Comrades,
This is a re-post that I wrote March 16, 2010. The reason I am posting it
again is that I believe it speaks to current arguement going on. It is not an
attempt to bash Haines who I am not sure is even still on the list but, rather,
it does address the criticism posed to me about using quotes "out of context"
because they were written in a defferent period under different circumstances.
Similarly, the arguement began because Haines refered to the classic writings
as "ancient writings" as if that somehow invalidated them. Melvins arguements,
well what can be said, he never changes his mechanistic style of investigation
and perception. Here's the re-post:
The recent dialogue conducted under the thread of "Let Us Begin" and "Not
Everybody on The Same Page" was a poor exercise in philosophy that sought to
reinvent Marx and Marxism all the while eschewing the basic rudiments of
Marxism and of Leninism. In his own words Haines states that, "My primary
responsibility is to the working class, not to a body of ancient writings" and
then follows up with the statement that "If there seems to be a conflict, it is
the latter that has to yield. This attitude would surely have met the aproval
of Marx, Engels and Lenin."
It is not my primary intention to castigate Haines personally but ideologically
I as well as anyone has the right to disagree...and I do, even if he thinks
that anyone who would disagree with him is "outrageous" according to his final
comment in his "Clarification" post.
In 1914 the liberal newspaper Rech, discussing the fight the Bolsheviks were
waging against the Liquidators, bewailed the "carrying of the dissension into
the ranks of the workers". Lenin in an article entitled "The Methods Used by
the Bourgeois Intellectuals in the Fight Against the Workers", wrote:
"We WELCOME the "carrying of dissension into the ranks of the workers," for it
is the workers, and the workers alone, who will distinguish dissensions from
difference, from disagreements on principle, who will understand the
significance of these disagreements and form their own opinion and decide not
"with whom" to go, but where to go, i.e., decide on a definite, clear,
well-considered and tested line of action." (Lenin's emphasis)
This line of action can be worked out and the political enlightenment of the
masses of the workers can be accomplished only in the course of "a consistent
and stubborn fight to a finish, of proletarian influences and strivings
directed against the bourgeoisie." (CW, Vol. XVII, Russian edition)
What we must never forget is that the masses learn by their own experience,
from events, and not just from books. In his preface to the 1890 German
edition of The Communist Manifesto, Engels wrote:
"For Marx, the sole guarantee of the ultimate triumph of the theories contained
in the Manifesto was the intellectual development of the working class that
would result from joint action and discussion. The events and fluctuations of
fortune in the struggle against capitalism, their victories, and still more
their defeats, would reveal to the combatants the ineffectiveness of the
panaceas they had hitherto believed in, and would make their minds more
receptive for the thorough understanding of the real conditions of working
class emancipation."
The point is that it is out of the actual mass struggle of the proletariat
against the bourgeoisie and the conscious leadership of the struggle on the
part of the vanguard of the proletariat - the Communist Party - that scientific
communism arises, differing fundamentally from utopian and petty-bourgeois
reformist socialism. Scientific communism is not based on good intentions, but
on the class struggle of the proletariat and the recognition of the necessity
for the dictatorship of the proletariat. The theoretical statement of the
principles of scientific communism in Marxism and Leninism, the latter being an
elaboration of Marxism in the light of new conditions. This theory embraces
general questions of philosophy and method as well as their concrete
application. It is essential to the proletariat in its struggles: it imparts
consciousness, self-assurance, and decision to the movement. Those who are
able to wield it are saved from aberrations
and uncertainties; it enables us to determine the correct path to follow and
renders the achievement and the consolidation of victory easier and surer.
I have already mentioned in a previous post that I had established demarcations
with Haines based on his rejection of the Marxist-Leninist definition of
"proletarian" and those demarcations are further established with his eschewing
of "a body of ancient writings" he so crassly mocks in referring to the classic
writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and a host of other great Marxist
leaders. The working-class is nothing without these "ancient writings" and the
Marxian dialectical method will in no way make them null and void and I for one
am seriously offended at such arrogance even if it seems "outrageous" to this
psuedo-Marxist. It is these "ancient writings" that is the foundation and bond
between the working-class, communists, and the vanguard party that will lead to
socialist victory.
These "ancient writings" that genuine Marxist-Leninists embrace and call
Marxism and Leninism do not provide ready-made recipes, that can be applied
uniformly in any and every circumstance without further reflection. The
Marxian theory "is not a dogma, but a GUIDE to action." (My emphasis) It
gives the general line as to how the fight of the working-class should be
conducted. Having studied all the social phenomena of the time, having himself
led the working-class movement, Marx made certain deductions, indicated the
general trend of development and pointed out what must be the inevitable course
of future events. He showed that the revolutionary transformation of
capitalist society into a communist society was inevitable, that the
proletariat would take the leading part in this transformation, that a
transition period from capitalism to communism was unavoidable and that the
form of state during that transition period would be the dictatorship
of the proletariat. But Marx, of course, could not forecast, and never
attempted to forecast, the detailed events of the progress of the world
revolution. Marx thought that in order to decide what should be done at a
given historical moment, in a given country and under given conditions, one
must carefully study (with the help of the method of scientific communism) all
the specific features of the given situation (which is constantly changing) and
the situation existing not only within the given country itself, but in all the
other countries of the world. Marxism considers that only by such a study can
the:
"...thinking representatives of the given class [acquire] the necessary
knowledge, the necessary experience - and, apart from all knowledge and
experience - the necessary political instinct for the quick and correct
solution of intricate political problems." (Lenin, "Left-Wing" Communism, an
Infantile Disorder)
The Marxian theory is worked out in close conjunction with the mass
revolutionary movement. It is not based on ideas "invented or discovered by
this or that would-be universal reformer" but represents "...merely...in
general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from
a historical movement going on under our very eyes." (The Manifesto of the
Communist Party) The theory of Marxism helps the proletariat to understand
"the conditions and nature of its own actions." (Engels, Herr Eugene
Duhring's Revolution in Science [Anti-Duhring]
The duty of the proletarian theoretician is not to create socialist plans out
of his own head; his duty is to discover the conditions for emancipation from
exploitation that are created in the very prcess of social and economic
development; he must find in the very progress of events the path that leads to
the solution of the problems of the exploited masses; he must help the latter
in their fight for communism and guide them in the struggle, so that society
based on exploitation may be destroyed as rapidly as possible and with the
least sacrifice on the part of the proletariat and the toiling classes in
general. Owing to the position it occupies in production and society, the
proletariat can, and must, take upon itself the duty of organizing a communist
society. The theory of Marxism should help the proletariat in the task of
exterminating all forms of exploitation as rapidly and as easily as possible.
General postulates are not enough, precise
solutions of the daily problems of the political struggle and the building up
of socialism are required. That implies a scientific leadership and foresight
based on the study of the actual state of affairs, using for this purpose the
Marxist-Leninist theory which is in fact based on "a body of ancient
writings". As Stalin said:
"Theory...alone, can give to the movement confidence, guidance, strength and
understanding of the inner relations between events; it alone can help practice
to clarify the process and direction of class movements in the present and near
future." (Stalin, Foundations of Leninism, pg 27)
In the article "Our Immediate Task", written in 1899, a very "ancient writing",
Lenin pointed out that the duty of a revolutionary party:
"...does not consist merely in serving the working class movement; its duty is
to LINK UP SOCIALISM WITH THE WORKING CLASS MOVEMENT...to introduce definite
socialist ideals into the spontaneous movement, to link it up with socialist
convictions consistent with the level of modern science, and connect it with
the systematic political struggle struggle for democracy, as a means for the
realization of socialism - in a word, to fuse this spontaneous movement with
the activities of the REVOLUTIONARY PARTY, into a single indivisible whole.
The history of socialism and democracy in Western Europe, the history of the
revolutionary movement in Russia, and the experience of our working class
movement - such is the MATERIAL that must be studied and mastered in order to
work out the correct forms of organisation and the correct tactics of our
party." (Lenin, CW, Vol. II, pgs 496-497, Russian edition) (Lenin's emphasis)
In this same article, Lenin clearly stated that ready-made formulas must not be
automatically applied to new and specific conditions and also pointed out that
"the conditions of the Russian working-class movement are entirely different
from those of the Western European movement." In reading these "ancient
writings" we learn from Lenin that the earlier revolutionary parties in Russia
could not be taken as examples in every respect for the building up of Lenin's
"new party". While recognizing "the necessity of learning revolutionary and
conspirative technique from the old Russian leaders" that "by no means relieves
us of the duty of examining them critically and of working out our own form of
organisation." (ibid, pg 497)
That is how Lenin, scrupulously observing the Marxian method, defines the scope
of theory, and indicates the necessity of independently studying every fresh
experience and of making use of all that was valuable in past development.
In 1918, in another "ancient writing", he wrote:
"...a revolutionary Marxist is distinguished from the ordinary philistine by
his ability and willingness to preach to the still ignorant masses the
necessity of the approaching revolution, to prove that it is inevitable, to
explain its advantage to the people, and to prepare the proletariat and all the
toiling and exploited masses for it." (Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and
the Renegade Kautsky)
Here Lenin emphasized the importance of the ability to maintain contact with
the unenlightened masses, the ability to draw them into the movement and to
lead them into revolutionary positions, so that "the masses by their own
experience may convince themselves of the correctness of the Party line." That
is one of the fundamental principles of Leninism. It is embodied in the
Programme of the Communist International and is one of the characteristic and
distinguishing features of the activities of both Marx and Engels.
The epoch of Lenin differed from the epoch of Marx and Engels. Lenin lived and
acted in new and different conditions and a number of questions had to be
considered afresh but never once did Lenin or Stalin arrogantly exclaim that
their "primary responsibility was to be to the working class" and then mock the
writings of Marx and Engels as "a body of ancient writings". Instead, using
the method of Marx, Lenin solved the difficult problem of how the fight for
revolutionary Marxism must be conducted in the new and complex conditions
created by the era of imperialism and the beginnings of the world proletarian
revolution. Of enormous importance for the Russian revolution and for the
development of the Leninist theory was the fact that quite an extensive
experience in revolution and working-class organization had already been
accumulated, and that the theory of Marx and Engels had been worked out in
detail and adopted and tested by the revolutionary
proletarian party and by the masses. The Bolshevik Party grew and gained
strength in the course of a long struggle and the experience of a number of
revolutions. It accumulated the experience of the international working-class
movement and of West European revolutions and conveyed this experience to the
masses.
Leninism is drawn from international experience and not just that of a Russian
phenomenon therefore its significance is international. Only by a proletarian
revolution can the revolutionary proletariat and the oppressed masses who are
struggling against imperialism throughout the world, achieve their
emancipation. Leninism is the theory of the proletariat, it sums up and
explains this experience, it teaches the working-class how to conduct its fight
and how to secure victory, seize power, consolidate its gains and lead the
workers in their struggle against exploitation. It also teaches us how
socialism is to be built.
Leninism, therefore, is Marxism in the epoch of imperialism and of the
proletarian revolution. In this epoch, the proletarian movement reaches new,
higher, levels. The proletariat has grown numerically; it has become better
organized and more class conscious; its historical activity has increased, and
it has learned to employ new methods in its struggle. In his activities and in
his writings, Lenin expressed and analyzed the new phenomena of the new epoch.
Leading the struggle of the proletariat in these new conditions, Lenin advanced
and developed Marxist theory and introduced fresh elements into all its phases
without once mocking or denigrating the writings of Marx and Engels. Never
once did Lenin or Stalin eschew, mock or denigrate proletarianism, the
transition of bourgeois society to socialism and its transition to communism or
the need for a vanguard party. For communists to eschew, denigrate and mock
the rudiments of Marxism-Leninism
and pretend they have some "responsibility" to the working-class is laughable.
_______________________________________________
Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
