Click on the headline to link to the "Lenin Internet Archive" online copy of Lenin's famous, "What Is To Be Done?: Burning Issues Of Our Movement" that will give the entry below some perspective.
Markin comment;
Recently I have mentioned in a number of entries that I have worked in the past with, and now work with, a loose "circle" of local anti-war militants who have decided on a three point program to fight Obama’s war policies over the coming year, highlighted by the struggle to create anti-war soldiers and sailors solidarity committees.
I have also recently placed a number of pieces of historical interest around the World War I anti-imperialist, anti-war work done by Lenin and the Bolshevik Party that he led at the time. A comparison of the differences between the two types of political work as portrayed in my entries, and as was pointed out to me most graphically by a local political opponent who is a supporter of an organization that claims a Leninist organizational heritage, seems to be contradictory. Add in the factor that this blog, in many ways, does not have much meaning or reason for existence except as a vehicle to learn the lessons that Lenin and Trotsky drew about revolutionary politics, and organization, and the contradiction seems even greater.
That said, what is the great to-do about? Just this. The core of Leninist politics has historically evolved around intransigent opposition to non-revolutionary strategic considerations in the struggle for our communist future AND the notion of a vanguard working class party as the vehicle to take power on the road to that future. The organizational form that that party form has taken, for those who today may not be familiar with what in the past was a serious difference of political perspectives, was that this organization would be staffed by, in short, professional revolutionaries and held together by democratic-centralist discipline. That form of discipline, when in right working order allowed for pretty free-wheeling discussion internally between comrades but once a decision was made, right or wrong, in public the party would operate under that majority line. The other, traditional social-democratic form called for a party of the whole class, warts and all, and a basic cavalier attitude toward carrying out the party line, except when you crossed swords with the party bureaucracy. Trotsky had many early disagreements with Lenin over this dispute but, for our purposes here, once he was won over to Lenin’s organizational perspective he held to that view until his assassination by a Stalinist agent in 1940.
That is, in a nutshell, the outline of the historic argument. How does that fit in with the work of a man, this writer, who claims to stand in the Leninist tradition today yet who works in a “circle”, a devise that in Russian revolutionary history was discarded by almost all serious revolutionaries in the late 19th century as inadequate to the tasks at hand for the upcoming revolution that everyone saw as necessary, and was coming in due course? Well, a history of the “circle” is in order. The core of this group, including this writer, came together in the fall of 2001 in response to the threat of then President George W. Bush’s to blow Afghanistan to smithereens in the aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks.
I have mentioned, I think, in previous entries that there have been quite a few times in my long “street” political career that I have faced all sorts of dangerous situations and that I was very seldom fearful for my person. In those post-Trade Center days being out on the streets in opposition to that Afghan war I was afraid, more often than not. Not from the right wing crazies; that comes with the territory of left wing politics. Nor from the police who see these things all in day’s work whether they get to beat heads or not. Nor, as in past experiences, from some bizarre Stalinist or anarchoid left political "thugs". No this fear stemmed from the reaction of the average placid fellow citizen who was ready to take my scalp and made me realize that while I might have American citizenship I was not an American to them. What got me, and us, through those days was the internal discipline and camaraderie of the "circle". That, my friends, was a baptism of fire that you do not walk way from easily, not should you, all other things being equal.
And what of the political composition of the circle? Well, it was, and is, all over the place from semi-pacifist to ostensibly Leninist, with some quasi-anarchism thrown in for good measure, but the core that has held it together, other than that extreme sense of camaraderie mentioned above, is an anti-American imperialist ethos. A need to see the American “monster” held in check, tamped down. The current “three whales” program is a codification of that- opposition to American military adventures as they pop up; a need to break with the old politics and create a workers party that fights for a workers government; and, as the most overt expression of that need to “tamp down” the “monster”, those anti-war soldiers and sailors solidarity committees. That we agree on.
I also wrote in a recent blog that there was internal controversy over the question of putting energies into building the then called-for spring anti-war rallies in Washington, D.C. on March 20th. We are thus emphatically not a democratic- centralism organization. I would, since I have to write about it here, characterize it as an on-going rolling “united front”. Others may, given my description, call it a propaganda bloc. Not Leninist, in any case. Yet, until I see something on the horizon that is more attractive and more coherent that the myriad other "circles", leagues, groups, tendencies, committees and "parties" I am perfectly comfortable with this formation. Lenin may turn over in his mausoleum but that is the case right now
No comments:
Post a Comment