Marxism and the state | What did Lenin really stand for?

[@AutonomousVoice]

“Less than five years after the Russian revolution, Lenin pondered why the new soviet order had quickly become so bureaucratic and oppressive. On his deathbed he somberly concluded that he had witnessed the resurrection of the old Tsarist bureaucracy to which the Bolsheviks “had given only a soviet veneer.” Lenin’s worst fears were soon realised with the massive bureaucratization of the soviet state and society during the Stalinist era, and the unleashing of what Isaac Deutscher called “an almost permanent orgy of bureaucratic violence.” - Maurice Meisner

[@Jesusgonzalez-jd9kb]

How could Lenin be surprised or perturbed by Stalin's bureaucratic state when Lenin was dead by that timw?

[@AutonomousVoice]

@@Jesusgonzalez-jd9kb Because things were already moving in that sort of direction, before Stalin came to power (as the extract says).

[@Timbo5000]

There is no difference between what you describe to be a worker’s state and anarchist organisation. Councils, delegates with right of recall, etc. Even organised defence against counterrevolution. Yet you oppose the anarchist position. You never touch on where the actual difference lies. The way you describe it makes it seem as if the only difference between Leninism and anarchism is how each defines the state. But the difference isn’t one of mere definitions. What did Leninists do once they held authority over factory councils and soviets? They made them subservient to an overarching bureaucratic structure, undermining the bottom-up nature of the power structures and encroaching upon them with top-down party/vanguard power. And as this process was completed (councils were disbanded altogether, soviets incorporated into the hierarchy of the state), what was and was not permitted within soviets was determined by a central institution that is above and separated from the workers. If a subsection of the workers dissented, whether this dissent was of counterrevolutionary nature or stayed well within socialist parameters, the (secret) police and/or military was sent to subdue them. I.e. state violence against workers. Are the workers then in power? No, the vanguard/party operated a hierarchical power structure that placed them above the workers. And this ruling class attempted to operate these hierarchical state mechanisms in the interests of the working class. And over time, as is to be expected, within this ruling class revisionism gained ground and ultimately took over, causing the USSR to ultimately collapse. Great that the state is now used in the interest of the workers, but the nature of the state has not been fundamentally changed. The workers are not in power, they only get to influence positions of power placed in institutions away from them, through voting. Very similarly to liberal democracies. The state is still a mechanism by which power is concentrated in the hands of a few persons within institutions, backed by military/police violence against any subsection of the masses that doesn’t obey. A minority ruling over the masses. Having this minority be sympathetic to the masses/workers does not change this reality. The core difference between anarchism and leninism is that the former organises power such that no minority rules over a majority. I.e. no hierarchical power structure. Instead, a horizontal power structure. Oddly enough Marxists and Leninists love to describe a theoretically horizontal power structure (which they call a a state, while anarchists would not), but subsequently they always build a hierarchical state in practice. This is because leninists especially fall into idealism on this point: institutionalised power inherently requires violently subjecting the masses to centralised decisionmaking. I.e. it inherently requires power to be situated away from the masses and concentrated in the hands of a ruling minority within positions of power. Yet you call this a “worker’s state”. Similarly to how a liberal might call our current democratic parliaments the “embodiment of the will of the people”. Allowing people to influence a minority in positions of power through voting, does not mean the people directly hold that power. Only that they influence it. Hierarchical organisation and a worker’s state cannot coexist. A worker’s state would inherently have to be horizontal in organisation to actually have workers in power. Anarchists would not classify horizontal organisation as a “state”, but you may call it one if you like.

[@AutonomousVoice]

"A revolution which is inspired by state socialism and adopts this form even 'provisionally' and 'temporarily' is lost : it takes a wrong road down an ever steeper slope. All political power inevitably creates a privileged position for those who exercise it. Having taken over the revolution, mastered it, and harnessed it, those in power are obliged to create the bureaucratic and repressive apparatus which is indispensible for any authority that wants to maintain itself, to command, to give orders, in a word : to govern. All authority seeks to some extent to control social life. It's existence predisposes the masses to passivity, it's very presence suffocates any spirit of initiative. 'Communist' power is a real bludgeon. Swollen with 'authority' it fears every independent action. Any autonomous action is immediately seen as suspect and threatening, for such authority wants sole control of the worker. Initiative from any other source is seen as an intrusion upon it's domain and an infringement of it's prerogatives and, therefore, unacceptable." - Volin

[@o.s.h.4613]

Great talk

[@CognitiveMapping]

This is all spot on!

[@robertmontgomery6256]

I was with the speaker til trade unions are called the embryo of a workers state. Soviets yes. Otherwise excellent content and well worth hearing.

[@lochnessmunster1189]

It's good content apart from its assumption that Marxism is entirely true; it isn't.

[@TheDarkIllumination]

Bakunin and the anarchists: All Marxist countries will become one-party dictatorships over the proletarian, not by the proletariat. Its kind of hard to argue after all that....

[@abody499]

I'd argue they're not then Marxist. There's no inevitability about anything like that.

[@jesseweideman4247]

Why can't we reform the state and seek to take it over at the same time?

[@DAL30505]

At that point "reform" just isn't the accurate word to use. Like sure, algebra is a useful system for every day calculations, but it's hardly the right word to describe the end goals of rocket science

[@jesseweideman4247]

@DAL30505 OK how about we make it less bad if we can now while trying to dismantle it, is that simple enough? lol

[@robsonbarstow9355]

@@jesseweideman4247 The state sits independently above society and class interests. If, at times, its interest to self perpetuate itself align with the bourgeois interest to expand property and capital, it is purely coincidental. Any reform is purely an attempt to ameliorate the irreconcilable class antagonisms that arise from capitalism. It will do this on it's own, with or without socialists in government.

[@jesseweideman4247]

@robsonbarstow9355 I understand capital will always attack or roll back changes that are made. That said, there is plenty of sociological and qualitative data to show policy changes have tangible effects on material distribution. I think leftist movements can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[@VivaCubaRoja]

Enjoyable talk, comrades. The “voting trick” is a huge joke. I’m not sure about the UK but, in the US you’ll often literally have 3 candidates running for a particular office but there are 3 positions to fill and 3 running. How democratic!

[@raymondhartmeijer9300]

The US is not a democracy, it's a de facto one-party state pretending to be a democracy. The "winner takes all" voting system will always result in a two-party system, with no chance of other voices to have a representation. The difference between the two parties is mostly artificial. They agree basically on all important issues. Almost half the population won't even vote now, bc it really does not matter much

[@lochnessmunster1189]

Whereas in Communist countries, there were always an abundance of candidates, from right across the political spectrum, for the people to choose from.

[@VivaCubaRoja]

Different socialist countries did it in different ways but generally, you vote for the candidate based not on their party affiliation but on their positions on particular issues. Also, the ruling billionaire class makes up only around 0.1% of the world’s population, whereas the working class makes up the majority. Why should parties that represent the will of a tiny minority constitute the majority or totality of options?

[@lochnessmunster1189]

@@VivaCubaRoja Cheers. But could you vote for a pro-Capitalist candidate, in any Socialist country?

[@tusharsingh4543]

Good discussion! I might not agree with everything but it's still good to listen to different perspectives on Lenin as opposed to saying that my type of marxism is the only correct one and therefore you're wrong and stupid like some other people in the comments.

[@lochnessmunster1189]

There are a number of different types of Marxism, but they all make the same mistake; in assuming that profit is made by underpaying wages. It isn't true.

[@tusharsingh4543]

@@lochnessmunster1189 How is profit made? By smart entrepreneurship 🤣?

[@lochnessmunster1189]

@@tusharsingh4543 Yes, often. How do you think it's made, regarding wages?

[@tusharsingh4543]

@@lochnessmunster1189 Profit is derived from extracting surplus value from labour.

[@lochnessmunster1189]

@@tusharsingh4543 No, it isn't. This assumption was disproved even while Marx was alive, and it is endlessly repeated on Socialist channels such as this one. All inputs into a production, must yield a greater return for the investor as a result; otherwise, it isn't worth incorporating them into the production in the first place. Each input increases in value because it is integrated with another. A factory which makes radio, and sells them for $50, might buy antennas for these radios, from another supplier. They cost $5 each. But without these antennas, the radio isn't worth $45; it's worth far less, because people are reluctant to buy them. Has the producer of the antennas, been 'underpaid' for them?