Again, to re-iterate, *we can all learn* at least a handful of things, comrades, I think, from individuals and organisations from the history of the Marxist movement such as the likes V.I Lenin and the Bolshevik party. And, by the way, another reason for me deciding to post this biographical sketch up again on my FB wall, is because I think articles like lunarchaskys here, truly constitute one of those numerous *fecund-ly and powerfully important* sources from which professional revolutionaries in 2015—*yes, that’s right, in 2015*, *whatever* the doggedly anti-Leninist, utopian-ly anti-*genuine* democratic-centralist leftists claim to the contrary--- can draw substantial amounts of insight and inspiration. And, regarding where Lunarchasky talks about which to was supply Lenin with his army, of course, the latter revolutionary didnt want things to be undertaken in such a way that *one single person* was effectively commanding offensive operations *with almost exclusive comprehensiveness* against the entire capitalist class as a whole. On the contrary, as classical Marxists, he and the rest of the Bolsheviks were convinced advocates of the idea that the *rank and file* of the mass party should be playing a *leading role* in revolutionary struggle, *alongside*---more precisely, indeed, *in a symbiotically dialectical relationship with*-- that partys democratically elected leadership. A leadership which, on the one hand, should of course be permanently and constitutionally *challengeable* and *recallable*, and on the other hand, *should itself* be at least partially, ideally predominately comprised of party members whod been rank and file members for many years, as opposed to, say, that section of the leadership whod entered the party fresh from more *petit-bourgeoisie* backgrounds to then go on to sit upon its leading committees for many years **1** Furthermore, *any* member of a revolutionary organisation from a petit-bourgeois background should never and nowhere be instantly regarded by it as being anathema as regards the revolutionary party *astutely* accepting people from such a milieu into its ranks. On the contrary, people from such backgrounds should be welcomed openly into the ranks of the organisation, so long as, however, certain criteria are met. And these are the following. Firstly, that, so long as upon showing an interest in joining, they are clearly in [possession of a combination of some kind of reasonably substantive level of both commitment to the partys programme, and some degree of aptitude for the revolutionary activity necessary to achieve that programmes various world historical political tasks and objectives. And solely on this score, any problems rarely tend to be seen to reside. No. *The fine detail*, as it were, however, in such cases, *if* they occur, is for the party to assess at given periods if such petit bourgeois traits the new recruit brought with them upon joining the organisation---traits which, it must not be forgotten, they will have always been helpless *and so therefore blameless* against having acquired them during the period hitherto that very moment ever since birth, due to, of course, no fault of their own, but, on the contrary, purely down to the type of bourgeois family **2** they were born into and raised in. In other words, *every* revolutionary should be a leader of sorts in the Revolutionary Party and in the Revolutionary struggle in which the former seeks to play a leading, and historically decisive role in. Although, it also stands to both reason and revolutionary and history-aware strategic shrewdness, that, if some revolutionaries worked harder than others, and intervened more incisively and decisively at critical moments(etc)----such as, famously, people like Lenin and Trotsky, did, and, as too, to a slightly lesser extent, did Sverdlov and Kollontai and the five-hundred or so Bolshevik-cadre in leadership positions who were also very arguably consistent exponents of the very highest rank and calibre of revolutionary conduct and/or revolutionary statesman/women-ship --- then such energy and accuracy, such as is quintessentially expressed in the historical context of Lunacharskys article here, would be inevitable in objectively and subjectively rendering their own individual contribution towards the revolution possess more weight and significance, obtain more awareness, than others. Around this certainty of contrasts existing between the different preparedness for hard and difficult work among people who claim adherence to the same political principles and/or party, there can, I think, be no doubt. In so far as it will inevitably occur at least to the very smallest degree of differentiation, it’s natural. *The most ideal yet not un-realistic thing is*, however, to encourage everywhere and in everyone measures of all sorts to attempt to minimize such contrasts in contribution towards the cause of the coming world socialist revolution. Infinitesimally precisely exact *equality* between human beings of course, is not only impossible, but would not even be desirable even if it were so. But a ‘natural and human’ *equality*, with all the brilliant and beautiful manifestations of individuality which it always bequeathe’s when it flourishes forth, is certainly within our collective grasp in the sphere of ‘comradely contributions to the cause’, as in, less immediately perhaps, it will be in *all other* spheres of human activity and endeavour, of course. This is not just because it is palpably unhealthy for a small minority to do the lion’s share of the work when it’s a question of such a colossal, universal and incredible complex body of work (a body that’s at once local, regional, national and international, of course) but also because one of the key aims of that very world socialist revolution itself is of course to *do away* with the insidious and/or brutal dominance viewable through *all* human history that followed the stage Marxists classify as the epoch of *primitive communism* of a few individuals—be that a domination predominately economical at it’s root, as in the international capitalist class whose rule we will shortly overthrow, or be it one whose fundamental harrowingly erroneous source lies in the very concept and practises of the ‘cult of personality’, and of ‘idolatry’ themselves , both needless and nasty flames which the Stalinists and the capitalists alike have long made sure, and still do make sure are kept kindled. Now, revolutionary periods---such as the extended one we are in at the moment---always have, and always will inevitably throw up, and create endlessly fertile conditions, for people who come to realise their own potentials for effective and helpful revolutionary activity. Most of these people, of course, are not slow in deciding that they are intent on *grasping* such extended scope they suddenly see within themselves for development to the end of contributing to the maximum breadth of their individual abilities to such revolutionary ends, with seriousness, an awareness of the multi-facted erudition required for any kind of revolutionary statesman/womanship of any degree of calibre and effectiveness, but also passion, sympathy and will power, too; in one word, with human energy manifested at one of it’s higher, beautiful, *scientifically and artistically aware, rendered subtle and tempered by*, levels (in our current context of decaying capitalism, that is) (indeed, who but a coward and/or incurable irresolute and/or ineffectual person would, upon experiencing such an organic, sober, yet at the same time such an *exhilaratingly optimistic* epiphany—would subjectively elect to pass up the profound, liberating and powerful opportunity to resoundingly *carpe diem* individually so as to contribute towards the collection push towards the taking of state power away from the Capitalists?) In conclusion , comrades, *each and every one* of us who consider ourselves, and those who will come to consider themselves, to be Marxists/revolutionary socialists/communists are, *leaders* to some extent. And *that* is why, attaching articles like Lunarchasky’s here, the excellent Workers Power pamphlet ‘The Road to Red October; the Bolsheviks and working-class power’, in the initial comment beneath it, as well as two selected excerpts form the former, is not without purpose or political pointfullness. **1** the latter, of course, a socio-economic background from which history has demonstrated repeatedly tends to provide revolutionary organisations with a *higher proportion* of members when the *revolutionary organisation is numerically smaller * and/or when the class-struggle is not developing through a more intense and heightened phase. (a trend which, understandably, can lead to some longstanding members of the leadership of revolutionary organisations who originally hailed from petit-bourgeois stock having effectively been a part of the leadership *since the formation* of it’s original ideological nucleus,---which, by the way, itself is not necessarily a problem so long as, there exist at least a substantial minority rank-and-file workers on the leadership bodies.) **2** And I refer here to the Marxist definition of the bourgeois family *in it’s widest sense*, as expounded most brilliantly and fundamentally in classic Marxist works such as F.Engels’s *Origin of the Family, Private property and the State* (1888), rather than in the sense making reference to *specifically* those nuclear families, and their offspring, that exist under and are produced by the capitalist mode of production *within solely the capitalist class* itself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ..It soon became clear what sort of people were drawn to each of the two factions: the Mensheviks attracted the majority of the Marxist intellectuals in the capitals; they also had an undoubted success among the more skilled working men; the chief adherents of the Bolsheviks were in fact the committee members, i.e. the provincial Party workers, revolutionary professionals. These were largely made up of intellectuals of an obviously different type – not academic Marxist professors and students but people who had committed themselves irrevocably to their profession – revolution. It was largely this element to which Lenin attached such enormous significance and which he called ‘the bacteria of revolution’; it was this section which was consolidated by Bogdanov, with the active support of the young Kamenev [19] and others, into the famous Organizational Bureau of Committees of the Majority and which was to supply Lenin with his army... ..When I came to know Lenin better, I appreciated yet another side of him which is not immediately obvious – his astonishing vitality. Life bubbles and sparkles within him. Today, as I write these lines, Lenin is already fifty, yet he is still a young man, the whole tone of his life is youthful. How infectiously, how charmingly, with what childlike ease he laughs, how easy it is to amuse him, how prone he is to laughter, that expression of man’s victory over difficulties! In the worst moments that he and I lived through together, Lenin was unshakeably calm and as ready as ever to break into cheerful laughter... marxists.org/archi…/lunachar/…/silhouet/lenin.htm
Posted on: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 04:38:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015