lars t lih misinterprets lenin

19 06 2012

by Barry Biddulph

Lars T Lih argues that “Lenin’s rejection of the actual parties of the Second International does not mean he is rejecting its party ideal“.(1) But in attempting to distil social democracy from Bolshevism, he distorts the history of Bolshevism and misinterprets Lenin’s politics. His interpretation of Lenin’s comment in Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder, that “As a current of political thought and as a political party, Bolshevism has existed since 1903″(2) is that “the reader gets no idea when and how the Bolsheviks moved from a ‘trend of political thought’ to a ‘political party’”. Lenin is “simply not interested in this aspect of Bolshevik History“.(3) But the question is, why did Lenin not address the crucial point about the origins of the Bolshevik party? Read the rest of this entry »





the party as a faction: the origins of bolshevism

20 05 2012

by Barry Biddulph

In a recent debate between, Lars T Lih, Paul Le Blanc, and Pham Binh(1) there is confirmation of existing knowledge, that the Bolshevik party was not formally proclaimed, in Prague, at the conference of the Russian Social Democratic Party in 1912; nor was it the formal aim of Lenin to create a separate Bolshevik party. Again the debate clarified, that in 1912 there was not a birth of a party of a new type, free of opportunism, but the birth of a myth of such a party. The main point is: for all intents and practical purposes, the RSDLP that emerged from Prague, in 1912, was a Bolshevik party, in all but name.

Read the rest of this entry »





the red jacobins: no substitute for workers’ freedom

1 09 2010

by Barry Biddulph

Mark Hoskisson departs from the conventional, Trotskyist interpretation of the Russian Revolution, in his analysis of Thermidor and the Russian Revolution. (Permanent Revolution issue 17). His conclusion is that the political counter revolution took place inside the Bolshevik party in 1921 and was led by Lenin and supported by Trotsky.

The Trotskyist movement has traditionally regarded such a view as anarchist. But Mark still dismisses any consideration of the possibility of Bolshevik values and methods of organisation contributing to the betrayal of the political aspirations of 1917 prior to 1921 as anarchist. He still clings to the orthodox view that the Bolshevik party could somehow be a custodian of workers’ power despite substituting itself for the class following 1917, as long as the right to form factions was preserved. Hence the banning of party factions in 1921 is seen as the historic turning point. Mark asserts that, ”Bolshevism’s descent into counter revolution marked a distinct break with, not a continuation of its fundamental character and politics in the period 1912 to 1920”. Read the rest of this entry »








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 197 other followers