The Struggle Inside the Socialist Workers Party Index | Main Document Index | ETOL Home Page
Dear Comrades:
I propose the following additional point to the plenum agenda submitted by the PC on Nov. 10: “Literary Discussion on Leninism.”
An expanded PC meeting right after our national convention in August began a discussion and reevaluation of the history of Bolshevism and its lessons for present-day revolutionists. This came under the heading, “Education program on Lenin.”
At this meeting two “position papers” were presented on Lenin's contributions, one by Steve Clark and the other by Doug Jenness. Jack Barnes submitted a summary of the discussion. None of this has yet been published.
The remarks of comrades Clark and Jenness have been reduced to reading lists, recommended for classes and educationals on “Lenin's Conception of the Class Forces and Strategy in Making the Russian Revolution (1902-1917)” and “The Communist International Under Lenin.”
The Clark-Jenness talks, based on this recommended reading, initiated an open campaign by the party leadership to eradicate “old Trotskyist myths,” and an organized discussion was indicated by the reports and summary.
I propose now that the plenum formally authorize such a discussion by adopting a motion to begin a literary discussion, either in Party Organizer or in the party press (Militant, ISR, IP, PM [Perspectiva Mundial]), to review the lessons of Bolshevism as they apply today.
It has long been understood among us that the history of Bolshevism, beginning in 1903, continued after the destruction of the Russian Bolshevik party — the continuator being “Trotskyism” and the Fourth International. In this context such a discussion as indicated may reveal some distortions and errors in our hitherto accepted doctrine, and can help arm the party for the political battles of our present epoch.
The reprinting of an article by Lenin (Nov. 1981 ISR, Nov. 13 Militant), in which the New Economic Policy in the Soviet Union in 1921 is briefly discussed, is a curious way to open our broad discussion on the historic significance of Lenin's early slogan for the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry.
Lenin's article was written on the occasion of the fourth anniversary of the Russian Revolution, a time of economic crisis when the revolution was in danger. But that does not necessarily make it appropriate on the occasion of the sixty-fourth anniversary of the revolution. On the surface it appears as if Lenin's defense of the Russian NEP must have some special meaning for ISR readers today, sixty years later. Whether many readers will grasp this special meaning is dubious.
The significance of Lenin's 1905 slogan “for the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry,” more than seventy-five years after it was first formulated, is even more obscure. It was rendered obsolete in the heat of the 1917 events in Russia. Its importance today most certainly will not become clear to ISR readers without further light on its origin and meaning. The editors of ISR must have recognized this need.
In an accompanying article, “How Lenin Saw the Russian Revolution,” Doug Jenness tries to reveal the two secrets: first, why the 1921 NEP in Russia serves as a kind of model for workers' and peasants' governments today; and secondly, why the outmoded and unused slogan for the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry must be resurrected at this late date for use by revolutionists throughout the modern world.
Comrade Jenness says, “Where the masses have overturned capitalist rule in such countries as Cuba, Nicaragua, Grenada, and Vietnam, revolutionists study how the Bolsheviks in power handled some of the problems they face.” Thus begins the unraveling of the first mystery.
Such studies by revolutionists in the Caribbean and in Vietnam can be useful. But Lenin's appreciation of economic and social relations (including which class controls the power of government) was enriched and revised by the revolution, civil war, and economic crisis. It did not derive from his 1905 slogan.
On the question of this slogan, the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, Comrade Jenness says:
“The class forces that the Bolsheviks saw could carry through the democratic revolution most resolutely were the working class in alliance with the revolutionary peasantry as a whole. Thus, they proposed to achieve the goals of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, in which the workers and peasants would exercise political power and repress their oppressors. This was the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry.”
Accordingly, the historic events of revolution and civil war simply provided the material content for Lenin's algebraic formulation of his victory prescription. Jenness says, “The October revolution testifies that Lenin's view of the dynamics of the Russian revolution and the kind of vanguard party it required effectively armed the Bolsheviks to carry through their historic task.”
In the History of the Russian Revolution Trotsky wrote about the central role of Lenin. “Besides the factories, barracks, villages, the front and the soviets, the revolution had another laboratory: The brain of Lenin.”
This brain was preoccupied with the question of state power during the revolution, and while in hiding Lenin produced The State and Revolution, a Marxist guide to the seizure of power and control of government. This is different from and far advanced beyond his earlier writings on the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. It was Trotsky's view that in this book Lenin “was preparing his party for the revolutionary conquest of a sixth part of the habitable surface of the earth.” This was a necessary task at that time, despite all Lenin's earlier contributions.
Our studies in the history of Bolshevism ought to be part of our regular practice, as were Lenin's contributions to the application and advance of Marxist theory. Comrade Jenness tells us, “The best place to learn the lessons of Bolshevism — and to understand how the Bolshevik party was trained, carried through the October revolution, and led the organization of the world's first workers' state — is Lenin's writings and speeches.”
This is undeniable in general, but it is true only if Lenin's voluminous writings and speeches are studied in their real and full context, in all their complexity, in all the modifications and development they underwent over the years, and not through selections designed to “prove” one or another arbitrary theory. From this standpoint the Jenness article is not only one-sided but unsuitable and inadequate for the kind of discussion we need.
We must always keep in mind that the history of Bolshevism does not end with the death of Lenin. His work was continued by Trotsky, his closest collaborator in revolution and civil war.
Our further studies will convince us and others that one of the most brilliant chapters in the history of Bolshevism was written by Trotsky in his struggle against the counterrevolutionary Stalinist bureaucracy and for the founding of the Fourth International (1923-1940).
I propose that our discussion of Bolshevik history also include an examination of the history of the SWP and its contributions to the founding and development of the Fourth International.
The preparation and organization of this literary discussion, open to all members of our party, should be the task of a special commission elected by this plenum.
P.S. To the Political Committee:
Please include this in the plenum kits of all comrades attending.
New York
November 13, 1981
The Struggle Inside the Socialist Workers Party Index | Main Document Index | ETOL Home Page | Marxists’ Internet Archive