The work begins with a history of the revolution from 1902 through 1917. This is important to understand, namely because of the 1905 revolution’s necessary lessons to precede the February and October ones in 1917. Lenin talks of party discipline, especially when it comes to the spontaneity aspect of the proletariat and the vanguard. This in particular is expanded upon in What Is To Be Done?, a work that I would also recommend holding until understanding the other aforementioned works. It talks of the dangers of anarchist tendencies and the Mensheviks, and their similarities to petty bourgeoisie politics; how not having a plan and disorganization can lead to failure, and opportunism. Moreover, it covers how the first world war managed to give way more force against Czarism during extreme tensions within Russia, and how the end goal was to give soviet (worker council) control. This is stressed to not having been possible without the entire backing of the working class, which leads us to our next point.
Participation in legal and illegal struggle tactics are said to be important, discussing where it can still be helpful to partake in bourgeoisie parliament, elections, and trade unions. We can see the benefits of a lot of this today, as it’s used to win the backing of the working class regardless of their own beliefs or personal identities. Lenin addresses how “left-wing” communism isolates itself from that mass following, or in other words, doesn’t take the time to meet workers where they are. Again, this is something rather important to organizers that already have a good grasp on Leninism and perhaps are part of a revolutionary struggle. It’s also important to recognize what is worth compromising to work towards the same end goal of socialism. There’s a funny comparison of getting held up by bandits, as you would compromise your car, wallet, and keys for your life. However, this shouldn’t be viewed as a final victory, but a setback that has to be overcome. The bandits are compared to western imperialists. Sometimes it becomes strategic to work with them in order to spare yourself, but you don’t want to become them or let it get out of hand.
Looking into real life examples seems to be one of Lenin’s favorite ways of explaining things. The split of the Communist Party Of Germany is observed due to reasons mentioned in the prior paragraph. In capitalist society, the masses are divided into classes, a trait Marxists hate from the gate, and this is something to consider. In Germany, much of the masses were used to the legal framework of democracy, and were overwhelmed at the idea of revolutionary crises pushing these tactics into illegal territory. Timing and calculation of how much support a vanguard might have is to be understood. We turn our attention then, to German “left” communists’ refusal to work in trade unions, which also was wrong in the eyes of Lenin. Much of this was written to Germany, and Lenin expanded upon their own example in Russia. The organization of soviets was led by the Bolsheviks, in order to consider the relationship between classes, parties, and leaders. Keep in mind that by April 20 of 1920, the Bolsheviks had roughly 611,000 members, according to the work. Thus, larger amounts of representatives are necessary for proper people representation within soviet organization. The party was then able to rest on the trade unions, rather than refuse to work with them, which consisted of a far heavier 4,000,000 people. Note that this doesn’t discount the struggle with Mensheviks and reactionaries that it allows, which is why connection solely through trade unions isn’t enough, but total control over the state by workers is needed. The importance here is to show the method of organization, rather than isolation. We have some serious issues of this in the United States currently.
Most who have made it this far in revolutionary study understand that capitalism leaves behind the necessary tools to transition to socialism, which is also part of the importance of everything said so far. Keep in mind, the level of development in one capitalist state can heavily influence how easy this transition will go. That’s less from Lenin than it is from myself, as a general note when considering historical dialectics in this transitional phase. This is worked into the importance of trade unions in the earlier stages of capitalism here, which is why conserving them is unavoidable under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin mentions the difference in struggle in the “advanced” countries of the west, that were far further along than Russia at the time. It’s stressed that left wing communists are those who would not work where the masses were to be found, despite the need for sacrifices in these areas of proletarian gathering. Regarding participation in parliament, it’s a bit more direct in how it doesn’t cause any harm, and can sometimes show the backwardness of capitalist “democracy.” Think about the illusion of choice, how little participation most civilians have in government, and how rotten it appears to just about anybody even before you introduce Marxist principles. It seems rather confusing, I know, but in a way, it reveals that simply voting and doing nothing else under this class ruling doesn’t accomplish anything, and that you should vote and carry out activist work and outreach. This is, at least, my understanding of this point.
Ultimately, this is to show that oftentimes it is worth compromising as long as you don’t drop your values entirely, and that you can use the services under a liberal “democracy” to further your move. It comes down to the need for that working class backing, and that not budging anywhere, whether it’s legal vs. illegal action, trade union participation, parliamentary participation, or whatever, is harmful to the socialist movement. This is what is meant by “left wing” communism, even though we know communism as an entire idea to be left wing on the political compass. There’s another entire section of “left communism” in Britain, and along with the German examples and the Russian criticisms, it should be clear that this work relies pretty heavily on the historical context of the struggles.
We conclude with the final result of the fact that Russians were able to bring soviets to complete development on a national scale, following the Russian Revolution, which was only done by meeting the working class where it was. It must experience a struggle in order to grow, and alienation will never allow for this growth. Lenin notes how this shows the importance of studying the unique struggles within every country, and how its differences impact how all of this struggle is carried out. Think about Maoism, or Juche, and how policies were needed for the specific material conditions of the countries each were born in. While many (myself included) would argue that neither of those have any place in the U.S., policies in regards to each were necessary for development in China and Korea respectfully, especially with a large peasantry still remaining at the time. In conclusion, the vanguard is only powerful if it’s seen as a means to spearhead the staff of the entire working class and its material conditions. Proper use of propaganda, party work, tools that the liberal class leaves us, and outreach are important, and while I probably sound repetitive at this point, that is more or less the point of “Left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder.
No comments:
Post a Comment