2nd Edition Preface:
A few changes were made about the writer’s history in the party. The conclusion can be backed further by consequent events following the publishing of the first edition. One, the indictment of Harvey Weinstein, two, the suspicious death of Anthony Bourdain, and three, the consequent revelations of Bourdain’s depiction of the death he planned for Harvey Weinstein among other contributions to the #metoo movement, such as introducing the concept to the workers in the restaurant industry. Bourdaine’s failed rebellion should be seen as the tragic beginning of the inevitable revolution closing in from the horizon. Only the building of the Fourth International can provide the working class with a path to victory, not the hijacking of formerly working-class celebrities or public figures into causes for which they are not theoretically or politically prepared to lead.
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
Due-process Revolutionary Defensism:
Deviating from Lenin’s approach to revolutionary politics does not lead us to Trotskyism. Trotsky himself wrote that he, “told Lenin that nothing separated me [him, Trotsky] from his [Lenin’s] April theses and from the whole course that the party had taken since his arrival.” It creates complications and setbacks of the type that Lenin and Trotsky had to solve during the leadership of the Bolsheviks of Stalin and Kamenev. The two real leaders of the Russian revolution had to conduct a struggle against the leadership and its supporters within the Bolshevik party.
They had the advantages of having led the party at an earlier time, participating in the 1905 revolution and served as editors of the party newspaper. The writer of this report served as the leader of the Students for Social Equality at Rutgers University in New Jersey, one of the nation’s oldest and largest public universities, actively participated in the New York City branch of the SEP, supported various campaigns, and he wrote and had published more than 20 articles on the WSWS, as well as participated in various schools and editorial board meetings. He campaigned for John Christopher Burton, Bill Van Aiken, and worked closely with Fred Mazelis, former Workers’ League National Secretary.
In the following two passages from Trotsky’s Lenin, one can see Trotsky’s interest in Lenin’s development, his appreciation of his “work of theoretical thinking and of creative imagination”, and what he “gathered, thought over, and made his own.” Trotsky also “did not force the natural development of events,” for he “tacitly agreed with him.” So, I will do the same, and not try to paper over disputes but address them honestly. I could, like Trotsky, make a list of “Unionists” to present, those who have made similar observations or suggestions about the direction of the party, but for lack of secretaries and funds, will leave such list making to a more opportune moment.
Trotsky on April Theses from Lenin, Ch. 2:
“Lenin’s biographer will have to treat with the greatest attention the fact of Lenin’s return to Russia and his attitude toward the masses. With a short interruption in 1905 Lenin had spent more than fifteen years abroad. His feeling for reality, his instinct for the living, working human being had not only not diminished in this time, but on the contrary had been strengthened by the work of theoretical thinking and of creative imagination. By separate chance meetings and observations he grasped and renewed the picture of the whole. But still he had lived abroad in that period of his life in which he finally developed for his coming historical role. He arrived in Petersburg with a completed revolutionary point of view that was a résumé of the entire social, theoretical, and practical experience of his life. And here first, on the living experience of the awakening working masses of Russia, the test was made of what he had gathered, thought over, and made his own.”
“I arranged with Comrade Kamenief for a visit to the editorial office of Pravda on one of the first days after my arrival. The first meeting must have taken place on the 5th or 6th of May. I told Lenin that nothing separated me from his April theses and from the whole course that the party had taken since his arrival, and that I was faced with the alternative, either to enter the party organization at once “individually,” or to try to bring with me the best part of the “Unionists,” whose organization in Petersburg numbered almost three thousand workmen, with whom were associated a number of valuable revolutionary forces: Urizky, Lunacharsky, Joffe, Vladimirof, Manuilsky, Karachan, Jurenief, Posern, Litkens and others. Antonof-Ovsyenko had already joined the party; I think Sokolnikof also. Lenin did not express himself categorically for one or the other. It was necessary, above everything else, that I make myself more familiar with the situation and the men. Lenin considered that some form of cooperation with Martof, and particularly with a part of Mensheviki Internationalists who had just returned from abroad, was not out of the question. We must certainly watch what the relations of the “Internationalists” themselves were to the work. As I tacitly agreed with him, I, for my part, did not force the natural development of events. Our political policy was the same. At the workmen and soldiers’ meetings I said from the first day of my arrival: “We, Bolsheviki and Internationalists,” and as the conjunction “and” burdened my speech by its constant repetition I soon shortened the form and began to say: “We, Bolsheviki Internationalists.” Thus the political union preceded the organized one.” [1]
With these passages, we have proven that Trotsky went over to the Bolsheviks entirely and left his “Unionist” or “centrist” position to join that of Lenin. The union of all revolutionary theorists and political activists was no longer the priority, but the unity of the revolutionary party, formed by Lenin for the express purpose of creating a revolutionary workers’ government, and the masses of workers coming into political and revolutionary awakening and activity.
For all the talk about witch hunts and hysteria, these phenomena should be seen side by side with the great awakening, the renaissance, and the reformation. The general impulse is towards a greater appreciation and revival of lost ideas and culture and a stronge fearsome backlash against those who would use such knowledge to undermine truly credible and respectable sources of enlightenment and intellectual labor. A defense of the clergy was a defense of literacy and libraries brought to regions where before no alphabet existed, stability with respect to tradition in community and leadership, and a belief in the inherent greatness and neverending progress of humanity and its condition. The story contained a balance of ethical and acquisitional consideration, and a general trend to the betterment of the condition and intellectual capacity of all humanity.
George Whitefield, a famous preacher of the Great Awakening, and a friend of Benjamin Franklin, wrote “Thus was the King and the Lord of glory judged by man’s judgment, when manifest in flesh: far be it from any of his ministers to expect better treatment.” His argument that any and all could be judged by fellow men, regardless of their position in society, made him an important part of the new democracy. He also wrote of the fear he experienced in opposing the church of England: “be set at nought by the Rabbies of our Church, and perhaps at last be killed by them.” To accuse the clergy was a bold act meant to defend freedom in the expression of ideas. He continued to travel as an itenerint preacher, reaching unprecendented crowds of 10s of thousands, arguing “the more I am opposed, the more joy I feel”. Such active and fearless participation, encouragement of democratic values, and commitment to dialogue formed the basis of the revolutionary democracy there forming.
With these generally accepted ideas now restated, it is important both for the celebration of the centenary of 1917, and for the continued dedication of the Fourth International to Marxist principles, to review Lenin’s April Theses within the modern context.
Lenin in the April Theses:
“I could, of course, deliver the report on the tasks of the revolutionary proletariat only on my own behalf, and with reservations as to insufficient preparation.”
“1) In our attitude towards the war, which under the new [provisional] government of Lvov and Co. unquestionably remains on Russia’s part a predatory imperialist war owing to the capitalist nature of that government, not the slightest concession to “revolutionary defencism” is permissible.”
Could be slightly rephrased as: “1) In our attitude towards due process, which under the new constitutional government of Trump and Co. unquestionably remains on the United States’ part a due process for the predatory capitalist owing to the capitalist nature of that government, not the slightest concession to “revolutionary defencism” of “due process” is permissible.”
One cannot accept an “old materialist” view of “civil society” obtaining its triumph over one individual or another, and one cannot accept the “revolutionary defencism” view of “democracy” gaining its triumph over the revolutionary opposition to governments of a “capitalist nature” and their “predatory” policies. Revolutionary opposition must dominate over defencism of due process, or the revolutionary must rebel. One and all must rebel.
“The class-conscious proletariat can give its consent to a revolutionary war, which would really justify revolutionary defencism, only on condition: (a) that the power pass to the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasants aligned with the proletariat; (b) that all annexations be renounced in deed and not in word; (c) that a complete break be effected in actual fact with all capitalist interests.”
Slightly rephrased: “The class-conscious proletariat can give its consent to a legal defense of the sexual predators, which would really justify revolutionary defencism, only on condition: (a) that the power pass to the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasants aligned with the proletariat; (b) that all sexually predatory behavior by employers and managers be renounced in deed and not in word; (c) that a complete break be effected in actual fact with all capitalist interests in all such cases.”
“In view of the undoubted honesty of those broad sections of the mass believers in revolutionary defencism who accept the war only as a necessity, and not as a means of conquest, in view of the fact that they are being deceived by the bourgeoisie, it is necessary with particular thoroughness, persistence and patience to explain their error to them, to explain the inseparable connection existing between capital and the imperialist war, and to prove that without overthrowing capital it is impossible to end the war by a truly democratic peace, a peace not imposed by violence.”
Slightly rephrased: “In view of the undoubted honesty of those broad sections of the mass believers in revolutionary defencism of due process who accept the legal defense of those accused of predatory sexual conquest only as a necessity, and not as a means of conquest, in view of the fact that they are being deceived by the bourgeoisie, it is necessary with particular thoroughness, persistence and patience to explain their error to them, to explain the inseparable connection existing between capital and predatory sexual conquest, and to prove that without overthrowing capital it is impossible [Lenin’s emphasis] to end sexual harrassment, assault, and rape in the workplace by a truly democratic due process, a due process not imposed by violence.”
A due process not imposed by violence is impossible under the current system. The violence of removing people from their official positions, the violence of putting them in jail and forcing them to stand trial, is part of the violence imposed on society by the rule of capital. We cannot create a truly democratic due process where no one must suffer any inconvience as a result of accusations as long as capital, through the capitalist system of production, rules over every aspect of society. Capital must be overthrown, and due process must be imposed, by violence.
“The most widespread campaign for this view must be organised in the army at the front.
Fraternisation.”
Slightly rephrased:
“The most widespread campaign for this view must be organised in the legal teams, witnesses, victims, and accused, as well as among journalists and court employees at the center of this conflict.
Sorority (sororitization).”
To save time and effort, I will focus only on the most pertinent parts of other theses, though the theses should be read in their entirety.
2. The transition from the first stage to the second stage of the revolution is characterized “by their unreasoning trust in the government of capitalists, those worst enemies of peace and socialism,” which could be rephrased as “by their unreasoning trust in the courts and due process of capitalists, those worst enemies of due process, fair trials and justice for the oppressed class, and socialism.”
“This peculiar situation demands of us an ability to adapt ourselves to the special conditions of Party work among unprecedentedly large masses of proletarians who have just awakened to political life.”
Slightly rephrased: “This peculiar situation demands of us an ability to adapt ourselves to the special [Lenin’s emphasis] conditions of Party work among unprecedentedly large masses of proletarians who have just awakened to political life through social media, and during the campaigns for and against Trump.”
“3) No support for the Provisional Government; the utter falsity of all its promises should be made clear, particularly of those relating to the renunciation of annexations. Exposure in place of the impermissible, illusion-breeding “demand” that this government, a government of capitalists, should cease to be an imperialist government.”
Slightly rephrased: “No support for the courts, the prosecution or the defense; the utter falsity of all its promises should be made clear, particularly of those relating to the renunciation of predatory sexual conquest. Exposure of the courts’ inability to prosecute capitalist criminals in place of the impermissible, illusion-breeding “demand” that this [Lenin’s emphasis] government, a government of capitalists, should cease [Lenin’s emphasis] to be an imperialist government that allows sexual predators to go unpunished, and furthermore encourages their behavior by giving them promotions in response to reports.”
“4) Recognition of the fact that in most of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies our Party is in a minority, so far a small minority, as against a bloc of all the petty-bourgeois opportunist elements… who have yielded to the influence of the bourgeoisie and spread that influence among the proletariat.”
Slightly rephrased: “4) Recognition of the fact that in most of the workers’ organizations or groups, our Party is in a minority, so far a small minority, as against a bloc of all the petty-bourgeois opportunist elements… who have yielded to the influence of the bourgeoisie by allowing their representatives to dominate such organizations and groups and through their leading positions spread that influence among the proletariat.”
“The masses must be made to see that the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies are the only possible form of revolutionary government, and that therefore our task is, as long as this government yields to the influence of the bourgeoisie, to present a patient, systematic, and persistent explanation of the errors of their tactics, an explanation especially adapted to the practical needs of the masses.”
Slightly rephrased: “The masses must be made to see that the workers’ organizations or groups are the only possible [Lenin’s emphasis] form of revolutionary movement, and that therefore our task is, as long as this [Lenin’s emphasis] revolutionary movement yields to the influence of the bourgeoisie, to present a patient, systematic, and persistent explanation of the errors of their tactics, an explanation [Lenin’s emphasis] especially adapted to the practical needs of the masses.”
Lenin joined the provisional government because it included within it the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies. As such it contained the “only possible form of revolutionary government.” Groups and organizations which allow the free expression of revolutionary opposition to the government and include a significant presence of workers make up the “only possible form” of revolutionary movement.
Furthermore, the revolutionary’s task consists of fighting the influence of the bourgeoisie within the revolutionary movement; and in the case of the defense of due process to explain why the defense of the bourgeoisie’s rights to due process represent an error in tactics that does not address the practical needs of the workers, which remains to imprison the leaders of the bourgeois state and media and enforce a transfer of power to the workers’ state and revolutionary media. This is, by necessity, a violent transition because of the impossibility of achieving such a transition through capitalist-appointed courts or peaceful discussions with the capitalist-owned media.
“As long as we are in the minority we carry on the work of criticising and exposing errors and at the same time we preach the necessity of transferring the entire state power to the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, so that the people may overcome their mistakes by experience.”
Slightly reworded: “As long as we are in the minority we carry on the work of criticising and exposing errors and at the same time we preach the necessity of realigning the entire political agenda to that of the revolutionary movement, so that the people may overcome their mistakes by experience.”
“5) Not a parliamentary republic—to return to a parliamentary republic from the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies would be a retrograde step—but a republic of Soviets of Workers’, Agricultural Labourers’ and Peasants’ Deputies throughout the country, from top to bottom.
Abolition of the police, the army and the bureaucracy.[1]
The salaries of all officials, all of whom are elective and displaceable at any time, not to exceed the average wage of a competent worker.”
Slightly rephrased: “5) Not a parliamentary party—to return to a parliamentary party politics from the revolutionary movement would be a retrograde step, like the conversion of the Bolsheviks’ pre-1905 revolutionarianism to post-1905 parliamentarianism—but a party of Workers’, Agricultural Labourers’ and Peasants’ Deputies throughout the country, from top to bottom.
Abolition of the police, the army and the bureaucracy, including the courts which secretly protect the predators.[1]
The salaries of all party and government officials, all of whom are elective and displaceable at any time [original words with emphasis added], not to exceed the average wage of a competent worker.”
6) The weight of emphasis in the agrarian programme to be shifted to the Soviets of Agricultural Labourers’ Deputies.
Confiscation of all landed estates.
Nationalisation of all lands in the country, the land to be disposed of by the local Soviets of Agricultural Labourers’ and Peasants’ Deputies. The organisation of separate Soviets of Deputies of Poor Peasants. The setting up of a model farm on each of the large estates (ranging in size from 100 to 300 dessiatines, according to local and other conditions, and to the decisions of the local bodies) under the control of the Soviets of Agricultural Labourers’ Deputies and for the public account.
Slightly rephrased: “6) The weight of emphasis in the sexual harassment campaign to be shifted to the organized revolutionary movement.
Appropration of large legal teams for large lists of poor clients.
Nationalisation of all [Lenin’s emphasis] large law firms in the country, the legal teams to be disposed of by the local workers’ organizations or Workplace Equality Committees, which should not be construed as syndicalist. The organisation of separate Poor Workplace Equality Committees. The setting up of a model lawsuit connected to each of the large estates (ranging in size from 100 to 300 claimants or plaintiffs, according to local and other conditions, and to the decisions of the local bodies) under the control of revolutionary organizations and for the public account.”
The campaign should be seen as a national or international effort to effect rules in the workplace according to the principles of equality and democratic control of production by the workers. There can be no effective policy of workplace equality without the workers taking the power from the oligarchs and controlling production democratically.
“7) The immediate union of all banks in the country into a single national bank, and the institution of control over it by the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies.
8) It is not our immediate task to “introduce” socialism, but only to bring social production and the distribution of products at once under the control of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies.”
Slightly rephrased: “7) The immediate union of all banks and large law-firms in the country into a single national bank and a single law-firm with affordable services for the poor, and the institution of control over them by the Workplace Equality Committees.”
“8) It is not our immediate [Lenin’s emphasis] task to “introduce” socialism, but only to bring social production, and all disputes regarding the rules of social production, and the distribution of products at once under the control [Lenin’s emphasis] of the Workplace Equality Committees.
“9) Party tasks:
(a) Immediate convocation of a Party congress;
(b) Alteration of the Party Programme, mainly:
(1) On the question of imperialism and the imperialist war,
(2) On our attitude towards the state and our demand for a “commune state”[2];
(3) Amendment of our out-of-date minimum programme;
(c) Change of the Party’s name.”[3]
Slightly reworded: “9) Party tasks:
(a) Immediate convocation of a Party congress;
(b) Alteration of the Party Programme, mainly:
(1) On the question of due process and workplace equality,
(2) On our attitude towards the capitalist courts and our [Lenin’s emphasis] demand for a “commune state”[2]and people’s tribunals
(3) Amendment of our out-of-date minimum programme;
(c) Change of the Party’s name, or the name of its committees to Workplace Equality Committees.”[3]
“10. A new International.”
“10. A new expansion of the International.”
Once the theses are thus completed, Lenin answers some objections. These opinions should not be seen as a call for civil war. That view itself is an incitement to riot. The same can be said about our view that our opinions are not a call for mob rule. That view itself is an incitement to riot. He is not opposed to the coming process of the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, but sees its future as uncertain and its possibility for success nonexistent. We are not opposed to trials for those who stand accused. But whether such trials will occur is not guaranteed, and success in curbing said problems through such trials is impossible, for convictions will be disproportionately low for the capitalists, managers, and their puppets. Finally, he answers Plekhanov’s accusation that he was “raving” through his speech. Lenin replies that the audience recieved his speech well, and Plekhanov himself replied in print to Lenin’s speech. Would he reply if it was such a “raving” speech?
He ends with these powerful words in this final passage:
“It is, of course, much easier to shout, abuse, and howl than to attempt to relate, to explain, to recall what Marx and Engels said in 1871, 1872 and 1875 about the experience of the Paris Commune and about the kind of state the proletariat needs. [See: The Civil War in France and Critique of the Gotha Programme]
“Ex-Marxist Mr. Plekhanov evidently does not care to recall Marxism.
“I quoted the words of Rosa Luxemburg, who on August 4, 1914, called German Social-Democracy a “stinking corpse”. And the Plekhanovs, Goldenbergs and Co. feel “offended”. On whose behalf? On behalf of the German chauvinists, because they were called chauvinists!
They have got themselves in a mess, these poor Russian social-chauvinists—socialists in word and chauvinists in deed.”
Those male chauvinists, social-chauvinists, and other chauvinists in the Marxist party endanger it with becoming an “Ex-Marxist Party” of the type led by Plekhanov in 1917. Whether that type of party could be revived is another subject for another day. A thorough reworking of some of these positions, in line with the traditions of Trotskyism, Leninism, and Marxism, could save the party from the fate of repeating 1971, 1985, and other costly splits which have harmed the organizational continuity of the International Committee of the Fourth International and undermined its theoritical clarity.
Those who made similar observations on the direction of the party should be encouraged to organize and participate together as a loyal faction within the party. This may be seen as “unionism” of the type Trotsky advocated before 1917, but it is better to work together and prepare the party for leadership in the coming revolution rather than accept every internal division as cause for split without discussion, opportunist anti-factionalism, a repeat of 1971.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1925/lenin/02.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/apr/04.htm
https://www.yahoo.com/news/academia-faces-metoo-movement-over-sexual-harrassment-151309605.html
The RandomPoster33 Press Page 
Leave a reply to Comments Removed – Título del sitio Cancel reply