:
: : What is required is a blue print for a new state with definite immediate changes and long term changes considered. Once this has been done any violence or pacifist direct action would be effective because it would be more than just demonstrating dissatisfaction.: I agree, Leninism more than anything else provides a blue print for action. It's all well and good to know what you want to replace capitalism with, but how will it happen?
Leninism is not a blue print for marxist revolution it is a blue print for a minority to seize power and to become the new ruling class. To borrow a phrase 'the liberation of the working class is the job of the working class' after all who will be expected to build the new society?
: One of the basic tenets of Leninism is that the working class will not achieve class consciousness spontaneously, only trade union consciousness. Basically, as soon as their economic interests are satisfied they cease the struggle. A class consciousness defends the interests of the entire class.
Wrong.
Trade unionism can be interpreted as being little more than false conciousnes, but people become involved because it is a means of conflicting with bosses and oganising. More often than not trade union members are in conflict with and being sold out by there leadership. (For Example, the Liverpool Dock workers.) The problem is not clueless workers waiting to be lead, as Leninism (and its supporters have suggested) the problem is encouraging the means of conflisct, class conciousness and gettin everyone involved. Believe it or not, but a lot of people who are not Leninists and who hate the idea of Lenin are quite intelligent!
: So a revolutionary organisation (Rev Org) is needed. For education. For agitation. For a scientific method of achieving socialism, not some utopian "lets hope it works" version. For neccessity in a society where ruling class ideology dominates, and so commonly co-opts, by simple bribes, leading members of the social movements.
I beg to differ, revolutionary groups should be for agitating, but they should also be about including as many people with out having a ruling elite as possible. The contrbution of some one who is fights back against every day injustices is just as important as some one who sits in the library writing a heavy book on revolutionary theory. It is these principles that will form the new society and once these principles and the idea of non-hierarchical organisation are regarded as the most sensible forms of organizing then a new, equal society will be achievable.
: An example of the need for a Leninist party is shown up in a particular common mistake found in different struggles today.
An example of why a Leninist Marxist party is not needed can be found with the history of the Kronstadt rebellion. ( no doubt the calls for the end of party privelidges will be dismissed as petit bourgeois by you, after all they were infiltrated by the white army and anarchists weren't they?)
The working class may not be perfect and live up to the idealised dreams of many on the left, but you cnanot better society with out the vast majority of it believing in bettering it and being actively involved in the decision making.
: To say that Leninism has failed is to under-analyse the question of what happened to the Soviet Union. Essentially Lenin is blamed for the rise of Stalin. To say this, you would have to dismiss the 3 year "civil war" (it was not a civil war but a class war) which left the country in ruins (and destroyed the second most important requirement for socialism - abundance) and the failure of international socialism (the most important requirement of socialism).
: One of the most maligned Leninist ideals is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Put simply, it is seen as an unacceptable way to "seize power" (and hold it). And this is the mistake. If a socialist revolution occurs, by its very definition, democratic control by the masses exists and the socialist restructuring of society proceeds.
: There can be no more "minority coups" where the majority already holds power. (Don't forget under capitalism & Fuedalism a tiny minority holds power and so allows the possibility of a coup)
The workers never seized power in the Russian empire, the Bolsheviks did and they clung to it until there state capitalism collapsed to be replaced by free market capitalism. Both times the wokers thought the class war and lost it because they were not organising for the future but against the present. We may need some idea of what we will achieve after the revolution, but it must be natureal to the majority of the people to work.
: So the only way to defeat a socialist revolution is class warfare.
The only way to acheive a revolution is through organiseing and class war. The defeats come when a new set of bosses replace the old and almost naturally pursue seperate interests to the majority.
: In a world where the Left is slowly regrouping after the disasters of the (so called) fall of Communism, and the long, long decade of greed (wasn't that an ideologial blow!) the need for Leninist organisations has never been greater.
Or never been less. Leninism never manageed to react to the decade of greed. At least Class Wars tabloid, proud to be working class style did (for right or wrong.) What is needed now is a new style and forms of organising which encompass the diversity and difference of our class. Reclaim the Streets is one of these. Please justify how Leninism can do this.
Surely before we start trying to lead others we have to ask 'why have we failed to convince people to think for themselve? Why must we lead them?' And if some people must lead others to a perfect society and to prvide for the, wouldn't we be better living as the leaders under capitalism, after all it does provide some standard for our passive proleteriat.
None.
