[lbo-talk] Surowecki on unions

Marv Gandall marvgand at gmail.com
Mon Jan 17 04:41:30 PST 2011


On 2011-01-16, at 8:20 PM, Julio Huato wrote:


> Carrol wrote:
>
>> And Lenin got called a Blankquist! He wasn't, neither am I,
>> but I don't think labels are worth debating.
>
> Somebody should fetch Lenin's report/speech at the 3rd congress of the
> 3rd International (summar 1921), the passages where Lenin argues with
> the Italians.

I consulted the Marxist Archive, and assume you're referring to Lenin's comment that the Bolshevik policy in the period leading up to the October Revolution (when the revolutionary temper of the masses was, shall we say, at a somewhat higher level than it is today) "proceeded from the assumption that the masses had to be won over. At that time we already rejected the idea of the immediate overthrow of the Provisional Government. I wrote: 'It should be overthrown, for it is an oligarchic, and not a people’s government, and is unable to provide peace or bread. But it cannot be overthrown just now for it is being kept in power by the workers’ Soviets and so far enjoys the confidence of the workers.' We are not Blanquists, we do not want to rule with a minority of the working class against the majority.”

I notice that his views on this subject were even more pointed and repeatedly emphasized in an earlier letter he sent to Zinoviev entitled "Remarks On The Draft Theses On Tactics For The Third Congress Of The Communist International":

"Thalheimer’s and Bèla Kun’s theses are politically utterly fallacious. Mere phrases and playing at Leftism.

"Radek is vacillating and has spoilt his original draft by a number of concessions to 'Leftist' silliness. His first 'concession' is highly characteristic: in § 1 of his theses ”Umgrenzung der Fragen” he first had 'winning the majority of the working class (to the principles of communism)' (mark this). Amended (verballhornt) to: 'winning the socially decisive sections (italicized) of the working class.'

A gem! To weaken here, in such a context, the necessity of winning precisely the majority (italicized) of the working class 'to the principles of communism,' is the height of absurdity.

To win power, you need, under certain conditions (even when the majority of the working class have already been won over to the principles of communism) a blow dealt at the decisive place by the majority of the socially decisive sections of the working class.

To modify, verballhornen, this truth in such a way that § 1 of the general tasks of the Communist International about winning the working class to the principles of communism weakens (italicized) the idea about the necessity of winning the majority (italicized) of the working class, is a classic example of Béla Kun’s and Thalheimer’s ineptitude (it looks all right, dammit, but it’s all damn’d wrong) and of Radek’s... hasty complaisance."

See: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jun/22.htm#bkV42P325F01

But for rrrreally rrrrevolutionary folks like Carrol this is all just "labels", old history, and scripture, no?



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list