Social Democracy

["Karl Carlile" <joseph@xxxxxxxxx>]

Karl: Below is a response to Louis penultimate piece re OPPORTUNIST PROYECT.

Louis: He makes the typical error of many contemporary "Leninists" in
attaching some kind of apocalyptic meaning to the split at the second
congress of the Russian Social Democracy in 1903 as if two radically
different and irreconciliable sets of principles were counterposed to
each other--Bolshevism and Menshevism. This split is seen as the
fountainhead of all 20th century revolutionary politics, the dividing
line between communism and opportunism or some such thing.

Karl: I simply remarked that if there obtained no significant political
differences between the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks at the congress of 1903
then there would have been no basis for splitting.

Louis: Those who think that the rival motions between Martov and Lenin
constitute some kind of fault-line of revolutionary politics must then
explain why Lenin told participants at this congress that, referring to
Martov's motion, "we shall certainly not perish because of an
unfortunate clause in the Rules."

Karl: As I intimated there would have been no split had significant
significant political differentiation not existed between both factions. I am 
not
necessarily claiming that the issue concerning the rules was
the exclusive basis for the split.

Louis: Let's let this sink in. Lenin, arch-enemy of opportunism, said that the
motion which caused the Bolshevik-Menshevik split was simply
"unfortunate".

Karl: Because Lenin said this does not necessarily mean that the split did
not reflect significant political difference.

Louis: The differences between orthodox Marxists who were educated by
Plekhanov and, on the other hand, the Economists who gravitated to
the newspaper "Rabochaya Mysl" were principled and clear. The
differences within the orthodox camp, which included the Bolshevik
Lenin and the Menshevik Martov, were not so clearly defined. The
Bolsheviks were anxious to rid the party of all elements who resisted
the creation of a centralized Russian Social Democracy, while the
Mensheviks tended to be more conciliatory to the Economists and the
Bundists. The Bundists shared with the Economists a resistance to a
centralized and unified Russian party that could coordinate struggles
on a national level. Their particular interest was in preserving some
kind of automony for their exclusively Jewish membership, a goal that
was in conflict, needless to say, with creating one party for the entire
working-class.

"The Bolsheviks were anxious to rid the party of all elements who
resisted the creation of a centralized Russian Social Democracy, while
the Mensheviks tended to be more conciliatory to the Economists and the
Bundists."

Karl: This organizational question reflects significant political
difference. In order to combat opportunism it is necessary to have
greater centralism. The absence of centralism creates the organizational
conditions for the conversion of the party from from marxism to
opportunism. Lenin recognized this. He understood that to effectively
combat opportunism within the marxist movement it is necessary to
establish a centralised party within a democratic context.

Louis: So when Lenin and Plekhanov triumphed, they maneuvered to isolate
the Bundists and Economists as much as possible. This meant
overruling the original Menshevik proposal that would have preserved
some representation on the editorial board of Iskra for Bundists and
Economists. The proposal passed by the new Bolshevik majority at the
congress consisted of only three seats on Iskra, none to be allocated for the 
decentralizers.

Karl: The above remarks of Louis' undermines his own argument since he is
in effect arguing that the organizational issue constitutes an
organizational attempt by Bolshevism to defeat Economism and opportunism
generally.

Louis: It was this issue more than the original fight over Lenin and
Martov's rival motions which precipitated the split. The narrowing of the
Iskra staff meant that such long-time party leaders as Zasulich, Akselrod
and Potresov would lose their posts. Why was Lenin so anxious to dump
these old-timers? Was it because they were smuggling capitalist ideology
into the pages of Iskra? The real concern of Lenin was much more
practical, as befits a revolutionary politician who strived for
professionalism above all else. In his "Account of the Second Congress of
the R.S.D.L.P.", Lenin describes the motivation for getting rid of them:

"The old board of six was so ineffectual that never once in all its three
years did it meet in full force. That may seem incredible, but it is a
fact. Not one of the forty-five issues of Iskra was made up (in the
editorial and technical sense) by anyone but Martov or Lenin. And
never once was any major theoretical issue raised by anyone but
Plekhanov. Akselrod did no work at all (he contributed literally
nothing to Zarya and only three of four articles to all the forty-five
issues of Iskra). Zasulich and Strarover only contributed and advised;
they never did any actual editorial work."

Lenin was simply interested in getting rid of dead wood, people who
were not carrying their load. Those who simply "advised" were not
needed.

Karl: If Lenin "was simply interested in getting rid of dead wood" then
there was no need to make a significant organizational change in the
character of the editorial board of Iskra by reducing its size.
Furthermore this mistaken view of Louis' contradicts the observations
made by him three paragraphs above the location of this view in his piece.

Louis: Lenin sought to place genuine contributors at the helm of the
major newspaper of Russian Social Democracy. I empathize deeply
with his lack of respect toward people who are simply "advisers". The
revolutionary movement needs people who can get things done. If this
Marxism list ever went through a split between "advisers" and people
who know how to get things done, I'm sure that most of us know who
these two respective groups would include.

"I empathize deeply with his lack of respect toward people who are simply
"advisers". The revolutionary movement needs people who can get things
done."

Karl: Hitler got things done too. Getting "things done" without any
correct conception of what is to be done and how it is to be done is
reactionary and plays into the hands of the class enemy. The working
class can and do rise up. However if it does not know where it is going
it can all the more easily be defeated. Louis' "holier than thou"
philosophy is dangerous to the cause of the working class. The
Baader-Meinhof group entertained a similar view. Spontaneity is not a
substitute for the class conscious action of the workers. Again this view
ties in with Louis' opportunism.

Louis: Who did Lenin propose as the three people best qualified to lead the
new Iskra editorial board? They were Lenin himself, the great Marxist
educator Plekhanov and Martov. Martov, we should remind ourselves,
was the individual who put forward a motion rival to Lenin's on the
requirements of party membership. This motion has become
synonymous with Menshevism itself. It is like the apple in the Garden
of Eden for dogmatic interpreters of the historic split. The trouble is
that these dogmatic interpreters can't account for the fact that Lenin
then proposed to put Martov--the Serpent himself--in a leading
position at Iskra.

Also, to be perfectly blunt, the reduction of representation on the Iskra
leading bodies generated bitter personal rivalries. Personal rivalries!
Can you believe that? Aren't you glad that we've evolved beyond those
sorts of problems. As it developed, Zasulich and Akselrod were deeply
insulted by their firing from Iskra. Martov, an old friend of theirs,
rallied to their defense and then decided to step down himself from the
newly re-constituted editorial board. Even Plekhanov, one of the most
hard-line Bolsheviks, eventually drifted into the Menshevik camp. (Does
this sound like typical movement wrangling over "petty" issues? Well, yes
it does. Because, believe it or not, it is.)

Karl: The existence of personal rivalry is derivative and irrelevant to
the fundamental issues in question. If personal rivalry result from
specific political developments this is not necessarily an adverse
reflection on those political developments. If "revolutionaries" are
"deeply insulted" then they are obscuring  politics by making personal
matters an issue.

Contrary to what Louis believes Martov stepped down from the
editorial board, not for personal reasons, but because he believed that
his opportunist politics would be best served by this decision.

Louis:The Menshevik Akselrod, who had every reason to be bitter at Lenin,
saw no great principles involved in the split either. Years later he
confided to Kautsky that personality was what caused the great divide
between Bolshevik and Menshevik. Kautsky said:

"As late as May 1904 Akselrod wrote that there were 'still no clear,
defined differences concerning either principles or tactics', that the
organizational question itself 'is or at least was' not one of principle
such as 'centralism or democracy, autonomy, etc.', but rather one of
differing opinions as to the 'application or execution of organizational
principles...we have all accepted'. Lenin had used the debate on this
question 'in a demagogic manner' to 'fasten' Plekhanov to his side and
thus win a majority 'against us'."

Karl: To simply accept Axselrod's opinion on history as truth is to adopt
a verys subjectivist approach towards history. If Hilter were alive today
would it be correct to necessarily accept his account of historical
events in the 30s and 40s because of his on-hands participation in those
events.

Louis:Would genuine political differences between the two factions
eventually emerge? Certainly they would and sooner rather than later.
In 1905 and 1906 major struggles between the Bolsheviks and
Mensheviks developed over how to overthrow Tsarism and to create a
democratic republic. In 1903, however, at the famous "split"
conference, there were none. Furthermore, attempts to derive some
kind of new organizational approach to revolutionary party-building
>from the split are just as ill-advised.

Karl: The split at the 1903 congress and the differences that obtained
between Menshevism and Bolshevism in 1905 and 1906 are inseparably linked
by a unified thread of development that can be summed up in the word
opportunism. In contradistinction to this Louis seems to think that
differences between political elements are merely contingencies that
spring from the head of Zeus fully formed. Political difference reflects
class difference.

Again we are back to the same old theme of Louis'. Again he is claiming
that there was no political difference between Bolshevik and Menshevik
before and including 1903. I have no intentions at this juncture of
rehearsing my refutation of this thesis of Louis' aat this juncture.

Louis: The one conclusion that can be drawn without qualification is that the
internal life of the Russian Social Democracy--including the Bolshevik
and Menshevk factions--has little in common with the rigid, dogmatic
and sect-like norms of modern-day "Leninism". The internal life of
Russian Social Democracy was fractious but vital. Differences were
argued out and then argued out again. And then argued out again.
This was all done in public, not in some ridiculous convention of a
tiny grouping of cadre.

"Differences were argued out and then argued out again. And then argued
out again.".......

Karl: This of course is a blatant distortion of the history of marxism in
Russia. For Louis Russian Social Democracy simply argued for the sake of
argument: not to resolve differences particularly political differences.
Russian Social Democracy was then a grandiose debating society. This is
an ironic understanding coming from a person who claims that the
"revolutionary movement  needs people who can get things done."

In a nutshell Louis' politics, as I have already indicated, are opportunist and
possess the fundamental features of Economism. However instead of overtly
attacking Lenin's fight against opportunism in all its forms including
its "economistic" variety he seeks to transform Lenin into an
opportunist.

Let me conclude with an apt story from Marx's, The German Ideology:

"Once upon a time a valiant fellow had the idea that men were drowned in
water only because they were possessed with the idea of gravity. If they
were to get this notion out of their heads, say by avowing it to be
superstitious, a religious concept, this would be sublimely proof against
any danger from water. His whole life long he fought against the illusion
of gravity, of whose harmful consequences all statistics brought him new
and manifold evidence."


                                               Yours etc.,
                                                                Karl Carlile






     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---