💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › adam-weaver-from-theory-to-practice.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:48:22. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: From Theory to Practice Author: Adam Weaver Date: March 9, 2013 Language: en Topics: Leninism, criticism and critique, theory and practice, book review Source: Retrieved on 10th December 2021 from https://machete408.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/from-theory-to-practice-taking-a-critical-look-at-leninism/ Notes: This review/summation piece was released in conjunction with a piece by Scott Nappolas, “https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/scott-nappolas-democratic-centralism-in-practice-and-idea” that also examines the baggage and experiences of Leninism.
A Look At Leninism by Ron Taber. 104 pp. New York , New York : Aspect
Foundation, 1988
Where can those looking for a critical understanding of Lenin turn? How
can we better understand how the Russian Revolution begin as the first
modern anti-capitalist revolution from below with workers taking over
and running their workplaces, peasants seizing the land, and the
creation of democratic soviets (worker committees)? And then in less
than a decade its devolution into the brutal dictatorship of Stalin? Is
there a continuity between the ideas of Lenin and his particular brand
of Marxism that reshaped the Marxist movement in the 1920’s and the
number of revolutionary parties that would later achieve state power and
claim the Bolshevik party and Lenin as their model and inspiration?
Little known and barely circulated now over two decades since
publication in 1988, A Look At Lenin by Ron Taber is perhaps the only
systematic and thorough critique of Leninism as examined through the
writings and work of Lenin and the Bolshevik party. For this reason it
has been a favorite of mine since I picked it up as a teenage reader of
the late Love and Rage magazine. When I came across the book I was
someone struggling with and questioning my relationship with anarchism
at the time and looking in other directions such as the Leninist
tradition. While Taber’s piece did not answer many of the larger
political questions I was grappling with at the time (no matter where
I’m at politically I don’t think that itch will ever go away), it did
help me think deeper about Leninism as a tradition as well as with
understanding better the problems I saw in many Leninist inspired
political organizations that I was beginning to come into contact with
at the time.
What is most useful about the piece is, in the words of one review, it
“attempts to draw explicit links from Lenin’s theory to Bolshevik
practice.” Taber is well suited to take up this task as a past leader of
the Revolutionary Socialist League or RSL (1973–1989) which emerged out
of the Trotskyist milieu of the 1960’s. Over time Taber and other
members of the RSL steadily became more critical of Leninism and the
Trotskyist tradition and by the time of RSL’s dissolution on 1989 a
number of members had moved over to anarchism and went on to participate
in the founding of what became the Love and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist
Federation active throughout the 1990’s. The short booklet was first
published as a series of articles in RSL’s publication The Torch and
after being published in as a book went on to be distributed by Love and
Rage members.
What follows is a summation of the key points of each chapter with a
healthy dose of direct quotes. All quotes from Lenin or other source
writings by Bolsheviks appear with indentation.
The opening chapter “What Kind of Revolution?” delves into a discussion
of the character of the revolution that the Bolsheviks intended to carry
out. Less interesting than the rest of the book, Taber develops his
argument that “It was only in early 1917, after the February Revolution
had overthrown the Tsar, that the Bolsheviks adopted the point of view
that the revolution they sought to carry out would be a socialist one. …
throughout the entire formative period of Bolshevism as a political
tendency/movement/party, it advocated and sought to implement not a
socialist revolution, but a bourgeois one.” (11)
Moving onto Lenin’s conception of the relationship between political
organization, the larger working class movement and revolutionary
consciousness, the second chapter “Party, Class and Socialist
Consciousness” draws largely from Lenin’s most influential piece What Is
To Be Done?
Taber underlines the importance of What Is To Be Done? as having
“represented a major ideological assumption of Bolshevism, underpinning
the Bolsheviks conception of the nature of the party, its relationship
to the working class … [and] remained central despite the various
changes in Lenin’s/the Bolsheviks’ ideas” (29)
Taber pulls this key quote from the piece by Lenin:
“We have said that there could not yet be Social-Democratic
consciousness among workers. It could only be brought to them from
without. The history of all countries shows that the working class,
exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union
consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in
unions, fight the employers and strive to compel the government to pass
necessary labour legislation, etc. (Trade unionism does not exclude
“politics” altogether, as some imagine. Trade unions have always
conducted some political [but not Social-Democratic] agitation and
struggle.) The theory of Socialism, however, grew out of the
philosophic, historical and economic theories that were elaborated by
the educated representatives of the propertied classes, the
intellectuals.”(29)
Taber draws the following points from this: “If the workers are able, by
themselves, to come only to trade union consciousness, and socialist
consciousness must be brought to them from ‘without,’ by revolutionary
intellectual/the revolutionary party, then:
socialist intellectuals/the revolutionary party, not the working class.
state power is seized by the revolutionary party; the bottom line of
what constitutes socialism/the dictatorship of the proletariat is that
the state is ruled by a revolutionary party.
the revolutionary party is right, and the party has the right, even
duty, to rule “in the name,” “in the interests of,” the working class.”
(32)
The chapter is then closed with two quotes showing the logical extension
of these ideas, the below is from Leon Trotsky:
“The party [is] entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that
dictatorship temporarily clashe[s] with the passing moods of the
workers’ democracy… It is necessary to create among us the awareness of
the revolutionary, historical birthright of the party. The party is
obliged to maintain its dictatorship, regardless of temporary wavering
in the spontaneous moods of the masses, regardless of the temporary
vacillations even in the working class.” (36)
Here Taber puts forward his criticism of the ethos or what we might
today call the internal culture of the Bolshevik Party in three aspects:
the cult of the “hards”, the adoration of centralism especially in
regards to the economy, and the willingness to use brutal and harsh
methods.
According to Taber the ethos of the Bolsheviks was defined by what he
calls “the cult of the ‘hards’” (37) in which they contrasted themselves
the tough, strong, skillful, who acted with “iron discipline”, were more
proletarian, more politically radical and had a greater willingness to
use violent tactics in comparison to the “softness” of the Mensheviks in
working in underground and repressive conditions, who were also seen as
less radical, and more prone to political vacillation. He notes that the
Bolsheviks referred to themselves as “the hards” and their signature
dress was black leather jackets and coats.
As well the title of Lenin’s key work What Is To Be Done? was taken from
a book of the same name by Russian populist N.G. Chernyshevsky, which
Taber describes as “virtually the bible of the young, mostly
middle-class and upper-class radicals of the 1860’s who ‘went to the
people’ (the peasants) to bring them enlightenment and radical ideas. …
[The key figure Rakhmetov] believes only in the cause and is totally
devoted to the ‘people.’ Not least, he prepares himself for the coming
struggle (implicitly, a vast upheaval) by sleeping on a bed of nails
[and eating raw meat -AW] and otherwise toughening his body and mind.
The connection between Rakhmetov’s style and that of the Bolsheviks was
no accident.” (39)
The danger that Taber identifies with this culture revolves around
power, as “had ‘hardness’ remained a question of individual style or
attitude … a cult of ‘hardness’ might not amount to much. What makes a
cult of ‘hardness’ in political organization potentially dangerous is
the possibility that it becomes part of a state ideology.” (40) A major
weakness of this section of the chapter though is, unlike the rest of
the book, we are left to take Tabor on his word as it is presented
completely without sources or references.
Next Taber takes up the relationship to the principle of centralism and
economic planning which he asserts the Bolsheviks “revered” beyond the
immediate needs of operating clandestinely. “The Bolsheviks saw the
capitalist factory, run on a centralized basis, as a progressive
institution, technically speaking. Lenin, for example, constantly held
up the highly centralized and hierarchical German postal system and
German industry as a whole as an example for the Russians to adopt.
This, after the October Revolution Lenin defined the creation of a
highly centralized economic apparatus as a major goal of the Soviet
state.
The organization of accounting, the control of large enterprises, the
transformation of the state economic mechanism into a single huge
machine, into an economic organism that will work in such a way as to
enable hundreds of millions of people to be guided by a single plan-
such was the enormous organizational problem that rested on our
shoulders. [Political Report of the Central Committee to the
Extraordinary Seventh Congress of the RCP(B), delivered March 7, 1918.
Collected Works, Vol. 27 pp. 90–91] (41)
But beyond the need for centralized economic planning Tabor emphasizes
Lenin and the Bolsheviks belief in not just the necessity based on
circumstances but as a matter of principle the need for hierarchical and
bureaucratic management of the economy as steps toward socialism. “Thus,
as soon as they were able, the Bolsheviks subordinated the factory
committees to other institutions (the trade unions) and ultimately
effectively did away with them altogether. They were replaced by
‘one-man management.’ While this has often been explained as motivated
by necessity (the onset of the Civil War, the drastic decline of the
economy, etc.) and this is true to a degree, it was also totally
consistent with the Bolsheviks’ pre-existent ideas and leanings,
particularly their idolization of centralism.” (43) This lengthy quote
serves as a key evidence to his point:
…it must be said that large-scale machine industry – which is precisely
the material source, the productive source, the foundation of socialism
– calls for absolute and strict unity of will, which directs the joint
labours of hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands of people. The
technical, economic and historic necessity of this is obvious, and all
those who have thought about socialism have always regarded it as one of
the conditions of socialism. But how can strict unity of will be
ensured? By thousands subordinating their will to the will of one.
Given ideal class-consciousness and discipline on the part of those
participating in the common work, this subordination would be something
like the mild leadership of a conductor of an orchestra. It may assume
the sharp forms of a dictatorship if ideal discipline and class
consciousness are lacking. But be that as it may, unquestioning
subordination to a single will is absolutely necessary for the of
processes organised on the pattern of large-scale industry. [“The
Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government” written in March-April 1918.
Collected Works, Vol. 27, pp. 268–269] (41–42)
Finally, Taber presents his arguments on the Bolsheviks belief in the
use of harsh methods in the process of building socialism which he
summarizes as: “1) that the Bolsheviks were overly inclined to advocate
coercive/brutal methods, in general; 2) that they seemed unaware that
this might undermine the very goal they claimed to be fighting for; and,
3) that, at least implicitly, these coercive measures would logically
wind up being directed against members, even large sectors, of the
working class, whose vanguard the Bolsheviks claimed to be.” (47)
Three examples are given which “were written or spoken in April and May
1918 … after the October Revolution but before the onset of the Civil
Way (which was really to get underway in June, 1918).” (47) The final
example being a speech by Lenin given at the Moscow Soviet of Workers’,
Peasants’ and Red Army Deputies on April 23, 1918:
This country, which the course of history has advanced to the foremost
position in the arena of the world revolution, a country devastated and
bled white, is in an extremely grave situation and we shall be crushed
is we do not counter ruin, disorganisation and despair with the iron
dictatorship of the class conscious workers. We shall be merciless both
to our enemies and to all waverers and harmful elements in our midst
[emphasis added] who dare to bring disorganization into our difficult
creative work of building a new life for the working people [Collected
Works, Vol. 27, p. 233.]
Pulling these three threads together of the ‘cult of hardness’, the
principle of centralization and willingness to use brutal methods Taber
comes to his conclusion: “the main point I have been trying to establish
is that there were many aspects of the style and culture of the
Bolshevik Party that pointed in the direction of state capitalism. These
were tendencies that implied the establishment of a dictatorship of a
self-proclaimed socialist elite over the workers and peasants ‘in the
interests of’ those classes and ‘in the name of’ socialism and
communism. … it is not clear to me that, even had there been successful
workers’ revolutions in Western Europe, the Bolsheviks would have
reestablished real proletarian democracy, including legalizing other
left tendencies. Nor is it obvious that, given their infatuation with
with centralization and ‘scientific’ planning, they would have tried to
set up real workers’ control of the factories and the economy as a
whole.” (50–51)
While the revolution in Germany is still slow in ‘coming forth,’ our
task is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to space no
effort, in copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods
to hasten the copying of it. Our task is to hasten this copying even
more than Peter [Tsar Peter the Great – RT] hastened the copying of
Western Culture by barbarian Russia, and we must not hesitate to use
barbarous methods in fighting the barbarism. [“Left-wing” Childishness
and the Petty Bourgeois Mentality, April 1918]
Written during the Russian Revolution itself in the summer of 1917, The
State and Revolution is often cited as being Lenin’s most important as
well as libertarian work where he puts forward a vision of a communist
society, direct worker control and the ultimate goal of the withering
away of the state. In this chapter Taber challenges these ideas and
perceptions of The State and Revolution around the points that Lenin’s
vision of the state withering away relies on first building up the state
along hierarchical and bureaucratic lines with a limited vision of
workers’ control.
First Taber begins with a key paradox of The State and Revolution, which
is the claimed goal of a stateless society and the key task following a
revolution of building a new state. “The revolutionaries who claim that
they are against the state, and for eliminating the state, … see as
their central task after a revolution to build up a state that is more
solid, more centralized and more all-embracing than the old state.” (56)
“Until the higher phase of communism arrive, the socialists demand the
strictest control by society and by the state over the measure of labour
and the measure of consumption” [emphasis original]
How the transition from the newly built centralized state to the
withering away of the state is not outlined in Lenin’s vision though.
Rather the elimination of the state is simply presented as part of the
‘historical process’ which Taber sees as rooted in the Hegelian notion
of history as “since the theory declares that the ‘logic’ of this
essence, purpose and historical direction is that the state will
eventually be eliminated, ‘negated,’ ‘transcended’ via a ‘dialectical’
(apparently contradictory) process, this is what will inevitably
happen.” (57) But as the history of actual states where communist
parties came to power shows, this is anything but the case.
“Direct workers’ control over the factories and worker’ democracy are,
to Lenin, stepping stones, part of a transitional stage, towards a very
abstract ‘higher democracy,’ what is in fact a very centralized,
hierarchical, bureaucratic, regimented ‘dictatorship of the
proletariat.’ … During a revolution, the new, cooperative social
relations have to begin appearing among the workers and oppressed
classes right away. The workers have to learn now to related to each
other in this new way. They learn this through reorganizing their work
situations, and through directly governing society at all levels. … This
dimension of the socialist revolution seems to be totally lost on Lenin.
The socialist revolution, in his conception, is largely a change in
form. Bust much of the content of the old society – bourgeois
technology, bourgeois managerial techniques, hierarchical structures,
factory discipline and, I would suggest, bourgeois social relations-
remains.” (64)
The final two chapters “take up Lenin’s conception of human knowledge
and truth” (67) nearly entirely through the text Materialism and
Empirio-criticism written in 1909 where Lenin engages a polemical
argument against “two Bolsheviks who were attracted to the ideas of
Ernst Mach and Richard Avenarius, Henri Poincare and other scientists,
mathematicians and philosophers who were the precursors of a school of
philosophy called logical positivism.” (70) The details of the debates
and Lenin’s criticisms are best left reading Taber’s own presentation,
and therefore I’ll simply present the key take away point
Taber leads with his conclusions: “I am convinced that Lenin and the
Bolshevik Party as a whole believed: 1) that there is an absolute truth
(I mean by this that reality is determined and predictable); 2) that
absolute knowledge, that is, perfect knowledge of the truth, is
possible; 3) that such truth and knowledge exist in respect to human
society and history; 4) that Marxism is the knowledge of this truth and
5) that within Russia, Lenin and the Bolsheviks were the only real
Marxists.” (67)
These two quotes best support and illustrate Taber’s argument:
Materialism in general recognizes objectively real being (matter) as
independent of the consciousness, sensation, experience, etc., of
humanity. Historical materialism recognizes social being as independent
of the social consciousness of humanity. In other cases consciousness is
only the reflection of being, at best an approximately true (adequate,
perfectly exact) reflection of it. From this Marxist philosophy, which
is cast from a single piece of steel, you cannot eliminate one basic
premise, one essential part, without departing from objective truth,
without falling prey to a bourgeois0reactionary falsehood. [Collected
Works, Vol 14, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1986, p. 326]
If what our practice confirms is the sole, ultimate and objective truth,
then from this must follow the recognition that the only path to this
truth is the path of science, which holds the materialist point of view.
[ibid, 141] … The correspondence of this theory to practice cannot be
altered by any future circumstances, for the same simple reason that
makes it an eternal truth that Napoleon died on May 5, 1821. But
inasmuch as the criterion of practice, i.e., the course of development
of all capitalist countries in the last few decades, proves only the
objective truth of Marx’s whole social and economic theory in general,
and not merely one or the other of its parts, formulations, etc., it is
clear that to talk here of the “dogmatism” of the Marxists is to make an
unpardonable concession to bourgeois economics. The sole conclusion to
be drawn from the opinion held by Marxists that Marx’s theory is an
objective truth is that by following the path of Marxian theory we shall
draw closer and closer to objective truth (without ever exhausting it);
but by following an other path we shall arrive at nothing by confusion
and lies. [ibid, 143]
An important argument underpinning the book is that the ideas, internal
culture and practices of Lenin and the Bolsheviks were the antecedents
if not basis of the later political direction of the Soviet Union. Here
Taber states his case in crystal clear terms: “…Lenin allowed his
philosophical preconceptions to prevent him from even considering, let
alone accepting an idea that would become a fundamental tenet of this
century’s physics. … [W]hen a party with Lenin’s conception of
philosophy and science comes to power, it is highly likely that someone
in that party will, sooner or later, try to tell scientists what to do
and how to think.” (86–87)
The wrap up of the piece gives a solid summary pulling all the thread of
Taber’s criticism: “While I believe that Leninism is not entirely, 100%
authoritarian, that is, that there are some truly liberatory and
democratic impulses, I believe these impulses are far outweighed by
those that point toward and imply state capitalism. Moreover, these
latter are so strong that they distort the democratic impulses
themselves, rather than merely overshadowing them. For examples, the
advocacy of a classless society in The State and Revolution is turned
into its opposite by Lenin’s conception of how to achieve it, e.g.,
through building a strong centralized state modeled after the German
postal system.” (92)
“I believe that of the various tendencies within Leninism that point
toward state capitalism, the most important are three:
First is the fact that although Leninism advocates the establishment of
a stateless society, it not only proposes to use the state to achieve
this goal, it sees the use of the state as the main way to accomplish
this. Not least, although this state is said to be a proletarian state,
a dictatorship of the proletariat, it is to be structured, with
relatively minor exceptions, along hierarchical and bureaucratic, that
is, capitalistic, principles. Given this, is it any winder that the
outcome of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 was not classless, stateless
societies, but monstrous, class divided, state-dominated, social
systems?
The second state capitalist tendency within Leninism that I believe to
be decisive is its advocacy of coercive , ruthless methods. While some
kind of armed force/coercion is inevitable is almost any revolution,
Lenin almost revels in it: the need to be ‘ruthless towards our
enemies,’ ‘not to shrink from the most ruthless measures,’ to ‘shoot and
shoot and shoot some more.’ Since morality lies within, is immanent in,
history, that is, morality find its fruition in the outcome of history
(as Marx, following Hegel, argues), there is no need to act morally,
there is no morality, in the sphere of politics. But outside of
Marian/Hegelian (or any other comparable) metaphysics, how can moral
neutralism lead to a more moral society? It can’t and hasn’t.
The third fundamental state capitalist tendency in Leninism, and tying
all three together, is Lenin’s belief in determinism and absolute
knowledge. Physical and social/historical reality is absolute knowledge.
Physical and social/historical reality is absolutely determined, Marxism
represents true knowledge of this reality (it ever increasingly
approaches this reality), the Bolshevik faction/party hold the only
correct interpretation of Marxism-these are fundamental tenets of
Bolshevik thinking. And they point directly to the establishment of a
dictatorship of the party over the proletariat in the name of the
proletariat itself.” (pg 93–94)