Section II: Proletarians and Communists

[ALB]

[jondwhite]

Elsewhere in a topic on non-members I postedWhat do you think the opening of Chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto means? Or warns against? Or was this an error of Young Marx.

Quote:

In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

The answer from YMS was

Quote:

We don't idolise Marx & Engels,the above is a tactical suggestion, we've chosen different tactics, we are decidedly partyists, in preference to the tyranny of structurlessness and also our specific focus upon the conscious acceptance of socialist ideas.

to which I replied

Quote:

Sorry but the Communist Manifesto is decidedly partyist, not in favour of structurelessness and focused on the conscious acceptance of socialist ideas. I don't think it is idolising Marx to challenge some of your comments in your above statement about the passage from Chapter 2.You' might be focusing on 'The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.' whereas you should be looking at it in the context of the preceding statement 'In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?'.In what relation do you think the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? Or is there no relation? Is the party on its own plane of existence?

Surely Marx was not a proto-Bolshevik or Labourite by 1848?

[ALB]

He might have been a proto-Bolshevik at that time. See chapter two of our pamphlet Marxism Revisited. Or listen to it here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/audio/did-lenin-really-distort-marx

[Young Master Smeet]

Quote:

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

In many ways, this is the most psychologically difficult (or should that be, temprementally) part of of the manifesto, since in many ways its an abdication of responsibility, it says 'We can't change the world by an act of will, we can only join in with actual existing movements', it is part and parcel with the ide that the emancipation of the working class must be its own act.  Substitution not allowed.  The question becomes, what do the blue sky thinkers and early adopters do?  Simply join in with the working class (even when we feel they are deadly wrong) or try to take charge of the movement to promote and guide its actions to speed the way?  Or, as in our case, stand vry much on the sidelines with a clear banner saying 'This way'?  It's clear, i think, that by temprement and interest that the working class is the bulwark of democracy in society, and defending that must be our minimum position.

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

He might have been a proto-Bolshevik at that time. See chapter two of our pamphlet Marxism Revisited. Or listen to it here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/audio/did-lenin-really-distort-marx

At that time both adopted certain Blanquists positions too

[Anonymous]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Quote:

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

In many ways, this is the most psychologically difficult (or should that be, temprementally) part of of the manifesto, since in many ways its an abdication of responsibility, it says 'We can't change the world by an act of will, we can only join in with actual existing movements', it is part and parcel with the ide that the emancipation of the working class must be its own act.  Substitution not allowed.  The question becomes, what do the blue sky thinkers and early adopters do?  Simply join in with the working class (even when we feel they are deadly wrong) or try to take charge of the movement to promote and guide its actions to speed the way?  Or, as in our case, stand vry much on the sidelines with a clear banner saying 'This way'?  It's clear, i think, that by temprement and interest that the working class is the bulwark of democracy in society, and defending that must be our minimum position.

I think in one of our public presentations we explained the modification of that clause adapted to our time. We can not join forces with the left wingers political parties

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

He might have been a proto-Bolshevik at that time. See chapter two of our pamphlet Marxism Revisited. Or listen to it here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/audio/did-lenin-really-distort-marx

 And a proto-Menshevik too

[JoanOfArc]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Quote:

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

In many ways, this is the most psychologically difficult (or should that be, temprementally) part of of the manifesto, since in many ways its an abdication of responsibility, it says 'We can't change the world by an act of will, we can only join in with actual existing movements', it is part and parcel with the ide that the emancipation of the working class must be its own act.  Substitution not allowed.  The question becomes, what do the blue sky thinkers and early adopters do?  Simply join in with the working class (even when we feel they are deadly wrong) or try to take charge of the movement to promote and guide its actions to speed the way?  Or, as in our case, stand vry much on the sidelines with a clear banner saying 'This way'?  It's clear, i think, that by temprement and interest that the working class is the bulwark of democracy in society, and defending that must be our minimum position.

 i would think it means that we all convene on socialist boards like this to battle a few ideas and concepts out about how to bring about socialism…..social media provides us with the tool to get ideas in front of peoplewhat we don't really want to do is telling people how to think.  we can all lead ourselves. we can only sow the seeds in peoples minds…. it's not until people are open minded enough can we either form our own party or infilitrate others….it is infiltration of ideas and thoughts. sharing in other words.  we must share ideas.  it is not for any one party to say how things should be.  for true socialism depends on the masses. not a few in charge.  we must give the people the power of change.  we can provide the tools for them. we can provide a way they can all be counted.  but true democracy relies on the masses.  we give them power to change as they see fit. not a few telling everyone what's what. a few can say, 'here you are, here are the tools to bring about change, but it's ultimately in you, the peoples' hands.  not just a few. even socialists seem to have this idea that everyone needs to be led instead of letting the people decide for themselves.  people are tired of being led. let them do the choosing.

[jondwhite]

I think it's about being an open and participatory party with the key word in the warning being 'separate'. Incidentally what do the likes of Lars T. Lih say about the way the Mensheviks operated and Iskra etc.

[ALB]

This article from 1921 is relevant:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1920s/1921/no-206-october-1921/communist-party-australiaIt even quotes the same passage, against the idea of vanguard party:

Quote:

"In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole," the answer is : "The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole."

Actually, it's a very good article which shows we were on to the dangers of "Leninism" early.

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

I think it's about being an open and participatory party with the key word in the warning being 'separate'. Incidentally what do the likes of Lars T. Lih say about the way the Mensheviks operated and Iskra etc.

Here's what we said about the Mensheviks in the April 1932 Socialist Standard. In short, we didn't think much of them apart from a few individual one:

Quote:

THE PROGRAMME OF THE RUSSIAN MENSHEVIKS AND SOCIAL REVOLUTIONARIESA reader at St. John, New Brunswick, asks the following questions :—What was the programme, or principles, in brief, of the Mensheviks and the Left Social Revolutionaries, now under a ban in Russia? Have these extinct organisations much in common with the S.P.G.B. ?Yours, etc., M. WASSON.Reply.In order to make our comments on these Russian organisations understandable we must first give some facts about them. The "Russian Social Democratic Party," which later split into two separate bodies, Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, was formed in 1898. Its aim was declared to be Socialism. Its energies were largely taken up with problems of organisation, with the struggle for immediate demands (such as the right to organise in trade unions, the shorter working day) and with resisting the efforts of the Czarist Government to suppress its propaganda. From the first there were two wings in the Party, and in 1903 at the Party Congress at Geneva a split developed. The following statement concerning the split is taken from "The Labour International Handbook," published in May, 1921, by the Labour Publishing Co., Ltd., London. The Editor, R. Palme Dutt, is a well-known Communist."It is important to note that there was no disagreement on the programme, which was adopted unanimously. The difference was one of tactics, and concerned (1) the importance to be attached to illegal work; and as the difference developed (2) the question of co-operating with bourgeois parties of the left." (P. 286.)A Unity Congress was held in 1906, but the two sections continued to keep their separate organisations and journals. In 1912 they ran candidates against one another in the elections for the Fourth Duma ("Handbook," p. 287).Both Mensheviks and Bolsheviks claim (and still claim) to be Marxists. The "Socialist Revolutionary Party, " formed in 1901 did not claim to accept Marxist principles. They advocated and practised political association, which both Mensheviks and Bolsheviks condemned."In their social theory they looked above all to the peasants and the development of agricultural communes with a large local autonomy" ("Handbook," p. 288.)The "Socialist Revolutionary Party," with a predominantly peasant membership, was much larger than the other parties,whose members were chiefly in the towns. The Mensheviks were less numerous than the Bolsheviks.The "Left Socialist Revolutionaries" were a wing led by Spiridonova and Kamkov, who gave general support to the Bolsheviks in their seizure of power in 1917. They had seven seats on the Council of Commissaries until early in 1918, when they resigned as a protest against the Bolshevik policy of making peace with Germany.The Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries still have organisations and journals, with headquarters in Berlin.In 1920 when a British Labour Delegation visited Russia the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries each issued a full statement of their position. These were included in the Report of the Delegation (Published by the Labour Party and Trades Union Congress, London).If the Mensheviks could be judged solely on this declaration of Socialist principles there would be little to find fault with.The S.R. declaration, on the other hand, contains little about principles, and is not in any real sense a Socialist declaration at all. It is merely a propaganda effort to justify the tactics of the S.R. Party and to blacken the Bolsheviks.The important thing is that the Menshevik document referred to above, although issued by the Central Committee of the Party, does not give anything like a full and true picture. Rather it represents the views of certain individuals on Socialist principles, completely divorced from the actions of the Party. This characteristic of the Mensheviks is one often found in the Labour Parties of Western Europe and elsewhere.Let us look at certain of their actions.The Mensheviks permitted their member to support the war—-in flat contradiction of' the Socialist principles they were supposed lo understand and accept.The Mensheviks and the Socialist Revolutionaries (and the Bolsheviks) belonged to the Second International before the war. They accepted the absurd claim that that body and its affiliated parties were Socialist.The Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries are still affiliated to the "Labour and Socialist International " and still push the reforms which make up the only stock-in-trade of that non-Socialist body.It will be seen, therefore, that the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries have no more in common with the S.P.G.B. than any of the other reformist parties which find it convenient to cover over their reformist programmes with a gloss of Marxian phrases and ideas.ED. COMM.

[Anonymous]

There were not any major differences between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks, among all of them, the only one who advocated certain socialists principles was Julius Martov. In the same, that there were not any major differences between Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky, and both were Leninistshttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1960s/1967/no-759-november-1967/martov-russian-social-democrat

[Dave B]

The Mensheviks had been part of the Zimmerwald movement from the start. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmerwald_Conference The Bolsheviks had tried to have them thrown out in 1917  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Zimmerwald_Conference Various Russian political groups and parties etc were accused of wishing to continue the first world war and that has been assumed to be a desire to continue the patriotic war to defeat the Germans in alliance with the western powers etc. However that was not the case as Lockhart the British spook at the time reported to the British government that there was no mass support for that idea in Russia at the time and advised them that attempting to bring Russia back into the war under those terms was a waste of time. There was however political support in all parties including the Bolsheviks and SR’s against not resisting the invasion, and surrender, of ‘revolutionary’ Russian land to German imperialism etc Eg the Brest Treaty of Brest-Litovsk That resistance position within the Bolshevik party; as well as objections to the introduction of state capitalism was described as “leftwing childishness.” Even left SR’s becamed pissed off with the consequences of that and attempted a coup against the Bolsheviks in July 1918. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_SR_uprising  The left SR’s had a considerable political base and constituency in the areas that had been ‘handed over’ to the Germans. The position was made even more complicated as at the time it was widely believed, correctly as it turned out, that the Bolsheviks were being funded by the Germans in payment for taking a ‘defeatist’ position. The SR’s were such a wide based political organisation I think it is meaningless to attribute to them any fixed positions on anything. Most of their base was peasant but they had working class support even if that working class support were first generation peasants. Some of them accepted large tracks of Marxist theory although they did believe that Russia didn’t need to pass through the capitalist stage and could go straight towards some form of communism or socialist revolution; a position they shared with the ‘anarchists’.  I think many of the SR’s shared the same position as that we normally associate with ‘Maoism’; whatever that is.  By the 1930’s the ‘Menshevik’ leadership had adopted a Trotskyist position as regards Russia Letter sent to the editor of the MANCHESTER GUARDIAN by Theodore Dan, appearing in that publication on September 4, 1936.If the Soviet Union is to be preserved as the nucleus of peace, and the war peril facing all humanity thus exorcised, all friends of the Russian Revolution and of world peace must stand resolutely on the side of the Russian workers and peasants in order to assist them to defend the possibilities of democratic and Socialistic development of the Soviet Union against the nationalistic and Bonapartist policy of Stalin. The Moscow murders are perhaps one of the final warnings.—Yours, &c., Paris, August 28.http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/socialistappeal/vol02/no09/dan.htm

[Dave B]

 there is a short article on SR's and Menshviks and the bolsheviks 'new capitalism' attached; https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1922/xx/twelve.htm

[Author]

Posts