A question regarding theory, theorists, the working class & revolutionary praxis

[Anonymous]

Are you suggesting that Marx would have supported the Bolshevik programme in the name of socialism?

 

 

I think Marx would have been an anti-Leninist, and anti-Bolshevik similar to Anton Pannekoek, but earlier in their life both ( Marx and Engels ) they adopted positions similar to the Mensheviks, and the Communist Manifesto contains certain clauses of state capitalism and reforms

[Persnickety]

I’m a little confused as to why you’d think that that was what I was saying. As it happens, I truly don’t know whether Marx would have supported the Bolsheviks. Its a little bit academic as Lenin and Marx were men of their own time and their own times were very different. If I were to play the parlour game of ‘what if’ then I’d guess Marx would have been so utterly disgusted by what had become of the 2nd international (not that he even knew such a thing existed before he died) that he might have been susceptible to a degree of sympathy for the Bolsheviks, albeit fleetingly. As I say, though, we’ll never know.

[Wez]

Persnickety – I think Marcos was commenting on my response to something Alan said, not you.

[alanjjohnstone]

Yes, I think Marcos was commenting on what you, Wez, was commenting on me

me – Wez, was Marx a strict stageist? Did he not suggest an alternative future for Russia based on the evolution of the Mir.

Wez – Are you suggesting that Marx would have supported the Bolshevik programme in the name of socialism?

Anyways, it is all hypothetical. We simply don’t know what Marx would have thought. When it came to actual events, we know Marx was not always true to his theory.

At the time there was not a lot of objective information coming out of Russia. Many like Luxemburg and Pannekoek and Gorter were sympathetic to Lenin – Luxemburg had her criticisms, for sure, but she was murdered before seeing the full outcome. Pannekoek and Gorter (in his letter he still called Lenin comrade) and the German Left (KAPD) were able to witness the progress of the Revolution and come to a more skeptical conclusion about the claims by Lenin.

What Marx or Engels would have thought is a debate for the pub.

We are often accused of not having firsthand knowledge to make a judgement but we should remember some comrades did make it to Russia.

” [ Bill ] Casey was expounding the S.P.G.B. position and as the Bolsheviks had just gained control in Russia, he lost no time in analysing the position. Probably aided by articles in the “S.S.”, he became a caustic critic of the “Neo-Communists.” He was delegate to represent the Seamen at an International T. U. Conference in Moscow. This, being one of the earliest “Missions to Moscow” was beset with difficulties all the way. Passports were forged; passages were “stowing away,” Dutch, German, Polish and Russian frontiers had to be “hopped.” Guides were often un-reliable; “go-betweens” were often in the pay of both sides; sometimes both had to be discarded until bona-fides were definitely established, a delicate job under the conditions then prevailing on the continent. The ultimate arrival in Moscow, after much suffering, danger and perseverance, was hailed as a masterpiece of undercover work. Once at the gates of the Kremlin, most delegates became insufferable Bolshevik “Yes-men” whereas Casey and his co-delegate, Barney Kelly (another adherent of the S.P.G.B.) soberly tried to obtain a truthful estimate of the position. A few days sojourn in Moscow drew the following observations from Casey:
“Production was in a straight-jacket, lethargy and indifference permeated the whole economy; the people were entirely lacking in a sense of time. Without the normal industrial development of production and some measure of buying and selling (war-communism was the order of the day) drift and indifference would gradually strangle the economy of the Soviet”.
These observations were greeted with disgust and dismay by the other delegates. However, before they left Moscow, Lenin introduced his “New Economic Policy”which, in essence, provided for the very things which Casey opined was needed to stabilize the Russian economy. In contrast to their hostile reception of Casey’s prognostications, the “yes-men” cheered and echoed Lenin’s belated pronouncements. Back in Australia, he submitted his report to Tom Walsh (then a leading Communist and foundation member of the Australian Communist Party), General President of the Australian Seamen’s Union. Walsh rejected the report and refused to publish it on the ground that it criticized the Bolsheviks and the Russian system. ” – 1949 obituary in Western Socialist

What is missing is whether Casey was in direct touch with the SPGB, expressing concerns.

[Author]

Posts