[Marxism] Misconceptions about Lenin
benj2006 at connexus.net.au
Thu Jan 19 03:38:48 MST 2006
In the article he wrote for the swp_usa yahoo!group Joaquin Bustelo
included the following paragraph:
"And this is how we get such completely bizarre traditions like that it
is more "democratic" to keep discussions internal because the decisions
of a group are solely the concern of its members. But if you stop to
think about the fact that all these groups *claim* to represent, not a
membership, but a *class*, then this makes no sense whatsoever."
There is a huge error in Joaquin's argument, which his article does
manage to cover over except in this paragraph I have quoted. The error
lies with the words "all these groups *claim* to represent, not a
membership, but a *class*".
In actual fact, most of the groups (bar, say, the Sparts perhaps) have
gotten over such messianic claims as "representing a class". Most
revolutionary marxist organisations in imperialist nations are humble
enough to admit that they only *aspire* to representing a class (at most).
Until such groups have found a way to join their theory (Marxism) with
the practice and struggle of large numbers of workers, the distance
between their [often] theoretical discussions of Marxism, and their
public campaigning and propaganda, necessitates quite different levels
in the presentation of their ideas.
This doesn't have to mean obsessive secrecy. I agree with a significant
part of the argument made by Joaquin. It's not necessarily productive.
Certainly in the atmosphere of inter-group rivalry that often pervades
the "party-building" milieu, part of the function of secret discussions
(intentionally or otherwise) is to quarantine the organisation so as to
inoculate members against Revisionist Deviantism or whatever the rivals
There is obviously the point as well that a lot of these internal
discussions could be quite educational for others outside our own
organisation -- allies, international collaborators, even our rivals
But I'm still convinced there is a real place for private discussion of
Insofar as we are engaged in real struggles (not the propaganda-debating
society model that some groups seem to aspire to), it can be quite
important to keep our tactical orientation, membership implantation, or
even membership identities a secret. Certainly here in Australia there
are such things as employers' black lists and so on.
Outside of such obvious security concerns, there is the broader problem
of the vast gap between Marxist ideas and working class consciousness. I
don't think any on this list advocate "liquidating" our Marxist outlook
for the sake of [only] appealing to the immediate interests and
consciousness of the working class. On the other hand if you put every
idea and debate way up front like the CPGB/Weekly Worker group you make
yourself look weird (in their case I suspect it's also because they ARE
weird -- but that's another discussion).
While a low-key internal discussion bulletin might seem a different
order (more like a theoretical journal, a la Links magazine) than the
public Weekly Worker it's still a potential liability. Unless you think
that "any publicity is good publicity" (a notion which didn't stop
McCarthy demonising the Communist Party), internal discussion is
potentially abused by selective quoting out of context. We've seen a bit
of that from Greg Adler and Bob Gould but they at least aren't outright
red-baiting; if a nasty mainstream journo decided to get stuck into a
Marxist internal discussion of ideas it could be pretty depressing and
without easy recourse (unless the offending bourgeois newspaper allowed
right of reply... unlikely!).
You can have the discussion in public. That does undermine the "look
what they're hiding" angle of red-baiting by saying "this is what we
think and we aren't ashamed". But that only goes so far. If your
organisation is discussing, theoretically or tactically, measures like
workers' self defence, general strikes, draft resistance, ,
anti-patriotic views, illegal picket lines, "smashing the state" and so
on, it's ripe for abuse.
There's also the exacerbating factor that as a Marxist organisation
recruits and educates activist members, their level of understanding
often starts at a low level, and consequently, they may not phrase
contributions to internal discussion in the most eloquent, transitional,
tactful manner. That doesn't mean they should be censored lest some hack
see their words and misrepresent them! Secrecy -- or, I prefer, privacy
-- has its uses.
There is a different, pragmatic argument against private internal
discussion bulletins. In the era of digital scanners, OCR software and
the internet, no private internal bulletin is guaranteed privacy. While
the loyalty of members may counter this to a degree, there is a case to
be made that: a lot of it will be leaked anyway, better we make it all
available in context (instead of selective snippets). This may actually
prove to be the deciding argument.
But as I've indicated above, I don't think Joaquin's arguments are
completely on target. If we were talking about organisations with real
roots in the working class, "representing" their class (not merely
working within it) he would probably be right. But then we would be in a
very different situation indeed -- if we want to continue the discussion
of the Bolsheviks, let's say after the mass uprising in 1905, not stuck
somewhere in the 1890s.
More information about the Marxism