-Hi to all Engelist geeks and students of Lenin's Russian Revolution
and Peter of OZ.
Sincere apologies to all others for breaking into the current
debates on more interesting subjects.
I said in a previous post that;
{I am chasing after a letter written by Engels to an Italian in 1893
that hasn't been transcribed onto the internet yet but is apparently
in the Marx and Engels collected works. Do we have this at head
office or does any one out there have it.
I think it will be one of these two;
Engels to Filippo Turati 30 January
Engels to Filippo Turati 1 February
It could be boring and a red herring.}
This was initiated by a speech I found that Lenin had made in
response to something Plekanov had written, which had included a
quote from a letter from Engels to Filippo Turati.
Maxilimilien Lenin appeared to be somewhat rattled by this, so I was
keen to find out more about it. This letter to Filippo Turati now
seems to have appeared at;
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/letters/94_01_26.htm
Maybe it was there before and I was to dim-witted to find it.
However it is fairly interesting. It appears to relate to the
impending bourgeois revolution, in Italy this time, and the
attitude `socialists' should take to it.
Thus;
"The Socialist Party of Italy is obviously too young and,
considering the whole economic position, too weak, to be able to
hope for an immediate victory of Socialism. In this country the
rural population far outweighs the urban; in the towns industry is
only slightly developed and hence the real typical proletariat is
small in number."
And just to make clear exactly what kind of `revolution' he is
talking about here.
"in the case of a revolution the bourgeois republic will triumph."
So Fred raises the question.
"What should and must be the attitude of the Socialist Party in face
of this situation?"
I had said before I saw this letter that I thought that their
position was;
{They had a Hegelian and amoral perspective on this I think. They saw
the evolution of history, progress, as following an
almost `predetermined' and inevitable path that they claimed by
scientific analysis to have understood and one that could be
predicted.
Feudalism to capitalism and following that the inevitable socialism.
With all the relevant revolutions in between. Thus the
transformations from feudalism to capitalism was progress and
progress as progress should be endorsed.}
This is what Fred said in his letter to Filippo Turati, re the
bourgeois revolution and overthrow of feudalism, using the
word `advance' I think instead of my word `progress'.
"Their place"
That of socialists
"is by the side of those who are fighting for the immediate
achievement of an advance which is at the same time in the interests
of the working class. They accept all these political or social
progressive steps, but only as instalments. Hence they regard every
revolutionary or progressive movement as a step further in the
attainment of their own end; and it is their special task to drive
other revolutionary parties ever further, and, in case one of them
should be victorious, to guard the interests of the proletariat.
These tactics, which never lose sight of the last great final aim,
preserve us Socialists from the disappointments to which the other
less clear-sighted parties, be they republicans or sentimental
socialists, who confuse what is only a mere stage with the final aim
of the advance, must inevitably succumb."
So here we have our delphic oracle Fred peering into his crystal
ball predicting things that have yet to come to pass.
The `mere stage' is in this case being the movement from feudalism
to (state) capitalism. Where `Sentimental socialists', not a phrase
I would use to describe Trots, who are `less clear sighted' and are
confused will `inevitably succumb' to the`disappointments', of
a `degenerate workers state' perhaps, by thinking that the
revolution can be anything other than a . bourgeois one and
an `instalment' in history.
The positive element would be;
"This would extend liberty and our field of action still further, at
any rate for the moment. And Marx has said that the bourgeois
republic is the only political form in which the struggle between
proletariat and bourgeoisie can be resolved. "
Thanks to the Bolsheviks we didn't even get that. Although this
position of Karl's, according to Fred, is similar to that taken to
the `evil Mensheviks' like Martov, from what I can remember. As it
turned out it became a struggle between proletariat and a
disappointing `degenerate workers state'. And to continue about `
What Is Not To Be Done';
"Undoubtedly it is no business of ours directly to prepare a
movement ourselves which is not strictly a movement of the class we
represent. If the Republicans and Radicals and Bolsheviks believe
the hour has come let them give free play to their desire to attack.
As for ourselves we have been far too often disappointed by the
large promises of these gentlemen to allow ourselves to be misused
yet another time. Neither their proclamations nor their conspiracies
will mislead us."
Live in hope!
"But if it comes to this, we must be conscious of the fact, and
openly proclaim it, that we are only taking part as an "independent
Party," which is allied for the moment with Radicals and Republicans
but is inwardly essentially different from them: that we indulge in
absolutely no illusions as to the result of the struggle in case of
victory; that this result not only cannot satisfy us but will only
be a newly attained stage to us, a new basis of operations for
further conquests; that from the very moment of victory our paths
will separate; that from that same day onwards we shall form a new
opposition to the new government, not a reactionary but a
progressive opposition, an opposition of the most extreme Left,
which will press on to new conquests beyond the ground already won."
The dreaded left communists.
And as to the difficult problem of a minority of socialist
participating in a capitalist parliament that I think I discussed
with Joel Rosenblum on this forum.
"After the common victory"
Parliamentary bourgeois democracy.
" We might perhaps be offered some seats in the new Government--but
always in a minority. Here lies the greatest danger. After the
February Revolution in 1848 the French socialistic Democrats (the
Reforme people, Ledru Rollin, Louis Blanc, Flocon, etc.) were
incautious enough to accept such positions. As a minority in the
Government they involuntarily bore the responsibility for all the
infamy and treachery which the majority, composed of pure
Republicans, committed against the working class, while at the same
time their participation in the government completely paralysed the
revolutionary action of the working class they were supposed to
represent.
Here I am only expressing my personal opinion, which you asked me
for, and I am doing this only with a certain amount of caution. As
for the general tactics here communicated, I have convinced myself
of their correctness throughout the whole of my life. They have
never let me down. But with regard to their application in Italy
under present conditions, the decision must be made on the spot and
by those who are in the midst of the movement."
A tough one, play it by ear, but whatever you do don't follow the
Leninist route.
Post by balmer_daveDear Peter
I think we have to be careful when analysing Karl's and Freds take
on this kind of thing and take into consideration how it changed
over time. Although I don't feel bound by what they said on
anything.
Post by balmer_daveI believe that their position was that in order to have socialism
you had to have capitalism first and that in order to get
capitalism
Post by balmer_daveyou had to overthrow Feudalism wherever it existed. Therefore they
tended to support bourgeois revolutions not so much because they
wanted capitalism but because they saw it as a necessary
historical
Post by balmer_davestage towards socialism. Capitalism would build up the means of
production and the working class that would create the potential
material conditions for socialism.
They had a Hegelian and amoral perspective on this I think. They saw
the evolution of history, progress, as following an
almost `predetermined' and inevitable path that they claimed by
scientific analysis to have understood and one that could be
predicted.
Feudalism to capitalism and following that the inevitable
socialism.
Post by balmer_daveWith all the relevant revolutions in between. Thus the
transformations from feudalism to capitalism was progress and
progress as progress should be endorsed.
That is how I read the letter to Vera. Fred just foresaw the ugly
and unpleasant forthcoming `Russian bourgeois revolution' and the
inevitable 1793 that would follow, murderous oppression, as
a `whatever will be, will be'. or `Que sera, sera.' Is it, seeing
French is in fashion.
As a bit of a moralist, I don't like this cold-blooded rational
analysis even if it is correct. I think the writings of Karl and
Fred bristled with covert moral indignation. They were just in
denial about it.
Despite the general accuracy of Fred's prediction I don't think he
saw state capitalism as opposed to ordinary capitalism coming. I
think you make a really good point about the possible absence of
capitalists on the ground in Russia contributing to the slight
variation of previous norms on how it developed.
I am not an expert on this but as I understand it pre 1917 Russian
capitalism was atypical. First of all a lot of capitalist
enterprises in Russia at the time although few in number were
quite
Post by balmer_daveadvanced. They had I believe many large
Factories for the standards of the times that were the result of
foreign investment by absentee capitalists, predominantly French I
seem to remember. Thus the ratio of capitalist to workers or even
the population as a whole was comparatively low.
In contrast, in the English Revolution there were proportionately
more `capitalist', particularly small farmers with a capitalist
outlook at least, farming for profit. These people were not wimps
like our present day capitalists, they were advanced, active,
intelligent with practical organisational skills and were prepared
to get stuck in and fight dirty themselves for their own material
interests. Hence they eventually won the day against the
degenerate
Post by balmer_davefops of the feudal aristocratic class.
I presume a similar situation prevailed in France in 1789.
As to the Bolsheviks, as Fred predicted, the `historic
personalities' involved could wish what they liked and boast as much
as they liked, in the end it would be an amoral historical
materialism that would dictate events. Capitalism following on
from
Post by balmer_daveFeudalism.
As to the support that the Bolsheviks had or might have had I
think
Post by balmer_davewe need to be careful as support that they may have had was based on
false promises.
In a letter from the Russian ` Social Democratic Labour Party and of
the Jewish Socialist Party' concerning the arrest and imprisonment
of a large number of worker's delegates in 1919, and they appear to
have been just that. Actually industrial workers it says;
`the imaginary dictatorship of the proletariat has definitely
turned
Post by balmer_daveinto the dictatorship of the Bolshevik party, which attracted all
sorts of adventurers and suspicious characters and is supported only
by the naked force of hired bayonets.'
Trotsky the war criminal apart from taking hostages advocated
machine gunning his own red army if they retreated and refused to
fight. So we could speculate just how much support the Bolsheviks
actually had.
I am chasing after a letter written by Engels to an Italian in
1893
Post by balmer_davethat hasn't been transcribed onto the internet yet but is
apparently
Post by balmer_davein the Marx and Engels collected works. Do we have this at head
office or does any one out there have it.
I think it will be one of these two;
Engels to Filippo Turati 30 January
Engels to Filippo Turati 1 February
It could be boring and a red herring.
_______________________________________________________________
Post by balmer_davePost by Adam BuickPost by Adam BuickGet Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your
mobile.
Post by Adam Buickhttp://www.msn.txt4content.com/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WSM_Forum-***@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/