Lenin and Marx Contrasted
- This topic has 72 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
These are good articles but one is 15 years old and the other 26 years old, so what has prompted their reposting?
The Communist Manifesto was written in 1844, and Capital Volume one was published in 1867, and What is to be done? was published in 1902, and we wrote a Preface for the 100 years of the CM, and during the crisis of 2008 there were many Economists looking for Capital to find answers for the crisis, in 2016 there are organizations that are still using Lenin's concept of the vanguard party. Wind is old and it is still blowing..Those are still two good articles that can teach many things to many peoples who do not know the difference between Marx and Lenin
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/
There are many peoples and Leninists who do not know that Bolshevism is a hybrid or a combination of the theory of the Vanguard Party, ( Ferdinand LaSalle, and the Jacobins ) and the theory of the permanent revolution,( from Leon Trotsky ) and most of Lenin conception spin around both ideas, and many peoples do not know that the vanguard party concept was only going to be applied to Russia, and it became an universal conception among the Leninist parties, therefore, I would like to see the similarity between the Socialist Party and Leninism.There is a new trend involving several countries looking for the real definition of socialism, and the different between Soviets and socialism, and that questioning is coming from young workers and students
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.
LBird wrote: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.So there is no social division of labour in socialism, no specialization in socialism. Is that what you are saying LBird?. That everyone can – and indeed must – become an accomplished nuclear physicist and a molecular biologist in order to contribute democratically to the production of scientific knowledge in these fields. I would love to hear your answer to this question if you have one!
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?
robbo203 wrote:LBird wrote: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.So there is no social division of labour in socialism, no specialization in socialism. Is that what you are saying LBird?. That everyone can – and indeed must – become an accomplished nuclear physicist and a molecular biologist in order to contribute democratically to the production of scientific knowledge in these fields. I would love to hear your answer to this question if you have one!
I'm only going to answer you once more, robbo, because I've answered this continuously for years now, and you keep asking the same question, having ignored my answers.Marx argues that there must be a 'unified' society, which democratically controls its production – this is 'communism' (or, 'socialism').From the replies of SPGB members, there seems to be an untheorised attachment in the party to a 'specialist/generalist' dichotomy in society, which will carry on in communism.This concept ("specialist/generalist" separation) is opposed to Marx's concept of 'unified society'. The 'specialist' will determine the 'specialist' production.For those opposed to Marx and democratic production, like you robbo (who argues for 'individualism'), this is not a problem. Your political concerns are to defend 'specialists' from any democratic controls on their 'individual' theory and practice. This is not my concern, because I agree with Marx, and wish to see democratic control of production.So, according to Marx, within communism the 'educators' would be the 'generalists' (ie. the masses), who would 'educate' any 'specialists' that the masses wish to produce. Clearly, the masses would determine why, how, for what interests and purposes, any 'specialised' production was produced. 'Specialists' will do as they are told, by 'generalists' (to use the terminology current within the SPGB), because that is the democratic method. There are no 'specialists' who have a 'special consciousness' which is not available to the 'generalists' (the masses).The ideas/theories/philosophies/ideologies/methods/etc. employed by the selected 'specialists' will be openly explained, in plain language, to the democratic selectors, so that the 'generalist/masses' can determine whether the social production that their 'specialists' propose to produce is in the interests and for the purposes of the whole of society.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.Priests/Latin/Bible = Physicists/Maths/Reality (or any other 'specialism/language/object')As Marx argued, we create our own reality, by democratic theory and practice, and only we can create a socio-natural world that is built to our purposes and in our interests. Any social theory is capable of being explained to the social producers.The bourgeois specialists lie about this, and claim to have an access to 'The Truth', 'Eternal Reality', which they alone can access through bourgeois maths, with a non-political 'scientific method', and in a disinterested manner. They've lied about this since 1660, when the bourgeoisie became the ruling class. They claim not to 'actively produce' their 'nature', but to merely 'passively discover' an already-existing 'external' nature.robbo believes this ruling class idea, which is his political choice. It's a conservative philosophy of the status quo, which simply 'exists', already.I don't believe this ruling class idea, and follow Marx's views on this issue of democratic social production. It's a revolutionary philosophy of our power to change our world.
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_MehringHe'd be more of a "Luxemburgist" if anything. At the end of his life he was a member of the Spartakist League which in 1919 changed its name to Communist Party of Germany. However, it had a rather different approach than Leninism. Here's an extract from its manifesto (drafted by Luxemburg):
Quote:The Spartacus League will never take over governmental power except in response to the clear, unambiguous will of the great majority of the proletarian mass of all of Germany, never except by the proletariat’s conscious affirmation of the views, aims, and methods of struggle of the Spartacus League.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.
LBird wrote:I'm only going to answer you once more, robbo, because I've answered this continuously for years now, and you keep asking the same question, having ignored my answers.Well, no, actually you haven't answered this "continuously for years now". This is the very first time you've made a (slight) attempt to put flesh on the bare bones of your argument. As such, it represents a tiny chink of light in the dogmatic wall of vague waffle you have normally thrown up every time you have been pressed on this matter….
LBird wrote:Marx argues that there must be a 'unified' society, which democratically controls its production – this is 'communism' (or, 'socialism').From the replies of SPGB members, there seems to be an untheorised attachment in the party to a 'specialist/generalist' dichotomy in society, which will carry on in communism.This concept ("specialist/generalist" separation) is opposed to Marx's concept of 'unified society'. The 'specialist' will determine the 'specialist' production.Lets try and deconstruct what you are saying here because you don't seem very clear at all. Are you saying there will not be, on the one hand, people who specialise in certain kinds of work in socialism – e.g.. neurosurgeons and, on the other, "generalists" or jack- -of-all-trades? Well , now I agree that literally speaking there cannot be jack-of-all-trades in the sense of being specialists or competent in everything. This is the very point I have been making against you! You cannot literally become a competent nuclear physicist and at the same time become a competent molecular biologiist. Its virtually impossible given the years and years of study and practice to become accomplished in either field, You have to chose one or the other. But then you go on to suggest something quite daft – that a specialist will not determine the specialist production of ideas in the field in which he or she specialises. This you seem to suggest will be determined by everyone. Here is where your arguments comes across as quite ludicrous and in fact not a little insane. How can I determine the specialist production of knowledge concerning nuclear physics if I know nothing about nuclear physics? Explain. To gain a detailed understanding of nuclear physics I have to devote years and years of my life to studying the subject. The opportunity costs of doing that is that I cannot then also become a specialist in molecular biology. Its one or the other. And if I cannot become a specialist in the field i dont wish to focus on how on earth can I contribute to the specialist production of theories in that field? Your argument makes no sense at all
LBird wrote:For those opposed to Marx and democratic production, like you robbo (who argues for 'individualism'), this is not a problem. Your political concerns are to defend 'specialists' from any democratic controls on their 'individual' theory and practice. This is not my concern, because I agree with Marx, and wish to see democratic control of production.No. This is where you go totally astray because you don't understand the argument being put to you. I am not saying that the specialists will not be subject to "democratic control". Of course they will as will everybody else in society to a degree. The real question is – in what respect will this democratic control be exercised. Over the theoretical context of some abstruse theory which 99% of the populace have never heard of and show little interest in? Of course not. It is plain silly to argue that we – all 7 billion of us on planet Earth – should be allowed to determine whether this theory is true or not. To determine whether it is true or not we have to know about the subject and even you can surely accept that it is logistically impossible for ALL of us to gain sufficient knowledge in EVERY single field of science to be able to comment competently on the truth value of particular scientific theories. That apart, what would even be the point of "democratically determining" whether a scientific theory is true or not? So lets us say that global society at enormous cost to itself has organised a global vote on a particular theory concerning ecological interactions between rhizomous plant species and ant colonies. 60% of the electorate vote in support of the theory. OK – now what? What is supposed to happen as a result of this vote> You never explain. If you cant explain then what you are arguing is utterly pointless and a complete waste of society's resources. Your problem LBird is that you don't understand what democracy is for though you claim to be a "democratic communist". I also agree with democratic control of production but this is NOT what you are talking about in this case. You are talking about democratic control over the truth value of scientific theories. That is something TOTALLY different
LBird wrote:So, according to Marx, within communism the 'educators' would be the 'generalists' (ie. the masses), who would 'educate' any 'specialists' that the masses wish to produce. Clearly, the masses would determine why, how, for what interests and purposes, any 'specialised' production was produced. 'Specialists' will do as they are told, by 'generalists' (to use the terminology current within the SPGB), because that is the democratic method. There are no 'specialists' who have a 'special consciousness' which is not available to the 'generalists' (the masses).The ideas/theories/philosophies/ideologies/methods/etc. employed by the selected 'specialists' will be openly explained, in plain language, to the democratic selectors, so that the 'generalist/masses' can determine whether the social production that their 'specialists' propose to produce is in the interests and for the purposes of the whole of society..Again we see here this total confusion and utter theoretical mess that lies at the base of your argument. First you say the generalists would educate the specialists as to what the masses "wish to produce" thus flatly contradicting your earlier claim that there will be no specialist /generalist dichotomy. Secondly you don't seem to understand that telling the specialists what the masses wish to produce is TOTALLY DIFFERENT thing to telling them that their specialized theories are right or wrong. To be able to do so you have to understand the theory itself – to become in effect a specialist yourself. This is simply not logistically possible for everyone for every field of scientific endeavour
LBird wrote: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 seduction 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.Priests/Latin/Bible = Physicists/Maths/Reality (or any other 'specialism/language/object')As Marx argued, we create our own reality, by democratic theory and practice, and only we can create a socio-natural world that is built to our purposes and in our interests. Any social theory is capable of being explained to the social producers.Of course any social or scientific theory is "capable" of being explained to the producers. I have never doubted that for one moment. Any of us can become competent nuclear physicists if we put our mind to it . But you totally miss the point don't you? For this specialist to explain the theory is a function of time. You have to build up a background understanding in the field in which the thoery is rooted in order to competently assess the merits of the theory in question. In some cases this might take years and years of study. We do not have have the TIME to do that and become competent in every other scientific theory in circulation. Every single one of us – even the most brilliant scientist alive – is extremely limited in the amount of information he or she can assimilate .The stock of scientific knowledge is far greater that any of us can possibly comprehend or familiarise ourselves with, To become particularly competent in one field we are of necessity forced to remain relatively incompetent or ignorant in others fields This is what you don't seem to understand LBird and this is why your idea is doomed to utter irrelevance. You haven't really got to grips with the argument at all because you don't have an inkling of the notion of OPPORTUNITY COSTS which, if you applied it to your own argument , you would soon see makes a complete nonsense of everything you are saying
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?
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.
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.You are already spinning in one of the essential elements of Leninism. Where, or when the Socialist Party has supoorted the concept of the vanguard party ?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.