The present text was written in 2017
Approaching the time when "swallowing toads" [1] will be on the menu of some, no lack of those who will explain to us that we do not have a good taste on the latest advances of the political gourmete. Due to this inevitable situation, we want to review in a very, very short way, a couple of old texts by a good chef from the past: Vladimir Ulianov "Lenin".
Far away (in Russia) and long ago (in 1906), our beloved Vlady threw himself to write two important brochures: "The Victory of the Cadets and the Tasks of the Workers’ Party" and "The Social-Democrats and Electoral Agreements" [2] .
Just as with many other theorists and revolutionaries who are fondled by revisionists and the possiblists, Lenin is not exempt from being used with mechanical quotations and surpluses of all Leninist thoughts to justify the unjustifiable. Appealing in general to "contextualize", now many justify supposed tasks related to the current context as if they were new. Now, What happens when in the 21st century we are far from the revolutionary proposals of the early 20th century? What happens when "to contextualize" we are justifying tasks that the revolutionaries of a backward and tsarist country considered reformists or counterrevolutionaries? Are we going on the right track?
It is based on these questions that we return to those pamphlets that many forget (or hide so as not to stumble upon their betrayals). In those texts, many of the situations we face today in our country -Argentina- are analyzed by Lenin and, although perhaps the concrete method cannot be mechanically transferred, we can use its theoretical contributions to analyze the current reality.
Electoral alliances, the difficult bourgeois game
At the time he wrote his pamphlets (1906) Lenin considered that the stage in which the revolutionary movement was, the task was to fight for the bourgeois-democratic revolution, understandable when he was inserted in a backward Russia, with little industry compared to others countries, and a tsarist political system and its fake parliament as was the Duma. However, even though he considered that this was the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution - and today we accept that we are acting in capitalist countries - it seems that he would be on the far left than many of his supposed followers.
Let's see what Lenin says about participating in the elections in alliance with the Cadet Party [3] to face the Black Hundreds [4]:
"Let us imagine that the Social-Democratic Party had taken part in the Duma elections, and that a number of Social- Democratic electors had been elected. Having plunged into this stupid election farce, we would have had to sup port the Cadets to prevent the Black Hundreds from winning. The Social-Democratic Party would have had to conclude an election agreement with the Cadets. With the aid of the latter, a certain number of Social-Democrats would have been elected to the Duma. We ask, would the game have been worth the candle? Would we have gained or lost by this?" [5]
It seems that Lenin understood more about the "Cultural Battle" than the current intellectualoids who talk so much about it. By continuing his explanation, Lenin emphasizes that under these conditions the RSDLP would never have been able to demonstrate to the masses the socialist platform, that the small Marxist bulletins would be overshadowed under the big runs of Cadet newspapers that would spread the Cadet version of the agreements and conclusions and by therefore, the whole revolutionary program and the proclamations of the socialists would be "the same as a drop of water in the sea". According to Lenin, "In practice, we would have turned out to be a dumb appendage of the Cadets." To conclude that in addition to all this, the RSDLP would become - before the eyes of the proletariat - responsible for all the steps of the kadets; and stresses that no subsequent statement would suffice to cover the question that in FACTS the agreement would be in sight.
Alliances or Independence
Again and again, Lenin shows his understanding of Marxism by analyzing Political Parties not as mere "identities" or as "apparatuses," but as organized expressions of the different fractions of social classes. In this sense, and always considering that for our author Russia was in need of a bourgeois-democratic revolution, Lenin clarifies that the need is not to abstractly oppose the proletariat of its enemies in general, but to delimit the latter in the more precise and concrete way. Only then could they determine who can be "allies" (put in quotes by Lenin himself in his text). Now, Vladimir urges never to stop "watching every ally from bourgeois democracy as we would with an enemy" (how different from how some understand alliances today, right?) Finally, he says that the most important thing is to ask carefully and seriously what is most advantageous for revolutionaries at all times. Lenin writes: "the argument about the proletarian-peasant character of our revolution does not entitle us to conclude that we must enter into agreements with this or that democratic peasant party at this or that stage of the elections to the Second Duma. It is not even a sufficient argument for limiting the class independence of the proletariat during the elections, let alone for renouncing this independence."[6]
"Contextualizing"
It is therefore essential that we ask ourselves these same questions, even when it comes to "contextualize". Thinking about the reality of our country, a dependent capitalist one (Argentina), in the 21st century, even granting that perhaps - and only perhaps - the "middle-class" can play an anti-imperialist role, can agreements be freely concluded with the parties of the middle-class without thinking in the consequences? Is it not, as Lenin says, "harmful"? The parties of the proletariat will fall prey to the errors of the parties of the hegemonic middle layers on the fronts, their voices will be turned off by the immense machinery and propaganda apparatus of the "progressive" parties. Will some isolated statements be enough to counter this? Is it enough to be "a dumb appendage" even to face the "Black Hundreds" of our time?
How much progress is being made towards the construction of counterhegemony or the triumph in the Cultural Battle being silenced by the "bourgeois-democratic" press?
Even considering that these class fractions could very hypothetically play a revolutionary role, as Lenin thought about the peasant-proletarian character of the revolution, that is not a sufficient argument to renounce the class independence of the proletariat.
What excuses do we have in the 21st century to give it up?
We say none at all.
[1] Common idiom in Argentinian politics which refers to the cuestionable or even contradictory decisions made, specially inside political parties, so to create larger or unified political fronts with politicians with bad or questionable past.
[2] Note: We must remember that at those years the party that would later be "Communist Party" was called "Russian Social Democratic Labour Party", so the use of "workers' party" or "social democracy" concepts to refer to them.
[3] The Cadet Party was named for its acronym (KD). They were the Constitutional Democratic Party, and would correspond to what we could call today a party "of the middle-class."
[4] The Black Centurias were a pro-Tsarist and anti-Semitic formation. They actively participated in the actions against the revolutionaries and the infamous pogroms.
[5] Lenin, V. I. The Victory of the Cadets and the Tasks of the Workers’ Party. Chapter IV.
[6] Lenin, V. I. The Social-Democrats and Electoral Agreements. Chapter II. Link: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1906/eleagree/ii.htm#v11pp65-279
Comments