.
3. contradiction between the handful of ruling, "civilised" nations and the hundreds of millions of the colonial and dependent peoples of the world.
Imperialism is the most barefaced exploitation and the most inhumane oppression of hundreds of millions of people inhabiting vast colonies and dependent countries. The purpose of this exploitation and of this oppression is to squeeze out super-profits. But in exploiting these countries imperialism is compelled to build these railways, factories and mills, industrial and commercial centers. The appearance of a class of proletarians, the emergence of a native intelligentsia, the awakening of national consciousness, the growth of the liberation movement-such are the inevitable results of this "policy." The growth of the revolutionary movement in all colonies and dependent countries without exception clearly testifies to this fact. This circumstance is of importance for the proletariat inasmuch as it saps radically the position of capitalism by converting the colonies and dependent countries from reserves of imperialism into reserves of the proletarian revolution.
imperialism cannot exist without exploiting colonies and forcibly retaining them within the framework of the "integral whole"; because imperialism can bring nations together only by means of annexations and colonial conquest, without which imperialism is, generally speaking, inconceivable.
For communism, on the contrary, these tendencies are but two sides of a single cause-the cause of the emancipation of the oppressed people from the yoke of imperialism; because communism knows that the union of peoples in a single world economic system is possible only in the basis of mutual confidence and voluntary agreement, and that road to the formation of a voluntary union of peoples lies through the separation of the colonies from the "integral" imperialist "whole," through the transformation of the colonies into independent states.
Hence the necessity for a stubborn, continuous and determined struggle against the dominant-nation chauvinism of the "Socialist" of the ruling nations (Britain, France, America, Italy, Japan, etc.), who do not want to fight their imperialist governments, who do not want to support the struggle of the oppressed peoples in "their" colonies for emancipation from oppression, for secession.
Even Stalin knew the western left was useless in 1924.
He's a typical anti-China Western "communist". The audiobooks are fine if you can ignore the commentary, but I'd stay away from all of his recent work
I'm endlessly gracious for his extensive library and making revolutionary texts accessible (it's how read this book before), but his opinions as a Marxist are definitely... unrefined I guess I would say. He has read mountains of text compare to me, yet some of his mistakes signal to me a lack of actual engagement with practice. It's not the absolute worst I've seen, my university has an Ultra/trot (it's hard to tell) group that I think does this much worse while providing less praxis.
I also find him unnecessarily petty. His evaluation that American Marxists should support the greens over PSL comes off as an egotistical position based off of the PSLs support of "dengism" (in his words). His arguments aren't even entirely bad, and he makes points worth contending with in regards to the necessity of a Mass party vs a Vanguard atm, but it's obvious that his opinion of the China question is taking precedent on that conversation, which devalues the rest I'd his argument.
Again his audiobooks are genuinely an amazing resource for comrades and I'd argue it has done much more in spreading class consciousness then a bunch of others, but it's sad to see the amount if caveats that exist within nearly every western leftist.
I am aware. I hope that he kicks that mentality as his work with getting theory widely available cant be understated.
Another option here: Youtube Playlist
Also RevLeft Radio did a commentary.
I found YouTube links in your comment. Here are links to the same videos on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Link 1:
Link 2:
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Lol my reactionary dad worldview is starting to fall apart, its pretty funny to watch. Thanks comrade JDPON don for this.
What is contained in Lenin's method was in the main already contained in the teachings of Marx, which, according to Marx himself, were "in essence critical and revolutionary."(...) As a matter of fact, Lenin's method is not only the restoration of, but also the concretisation and further development of the critical and revolutionary method of Marx, of his materialist dialectics.
Some think that Leninism is the precedence of practice over theory in the sense that its main point is the translation of the Marxist theses into deeds, their "execution"; as for theory; it is alleged that Leninism is rather unconcerned about it.
I must declare that this more than odd opinion about Lenin and Leninism is quite wrong and bears no relation whatever to the truth; that the attempt of practical workers to brush theory aside runs counter to the whole spirit of Leninism and is fraught with serious dangers to the work.
Theory is the experience of the working-class movement in all countries taken in its general aspect. Of course, theory becomes purposeless if it is not connected with revolutionary practice, just as practice gropes in the dark if its path is not illumined by revolutionary theory. But theory can become a tremendous force in the working-class movement if it is built up in indissoluble connection with revolutionary practice;
I must add to this that saying that Marx only cared about theory is such an absurd lie that only revisionists could come up with it, the man was exiled from multiple countries and persecuted until his last days because of his definitely practical participation in proletarian movements.
Of course, theory becomes purposeless if it is not connected with revolutionary practice, just as practice gropes in the dark if its path is not illumined by revolutionary theory.
Lenin and Mao agree with Stalin:
"Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement, " —Lenin
"No political party can possibly lead a great revolutionary movement to victory unless it possesses revolutionary theory and a knowledge of history and has a profound grasp of the practical movement." —Mao
And:
"If we have a correct theory but merely prate about it, pigeonhole it and do not put it into practice, then that theory, however good, is of no significance." —Mao
Marx understood the actions required by the material conditions of his place and time were primarily agitation and propaganda. Too many people think praxis means reading a chapter of theory for every bomb you plant. Material conditions are the fulcrum on which the balance of theory and action plays out. We don't all get to be Che Guevara.
Some think that Leninism is opposed to reforms, opposed to compromises and to agreements in general. This is absolutely wrong. Bolsheviks know as well as anybody else that in a certain sense "every little helps," that under certain conditions reforms in general, and compromises and agreements in particular, are necessary and useful.
To a reformist, reforms are everything, while revolutionary work is something incidental, something just to talk about, mere eyewash. That is why, with reformist tactics under the conditions of bourgeois rule, reforms are inevitability transformed into an instrument for strengthening that rule, an instrument for disintegrating the revolution.
To a revolutionary, on the contrary, the main thing is revolutionary work and not reforms; to him reforms are a by-product of the revolution. That is why, with revolutionary tactics under the conditions of bourgeois rule, reforms are naturally transformed into an instrument for strengthening the revolution, into a strongpoint for the further development of the revolutionary movement.
The revolutionary will accept a reform in order to use it as an aid in combining legal work with illegal work to intensify, under its cover, the illegal work for the revolutionary preparation of the masses for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie.
The reformist, on the contrary, will accept reforms in order to renounce all illegal work, to thwart the preparation of the masses for the revolution and to rest in the shade of "bestowed" reforms.
Very important section. It begs the question of how can we get the masses to see that reforms are short term solutions that can be easily revoked. How can we convince a reformist to become a revolutionary?
Trump is kinda making that point obvious for us.
While it's impossible to give an absolute answer to that problem, we must remember that people change their ideas based on their material conditions. Stalin mentions how this exact problem was dealt with during the 1917 revolution:
To put in the forefront precisely those forms of struggle and organization which are best suited to the conditions prevailing during the flow or ebb of the movement at a given moment, and which therefore can facilitate and ensure the bringing of the masses to the revolutionary positions, the bringing of the millions to the revolutionary front, and their disposition at the revolutionary front.
The point here is not that the vanguard should realise the impossibility of preserving the old regime and the inevitability of its overthrow. The point is that the masses, the million should understand this inevitability and display their readiness to support the vanguard. But the masses can understand this only from their own experience. The task is to enable the vast masses to realise from their own experience the inevitability of the overthrow of the old regime, to promote such methods of struggle and forms of organisations as will make it easer fro the masses to realise from experience the correctness of the revolutionary slogans.
The vanguard would have become detached from the working class, and the working class would have lost contact with the masses, if the Party had not decided as the time to participate in the Duma, if it had not decided to concentrate its forces on work in the Duma and to develop a struggle on the basis of this work, in order to make it easier for the masses to realise from their own experience the futility of the Duma, the falsity of the promises of the Cadets, the impossibility of compromise with tsarism, and the inevitability of an alliance between the peasantry and the working class. Had the masses not gained their experience during the period of the Duma, the exposure of the Cadets and the hegemony of the proletariat would have been impossible.
The Party would have become detached from the working class, and the working class would have lost its influence among the broad masses of the peasants and soldiers, if the proletariat had followed the "Left" Communists, who called for an uprising in April 1917, when the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries had not yet exposed themselves as advocates of war and imperialism, when the masses had not yet realized from their own experience the falsity of speeches of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries about peace, land and freedom. Had the masses not gained this experience during the Kerensky period, the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries would not have been isolated and the dictatorship of the proletariat would have been impossible. Therefore, the tactics of "patiently explaining" the mistakes of the petty-bourgeois parties and of open struggle in the Soviets were the only correct tactics.
I'm not done with the book yet - I haven't had a lot of energy to dig into the text as much as I'd like. I just finished Ch 4 - Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Two things I would like to discuss
1 - The DotP is a tool for re-education of nearly all classes: those that still have some bourgeois habits/traditions, proletarians to be able to lead the masses, petite-bourgeois for socialist mode of production. Stalin quotes Lenin
in the force of habit, in the strength of small production. For, unfortunately, small production is still very, very widespread in the world, and small production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale"... for "the abolition of classes means only not only driving out the landlords and capitalists-that we accomplished with comparative ease-it also means abolishing the small commodity producers, and they cannot be drive out, or crushed; we must live in harmony with them, they can (and must) be remoulded and re-educated only by very prolonged, slow, cautious organizational work.
Bolding is what I'm focusing on. This made me think of dekulakization and the Chinese Cultural Revolution. What are we to do when those that we are trying to re-educate, slowly and cautiously, are actively against our attempts? From what I know, I can see dekulakization as a necessity given the circumstances (kulaks actively rebelling against the government by destroying equipment, crops, and livelihoods of the collective farms). I'm not well versed in the cultural revolution for why the party believed it was necessary (I think because petite-bourgeois were being seen as trying to take over the party), but I know that the CPC views the cultural revolution as a failure. With the progress of the CPC up to this point, they've obviously learned from the mistakes. What did they learn so we don't repeat these same mistakes? We don't want to radicalize the population in the opposite direction.
2 - The portion on Soviets talks about them in a more general purpose way. They are how the proletarians get closer to the laboring masses to be able to lead them through class struggle by having the executive and legislative functions be combined into a single state body in the mills, mines, etc. They are how the laboring masses were able to exercise their democracy. Could someone give me an example as to what that looked like?
I think my issue is trying to showcase the difference between bourgeois parliamentarianism and soviets outside just that Soviets are proletarians in power. If there is a non-theory discussion group, then I would advocate for Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan, as I believe reading that might answer my question.