
Demonstration Pietarsaari 1905 - flickr
Excuse me for such obvious plagiarism. Not from any current blog or diary but from a pamphlet put out by Vladimir Lenin in the early 1900s. For this question is pertinent now as then. Even more so as Andrew Levine proposes here when he references Lenin’s work.
Nearly eleven decades have passed since the publication of V.I. Lenin’s “What Is To Be Done?” This remarkable pamphlet – actually, a short book — was a political intervention focused on issues confronting the Russian Social Democratic movement at the dawn of the twentieth century. Much or its content is peculiar to the time and place of its composition.
There is therefore a sense in which, with each passing year, it becomes increasingly anachronistic. Even so, it is not just the pamphlet’s title question that remains timely. For although it was not intended as a theoretical treatise, it was evident from the beginning that it can be read as one and that, in that capacity, it can be enormously enlightening.
Indeed for even Lenin had said years afterward that all his previous writings have to be taken in the context of the times and places and events in which they were written. This of course goes for nearly all such prose. This does not mean to disregard it entirely. Au contraire, one needs to read such works to get the broad picture. To learn what was faced and how to deal with it. I do this myself even with technology. Read about what has gone before. Because these people may have faced the same or similar problems and learn how they solved them and if now with our current abilities, maybe could be solved better or the ideas applied in a different manner.
For as Levine point out “Revolts and rebellions have always been with us, and will be so long as injustice and oppression endure.”
And goes on to quote Lenin that “…….without a revolutionary organization, shaped and informed by revolutionary theory, there can be no successful revolutionary practice. This goes for peaceful but nevertheless fundamental transformations of basic institutional arrangements, as much as for the kinds of upheavals for which “revolutionary moments” like the storming of the Bastille or the Winter Palace are emblematic.”
Organization is the key word here because make no mistake the right is already organized and they have a clear agenda. The left needs to have a message and agenda that is just as clear. We also have to stop hemming ourselves in by rejecting methods and tactics that the right has no problem with. They are actively now trying to re-implement Jim Crow laws and use police terror tactics and will do what ever they can to keep cooperatives from forming and anything else.
And we have additional problems that Lenin and later revolutionaries did not face. Especially in the size and diversity of this country.
But most of all we need to have a clear and easy to understand and relate to voice. Huey Long had such a voice. A very left wing politician that all could relate to. Messages such as economic justice are too vague for most and intellectual rants just go over peoples heads.
We need to identify the problems in a clear, simple and concise manner and then have equally clear agenda as to how we will carry them out.
But all this leaves us with other dilemmas. How to deal with and convince those that Chris Hedges refers to as The Careerists.
They collect and read the personal data gathered on tens of millions of us by the security and surveillance state. They keep the accounts of ExxonMobil, BP and Goldman Sachs. They build or pilot aerial drones. They work in corporate advertising and public relations. They issue the forms. They process the papers. They deny food stamps to some and unemployment benefits or medical coverage to others. They enforce the laws and the regulations. And they do not ask questions. Good. Evil. These words do not mean anything to them. They are beyond morality. They are there to make corporate systems function.
Or the psychopaths that use any opportunity to advance themselves to disregard of other people. And even see this as a game. They will not go silently or quietly into their good night, rest assured. And to think that the rich and powerful will let anyone vote them out of power, is pure fantasy.
OWS not with standing, to even begin to accomplish any of this will require some form of leadership and organization and planning. Which brings up another situation, that leaders by their vary nature have a tendency toward authoritarianism. It must there fore be organized in such a way as to be able to remove anyone who gets “too big for their britches”.
All of this must be considered. I would also then recommend reading all that one can from the union, socialist and anarchists movements of the early 1900s through the 1940s. People such as Lucy Parsons and Eugene V. Debs and Eric Fromm and others.
And do not shy away from Lenin. If only to piss people off.



47 Comments

Maybe you meant “all the methods …?”
As Levine points out.
If that is what it will eventually take……
Come again? Ends justifies the means?
Being a martyr may sound all nice and idealistic but martyrs are a dime a dozen. If one wants something, one needs to fight for it in what ever manner is required.
Bullshit.
Later day revolutionary thinks he can blog the system away. Good luck with that.
If you think that the left will be able to just walk in and take over once the system collapses, think again. That has never, ever been the case. Not with out a major fight and a lot of organization.
I really get a kick out of the left in this country – what there is of it.
Since the days of JFK the left has been of the opinion that “if only we could this this or that person in office, things would be hunky dory” “if only we could get this or that legislation passed, things would be hunky dory.” “if only we could get this or that policy part of the the agenda, things would be hunky dory.”
I have a question then. Hows that working for ya ?
couldn’t agree more, CMaukonen. Recc’d
“What is to be done” was also IIRC the (translated) title of a rather famous radical 1863 novel by Nikolai Chernyshevsky:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_to_Be_Done%3F_%28novel%29
It’s a little difficult for me to imagine today’s America as an extension of 19th-century Russia. The Romanov regime took its cue from 4th-century imperial Rome while at the same time trying to impose industrial capitalism. Today’s America is encased in consumer technology while its subjects pursue lifetimes of entertainment.
Huxley then ?
Well, I have to disagree with the characterisation of Huey Long as a “very leftwing voice.” You have fallen for planted internet convolution there. A fake meme.
Huey Long was virulently anti-union and as corrupt as the day is long. You will have to do more than basic googling on his name (which also turns up praise for Long on the Stormfront neo-nazi website.
Google “Huey Long Union Indemnity Company”.
See what you find
Then try “Huey Long Frank Costello”, “Huey Long labor unions”.
Long was no more a leftist than Benito Mussolini was a socialist.
I have read these articles on Long. But you have to admit he did much for Louisiana and he was seen as a threat to FDR and the demcrats at the time.
But that is neither here nor there. He was popular because he could frame his message to appeal to a large portion of the populace.
Intellectual pandering and put downs of the right no longer work these days since the vast majority of Americans are ignorant dufuses, college degrees not with standing. Even those with PHDs are often ignorant jerks. Just remember your school mates. How many of then would you consider intelligent and critical thinkers ?
I rest my case.
But these are the ones that the left has to focus it’s message on. Remember they were also responsible for Nixon and Reagan and Clinton and Bush.
The simplistic appeals. The complex does not.
Highly debatable that Long did much for Louisiana. In fact, all availabe evidence says otherwise.
The middle-class, college-educated, non-union white collar left has long since lost the white working class.
Of course, there is one saving grace that largely explains the GOP antipathy towards Obama:
the future of the US is not white.
Universal Health care is a pretty simple straightforward notion, yet it failed to penetrate thick American skulls. Can you imagine any other country in which the citizens would take to the streets in protest against the possibility of Universal Health care?
JIm Crow laws are already in place. Look at how The War On Drugs has created a class of felons to stock prisons for profit and provide cheap labor for the rest of their lives. And they have no say in the matter, because they can not vote. The black community is especially targeted.
Here’s a good book review;
The New Jim Crow; How the War on Drugs Gave Birth to a Permanent American Undercaste
I have a big complaint. Diaries like this one don’t stay up long enough for a proper discussion; they’re like flash cards.
Could you refresh my memory, tonograd? Was the ACA written, the mandate spelled out, *before* the summer doldrums that brought the (astroturf) opponents onto the street?
sigh…yes this is true.
There used to a user at another site that would run a feature called “diary rescue” where they would post a diary with links to other diaries that had “aged” and drifted off the list but deserved another look.
Wish FDL had such a feature. A diary rescue.
Please allow me to address the point of What Is to Be Done in more detail, as it is indeed quite relevant to today’s situation.
Lenin was not calling for there to be a revolutionary organization. He was a key of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, a revolutionary organization. His polemic was not “whether,” but rather what was to be the character of that revolutionary organization. Nor was he calling for what “revolutionary organization” has all too often meant in American practice, an organization calling for revolution and spending most of its time debating with other self-proclaimed revolutionary organizations, disconnected from any serious mass movement.
In 1903 Russia, there was substantial movement, existing among the impoverished peasantry and a militant trade union movement. Lenin’s polemic was not over “party line” per se, but the relationship of the revolutionary organization to that mass movement. Lenin demanded a strict delineation between party and mass movement, that membership must go beyond supporting the party line and contributing financially to the party, and require actually WORKING under the direction of the party.
That delineation was essential, in Lenin’s view, lest the party be absorbed into the mass movement, be among the most militant fighters for particularly the trade union demands of the moment, but lose sight of the demands for specifically the overthrow of the autocracy.
The split in the RSDLP that ensued, leading to the formation of Lenin’s Bolsheviks, was precisely over this issue. It had consequences.
(It is worth adding that while reading about the doctrinaire debates the Bolsheviks engaged in might lead some to see the Bolsheviks as a collection of sterile intellectuals, both the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks had significant roots within the trade movement, and the debate hinged on the practice of its activists within that movement.)
Flash forward to today, specifically to the Occupy movement. One relevant issue is how its leading activists can develop a relevant revolutionary strategy while not losing their position within the broader Occupy movement, to be able to provide revolutionary direction to that movement and address the tactical demands of the moment. I am not providing prescription for how that is to be done.
I am merely pointing out that that is What Is to Be Done.
Indeed. And to keep from being cooped by the current power structure to the ends of that power structure and yet to still appeal to the broader base.
One of the biggest issues today is that a lot of people in the trades have been seduced into the right and and cooped by the ALEC controlled tea baggers. Fortunately the tea bag movement has fallen out of favor.
What would be ideal would be to form an alliance with disaffected trades and union people.
Forget about it, those people voted for Reagan; they like to watch balls bounce, and cars run around a track. The occupy people are the only raw material there is to work with.
Lakota, you have brought up a subject I am going to deal with in a part deux of this subject.
One of the key elements of Leninism (as well as the Tea Party folks) is the power of the compact core within the broader mass. Thus to my thinking, the notion of “those people” is not helpful. There is no such thing. Rather, a relevant question when seeking support is, what kinds of support can be built among a small number of “those people.” Thus cmaukonen references the disaffected among union people. To say that there are none such is simply nonsense.
I remember the debates of the 60′s. Priorities are important, of course, but all too often radicals debated what the “key sector” was, in a manner that excluded all too many who should not have been excluded. Thus it was argued that radicals should NOT work among factory workers, or radicals should NOT work among college students, or radicals should NOT seek the support of Black nationalists, or radicals should NOT seek to organize the unemployed. Rather than addressing how to approach each, and build alliances among them.
By the way, “disaffected trades and union people” are AMONG the occupy people. I have marched with them.
Could it be that the American Left had gone extinct as any kind of potent political force and it took the election of Barack Obama to prove it?
The left was exterminated.
I agree that no group should be excluded.
I believe the Obama deception covers him quite well. I didn’t vote for Obama because he pushed that 700 billion dollar Bush Bailout, but I don’t fault the people who really fell for his “The audacity of hope” line.
Never in history have we been swindled like this. All logic said that an African American president would give us a new “New Deal”, not throw all of your friends under the bus.
He did everything wrong from the minute he took office, who could expect that? I’m sure that many of the people who were deluded realize it. None of those people will be campaigning for Romney, or carrying “We hate Barack” signs, but they will not vote.
But he is not African American. This is the trap you fell into. His mother became a University professor and his father was from Kenya and was fairly well off for the area. He spent most of his life living abroad before attending Harvard.
He did not live the life of an African American. Not even close. On could say he lived pretty well off.
I voted for Obama and don’t regret it. As long as we had a Republican regime, the “elect more and better Democrats” plan had traction. Obama’s failure opened the door for the emergence of a new left that rejects both parties, opened the door for the Occupy movement.
Whether we can walk through that door is another matter, of course.
C’mon, you don’t regret being betrayed? How about regret that so amny others were?
Sounds like a case of politique du pire to me.
Thank you, Ludwig. This question defines the essence of the word liberal and the word communist. Liberalism excludes acts that must be justified by blind faith in some wonderful promised future outcome. Communism promises heaven on earth, the worker’s paradise, if you will just close off your conscience for a while and throw a few little bombs.
What? Bomb throwing is the anarchist’s (libertarian’s) job. Liberalism seeks a stasis between the authoritarian past and radical future – and there it dies.
La politique du pire? Jesus was a liberal, and it ain’t dead yet.
Yeah. Jesus was a liberal. Ha ha ha. Talk about smug delusions.
Glad I was able to brighten your day. I guess I assumed you would distinguish between the criminal enterprise calling itsself the Catholic Church (and all its “smug” offspring) and a wandering Jew sage who apparently inspired a lot of other Jews in his day. Many of the sayings attributed to him are quite liberal.
That explains everything.
I’m quite furious at Obama for any number of reasons. But I don’t regret having voted for him. His election marked the death of American liberalism, long overdue, shattered its illusions. Otherwise, we’d still be waiting for some Democratic to save us from the Republicans.
Oh, not radical? Hmm. And I was not saying Jebus was smug.
Interesting. Both furious and happy for the betrayal. I think the lesser evil argument is more credible for why you wouldn’t have regrets.
With the 48 hour sunsetting of comments on FDL “diaries”, there isn’t any way to revive prematurely moribund diaries except as read-only irrelevancies. Every diary is dead after 48 hours and like the other dead, cannot be revived.
Why would you presume to know my mind?
Are you kidding me? That’s an essential skill these days.
Zombie diaries. I like it.
Now that “The Audacity of Hope” has been thrown in the sewer, where do we go from here?