We have often argued that leninism was a victim of the flaws in darwinism leading lenin over niagara falls at the key moment of trying to construct communism and not knowing what it was…
The revolutionary lessons of Lenin’s ‘What is to be Done?’
June 16th, 2018 •
There has been so much vilification of this work even on the left that it is hard to sort out the confusion.
Our stance here is to provide both evolutionary and revolutionary versions of our models of neo-communism. The great value of the revolutionary approach is that a set of social axioms can be established from the start, where the evolutionary approach tends to chaotify in ad hoc muddle. But the revolutionary version needs to consider babe ruth who once pointed to the bleachers and hit a home run: a revolutionary transition needs to have its act together to produce a viable postcapitalist system and economy. All the efforts to defend lenin fail to consider the lack of a program and the way that communist ideology was misleading them. Given the opportunity, and the bad luck of the civil war that envenomed everyone, the bolsheviks/lenin struck out. But the issues of the lenin’s work remain. It is fundamental to focus on a working class emphasis (or better yet the universal class, in our formulation) but in the end the ‘iron law of oligarchy’ (there is no such law, but the point is apt) will tend to generate a vanguard. But that vanguard must then get it straight with a home run on the first attempt and lenin’s vanguard did not.
Note that the american revolution, despite populist elements of all kinds, was in the end a top down feat with a vanguard who created a something that could morph into a democracy.
If we are unsure of what is to be done we should revert to democracy creation, but this time with all the critiques of bourgeois democracy in mind and a new set of axioms based ‘communism’ that will ensure a ‘real democracy’ (that was essentially the original vision of marx/engels before they got confused). The point here is there is nothing wrong with a vanguard, but it needs to get it right in the brief launch window of options…It seems the hatred of liberalism of the era of the early bolshevism seeded the program with anti-democracy. There might be a vanguard authoritarianism (founding fathers) at the start but it must in the end create a democratic system. We have suggested a different mix: communism that is a liberalism, and a liberalism that is a communism.
Note: this article tries to defend theory while we critique that here. But we are using the term in a different sense…: economic theories tend to always fail: we emphasis praxis, but the article uses theory almost as ‘praxis’…
Source: The Revolutionary Lessons of Lenin’s ‘What is to be Done?’