Lenin in his own words
- This topic has 42 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Only those who knew what capitalism and socialism are. Most don’t, and that would have been the case then too, I would have thought. Of course Lenin and Stalin knew. I think Trotsky was naive though. But those who, in good faith across the world, rallied to Bolshevism’s banners wouldn’t have known and still don’t.
Movimiento, about China not having been feudal since the accession of Ch’in Shih Huang, I had to write a disclaimer to my Brief History of Humankind, wherein I had for decades wrongly believed Imperial China to be feudal (which is the Maoist doctrine).
In my disclaimer I have tried to elaborate how exactly, in my humble view, Imperial China’s society functioned.
Unfortunately I wrote it in Occitan for publication, but, since, Movimiento, you are an Hispanic speaker, you should be able to get the gist of it.LA CHINA DICHA «FEUDALA»
En escrivent ma Pichona istoria de l’humanitat ai fach de decas importantas quand parlava de la China imperiala. Cossi es facil de veire l’istoria dins lo prisma de la nòstra istoria europèa! Aquò es estada la costuma dels marxistas, sustot leninistas, qu’an volgut seguir un procès de l’istòria sociala qu’es uniforme e net. Aquel procès a quatre nivpels: 1) comunisme primitiu 2) esclavatge ancian 3) feudalisme e 4) capitalisme.
Aqueste es estat, e rèsta, lo catequisme istoric del Partit comunista chinés, seguissent fidelament los mestres bolchevics Lenin e Stalin, e los mots del «grand dirigent» el meteis, Mao Zedong. Es lo procès, d’a fons occidental, qu’es encara repetit per l’estat chinés, que seguís encara l’ideologia – segon l’istòria al mens – del PCC, e acceptat fins a plan recentament pels sinologistas. Mas, es pas vertadièr.
Lo feudalisme europèu, societat plan coneguda en çò de nosautres, societat de servatge, es alara transposada pels marxistas del sègles XIX e XX sus totas las societats pre-capitalistas, i compresa la China, per d’explicar lo procès de desvolopament istoric dins cada país. Aquò va plan per comprene l’istòria europèa, alavetz aquò va plan per totes! Mao a pintat alara la China imperiala coma un «empèri feudal», son aristocracia de barons a l’europèa, sos paisans – sobretot agachant lo Tibet – de sèrfs. Tanben en despit de sa naissensa paisana, Mao es persuadit el meteis pel catequisme istoric marxista-leninista, car es pas un istorian independent, mas un ideologista. E tot deu se conformar.
E alara, ieu-meteis ai seguit aquest procès dins ma Pichona istoria.
Cal reveire. L’estudi puèi m’a reveladas aquestas conclusions d’a fons diferentas.
La China feudala èra d’efièch una realitat abans de la consolidacion imperiala del segle III Abans de Crist. Lo feudalisme de l’epòca del Chou èra l’epòca ont vivián Confuci e Lao Tse – una societat de nombroses reis e princes feudals, coma vesèm pintada per Szu Ma-chien dins lo sieu Remembres de l’istorian.
Sens dobte èra un procès gradual, mas pendent los Han (epòca de l’empèri roman en çòo de nosautres) foguèt establida la China imperiala, una societat que demorariá fondamentalament integrala fins a la revolucion de 1911.
Marx, l’eròi de Mao, Marx l’admirasor del capitalisme, diguèt que lo colonialisme britanic liberariá enfin los Chineses de sègles de «estupiditat eiretada». Atal era la vista arroganta e ignoranta de la borgesiá occidentala: la China imperiala un cadavre pudent que resistissiá «lo progrès» de la «civilisacion».
Luenh d’èsser un «cadavre pudent» que restava dins una «estupiditat eiretada» a travèrs los sègles, la China imperiala era, a travèrs dels millenis, la civilisacion la mai importanta e la mai granda sus la planeta. Luenh d’èsser un fossil, era una civilisacion vibranta, ab l’umilitat de reconéisser que tot es impermanent. A travèrs de l’istòria chinesa las dinastias son nascudas e son destruchas segon aquest dire bodista. Cadun aviá sa civilisacion que batissiá suls acomplissaments de son antecedent.
Qu’èran alara las classas e qu’èra lo sistèma de produccion d’aqueste empèri pendent 2,000 annadas de son istèria senon lo feudalisme imaginat pels Occidentals, sobretot los marxistas-leninistas?
Tre la dinastia Han, lo sistèma chinés, e tipicament chinés, foguèt ja establit al nòrd del país. Una meritocracia centralisada que fornissiá la burocracia de l’autocratea. Aquesta burocracia-meritocracia èra e restarié – ab l’excepcion de periòdes episòdics de turbulencias intra regnum – lo sistèma fins a l’abdicacion del darrièr emperaire en 1911.
«Lo tresor real es possedir de libres, e una vida de repos mena vèrs l’immortalitat.»
(Confuci. De l’autobiografia de P’u Yi).
Una meritocracia fluida e mobila, fondada intellectualament sus la practica de la literatura e la poesia, e las maximas eticas confucianas – atal s’èra constituada çoò que la borgesiá industriala d’Euròpa e Karl Marx apelavan al sègle XIX «la estupiditat eiretada» dels sègles chineses!
Tota la societat servissiá las valors confucianas, e lo camin de la literatura e la poesia èra la mai estimada de totas las carrièras, e lo sistèma d’educacion lo reflechissiá. Aqueste sistèma educatiu èra dubèrt a cada drolle e cada òme chinés. (Las filhas e las femnas estant exclusas, cèrts individús solament exceptats a travèrs l’istòria de l’empèri). Cada paisan atendissiá l’escòla de son vilatge ont lo solet subjecte èra la literatura. L’escòla èra gratis, i compreses los examens imperials, dubèrts gratis a cada subjecte de l’empèri a travèrs de sa vida. Las recercas nos mostran que los filhs dels mandarins èran pas necessariment eles que trionfavan totjorn dins los examens, e mants filhs de paisans devenián mandarins a lor torn. Aquè èra convenable a l’estat, li assegurant la fluiditat de la burocracia e protegissent lo tron de l’ambicion nepotista sus la part dels oficials. Atal, un estat autocrata e absolutista favorissiá paradoxalament una sòrta de «democracia» al nivèl dels escolans, siàn paures siàn rics.
Alara, la mobilitat de las classas dins las epòcas d’estabilitat èra tipica, fondada sul merit de cadun. E cadun, dins una societat e cultura de grandas familhas estendudas, profitava del sosten dels seus.
Dejós l’emperaire e la familha imperiala, èra alavetz la meritocracia escolastica, d’eles qu’avián reussit als examens superiors de literatura e de poesia – classa regnanta, dubèrta a cadun que lo meritava. Classa regnanta en termes de burocracia: pas parasitica mas salariada, recebent son pagament sus l’escalièr del govèrn directe de la borsa del tron. E aquesta borsa replenida per mejan de la taxacion dels proprietaires.
Los meritocratas-escolastics devenián proprietaires de tèrras cultivadas pels paisans-rentièrs recebent lor partida de la tèrra, per consomar eles meteisses, o vendre. En cultivant la tèrra d’un oficial, lo paisan paure èra alara exempt de la taxa imperiala que lo proprietaire deviá pagar. Los paisans mai rics avián l’opcion de restar fermièrs-proprietaires independants, mas subjectes alara a la talha imperiala. (D’aquela classa veniá Mao el meteis).
Plan sovent los emperaires avián enveja de limitar lo nombre de tèrras crompadas pels oficials e mantengudas pels paisans-rentièrs, sistèma tristament vulnerable a la corrupcion. Un oficial-proprietaire viciós cubririá son pagament de la taxa per mejan d’augmentar las rentas qu’exigissiá de sos tenants. Aquò devendriá un problèma de mai en mai seriói a travèrs de l’istòria de l’empèri, e menariá a l’enemistat dels paisans per aquests «senhors» que resultariá enfin amb de chaples de la guèrra de T’aip’ing pendent las annadas 1850-60 e de la guèrra civila de las annadas 1930-50.
Aital era la classa paisana devessida en dos: fermièrs independents e fermiers tenants. Entre eles e los oficials-escolastics èran la classa mercantila, l’artisanat, e los mestièrs. Aqueles, dins una cultura de grandas familhas estendudas, ofrissián lors talents als oficials e al tron en arquitectura, irrigacion, sciencias, municions, ingenièrs, eca. Aquelas familhas emplegarián tanben eles de vila o de campanha en aprentissatge. Una borgesiá chinesa devendriá importanta sustot pendent las dinastias Sung et Ming, quand la China èra vertadierament la mai granda civilisacion sus tèrra. (Veire Michael Wood, L’Istòria de la China).
Los envasidors mongols e manchós èran sens dobte de culturas feudalas, mas la China los transformava, sobretot los Manchós qu’establiguèron lo Ch’ing, lo dernièr empèri (1644-1911).
Lo Tibet.
L’estat chinés modèrn fa mult a prepaus del «servatge» al Tibet jos los Dalai Lamas, mas dobti tanben aquò. Thubten Jigme Norbu dins son libre Tibet nos apren la fluiditat e mobilitat de la vida en Tibet, ont la noblessa èra tanben subjecta a un sistèma de meritocracia.
Sobretot aquestas societats e culturas èran brica «feudalas» al sens europèu, e meritan las recercas emancipadas dels nèstres prejutjats occidentals.Another article on Lenin’s imperialism theory
https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2019/01/imperialism-where-lenin-went-wrong-2017.html
I would have to compose it in English. Eye-strain is already a pain.
What I will do is summarise it here.1. For most of my life I accepted the traditional historical view of most Marxists, that Imperial China was a feudal society. That is what the Maoists and the Chinese govt still say. They also say that the system before their hero Chin Shih Huang was a chattel slavery society, which Confucius supported. Both are balderdash.
2. China never had a chattel slavery epoch, although slaves existed (as they existed among the Vikings). During Confucius’ lifetime, only north China existed, and it was split into feudal kingdoms. This was the Chou dynasty, and feudalism is apt to describe it. But it ended in the third century B.C.E., when Chin Shih Huang conquered the petty kings and created Imperial China.
The new imperial system then evolves but isn’t perfected until the anti-scholastic tyrant’s death and the re-introduction of a “scholasticratic” administration by the Han dynasty, (contemporary with ancient Rome).3. I believe Marx in later life had realised, in speaking of an Asian mode of production, that the European saga of social evolution could not be applied everywhere, although I also believe neither can an “Asian mode” be applied across all Asiatic lands. China had its own unique characteristics.
I also hope Marx, had he lived, would have apologised for echoing the bourgeois lauders of “civilising” colonialism, and take back his disgraceful comment that the European exploitation of China was “waking up the Chinese from centuries of stupidity”! How disgustingly eurocentric is that?!4. (Before 4, I must now rest, and will continue later).
TM – Does the Chinese route to capitalism really matter? The fact is, like the rest of the world, it now conforms to the capitalism that was developed in Europe, and it is the study of that development that is, in retrospect, of primary interest to socialists.
4. Viewed by 19th century bourgeois Europeans as a “putrifying corpse”, China was a society which humbly accepted the “impermanence of all things” as taught by Buddhism and saw the rise and fall of its ruling dynasties in this light. Each Chinese epoch contributed to human civilisation and Europe was late on the scene.
5. Chinese society regarded literature, the pursuit of the scholar, as the ultimate value. There was a democratic aspect to this, in that no social position could be inherited. Farmers owned and tilled their own land and every son, regardless of wealth, was permitted to sit the exams which provided entry to the bureaucracy. Of course, the son whose father held a bureaucratic post had a distinct advantage when it came, not only to reading and writing, but being enabled to actually pass the exams. Most farmers had no such time or luxury, and remained farmers. But they were free farmers, and they could find relief from the imperial tax on land by living on and working on estates belonging to scholars who, having risen in the bureaucracy via the exam system, had obtained posts bringing income allowing them to pay the tax on larger estates. So, it was a class society, but operated as a meritocracy. The sons of the officials did not inherit, but had to earn (via the exam system) the position their father had earned, or similar, in the bureaucracy. With all land belonging to the Emperor, there were no “landlords” as the Maoists speak of, but bureaucrats, whose subalterns might well misappropriate taxes and exploit poor farmers – which in fact was a rampant problem that successive emperors attempted to eradicate, never fully succeeding.
6. So, whilst farmers (peasants) tilled the land, or paid of the produce they cultivated on another’s land, so sharing his tax liability (a system nonetheless open to corruption), scholar-bureaucrats received salaries from the throne, higher or lower depending on the post filled.
Which leaves those others, the merchants, traders, craftsmen and artisans, architects and scientists, and doctors. These roles were familial, via apprenticeship from father to son, but also to adopted sons. These lived on salaries paid for their work, and tended to remain in the same families, passing their skills from generation to generation, outside of the scholastic system.Wez, it doesn’t matter unless one is interested in history. A Leninist, though, might challenge you with “If China wasn’t feudal like Mao says, then what was it?”
What will you say? That you don’t know, so Mao must be right?
Or a neutral member of the public might ask, “What was China before capitalism? Was it feudal, like England?”
TM – As you say it might be of academic interest to an historian but not to a socialist when discussing politics. It doesn’t matter if China was feudal or not since the history of China did not create the development of global capitalism as did Europe. Because of the early political evolution of England (revolutions of 1642 &1688),and the industrial revolution that this made possible, England had the industrial/technological/military edge that enabled it to impose the capitalist mode of production on the world and/or show its superiority to the rising bourgeois classes of other European states who sought to emulate it. It is likewise of academic interest as to how the economies of the Americas would have developed without European contact but it is now of no political importance.
What if a socialist wants to read a Chinese classic, and wants to understand context etc?
Or are we only to bother with European history, and specifically Britain, industrialism, colonialism, etc?
Are our libraries to only contain the works of Marx and Engels?
Non-Europeans are then to be confirmed in their belief that we’re only interested in the West as the “centre of history” and its history as all that’s important. So you can agree with Marx’s dismissive phrase regarding centuries of Chinese stupidity, from which we saved them!
So entire civilisations are of no importance except to an academic, and have nothing worth our study and reading; nothing to teach us; and we can remain in a reductionist, mechanist materialism, alienating others with our insularism.
And the socialist can agree with Henry Ford that history is bunk.
Alan asked me to summarise the system of Imperial China following the criticism of the Leninist fallacy that the synopsis feudalism begets capitalism is true worldwide, which we know to be false. I have answered his request. If you’re not interested, then don’t read it. Go and read something else.
I shan’t apologise for being a socialist who also has other interests, and whose library is not restricted to Marxism.I always thought what distinguished us from the Leftists, as well as our political differences, was our embracing of humanity and of life as a whole. In other words, we are not politicos, sloganeers, limited people, as Leninists are. They are mere ideologists, but we are universal thinkers, and ought not to be ashamed of our thoughts running freely over all things. Socialism is about freeing us all to be just so, not chaining us to restricted modes of thought approved for relevance by a politburo.
Thomas
Still there are many members of the left who do not know the real meaning and definition of socialism/communism and most of them are not amateurs they have been in the Leninist movement for many years and some have only read Lenin, probably one or two pamphlets of Marx and Engels and probably more Engels than Marx, and most members of the left have not read Das Capital,the problem is not academic or intelectual, the problem is to accept something new in order to reject what you have supported for many years, and they are not going to do that, it is the same case of the bolsheviks leaders, some of them knew that Russia was a state capitalist economy but they preferred to continue with the same lie until its collapse. Others have never read Marx, and they prefer second hands information
Most members of the Leninists vanguard party have been trained by cadres thru study groups like studying catechism at the Catholic Church in order to have the first communion, but they only use certain selected books or pamphlets to read or to study, and sometimes they do not read the pamphlets and most of the books used are distortion of what socialism really is. I know someone who is a very old member of a socialist party and he has never read Marx, Engels or even Lenin, and I asked him to read Engels book on Scientific socialism and he told me that it was too long, and they’re many like him within that movement.
Some organizations like the Left communists they have a partial correct definition of socialism but they have never rejected Lenin completely and they continue believing that the Soviet Union was a socialist country while Lenin was the head of the commissars or one of the commissars, or after Stalin became Secretary General of the communist party. After 1989-1991 many members abandoned in stampede the Leninist parties because they did not understand what happened in the Soviet Union, or they were frustrated or burnout, china openly supporting capitalism placed the last nail in the coffin for many of them, and the collapse of Albanian was even worst. It is easier for an anti communist worker to understand what socialism really is
In order to understand socialism/communism you have to go thru the same road that I went thru , you have to reject everything from its own root, and start to place new ideas in your brain,( like an amateur, a beginner ) and the best way to do it is by comparing what you have learned with the literature of the Socialist Party/WSM,( or using the old index-for research ) and make your own self critiques and personally recognize that you are wrong , and what you have learned is wrong, and most of them do not want to do that because reformism is more important than socialism, and they see it as a long road and a long objective that can not be reached.
It was easier for some bolsheviks leaders to understand the real concept of socialism because Leninism was not the prevailing ideas yet, it was Marx and Engels, but they distorted it, but them everybody was mentally corrupted by Leninism and Stalin created a concept known as Marxism Leninism and I think that Lenin himself would not have accepted that concept, even more he did not want to be mumified he wanted to be buried next to his mother, and he was not going to edit What is to be done ? but his followers needed it to control the workers from the top, it was the Russian Machiavelli Prince.
Probably, Lenin was more sincere that most of them because he accepted that Russia had a state capitalism economy and at the end of his life he accepted that he was defeated and that a burocratic state was emerging in the Soviet Union. Trotsky never had a clear understanding of socialism, for him state ownership of the means of production of socialism and he supported Stalin on several of his project including the Hitler- Stalin pact
When the workers start to take class consciousness around the world, the workers will move ahead and they will stay behind, or they will be forced to follow the workers and abandon all their old organizations because a vanguard party will not be needed, and workers will not need leaders, or cadres, we do not know what will take to the socialist party either, even more in a socialist society we are not going to need the ideas of Marx and Engels anymore
‘Non-Europeans are then to be confirmed in their belief that we’re only interested in the West as the “centre of history” and its history as all that’s important. So you can agree with Marx’s dismissive phrase regarding centuries of Chinese stupidity, from which we saved them!’
Thomas – answer me this: ‘Did global capitalism have its origins in Europe? Is global capitalism the greatest obstacle to socialism both economically and politically? As the answer to both these questions is obviously yes then clearly that’s what socialists should examine, understand and explain. It has nothing to do with cultural ‘stupidity’ as clearly many cultures were far in advance of Europe in many and various ways down the centuries. But politically and economically the European model has become the dominant force in everyone’s lives. My understanding of the Marxian approach to the study of history is to distinguish elements of the past that were important in the development of the present and then to likewise try and define elements of the present that we can project as possible components of the future.
Some historians have said that capitalism could have started in China instead of England but the constant wars did not allow a full development of a capitalist economy, and also Marx wrote about the uneven development of capitalism. Some europeans historians have said that the civilization of the American natives were equal or better in some way than the European
We shouldn’t be too Eurocentric and appreciate that humanity could have taken many different courses, as it often did so.
I have always been interested in pre-capitalist developments such as the peasant revolts that used religion as its language. What if they had prevailed?
But also non-capitalist societies, the primitive communism of the clan system, for instance.
https://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/2012/05/celtic-communism-gaelic-commonwealth.html
Should we forget what happened in South America?
Cde. Bill Martin did an informative talk on the Incas
I wrote a short article on the Incas.
But to stay on topic, Cde. Mercer engaged in a video discussion on Lenin and imperialism offering a useful exposition of the SPGB viewpoint.
https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2020/09/imperialism-and-left-discussion.html
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.