ga('send', 'pageview');
John Passant

Site menu:

November 2010



RSS Oz House



Subscribe to us

Get new blog posts delivered to your inbox.


Site search


My interview Razor Sharp 18 February
Me interviewed by Sharon Firebrace on Razor Sharp on Tuesday 18 February. (0)

My interview Razor Sharp 11 February 2014
Me interviewed by Sharon Firebrace on Razor Sharp this morning. The Royal Commission, car industry and age of entitlement get a lot of the coverage. (0)

Razor Sharp 4 February 2014
Me on 4 February 2014 on Razor Sharp with Sharon Firebrace. (0)

Time for a House Un-Australian Activities Committee?
Tony Abbott thinks the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is Un-Australian. I am looking forward to his government setting up the House Un-Australian Activities Committee. (1)

Make Gina Rinehart work for her dole

Sick kids and paying upfront


Save Medicare

Demonstrate in defence of Medicare at Sydney Town Hall 1 pm Saturday 4 January (0)

Me on Razor Sharp this morning
Me interviewed by Sharon Firebrace this morning for Razor Sharp. It happens every Tuesday. (0)

I am not surprised
I think we are being unfair to this Abbott ‘no surprises’ Government. I am not surprised. (0)

Send Barnaby to Indonesia
It is a pity that Barnaby Joyce, a man of tact, diplomacy, nuance and subtlety, isn’t going to Indonesia to fix things up. I know I am disappointed that Barnaby is missing out on this great opportunity, and I am sure the Indonesians feel the same way. [Sarcasm alert.] (0)



Need for party is not just historical

In Socialist Worker UK Helen Salmon asks whether Lenin’s 1902 pamphlet What is to be Done evidence of Lenin’s “dictatorial” ambitions?

Those who want to defend class society, and some on the left who oppose revolution, argue that revolutions merely set up new hierarchies, not the freedom and equality their participants dream of.

They argue that What is to be Done? was a blueprint for a dictatorship, with Lenin and the Bolsheviks at its head.

The pamphlet was actually written as an intervention into an argument over the need for a unified left party. Russian Marxism then consisted of study circles of intellectuals, isolated from one another both nationally and even within the same cities.

Lenin was determined to forge an all-Russia socialist organisation out of this patchwork of groups and individuals.

He looked to the millions‑strong German Social Democratic Party (SPD) as a model of a professional national organisation that intervened in national politics—the antithesis of the amateurism and atomisation that characterised the movement in Russia.

It was a polemical argument for the creation of a centralised party in Russia.

The pamphlet reiterates Lenin’s fervent belief in the possibility of workers’ risings in Russia, and his impatience to create a party that could organise, coordinate, politicise and lead these risings to win political freedom.

He laid out three arguments that formed a break with the fatalism of pre-Leninist Marxism.

First, Lenin explored the relationship between spontaneity and consciousness. He attacked those within the socialist movement who argued for an economistic approach—one that concentrates on “bread and butter” issues.

Lenin argued that socialists must win workers to a politically conscious approach to the struggle. He said workers should oppose every act of oppression meted out by the Tsarist autocracy.

Only by such an approach could they place themselves in the leadership of the battle for political freedom against autocracy, and make themselves fit to make a socialist revolution.

The pamphlet has correctly been criticised for Lenin’s assertion that socialist intellectuals had to inject such consciousness into workers’ struggles.

Lenin argued that workers by their own efforts would only ever attain trade union, rather than political, consciousness. But workers’ organisation during the 1905 revolution just a few years later led Lenin to change his view.

Secondly, Lenin argued for a vanguard party. This, he said, is because consciousness within the working class is uneven.

A party that attempts to organise the whole class would be dragged down by its least class conscious elements—those who scabbed on strikes, racists, sexists, supporters of the Tsar.

Therefore Lenin argued that the party should aim to organise the best militants who would then be better armed to lead the rest of the class.

The third part of the pamphlet argues the need for secrecy and professionalism within the party. At that time, the average life span for a socialist group, before being broken up by the secret police, was about three months.

In fighting to stitch together an all-Russian socialist party, Lenin prioritised the need for centralism. He argued explicitly for a top-down organisational principle, that emphasised the rights of the leadership.

Opponents of Lenin depict this as his sole model of party organisation—one that fits all circumstances.

However, many aspects of the pamphlet were specific arguments for a form of organisation suited to organising under autocratic rule.

Lenin himself overturned his own formulations on secrecy and the primacy of the leadership in 1905.

The upsurge of workers’ revolt led Lenin to fight for the opening up of the party, and for the leadership of workers within it. He also argued for the democratic principle to operate as the rule inside the organisation.

What was not specific to its time, though, was Lenin’s insistence that Marxists could not merely wait on events.

Only a party that attempted to organise the most class conscious workers could be the instrument of revolution.

Lenin’s insights were to have significance well beyond Russia.



Comment from Emerson
Time November 19, 2010 at 12:53 am

“The pamphlet has correctly been criticised for Lenin’s assertion that socialist intellectuals had to inject such consciousness into workers’ struggles.”

I dont know how many other comrades have had a chance to read Lars Lih’s Lenin Rediscovered, as I I know I haven’t, but from Mick’s talk at Marxism last year one of Lih’s main contribution is to definitively rescue WITBD from “Lenin the elitist” interpretations.

Anyway, should be interesting as Lars Lih will be speaking at Marxism 2011.

Comment from Shane H
Time November 19, 2010 at 7:36 am

So what would Lenin be doing in Australia today?

Comment from viagra kaufen
Time November 20, 2010 at 3:46 am

To all the above commentors. Blogs can be much better to read if You can keep Your comments simple and to the point. No-one likes to read giant comments when the concept can be conveyed using a not as long comment.

Comment from Blake Mossa
Time November 23, 2010 at 3:04 am

I tried to post a statement earlier, however it hasn’t shown up. I believe the spam filtering may well be broken

Write a comment