Marx and Lenin’s views contrasted
- This topic has 138 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 4 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
There is a pingback, (linked reply) on this article https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2001/no-1169-december-2001/marx-and-lenins-views-contrasted/
on a Leninist website claming to be on the Trotskyists Left, which refers to the SPGB, which some comrades may wish to reply to it.
https://instruggle.wordpress.com/2017/04/02/lenin-persistent-myth/
Their claim,
To critics of Bolshevism, this snippet represents a damning indictment of how far Lenin departed from Marx’s understanding of socialism. The social-democratic SPGB, one the groups who frequently employ the quote to dismiss Lenin’s politics, has claimed that “Lenin knew that he was introducing a new definition of socialism here which was not to be found in Marx.” Alongside the SPGB are a large number of anarchist or “libertarian communist” websites that have latched onto the quote as indicative of Lenin’s purportedly nefarious political designs.
“Marx and Lenin’s views contrasted”?
It’s a very easy to make the political distinction between their views.
Marx argued that the vast majority of humanity should be democratically involved in their own social production, whereas Lenin argued that there was an elite with a ‘special consciousness’ who should direct the social production of the majority, and thus democratic social production wasn’t needed.
If one is a democrat and a communist, one can’t look to any of Lenin’s political ideas.
Obviously, this also includes Lenin’s views on ‘science’, which are standard 19th century bourgeois views.
It’s hard to compare Marx and Lenin. Marx was an academic and theorist above all else; Lenin, a revolutionary practioner. Aside from his writings on imperialism, Lenin was preoccupied with the work of overthrowing the ruling class, where ever that may be.
In this sense LBird, Lenin argued that the working class required a transition period between capitalism and socialism in which a dictatorship of the working class would rule.
https://bibliothequedumarxisme.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/transitional.pdf
I think Julius Martov swept the floor with Lenin conception of the state, and State and the revolution where he distorted Marx completely, and the SPGB swept the floor with Lenin transitional society. Martov said that Lenin was a provocateur. The SPGB was able to prove that Lenin concept of Imperialism is totally wrong and that he turned Marx conception of socialism into a conception of nationalists and class collaborators, and we have also said that the Russian revolution was a coup organized by the Bolsheviks. We know more about Lenin than the Leninist themselves
Jilus Martov Russian Social Democrat
LeonTrotsky wrote “In this sense LBird, Lenin argued that the working class required a transition period between capitalism and socialism in which a dictatorship of the working class would rule.” [my bold]
LT, I think that you’ll find that “Lenin argued that…a dictatorship of the party would rule“.
That’s what separates Marx and Lenin – Marx equated ‘working class’ with ‘working class’, whereas Lenin equated ‘working class’ with ‘party’.
Hence, for those who follow Lenin’s politics (and ‘scientific’ method), there’s no need for ‘democracy’.
An elite in politics (and in science) will tell workers what is correct think. As in society, so too in nature.
This is nothing to do with Marx, whether as an ‘academic and theorist’ or as a ‘revolutionary practioner’, to employ your theoretical separation of Marx’s unity of ‘theory and practice’.
It’s hard to compare Marx and Lenin. Marx was an academic and theorist above all else; Lenin, a revolutionary practioner. Aside from his writings on imperialism, Lenin was preoccupied with the work of overthrowing the ruling class, where ever that may be.
===============================================================================
The Bolsheviks became the new ruling class of Russia
That is what the Leninists call the dictatorship of the proletariat. The DOP is only a temporary measure applicable to the XIX century, but it is not applicable to our time. In any way the slaves can not oppress himself/herself
LT repeats what usually comes from the right-wing that Marx for all extent and purposes was merely a fixture to the British Library.
LT ignores Marx’s early career as a newspaper editor hounded by the state censors, he ignores that Marx worked as a journalist. Most of all he ignores that Marx was an activist and organiser for the IWMA, and also engaged in showing solidarity with the real politics of his day such as the bloody suppression of the Paris Commune.
Apart from the a half dozen years in the late stages of his life, Lenin was perhaps could also be described as only a theorist, and not a particularly original thinker at that, usually repeating the ideas of others such as Kautsky, often twisting them to fit the conditions of Russia in the proverbial square peg into the round hole.
When he had an opportunity of turning theory into practice in 1917, Lenin blew it by making a number of ill-advised but key policy decisions that he had to force upon the Bolshevik Party with his threats of resignation and devious party-machine manouvers. By 1921 even staunch supporter and stalwart party official Alexander Shlyapnikov reacted with fear to Lenin’s dark humour of answering Bolshevik dissidents with machine-gun bullets.
Also, Lenin borrowed several conceptions from Nikolai Bukharin. Without the Russian Bolshvekik Lenin would have passed to history as any other politician
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1970/no-788-april-1970/did-lenin-admit-defeat/. Did Lenin admit defeat?
It’s hard to compare Marx and Lenin. Marx was an academic and theorist above all else
=============================================================
That is not true, Marx was actively participating in all the working-class movement of his time, that is the propaganda spread by the right-wingers and peoples who do not know anything about Karl Marx. Engels was also very active in the working-class movement and workers organizations
He was a journalist, and he wrote many articles in the New York Tribune, he was constantly working.
Franz Mehring ( his biographer ) said that after his death Engels was surprised to see that his friend was working in so many tasks at the same
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/newspapers/new-york-tribune.htm
https://isreview.org/issue/100/lenin-and-bukharin-imperialism
Lenin and Bukharin on Imperialism,
State capitalism/Bukharin
Socialism in one country/ Bukharin
Nikolai Bukharin was one of the ablest of the Bolsheviks. He knew the real definition of socialism/communism/ He was the real philosopher of the Bolsheviks
Leon – You display (not for the first time) your ignorance, when you state “It’s hard to compare Marx and Lenin. Marx was an academic and theorist above all else”
Perhaps a good starting point for your education would be a brief read of the article below from. Although limited and lacking real depth, it might be a good starting point for you to develop your knowledge of the real work of Karl Marx (which is clearly also limited and lackig real depth)
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Karl-Marx/Role-in-the-First-International#ref412092
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.