From The Pen Of Vladimir Lenin -Leader Of The Russian October 1917 Revolution-Desperately Seeking Revolutionary Intellectuals-Now, And Then
A link below to the Lenin Internet Archives.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/
COMMENTARY
THE DUTY OF A REVOLUTIONARY IS TO MAKE THE REVOLUTION-OR FALL TRYING
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY
I was recently asked by a young militant leftist of vague socialist sympathies why an old militant like myself was still trying to put up what apparently appears to be a forlorn task in my lifetime- the ‘good fight’ for socialism. My short answer to her was that I was doing it for her. It is true that each political generation will come to terms with the socialist tasks of its era in its own way. However, it would be a serious mistake on the part of young socialist militants to ignore the lessons of the past.
The lessons: the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Paris Commune, the early history of the American Communist Party and later the Socialist Workers Party now seemingly in the historic mist of time to today’s young militants need examination. Old militants may not be able to immediately bring about the socialist vision that animated their youth but we sure as hell can pass on the torch to the next generation. Moreover, the links to that past by death, attrition and abandonment of politics by earlier cadre have become extremely attenuated, particularly here in the heartland of world imperialism, and the relatively few of us who still remember that past and who are still fighting that ‘good fight’ are duty bound to pass on what we know.
Now for a little longer answer to that young militant’s question. I came of political age in the 1960’s, a time of much political ferment and many political mistakes on the part of the young leftists of my generation, what I have euphemistically called elsewhere the generation of ’68. Personally, I came, kicking and screaming, relatively late to the Marxist worldview after abandoning left liberal and then 'soft' socialist political positions. I can, however, state with some pride that the lateness of my conversion probably helped to keep my convictions that much more solid. Certainly nothing politically over the past 30 plus years has changed my basis view of the necessity of socialism and the probability that a knock down, drag out fight against the imperialists will be necessary to achieve it. If nothing else that is the example I wish to set by my writings and political actions.
Truth to tell, nobody ever said that individual revolutionaries would live to see the socialist society in their life time. If any thought so they bought the wrong ticket. While it is certainly true that individual activists make their own judgments about the extend of their commitment to their political goals, especially something as seemingly esoteric as the hard fight for socialism, this wicked world holds too many surprises to base one’s political calculations on the dream of actually being a commissar in a soviet society. Our models, moreover, should be Marx who after 1848 never came close to seeing the society that he predicted but still fought savagely for his worldview until his death. And Lenin, who only saw a partial and a much distorted completion of his world view before his untimely death. And Trotsky who fought to save the Russian Revolution and later in exile fought to create a new revolutionary international died at his post with his work still uncompleted. Can we do less?
Finally, let me give a specific example that has sustained me throughout the years. As part of my early Marxist political activity I did a massive amount of political reading, especially about the American socialist movement. In that reading I was drawn to the struggle of the American Trotskyists in the 1930’s who as followers of Trotsky’s Left International were trying to create a new revolutionary communist party in opposition to the Stalinized American Communist Party. As part of that process they tried to regroup with other active left wing anti-Stalinist organizations.
One such successful regroupment was with the Workers Party that had led the famous Toledo Auto-Lite strike in 1934 and which along with other later regroupments formed the Socialist Workers Party. One of the leaders of the Workers Party was New York University Professor, James Burnham. Burnham was a high-powered intellectual who could write very persuasively and wrote many articles and pamphlets that militants today can still profitably read. In 1940 he led a major split from the SWP over the question of defense of the Soviet Union. He in turn split from Marxism and later would end up a die-hard anti-Communist in league with conservative William Buckley’s National Review. Such are vagaries of politics, but that is not the main point here. In his heyday in the Socialist Workers Party Burnham was asked by fellow leader James P. Cannon to take a more central and active role in the leadership of the organization. In response Burnham stated that he personally could or would not do so as he was uncertain whether the socialist goals of the organization were attainable in his life time. That, fellow militants, is exactly the bad example that I have been fighting against most of my political life. I remain at my post.
*****************
Desperately Seeking Revolutionary Intellectuals-Now, And Then
Commentary
No, this is not a Personals section ad, although it qualifies as a Help Wanted ad in a sense. On a number of occasions over past several years, in reviewing books especially those by James P. Cannon the founder of The Socialist Workers Party in America, I have mentioned that building off of the work of the classical Marxists, including that of Marx and Engels themselves, and later that of Lenin and Trotsky the critical problem before the international working class in the early part of the 20th century was the question of creating a revolutionary leadership to lead imminent uprisings. Armed with Lenin’s work on the theory of the imperialist nature of the epoch and the party question and Trotsky’s on the questions of permanent revolution and revolutionary timing the tasks for revolutionaries were more than adequately defined.
The conclusion that I drew from that observation was that the revolutionary socialist movement was not as desperately in need of theoreticians and intellectuals as previously (although having them is always a good thing). It needed leaders steeped in those theories and with a capacity to lead revolutions. We needed a few good day-to-day practical leaders to lead the fight for state power.
In that regard I have always held up, for the early part of the 20th century, the name Karl Liebknecht the martyred German Communist co-leader (along with Rosa Luxemburg) of the aborted Spartacist uprising of 1919 as such an example. In contrast the subsequent leadership of the German Communists in the 1920’s Paul Levi, Henrich Brandler and Ernest Thaelmann did not meet those qualifications. For later periods I have held up the name James P. Cannon, founder of the American Socialist Workers Party (to name only the organization that he was most closely associated with), as a model. That basically carries us to somewhere around the middle of the 20th century. Since I have spend a fair amount of time lately going back to try to draw the lessons of our movement I have also had occasion to think, or rather to rethink my original argument on the need for revolutionary intellectuals. That position stands in need of some amendment now.
Let’s be clear here about our needs. The traditional Marxist idea that in order to break the logjam impeding humankind’s development the international working class must rule is still on the historic agenda. The Leninist notions that, since the early part of the 20th century, we have been in the imperialist era and that a ‘hard’ cadre revolutionary party is necessary to take state power are also in play. Moreover, the Trotskyist understanding that in countries of belated development the working class is the only agency objectively capable of leading those societies to the tasks traditionally associated with the bourgeois revolution continues to hold true. That said, we are seriously in need of revolutionary intellectuals who can bring these understandings into the 21st century.
It is almost a political truism that each generation will find its own ways to cope with the political tasks that confront it. The international working class movement is no exception in that regard. Moreover, although the general outlines of Marxist theory mentioned above hold true such tasks as the updating of the theory of imperialism to take into account the qualitative leap in its globalization is necessary (as is, as an adjunct to that, the significance of the gigantic increases in the size of the ‘third world’ proletariat). Also in need of freshening up is work on the contours of revolutionary political organization in the age of high speed communications, the increased weight that non-working class specific questions play in world politics (the national question, religion, special racial and gender oppressions) and various other tasks that earlier generations had taken for granted or had not needed to consider. All this moreover has to be done in a political environment that sees Marxism, communism, even garden variety reform socialism as failed experiments. To address all the foregoing issues is where my call for a new crop of revolutionary intellectuals comes from.
Since the mid- 20th century we have had no lack of practical revolutionary leaders of one sort or another - one thinks of Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and even Mao in his less rabid moments. We have witnessed any number of national liberation struggles, a few attempts at political revolution against Stalinism, a few military victories against imperialism, notably the Vietnamese struggle. But mainly this has been an epoch of defeats for the international working class. Moreover, we have not even come close to developing theoretical leaders of the statue of Lenin or Trotsky.
As a case in point, recently I made some commentary about the theory of student power in the 1960’s and its eventual refutation by the May 1968 General Strike lead by the working class in France. One of the leading lights for the idea that students were the ‘new’ working class or a ‘new’ vanguard was one Ernest Mandel. Mandel held himself out to be an orthodox Marxist (and Trotskyist, to boot) but that did not stop him from, periodically, perhaps daily, changing the focus of his work away from the idea of the centrality of the working class in social struggle an ideas that goes back to the days of Marx himself.
And Mandel, a brilliant well-spoken erudite scholar probably was not the worst of the lot. The problem is that he was the problem with his impressionistic theories based on , frankly, opportunistic impulses. Another example, from that same period, was the idea of Professor Regis Debray ( in the service of Fidel at the time ) that guerrilla foci out in the hills were the way forward ( a codification of the experience of the Cuban Revolution for which many subjective revolutionary paid dearly with their lives). Or the anti-Marxist Maoist notion that the countryside would defeat the cities that flamed the imagination of many Western radicals in the late 1960’s. I could go on with more examples but they only lead to one conclusion- we are, among other things, in a theoretical trough. This, my friends, is why today I have my Help Wanted sign out. Any takers?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/
Markin comment from the American Left History blog:
DVD REVIEW
LENIN-VOICE OF THE REVOLUTION, A&E PRODUCTION, 2005
Every militant who wants to fight for socialism, or put the fight for socialism back on the front burner, needs tocome to terms with the legacy of Vladimir Lenin and his impact on 20th century revolutionary thought. Every radical who believes that society can be changed by just a few adjustments needs to address this question as well in order to understand the limits of such a position. Thus, it is necessary for any politically literate person of this new generation to go through the arguments both politically and organizationally associated with Lenin’s name. Before delving into his works a review of his life and times would help to orient those unfamiliar with the period. Obviously the best way to do this is read one of the many biographies about him. There is not dearth of such biographies although they overwhelmingly tend to be hostile. But so be it. For those who prefer a quick snapshot view of his life this documentary, although much, much too simply is an adequate sketch of the highlights of his life. It is worth an hour of your time, in any case.
The film goes through Lenin's early childhood, the key role that the execution of older brother Alexander for an assassination attempt on the Czar played in driving him to revolution, his early involvement in the revolutionary socialist movement, his imprisonment and various internal and external exiles, his role in the 1905 Revolution, his role in the 1917 Revolution, his consolidation of power through the Bolshevik Party and his untimely death in 1924. An added feature, as is usual in these kinds of films, is the use of ‘talking heads’ who periodically explain what it all meant. I would caution those who are unfamiliar with the history of the anti-Bolshevik movement that three of the commentators, Adam Ulam, Richard Daniels and Robert Conquest were ‘stars’ of that movement at the height of the anti-Soviet Cold War. I would also add that nothing presented in this biography, despite the alleged additional materials available with the‘opening’ of the Soviet files, that has not been familiar for a long time.
************COMMENTARY
THE DUTY OF A REVOLUTIONARY IS TO MAKE THE REVOLUTION-OR FALL TRYING
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY
I was recently asked by a young militant leftist of vague socialist sympathies why an old militant like myself was still trying to put up what apparently appears to be a forlorn task in my lifetime- the ‘good fight’ for socialism. My short answer to her was that I was doing it for her. It is true that each political generation will come to terms with the socialist tasks of its era in its own way. However, it would be a serious mistake on the part of young socialist militants to ignore the lessons of the past.
The lessons: the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Paris Commune, the early history of the American Communist Party and later the Socialist Workers Party now seemingly in the historic mist of time to today’s young militants need examination. Old militants may not be able to immediately bring about the socialist vision that animated their youth but we sure as hell can pass on the torch to the next generation. Moreover, the links to that past by death, attrition and abandonment of politics by earlier cadre have become extremely attenuated, particularly here in the heartland of world imperialism, and the relatively few of us who still remember that past and who are still fighting that ‘good fight’ are duty bound to pass on what we know.
Now for a little longer answer to that young militant’s question. I came of political age in the 1960’s, a time of much political ferment and many political mistakes on the part of the young leftists of my generation, what I have euphemistically called elsewhere the generation of ’68. Personally, I came, kicking and screaming, relatively late to the Marxist worldview after abandoning left liberal and then 'soft' socialist political positions. I can, however, state with some pride that the lateness of my conversion probably helped to keep my convictions that much more solid. Certainly nothing politically over the past 30 plus years has changed my basis view of the necessity of socialism and the probability that a knock down, drag out fight against the imperialists will be necessary to achieve it. If nothing else that is the example I wish to set by my writings and political actions.
Truth to tell, nobody ever said that individual revolutionaries would live to see the socialist society in their life time. If any thought so they bought the wrong ticket. While it is certainly true that individual activists make their own judgments about the extend of their commitment to their political goals, especially something as seemingly esoteric as the hard fight for socialism, this wicked world holds too many surprises to base one’s political calculations on the dream of actually being a commissar in a soviet society. Our models, moreover, should be Marx who after 1848 never came close to seeing the society that he predicted but still fought savagely for his worldview until his death. And Lenin, who only saw a partial and a much distorted completion of his world view before his untimely death. And Trotsky who fought to save the Russian Revolution and later in exile fought to create a new revolutionary international died at his post with his work still uncompleted. Can we do less?
Finally, let me give a specific example that has sustained me throughout the years. As part of my early Marxist political activity I did a massive amount of political reading, especially about the American socialist movement. In that reading I was drawn to the struggle of the American Trotskyists in the 1930’s who as followers of Trotsky’s Left International were trying to create a new revolutionary communist party in opposition to the Stalinized American Communist Party. As part of that process they tried to regroup with other active left wing anti-Stalinist organizations.
One such successful regroupment was with the Workers Party that had led the famous Toledo Auto-Lite strike in 1934 and which along with other later regroupments formed the Socialist Workers Party. One of the leaders of the Workers Party was New York University Professor, James Burnham. Burnham was a high-powered intellectual who could write very persuasively and wrote many articles and pamphlets that militants today can still profitably read. In 1940 he led a major split from the SWP over the question of defense of the Soviet Union. He in turn split from Marxism and later would end up a die-hard anti-Communist in league with conservative William Buckley’s National Review. Such are vagaries of politics, but that is not the main point here. In his heyday in the Socialist Workers Party Burnham was asked by fellow leader James P. Cannon to take a more central and active role in the leadership of the organization. In response Burnham stated that he personally could or would not do so as he was uncertain whether the socialist goals of the organization were attainable in his life time. That, fellow militants, is exactly the bad example that I have been fighting against most of my political life. I remain at my post.
*****************
Desperately Seeking Revolutionary Intellectuals-Now, And Then
Commentary
No, this is not a Personals section ad, although it qualifies as a Help Wanted ad in a sense. On a number of occasions over past several years, in reviewing books especially those by James P. Cannon the founder of The Socialist Workers Party in America, I have mentioned that building off of the work of the classical Marxists, including that of Marx and Engels themselves, and later that of Lenin and Trotsky the critical problem before the international working class in the early part of the 20th century was the question of creating a revolutionary leadership to lead imminent uprisings. Armed with Lenin’s work on the theory of the imperialist nature of the epoch and the party question and Trotsky’s on the questions of permanent revolution and revolutionary timing the tasks for revolutionaries were more than adequately defined.
The conclusion that I drew from that observation was that the revolutionary socialist movement was not as desperately in need of theoreticians and intellectuals as previously (although having them is always a good thing). It needed leaders steeped in those theories and with a capacity to lead revolutions. We needed a few good day-to-day practical leaders to lead the fight for state power.
In that regard I have always held up, for the early part of the 20th century, the name Karl Liebknecht the martyred German Communist co-leader (along with Rosa Luxemburg) of the aborted Spartacist uprising of 1919 as such an example. In contrast the subsequent leadership of the German Communists in the 1920’s Paul Levi, Henrich Brandler and Ernest Thaelmann did not meet those qualifications. For later periods I have held up the name James P. Cannon, founder of the American Socialist Workers Party (to name only the organization that he was most closely associated with), as a model. That basically carries us to somewhere around the middle of the 20th century. Since I have spend a fair amount of time lately going back to try to draw the lessons of our movement I have also had occasion to think, or rather to rethink my original argument on the need for revolutionary intellectuals. That position stands in need of some amendment now.
Let’s be clear here about our needs. The traditional Marxist idea that in order to break the logjam impeding humankind’s development the international working class must rule is still on the historic agenda. The Leninist notions that, since the early part of the 20th century, we have been in the imperialist era and that a ‘hard’ cadre revolutionary party is necessary to take state power are also in play. Moreover, the Trotskyist understanding that in countries of belated development the working class is the only agency objectively capable of leading those societies to the tasks traditionally associated with the bourgeois revolution continues to hold true. That said, we are seriously in need of revolutionary intellectuals who can bring these understandings into the 21st century.
It is almost a political truism that each generation will find its own ways to cope with the political tasks that confront it. The international working class movement is no exception in that regard. Moreover, although the general outlines of Marxist theory mentioned above hold true such tasks as the updating of the theory of imperialism to take into account the qualitative leap in its globalization is necessary (as is, as an adjunct to that, the significance of the gigantic increases in the size of the ‘third world’ proletariat). Also in need of freshening up is work on the contours of revolutionary political organization in the age of high speed communications, the increased weight that non-working class specific questions play in world politics (the national question, religion, special racial and gender oppressions) and various other tasks that earlier generations had taken for granted or had not needed to consider. All this moreover has to be done in a political environment that sees Marxism, communism, even garden variety reform socialism as failed experiments. To address all the foregoing issues is where my call for a new crop of revolutionary intellectuals comes from.
Since the mid- 20th century we have had no lack of practical revolutionary leaders of one sort or another - one thinks of Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and even Mao in his less rabid moments. We have witnessed any number of national liberation struggles, a few attempts at political revolution against Stalinism, a few military victories against imperialism, notably the Vietnamese struggle. But mainly this has been an epoch of defeats for the international working class. Moreover, we have not even come close to developing theoretical leaders of the statue of Lenin or Trotsky.
As a case in point, recently I made some commentary about the theory of student power in the 1960’s and its eventual refutation by the May 1968 General Strike lead by the working class in France. One of the leading lights for the idea that students were the ‘new’ working class or a ‘new’ vanguard was one Ernest Mandel. Mandel held himself out to be an orthodox Marxist (and Trotskyist, to boot) but that did not stop him from, periodically, perhaps daily, changing the focus of his work away from the idea of the centrality of the working class in social struggle an ideas that goes back to the days of Marx himself.
And Mandel, a brilliant well-spoken erudite scholar probably was not the worst of the lot. The problem is that he was the problem with his impressionistic theories based on , frankly, opportunistic impulses. Another example, from that same period, was the idea of Professor Regis Debray ( in the service of Fidel at the time ) that guerrilla foci out in the hills were the way forward ( a codification of the experience of the Cuban Revolution for which many subjective revolutionary paid dearly with their lives). Or the anti-Marxist Maoist notion that the countryside would defeat the cities that flamed the imagination of many Western radicals in the late 1960’s. I could go on with more examples but they only lead to one conclusion- we are, among other things, in a theoretical trough. This, my friends, is why today I have my Help Wanted sign out. Any takers?
No comments:
Post a Comment