Re: Lenin on the question

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

DIFFERENCE IN THE EUROPEAN LABOUR MOVEMENT [131] Lenin December 1910


    The principal tactical differences in the present-day labour movement of
Europe and America reduce themselves to a struggle against two big trends that
are departing from Marxism, which has in fact become the dominant theory in
this movement. These two trends are revisionism (opportunism, reformism) and
anarchism (anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-socialism). Both these departures from
the Marxist theory and Marxist tactics that are dominant in the labour movement
were to be observed in various forms and in various shades in all civilized
countries during the more than half-century of history of the mass labour
movement.

    This fact alone shows that these departures cannot be attributed to
accident, or to the mistakes of individuals or groups, or even to the influence 
of
national characteristics and traditions, and so forth. There must be
deep-rooted causes in the economic system and in the character of the 
development of
all capitalist countries, which constantly give rise to these departures. A
small book, The Tactical Differences in the Labour Movement (Die taktischen
Differenzen in der Arbeiterbewegung, Hamburg, Erdmann Dubber, 1909), published 
last
year by a Dutch Marxist, Anton Pannekoek, represents an interesting attempt at
a scientific investigation of these causes. In our exposition we shall
acquaint the reader with Pannekoek's conclusions, which, it must be recognized, 
are
quite correct.

    One of the most profound causes that periodically give rise to
differences over tactics is the very growth of the labour movement. If this 
movement is
not measured by the criterion of some fantastic ideal, but is regarded as the
practical movement of ordinary people, it will be clear that the enlistment of
larger and larger numbers of new "recruits", the attraction of new sections
of the working people must inevitably be accompanied by wavering in the sphere
of theory and tactics, by repetitions of old mistakes, by a temporary
reversion to antiquated views and antiquated methods, and so forth. The labour
movement of every country periodically spends a varying amount of energy, 
attention
and time on the "training" of recruits.

    Furthermore, the rate at which capitalism develops varies in different
countries and in different spheres of the national economy. The working class
and its ideologists most easily, rapidly, completely and lastingly assimilate
Marxism where large-scale industry is most developed. Economic relations which
are backward, or which lag in their development, constantly lead to the
appearance of supporters of the labour movement who assimilate only certain 
aspects
of Marxism, only certain parts of the new world outlook, or individual slogans
and demands, being unable to make a determined break with all the traditions
of the bourgeois world outlook in general and the bourgeois-democratic world
outlook in particular.

    Again, a constant source of differences is the dialectical nature of
social development, which proceeds in contradictions and through contradictions.
Capitalism is progressive because it destroys the old methods of production and
develops productive forces, yet at the same time, at a certain stage of
development, it retards the growth of productive forces. It develops, organizes,
and disciplines the workers -- and it crushes, oppresses, leads to degeneration,
poverty, etc. Capitalism creates its own gravedigger, itself creates the
elements of a new system, yet, and at the same time, and without a "leap" these
individual elements change nothing in the general state of affairs and do not
affect the rule of capital. It is Marxism, the theory of dialectical materialism
that is able to encompass these contradictions of living reality, of the
living history of capitalism and the working-class movement. But, needless to 
say,
the masses learn from life and not from books, and therefore certain
individuals or groups constantly exaggerate, elevate to a one-sided theory, to a
one-sided system of tactics, now one and now another feature of capitalist
development, now one and now another "lesson" of this development. (End of 
Quote)


The political name of the historical error of the American communist is
"anarcho-syndicalism," and the countless schemes of "industrial concentration."
Communist workers will be recruited from all walks of life, but the reality of
American life was such that this strategy basically meant a party in the North
amongst the best-paid workers. The best paid workers will be won to communism
but the forces of the social revolution - its core, is always amongst that
section of the working class drawn into combat with the state and with the least
ties to capital.

Today this section of workers with the least ties is the communist class.
Lenin's entire article is worth reading. Lenin point out why bourgeois
liberalism invaded the German working class movement and in America we never 
really had
a chance.
Life's a bitch . . .then you learn.

Melvin P.



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