The Paris Commune, in Marx’s analysis, was both progressive and yet a failure for not smashing the former state apparatus and failing to establish proletarian state power. The idea of having a bunch of horizontalist, indepentent but interconnected cells is not a Marxist notion, but instead closer to anarchism. Lenin did not bastardize the DotP, he clarified Marx’s intentions against the bastardization by the second international.
Marx never intended there to be a vanguard party, and Engels literally said, “Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat”. The universal suffrage that Marx explicitly did credit to the Commune, that made the Commune closest to real statelessness and classlessness, was totally abolished by Lenin (I think he actually called it “bourgeoise fetishism” in one critique).
Marx also never defined DotP in terms of violence, it was purely about class rule by the proletariat over the bourgeoise, as where Lenin explicitly defined it as requiring violent suppression of the bourgeoise by the proletariat. Marx always left open peaceful transitions to socialist rule, whereas Lenin explicitly ruled that out, and their definitions of DotP are at their core unaligned because of that. DotP was, to Marx, what happened as the state began to dissolve towards actual stateless Communism. To Lenin, it was (as I said before) a mandate to state power for the party (insert “stop resisting, you’re being liberated” meme).
Whether you think Lenin was justified given his circumstances, a minority class of ‘party-conscious’ executives “leading” the proletariat while also suppressing and later banning rival socialist parties and party factions, is absolutely not what Marx intended DotP to look like.
Lenin also asserted the inability of the proletariat to form class consciousness in ways that, to me as a non-Leninist look like a validation of Trotsky’s early criticisms (and obviously Trotsky was right in the end about ‘substitutionism’, and about Stalin). Lenin couldn’t openly disparage proletariat rule for obvious reasons, but he did attempt to draw heavy distinctions between the proletariat and revolutionary leaders themselves, such as asserting that the proletariat would only achieve “trade-union consciousness” without the party (leaders) there to essentially save them from themselves.
It’s funny you explicitly contrast Marxism against anarchism, because that feels like the colloquial meaning of anarchism? Otherwise, you’re essentially ruling out the eventual dissolution of State and Class, which is a form of anarchism.
Marx was a member of what can be understood as a vanguard party, the International Working Men’s Association. Marx was not against vanguard parties. The Paris Commune was a dictatorship of the proletariat, but you’re fixating on the key problems with it that prevented it from being a successful dictatorship of the proletariat, which the Bolsheviks succeeded in establishing.
Lenin’s point on how, without forming broad working class organizations, sponteniety will at most result in the Trade Union consciousness, is correct. It isn’t that the proletariat could not form class consciousness in general, but that without an all-encompassing organization, these will always be limited to the extent that the proletariat is confined to local struggle. Having the most politically advanced among the proletariat organize in a political party is the same as how Marx engaged in political practice.
Lenin did not draw a distinction between the proletariat and the political party. Lenin did the opposite, stating that the party is of the proletariat. “Intellectuals” are not a class, they are a subsection of every class, and in organizing in a political party they serve as proletarian “intellectuals.” I’m using air quotes because the term “intellectual” is a social role, not a measure of intelligence, you can be a very stupid intellectual or a very smart non-intellectual.
As for Trotsky/Stalin, this is wrong. Trotsky became a traitor, and was wrong about distrusting the peasantry. Stalin was more correct than Trotsky, and though I would charitably say that their big schism was an avoidable tragedy, Stalin was the one in the right on that fight. That’s why he was elected, and supported by the people.
As for Marxism vs. Anarchism, the final end result of each is entirely different. Marxism posits full collectivization across the entire global economy, which represents a true end to class distinctions globally. Anarchism instead goes for full horizontalism, which results in petty bourgeois worker-cooperative style cells. Marxism and Anarchism understand class and the state differently, so what is stateless and classless for a Marxist has a state and class for anarchists, and vice versa.
The reason I said the International Working Men’s Association could be considered a vanguard is because the term was not commonly used at the time, but it de facto was an attempt at building a vanguard party. They created a working class party that attempted to organize the working classes and raise political consciousness among the rest of the proletariat.
Secondly, the idea that the Paris Commune was successful is horribly wrong, it lasted a very short amount of time and did not solidify itself. It was a valiant first attempt, but it had serious faults, faults Marx and Engels grappled with for the rest of their lives, analyzing what went wrong.
Third, there is no such thing as a “political class.”This is revisionism. The state is not outside of class struggle, it is within and a product of class struggle. The state serves the ruling class of society. Class is a relation to ownership of the means of production. A teacher is not a different class from a principal, even if the principal manages teachers.
Lenin did not “exploit” Marx’s writings, he correctly advanced Marxism forward and successfully solidified the first long-standing Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Anyone trying to revise Marxism to create brand-new classes in order to dismiss Lenin is doing a disservice not just to Lenin, not just to Marx, but to the hundreds of millions of Soviet communists that successfully built socialism.
As for Stalin, you didn’t really say anything of substance regarding why you think he was wrong. You just repeated Red Scare nonsense and subjectivist appeals to a vague “Stalinist terror,” ignoring that the Bolshevik line on the peasantry supported them and focused on their development through the Tax in Kind before even the proletariat. The Menshevik line dismissed the peasantry outright.
As for your point on collectivizing and ending class systems, we already said the same thing. The problem is that you invent brand-new concepts for classes and revise Marxism from dialectical materialism to subjectivism and metaphysics. Classes have dialectical counterparts, and their existence is based on ownership of the means of production. A democratic and socialist state like the USSR that is run by the proletariat is in fact a dictatorship of the proletariat, not a dictatorship of the “political class.” Administrators are sub-classes that fall under a given ruling class, and their role depends on how they relate to ownership of the means of production.
The Paris Commune, in Marx’s analysis, was both progressive and yet a failure for not smashing the former state apparatus and failing to establish proletarian state power. The idea of having a bunch of horizontalist, indepentent but interconnected cells is not a Marxist notion, but instead closer to anarchism. Lenin did not bastardize the DotP, he clarified Marx’s intentions against the bastardization by the second international.
Marx never intended there to be a vanguard party, and Engels literally said, “Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat”. The universal suffrage that Marx explicitly did credit to the Commune, that made the Commune closest to real statelessness and classlessness, was totally abolished by Lenin (I think he actually called it “bourgeoise fetishism” in one critique).
Marx also never defined DotP in terms of violence, it was purely about class rule by the proletariat over the bourgeoise, as where Lenin explicitly defined it as requiring violent suppression of the bourgeoise by the proletariat. Marx always left open peaceful transitions to socialist rule, whereas Lenin explicitly ruled that out, and their definitions of DotP are at their core unaligned because of that. DotP was, to Marx, what happened as the state began to dissolve towards actual stateless Communism. To Lenin, it was (as I said before) a mandate to state power for the party (insert “stop resisting, you’re being liberated” meme).
Whether you think Lenin was justified given his circumstances, a minority class of ‘party-conscious’ executives “leading” the proletariat while also suppressing and later banning rival socialist parties and party factions, is absolutely not what Marx intended DotP to look like.
Lenin also asserted the inability of the proletariat to form class consciousness in ways that, to me as a non-Leninist look like a validation of Trotsky’s early criticisms (and obviously Trotsky was right in the end about ‘substitutionism’, and about Stalin). Lenin couldn’t openly disparage proletariat rule for obvious reasons, but he did attempt to draw heavy distinctions between the proletariat and revolutionary leaders themselves, such as asserting that the proletariat would only achieve “trade-union consciousness” without the party (leaders) there to essentially save them from themselves.
It’s funny you explicitly contrast Marxism against anarchism, because that feels like the colloquial meaning of anarchism? Otherwise, you’re essentially ruling out the eventual dissolution of State and Class, which is a form of anarchism.
Marx was a member of what can be understood as a vanguard party, the International Working Men’s Association. Marx was not against vanguard parties. The Paris Commune was a dictatorship of the proletariat, but you’re fixating on the key problems with it that prevented it from being a successful dictatorship of the proletariat, which the Bolsheviks succeeded in establishing.
Lenin’s point on how, without forming broad working class organizations, sponteniety will at most result in the Trade Union consciousness, is correct. It isn’t that the proletariat could not form class consciousness in general, but that without an all-encompassing organization, these will always be limited to the extent that the proletariat is confined to local struggle. Having the most politically advanced among the proletariat organize in a political party is the same as how Marx engaged in political practice.
Lenin did not draw a distinction between the proletariat and the political party. Lenin did the opposite, stating that the party is of the proletariat. “Intellectuals” are not a class, they are a subsection of every class, and in organizing in a political party they serve as proletarian “intellectuals.” I’m using air quotes because the term “intellectual” is a social role, not a measure of intelligence, you can be a very stupid intellectual or a very smart non-intellectual.
As for Trotsky/Stalin, this is wrong. Trotsky became a traitor, and was wrong about distrusting the peasantry. Stalin was more correct than Trotsky, and though I would charitably say that their big schism was an avoidable tragedy, Stalin was the one in the right on that fight. That’s why he was elected, and supported by the people.
As for Marxism vs. Anarchism, the final end result of each is entirely different. Marxism posits full collectivization across the entire global economy, which represents a true end to class distinctions globally. Anarchism instead goes for full horizontalism, which results in petty bourgeois worker-cooperative style cells. Marxism and Anarchism understand class and the state differently, so what is stateless and classless for a Marxist has a state and class for anarchists, and vice versa.
Removed by mod
Nah, there’s no revisionism in my comment.
The reason I said the International Working Men’s Association could be considered a vanguard is because the term was not commonly used at the time, but it de facto was an attempt at building a vanguard party. They created a working class party that attempted to organize the working classes and raise political consciousness among the rest of the proletariat.
Secondly, the idea that the Paris Commune was successful is horribly wrong, it lasted a very short amount of time and did not solidify itself. It was a valiant first attempt, but it had serious faults, faults Marx and Engels grappled with for the rest of their lives, analyzing what went wrong.
Third, there is no such thing as a “political class.” This is revisionism. The state is not outside of class struggle, it is within and a product of class struggle. The state serves the ruling class of society. Class is a relation to ownership of the means of production. A teacher is not a different class from a principal, even if the principal manages teachers.
Lenin did not “exploit” Marx’s writings, he correctly advanced Marxism forward and successfully solidified the first long-standing Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Anyone trying to revise Marxism to create brand-new classes in order to dismiss Lenin is doing a disservice not just to Lenin, not just to Marx, but to the hundreds of millions of Soviet communists that successfully built socialism.
As for Stalin, you didn’t really say anything of substance regarding why you think he was wrong. You just repeated Red Scare nonsense and subjectivist appeals to a vague “Stalinist terror,” ignoring that the Bolshevik line on the peasantry supported them and focused on their development through the Tax in Kind before even the proletariat. The Menshevik line dismissed the peasantry outright.
As for your point on collectivizing and ending class systems, we already said the same thing. The problem is that you invent brand-new concepts for classes and revise Marxism from dialectical materialism to subjectivism and metaphysics. Classes have dialectical counterparts, and their existence is based on ownership of the means of production. A democratic and socialist state like the USSR that is run by the proletariat is in fact a dictatorship of the proletariat, not a dictatorship of the “political class.” Administrators are sub-classes that fall under a given ruling class, and their role depends on how they relate to ownership of the means of production.