Lenin and Marx Contrasted

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

Where, or when the Socialist Party has supoorted the concept of the vanguard party ? 

All the responses on this thread, mcolome1.They all support 'specialists' (apparently, the SPGB house term for 'cadre' with a 'special consciousness'), and none (not one) supports workers' democracy in truth production.This is Leninism, mcolome1.The 'vanguard party' in embryo.Once 'Truth' production belongs to 'specialists', rather the the democratic proletariat, the 'vanguard party' will announce itself to unsuspecting socialists.

[Young Master Smeet]

Oh, look, everyone, a slippery slope argument.  See it before it slides away.

[Anonymous]

jondwhite wrote:

ALB wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

These are good articles but one is 15 years old and the other 26 years old, so what has prompted their reposting?

What's wrong with posting old articles?http://bestofsocialiststandard.blogspot.co.uk/

Nothing wrong with posting old articles but if we're going to discuss them on a forum, let's have something to discuss, like saying they're the best articles, worst articles, oldest articles, newest articles, funniest articles, longest articles, shortest articles, articles on a theme, by one author etc.Also mcolome1 recommends Franz Mehring herehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/new-trojan-horse-elf-lacan-left#comment-36394Wasn't Mehring a Leninist?

It was not a recommendation. You have to see concepts within its context. Mehring was mentioned because Engels sent a private letter to him,  using the expression: False consciousness.   It is an expression used by the Lacanian left and the so called Post-MarxistsFranz Mehring was Marx biographer,  and he was not a Leninist, he did not support Lenin, he did not support the vanguard party concept.  he was a Luxembourgist.Marxism-Leninism is a creation of Joseph Stalin, at the beginning Leninism  was just a Russian phenomenon. It was further developed by Joseph Stalin on his book named: The Problems of Leninism, and his analysis is mostly based on Lenin concept of ImperialismLeninism is a  composition of 5 essentials works of Lenin, and several of those conceptions were borrowed from others thinkers including Nikolai Bukharin and Leon Trotsky.What we must do here, is using those 5 elements of Lenin and prove the similarity of Leninsim and the Socialsit Party, and it must be done by using Lenin works, the only way to understand Leninism is reading and understanding his works, and that is what the founders of the Socialist Party did, and that is reason why they rejected Leninism.  

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Oh, look, everyone, a slippery slope argument.  See it before it slides away.

Another Leninist tactic.Pretend that there is no slippery slope from 'Materialism' to 'Leninism'.No! Nothing to see! Keep moving! Avoid the politics!And the history, philosophy, physics…In fact, what do the SPGB discuss?Nothing to do with 'democratic production', anyway.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

Another Leninist tactic.Pretend that there is no slippery slope from 'Materialism' to 'Leninism'.

Hang on: you admit that you are employing a slippery slope argument?

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

Also mcolome1 recommends Franz Mehring herehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/new-trojan-horse-elf-lacan-left#comment-36394Wasn't Mehring a Leninist?

No, I wouldn't say so.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_MehringSounds as if he was more of a "Luxemburgist" if anything.

In regard to the issue of whether there was a 'unified entity' named 'Marx-Engels', then Mehring was a Leninist.This was opposed by, for example, Lukacs, Korsch and Gramsci, who discussed the differences between Marx's and Engels' separate views.I'm sure that I don't need to stress to the SPGB the political pedigree of the 'unified entity Marx-Engels' claim?Hmmm…well… why not?Marx-EngelsMarx-Engels-LeninMarx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin'Unified entities', eh? There's always a political purpose for the concept, which is an essentially conservative one of building political legitimacy for the later in the chain, based on the legitimacy of the first in the chain.That's why 'materialists' always link Engels to Marx, because it is a political necessity.

 Have you read Marx biography written by Franz Mehring ?  I have read it I did not see that concept of Marx-Engels developed in that book. I do not think you understand what Leninism really is, and you do not understand the history of the develiopment of LeninismThe single  unification of Marx and Engels was developed by the Bolshevik, ( very well expressed on the history of the Communist Party written in 1930 )  contrary to the view of Engels, because he never considered himself in the same intelectual level as Marx, andf the concept of Marxism started to be developed by Bukharin, and some thinkers  have considered him as a Proto-Leninist. 

[Anonymous]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

Another Leninist tactic.Pretend that there is no slippery slope from 'Materialism' to 'Leninism'.

Hang on: you admit that you are employing a slippery slope argument?

 Lenin conception of Materialism was developed on his book named: Materialism and Empirocriticism, and most of his conception has been rejected by some  leftists groups , and by followers of Marxism-Humanism, but they have not rejected Leninism  completely and one of them was CLR James, and he also rejected Hegelianism

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

Where, or when the Socialist Party has supoorted the concept of the vanguard party ? 

All the responses on this thread, mcolome1.They all support 'specialists' (apparently, the SPGB house term for 'cadre' with a 'special consciousness'), and none (not one) supports workers' democracy in truth production.This is Leninism, mcolome1.The 'vanguard party' in embryo.Once 'Truth' production belongs to 'specialists', rather the the democratic proletariat, the 'vanguard party' will announce itself to unsuspecting socialists.

You are not developing anything. I want you to demonstrate using Lenin What is to be done ? which is the essential element of the vanguard Party and tie it  to the conceptions of the Socialist Party. If you use it your castle made out  of sands will fall apart. You are an anti-Engelsian like the Marxist-HumanistsYou are using the tactic of the sniper, but you are not hitting the proper objective. The origin of the vanguard party and its application. That is one of the essential elements of Leninism. The Socialist Party considered that the vanguard party is the Prince Machiavelli of Russia., so, where is our connection with the vanguard party ?  Leninism is not only the vanguard party there are others works which composed the whole body of ideas of Leninism, you must tie them to the socialist party too, and we have rejected completely all those elements too including his concept of Imperialism which is the favorite horse of the Leninist 

[Anonymous]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Just to expose my ideology, I'm coming at this as a post-neopraxian endo-phenomenological HussiteTo be fair to Lenin: in his 'What is to be done' he did propose a society of shared work, democratic production, with every cook an accountant, etc.  And in his later essays, such as "Better Fewer but Better" he suggested that the role of his government was to raise the culture of the workers: so I don't think he envisaged technical dictatorship forever, any more than Marx did.Thus

Quote:

This clearly means all members of society will have the same possibilities in education open to them, and they will control the education process itself, by democratic means. A socialist eduction will require that all those educated can explain clearly to everyone else what they propose to produce. There will be no 'priests' employing 'Latin' to 'read their own hidden bible', who then pretend to 'translate' their own elite understanding of their bible into words the illiterate peasants can comprehend.

is uncontrvoersial, and as a post-neopraxian endo-phenomenological Hussite I can endorse this, however, technical vocabulary is still needed: chemical compounds need names, even if given just a number, someone would still have to understand that H2SO4 encapsulates a certain set of properties.  I wouldn't expect every last member of the world society to memorise a complete list of chemical compounds, but I would expect that thee would be an understanding that these terms can be looked up, that any scholarly communication should be open to challenge and be mutually intelligible to anyone who had spent the time studying the subject.Back to Lenin, he believed the world could be reshaped by human will, Marx believed that lived human experience would shape the world. Post-neopraxian-endo-phenomenological Hussitism concurs on this point.

 That is not the main idea of What is to be done ? It is the development of the single vanguard party concept, to control the workers from the top by a group of professionals trained by the party, and the development of the so called democratic centralism.There is not any evidence in the works of Marx and Engels to develop such cocnept. We can trace it back to the French Jaobins and then it was adopted by Ferdinand Lasalle( he always opposed Marx and Engels )   and Karl Kaustky

[ALB]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

To be fair to Lenin: in his 'What is to be done' he did propose a society of shared work, democratic production, with every cook an accountant, etc.  And in his later essays, such as "Better Fewer but Better" he suggested that the role of his government was to raise the culture of the workers: so I don't think he envisaged technical dictatorship forever, any more than Marx did.

Actually, YMS, it wasn't in What Is To Be Done that Lenin put forward these ideas but in State and Revolution. As Marcos has just pointed out, in the former he puts forward his notorious view of the need for a vanguard party to bring socialist ideas to the workers considered incapable on their own of developing beyond a trade union consciousness.Here is an article from the Socialist Standard  in April 1970 (the centenary of his birth) which discusses Lenin's last articles including the one you quote from. It shows a different Lenin, or at least a more realistic one in the circumstances:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1970/no-788-april-1970/did-lenin-admit-defeat

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

To be fair to Lenin: in his 'What is to be done' he did propose a society of shared work, democratic production, with every cook an accountant, etc.  And in his later essays, such as "Better Fewer but Better" he suggested that the role of his government was to raise the culture of the workers: so I don't think he envisaged technical dictatorship forever, any more than Marx did.

Actually, YMS, it wasn't in What Is To Be Done that Lenin put forward these ideas but in State and Revolution. As Marcos has just pointed out, in the former he puts forward his notorious view of the need for a vanguard party to bring socialist ideas to the workers considered incapable on their own of developing beyond a trade union consciousness.Here is an article from the Socialist Standard  in April 1970 (the centenary of his birth) which discusses Lenin's last articles including the one you quote from. It shows a different Lenin, or at least a more realistic one in the circumstances:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1970/no-788-april-1970/did-lenin-admit-defeat

 On State and the Revolution it is where Lenin distorts Marx(  and Engels)   completely, and his book is only a justification for the so called Socialist State, and most Leninist have propagated the idea that the Commune of Paris was the first socialist state developed by Marx, which is totally false, and also he  made the division between socialism and communism ( Lenin did not make that distinction before ) , and we have analyzed and criticized the book in several occasions, therefore, I want to see the tie between Lenin concept of the state and the socialist party. This is the third elements of Leninism ( before that he had already written Imperialism )  Have we ever supported the workers state ? History has shown that we have never done that 

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo, the simple answer to your predicament is to realise that we don't share the same political ideology.I'm a Democratic Communist, influenced by Marx's ideas about 'social production', and the democratic control of that production.You believe something else.I can't explain my views from your perspective, only from my own.If you don't accept my Marxist viewpoint, that's fine by me. If you don't think all social production should be democratically controlled, that's fine by me.I'm more interested in discussing these democratic ideas about social production with socialists who are influenced by Marx.Quite frankly, your ideological focus on 'Opportunity Costs', 'specialists' and 'individuals' is irrelevant to me, and my views about social revolution, workers' democracy and socialism. My views, similarly, will be irrelevant to you.Why not take up your discussion with someone who shares your ideology?

So, once again, yet another famous LBird cop-out… You know, the idea that you can just dismiss the question of opportunity costs as ideological and something to be ignored is really quite silly.  Opportunity costs are unavoidable in life and in any conceivable kind of society.  I agree there is an ideological aspect to them inasmuch as they involve choices but that is a different matter.  The point is that you cannot avoid having to make such choices however ideological these choices are. There is nothing "Marxist" in dismissing the concept of opportunity costs.  In fact if Marx were a member of this forum I could well imagine him now  in front of his  laptop furiously  firing off a post in that characterisically brusque manner of his, branding LBird as an idealist nincompoop who has no grasp of basic economics Opportunity costs are everywhere.  If you LBird decide to respond to this post,  the opportunity cost of you doing so is to forego that game of snooker you promised you would play with your mates down at the pub.  If a socialist society decided to build a bridge out of 20k tonnes of some metal alloy then the opportunity costs of that is to do without all those tractors you could have manufactured out of all this metal alloy.  If Jill decide to take a 5 year degree course to become a competent neurosurgeon then the opportunity cost of that is to abandon the idea of becoming a competent and trained up geophysicist  able to decide whether some obscure theory in geophysics is true or not And finally – on what grounds do you imagine I do not support the idea that "production should be democratically controlled"???  I do and I have said so.  Howeever that idea is TOTALLY TOTALLY TOTALLY different to the idea we are talking about here which is the idea of "democratically determining whether scientific theories are true". I feel I need to capitalise these words and repeat them  to bring this to your attention. Why is it that whenever we have this discussion you always scurry back to the comfrot zone of appealing to the idea that production should be democratically controlled when this is NOT – repeat NOT – what I am calling into question?? You are trying to couple this idea with your own idiosyncratic idea which is nowhere to be found in Marx that scientific theories should be democratically voted upon, Ive seen through your tactic LBird and it wont wash….

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

The essential difference between Marx and Lenin was 'who determined what producers produce?'.Marx argued that only the producers can determine what they produce.Lenin argued that a special elite must determine what the producers are producing.Thus, Marx argued for a 'unified' society, where there was no 'educated elite' who educated the masses – the masses are to be self-educating. Marx's political method for this was 'democracy', because self-education requires democracy. The only authority can be a self-determined authority.Lenin, by contrast, argued for a 'divided' society, where there was an 'educated elite' (who had a 'special consciousness' which was not available to the masses) who educated the masses – the masses are to be educated by the elite. Lenin's political method for this was 'authoritarian', because elite-educating requires authority. The only authority can be a elite-determined authority.These political perspectives are class-based perspectives. Marx's views are proletarian-based, whereas Lenin's views are bourgeois-based.Further, politics shapes philosophy, and philosophy shapes science.If one follows Lenin's 'materialism' (see Materialism and Empirio-criticism), one will support the class-based science of the bourgeoisie – a science based upon a 'special consciousness' of an 'expert elite' who employ an anti-democratic method, which denies democratic creation of our nature. Loosely known as 'practice and theory' – the elite hide their 'theory', and pretend to the masses that simple 'practice' (of course, based upon the hidden 'elite theory') produces 'theory'. The masses remain unconscious, and their production is determined for them by the elite.If one follows Marx's 'idealism-materialism' (see the Theses on Feuerbach, the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, and Capital), one will support the class-based science of the proletariat – a science based upon 'social production' by all humans who employ a democratic method, which insists upon the democratic creation of our nature. Loosely known as 'theory and practice' – the democratic producers expose their 'theory', and the masses are aware of their theory and discuss it, and know that their social theory and practice produces their world. The masses are conscious, and they democratically determine their own production.

We are not going to have proletariat on a socialist society. Proletariat( proletarian )  is the -person who must sell his/her labor force for a monetary remuneration and the word comes from the Roman, it has a Latin root, which means Proles or offspring.It is called bourgoise materialism because the capitalist needed the natural sciences in order to develop their industry 

[twc]

ALB wrote:

Here is an article from the Socialist Standard  in April 1970 (the centenary of his birth) which discusses Lenin's last articles including the one you quote from. It shows a different Lenin, or at least a more realistic one in the circumstances:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1970/no-788-april-1970/did-lenin-admit-defeat

Alan, a wonderful review indeed!

[Anonymous]

twc wrote:

ALB wrote:

Here is an article from the Socialist Standard  in April 1970 (the centenary of his birth) which discusses Lenin's last articles including the one you quote from. It shows a different Lenin, or at least a more realistic one in the circumstances:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1970/no-788-april-1970/did-lenin-admit-defeat

Alan, a wonderful review indeed!

 Before that, he had adopted Trotsky theory of the permanent revolution. If we start to dig deeply into the major works of Lenin, we can see that the accusation that we are Leninist will fall apart completely. We have to prove Leninism with Lenin works

[Author]

Posts