Re: World Party of Socialist Revolution

[ben <benj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

(subject should be... "Re: Lenin, Draper, and us"?)

Following are three comments on Draper's article (The Myth of Lenin?s
"Concept of The Party"
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/works/1990/myth/>) in the
context of how Leninism and questions of organisation relate to what we
should do now. 
The question of the labour aristocracy, opportunism, and "immiseration
theory" is something I'd also like to make comments on but don't really
have time just now--I'll try to get around to that later.
Ben Courtice

1. Regarding Draper's comments on Kautsky's influence on Lenin, I would
refer comrades to a short essay by Doug Lorimer (of the DSP) regarding
this same matter. It is appended to an article I've previously mentioned
on this list, "Lenin and the Bolshevik Party--a reply to Tony Cliff and
the International Socialists" by Bruce Landau. I've got a copy of this I
scanned some time back, on my website at
<http://home.connexus.net.au/~benj/Landau.rtf>. Landau's article is a
polemical review of Cliff's "Lenin: Building the Party"--the first part
of his biography of Lenin. Landau's review has the merit of trying to
look at what Lenin really said. Although I haven't read Cliff's book,
I'm basically convinced of Landau's interpretation of Lenin. I recommend
the article as another angle on the same period that Draper is looking
at. But Landau (with Cliff) more or less agrees with Draper regarding
the Kautsky influence; Lorimer disagrees and suggests that Kautsky's
comments were well within the parameters of what Marx, Engels, and Lenin
continued to defend to their deaths. (if Louis wants, if it makes it
easier, I can send a copy of the document to put on the marxmail website
for quicker downloading).

2. Under "Lenin's party concepts"--"sectism or mass party", Draper
writes:
<snip>
In 1902 when Lenin wrote WITBD, there was a big difference between
Germany and Russia (which indeed WITBD discussed): in Germany the
revolutionary wing (or what Lenin and others considered such) was in
control of the party, whereas in Russia the right wing had the dominant
influence. Lenin's response to this situation was _not_ to organize the
revolutionary wing as a left-wing sect outside the general movement. _In
fact, if we consider the whole period before 1914, Lenin never
organized, or sought to organize, a "Leninist" sect._ (The theory of
"revolutionary" sectification arose out of the degeneration of the
Comintern to become a "principle of Leninism"; before 1917 it had been
kept alive on the fringes of the Second International and in the
anarchist movement.)

The course which the young Lenin took was then the normal one in the
International: he sought to organize the revolutionary current as a
political center of some sort inside the mass party (or what was going
to be the mass party if the Second Congress was successful). Most
political centers in the socialist movement, leaving aside sects, were
currents established around periodical organs; this was the case in the
German party, for example. When Lenin went into exile from Russia, he
did not establish a "Leninist" sect; he went to the _Iskra_ editorial
board, which was not a membership group. Even after the
Bolshevik-Menshevik split, and for the next several years (at least
until shortly before World War I), the term "Bolsheviks" and
"Mensheviks" meant a political center _inside_ the mass party, the
RSDLP, not a membership sect.
</snip>

That's all very well for Lenin, but what do we do when there is a lack
of a mass party to organise a centre inside of? Particularly this is the
case in countries like the USA or Australia, where the opportunism of
the labour movement, and (where they exist) the "labour" or social
democratic parties, has meant that Marxists are often like prophets
crying in the wilderness. This "semi-sectarian" existence forced on
first-world revolutionaries for much of the time is a difficult
balancing act. It is very easy to slip into sectarian or opportunist
errors. The form of organisation to adopt is obviously controversial,
and understandably--it's a very difficult question to grapple with. 

Essential organisational/political measures should include:
*       Systematic, organised education of members in Marxist politics and
history, starting with the basics but never limited to them.
*       Careful analysis of the political struggles of the day, without
feeling the need to be actually involved in every one of them; with
limited cadre that would stretch us so thin as to render Marxist
politics ineffective (that's not to say revolutionaries shouldn't push
themselves!). A weekly newspaper (a la Lenin's "scaffolding" quote in
WITBD) is the best way I can see to organise this. 
*       A consistent political struggle against opportunism. I'll expand on
this in another post.
*       Consistent orientation to the workers, as they are, without talking
down or trying to lower ourselves "to their level". For example, the DSP
sells Green Left on the street, at railway stations, etc to anyone
passing by. The paper relates to the issues of the day, and provides
information about the struggles of the day, ways for people new to
politics to become involved. At the same time, it recognises that people
who aren't interested in the bigger international and political
questions aren't going to get involved in a period with no mass
struggles, and the content of the paper reflects an educational role.
*       Careful attention to administration, keeping the party organisation
going--this means boring, hard work like (especially) fundraising. 
*       Teamwork and inclusiveness at all levels. We can't rely on gurus, or
latter-day Lenins, to tell us what to do. Members need to think for
themselves, but act together. This means paying a lot of attention to
each other's views, respect, careful education to overcome low
self-confidence etc (especially among women, migrant etc comrades), and
a healthy respect for democratic decisions--whether in regard to
movement intervention or internal administrative tasks or whatever.

These points may be considered "Cannonist" or the attitude of yet
another micro-sect by some, but I am convinced that the "semi-sectarian"
existence of a party such as the DSP is imposed by the reality of the
class struggle in Australia, not by any sectarian idea that we are
defending.

3. From "Lenin after WITBD" in Draper's document:
<snip>
Lenin made the point which is among the most important to keep in mind
about WITBD:
    To conclude. We all know that the "Economists" have gone to one
extreme. 
    To straighten matters out somebody had to pull in the other
direction, 
    and that is what I have done.

This is the main key to what Lenin was doing in WITBD. Throughout his
life his constant pattern was to "bend the bow" in an opposite direction
in order to push back against some immediate dangerous pressure. His
metaphor on these occasions was often to "turn the helm the other way"
in order to compensate for the dangerous pressure. Now it happens that
personally I do not sympathize with this propensity, though I admit it
is natural enough. I think that a bow which is bent in various
directions is apt to be bent out of shape. But it is a common enough
resort by people of all political complexions, and only asks for
understanding. In Lenin's case it is a fact that demands understanding,
especially when he specifically explained the pattern in so many words,
as he did often enough. And any Leninologist who refuses to understand
it is bound to write a great deal of nonsense.
</snip>

>From "Last Words on WITBD" in Draper:
<snip>
Typically Lenin argued that the "exaggeration" in WITBD had been
necessary at the time in order to make progress in the _direction_
desired, even if the exaggerations themselves were not tenable.

[Lenin wrote] "To maintain today that Iskra exaggerated (_in 1901 and
1902!_) the idea of an organization of professional revolutionaries is
like reproaching the Japanese, _after_ the Russo-Japanese War, for
having exaggerated the strength of Russia's armed forces, for having
prior to the war exaggerated the need to prepare for fighting these
forces. To win victory the Japanese had to marshal all their forces
against the probable maximum of Russian forces ... _[T]oday_ the idea of
an organization of professional revolutionaries has _already_ scored a
complete victory. That victory would have been impossible if this idea
had not been pushed to the _forefront_ at the time, if we had not
"exaggerated" so as to drive it home to people who were trying to
prevent it from being realized."
</snip>

What is this "exaggeration"? Is it pushing an idea out of proportion,
out of context, "bending the bow out of shape"? Or would it be more
helpful to think of it as Lenin's profound understanding of *what to do
next*? Faced with Lenin's imperative to centralise the party, one could
come up with all sorts of banal criticisms--like Trotsky's (later
dropped) views on "substitutionism", whinging that centralism may
produce dictatorship etc--but that avoids the issue of what actually
needs to be done to move things forward. In other words--as I think
Draper does reasonably well overall--in the context at the time, I think
Lenin wasn't bending the stick out of shape. Note Lenin puts
"exaggerated" in quotes. He doesn't think it really was exaggeration.

~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.