Fake Left History and a Plea for an End to it

 [Author's note: I realized halfway through this that a timeline of the Russian Revolution would be instructive. However, it would make this essay too long, so it will be my next post. Here.]

Some say Marxism is a religion. I don't know if I agree, but Leninism is a cult, as is evidenced by the Revolutionary Left podcast entitled "The German Revolution." Perhaps the greatest problem kettling the Left these days is not the endless, divisive bickering over theory and praxis, but the inability or unwillingness to agree on the facts. Each querulous faction has its own narrative above which it hovers protectively and which forms the justification for their point of view.

Nobody has ever benefited more from such tendentiousness than St. Vladimir of Smolny, aka Lenin. This episode's webpage declares "Alyson and Breht finally dive into the German Revolution of 1918! Together they discuss this rather ambigious [sic] revolution, give a detailed overview of events, and reflect on what lessons we can learn from it...they help listeners understand the importance, the successes, the failures, and the tragedies, of this often neglected revolution."

Racebot Alert, Alana Lentin: Misunderstanding Race, a Brief Review of her Video on Black Marxism

 

One cannot help but notice just how poorly constructed missives from the House of Race are. The often absurdist content issued by racebots is camouflaged, to the degree possible, by literary misconstructions ranging from the inefficient to the grammatically incorrect. This, I believe, is intentional. Consider this quote from Black Marxism, by Cedric Robinson:

"Historically, the civilization emerging from the western extremities of the Asian/European continent, and whose first signification is a medieval Europe passed with few disjunctions from feudalism as a dominant mode of production to capitalism as the dominant mode of production. And from its very beginnings, this European civilization, containing racial, tribal, linguistic, and regional particularities, was constructed on antagonistic differences."

I read this book decades ago, and I don't know whether Robinson is to blame for this "assault on language and meaning," to use Arundhati Roy's phrase, or whether Lentin mangled the original. In either case, somebody should be embarrassed. "Historically" is redundant; "western extremities of the Asian/Euro' continent" can for the sake of brevity and flow can be charitably reduced to "western Europe"; the word "and" is at best unnecessary; S/he intends to set off the "signification" clause by commas but omits the second; the phrase "from feudalism as a dominant mode of production to capitalism as the dominant mode of production" is painfully redundant and can be mercifully stated as "from feudalism as a dominant mode of production to the capitalist." The "and" which begins the next sentence may not be a blunder necessarily, nevertheless, it serves no analytical purpose; the phrase "containing racial, tribal, linguistic, and regional particularities" would be more appropriately set off by hyphens.

In better English, the quote might read:

"The civilization emerging from western Europe, whose first signification is a medieval Europe, passed with few disjunctions from feudalism as a dominant mode of production to the capitalist. From its very beginnings, this European civilization--containing racial, tribal, linguistic, and regional particularities--was constructed on antagonistic differences."

Now rendered clearly, we can fully see how delusional it is.

Medieval Europe isn't the first signification of the civilization which emerged in w. Europe. In no interpretation of the word "signification" is Robinson's claim true. 

Of considerably greater importance, Europe did not pass "with few disjunctions" from feudalism to capitalism. This is absurd. In fact, the greatest disjunction, the most profound disruptions and transformations in the history of our species--with the possible exception of those occasioned by the plow--occurred as a result of this transition. We are all living with the consequences of these apocalyptic disjunctions. To suggest otherwise is a grotesque distortion, and is discrediting irrespective of motive. One has to be a fool's fool or the greatest of all liars to assert such an absurdity. The French Revolution is the largest societal convulsion our species has ever known. In 1789, France threw off its top layer, its ruling class. That had never happened before. Since that moment, the two classes which banished the feudal order in France, have everywhere been at war. Today, intra- and international disputes, with few exceptions, involve struggles between labor and capital. The point of race fetishism, of books like Robinson's, of post-modernism, critical race theory and the like is to obscure this fact. From 1905 to 1975, there were 70 armed attempts at revolution carried out in the name of socialism, and despite the best efforts of the House of Race and its agents, these clashes continue. The disjunctions caused by the emergence of capitalism are the greatest we have ever known. Karl Marx said that capitalism comes to us dripping with blood. He is correct and it is Robinson who suffers from disjunction.

He states that "this European civilization--containing racial, tribal, linguistic, and regional particularities--was constructed on antagonistic differences." All civilizations in their beginnings have racial, tribal, linguistic, and regional particularities, and all are based on antagonistic differences. Hence, this is of no analytical value. It's just empty racemongery.

Lentin's video contains a clip from Robin D. G. Kelley, dutiful assistant curator of the House of Race, in which he mockingly dismisses the idea that capitalists conspire to divide workers. This is noteworthy as before his lucrative lurch to the right, he authored a book entitled Hammer and Hoe in which he states the opposite. Kelley also says that race begins in Europe, which is the premise of Robinson's book, and it too is false.

Lenin versus Trotsky: Who Cares!

 What follows is based on a comment I left under an S4A vid.  

Right-wing communism, an infantile disorder. Leninism is revisionism.

 

 

 How dare the Evil One blaspheme St. Vladimir of Smolny! Heretic! The ignominy! The degeneracy! How can he not love St. Vlady?

If this isn't proof of how moribund and bankrupt Leninism is then nothing is. For decades they were vitriolic opponents and from July 1917 until Lenin's death they were comrades who worked side by side. But L's partisans, a century later, are still outraged that anyone dare criticize the object of their piety.

Rosa Luxemburg and Bolshevism

Below is a comment I left at the Socialism for All Youtube channel. Luxemburg is such an important and compelling revo figure that Leninazis are always trying to bridge or conceal the deep and irreconcilable political differences between Lenin and her. This effort is particularly foul. 

 S4a uses this platform to attack non-Leninist socialist tendencies, particularly anarchism, which is all well and good as open debate is very much an anarchist principle--as opposed to Leninism--but I will ask him in the name of the workers to stop lying.

He says that anarchism represents an "immaturity of thought." His straw man version of an anarchist may, but not the real thing. It does the workers' movement a disservice when one tendency defames another with lies. S4a says anarchists are against "work." I am no spring chicken, and I have never met a single anarchist who fits this description. There may be some cop pretending to be an anarchist saying such things, but anarchism is in no way anti-work, anti-industrial etc. This is pure nonsense; big, fat, anti-worker lies. In fact, the issues addressed by RL in this grotesquely distorted essay (more to come) and commented upon by s4a were successfully resolved in that chunk of Spain liberated by anarchist workers--yes, workers! (Socialists of all types--i.e. real socialists--should read Frank Mintz's book on the subject.)

S4a's vid is a fab example on why Leninism is so dysfunctional, so counterrevolutionary. This vid is or perpetuates an absolute disgrace. It is an outrage not only against the memory, legacy, and theoretical contribution of one of our martyrs, one of our fallen comrades, but against socialism itself. The presentation of this article is a scam! A fraud! It's squalid. The "alternate translation" of this essay presents it as an endorsement of Bolshevism by a woman who was the latter's most lucid critic, and thereby affiliates the ideals stated therein with Bolshevism when in fact these same ideas were explicitly and pointedly denounced by Lenin before his seizure of power, and once in power he crushed or subverted ALL forms of worker self management.  

I am not now nor have I ever been fluent in German. I took the Intro to German 101/2 classes in college in the 70s and remember very little. However, I can translate "What is Bolshevism": "Was ist Bolshevismus." This is not an "alternative" translation of the original, but a tendentious mistranslation--an intentional, disgusting, craven deception, a bait and switch. The actual title, RL's title, is "Die Sozialisierung der Gesellschaft," or "The socialization of society." In her piece, there is not a single reference to Bolshevism or any Bolshevik, nor any retraction of any element of her eloquent criticism of Leninism. Rather, this essays asserts an irreconcilably anti-Leninist position in that she is depicting a scenario of worker power. She describes a worker-run polity, and in all the history of the workers' movement the greatest and most implacable enemy of worker self-management from within the workers' movement was Lenin. His chief theoretical contribution was vanguardism--the belief that workers cannot achieve revolutionary class consciousness on their own or launch a successful revolution on their own, but need to be guided by a small camarilla of professional revolutionaries with absolute power over the workers. This is what defines Leninism and precisely what RL objected to UNTIL HER DYING DAY.

S4a says they disagreed about a few things but were mostly in agreement. I imagine that the Pope and I agre about most things but I'm an atheist and he isn't, so that thing which he has dedicated his life to is what I reject. That which identifies Leninism: vanguardism; party dictatorship over the workers; (un)democratic centralism; banning of other socialist tendencies and their press; all of these things were explicitly and exquisitely denounced by RL. She was a staunch, committed, determined anti-Leninist, anyone suggesting otherwise doesn't know a goddam thing about Rosa Luxemburg. This revolting attempt to affiliate her with that which she despised is an insult to her memory.

RL began her decades-long struggle against Leninism immediately, if tepidly, after the publication in 1902 (I think) of "What is to be Done." Over the years, her critique became more acute and specific and quite elegant. From within the Marxist tradition, she is Lenin's greatest opponent. They may have agreed on most things, but disagreed upon the most important elements of socialist theory and practice. Anyone suggesting otherwise is a fool or a liar. In fact, Lenin had a list--a literal, hand-written list--of people outside Russia whom he regarded to be his enemies and RL was on it. I don't know if she had a list, but Lenin would certainly be on it--right after Radek.

Anyone interested in what RL really believed Bolshevism was should read "Organizational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy," and "The Russian Revolution." There is much, much more, but these are a good intro to RL's deconstruction of Lenin and his thought. After her death, and against the express wishes of Lenin, her more strident anti-Bolshevik tracts were published by her friend Paul Levy. In fact, she completed her last anti-Lenin piece literally while she was on the run from the authorities who would soon capture and kill her. That's how much importance she placed on combatting Leninism.

Long live our comrade Rosa, down with liars.


https://www.rosalux.de/stiftung/historisches-zentrum/rosa-luxemburg/die-sozialisierung-der-gesellschaft

Leninism Versus Anarchism, the State Versus the Anti-State

 Posted this as a comment at a Leninazi site called Socialism for All, and thought I'd post it here:

S4a's depiction of anarchism is the kind of thing one might expect to hear in a methodone clinic. Here's the truth:

Marx said that a state was the means by which one class oppresses another. Anarchists agree. In fact, if you don't agree, then by definition you are not an anarchist.

The goal for both anarchs and Leninists/Marxists is the same: stateless communism (a phrase considered redundant by anarchs). However, Marx believed that between capitalism and stateless communism there would be an interim stage, a connector polity, which would, once the world was purged of capitalism, eventually wither and communism could then emerge. Anarchs vehemently oppose this quasi-communist, gateway state seeing it as a nursery for counterrevolution, preferring instead an antistate.

Marx, Lenin and the Disappearing Dictatorship, by Dave Fryett

 Marx, Lenin and the Disappearing Dictatorship,
by Dave Fryett

The principal point of contention between Marxists and anarchists is the state, particularly the one that is expected to dissipate once capitalism is well and truly expunged worldwide. Often Lenin's State and Revolution is referenced in defense of this theory. Somebody (Bebel, I think) said this book was "half Blanquist and half anarchist." Unfortunately, Lenin was only sincere about the Blanquist part. Here is an oft-cited passage:

"We must organise production on a large scale, starting
from what has already been done by Capitalism. By
ourselves, we workers, relying on our own experience as
workers, must create an unshakable and iron discipline
supported by the power of the armed workers ; we must
reduce the rôle of the State officials to that of simply
carrying out our instructions ; they must be respon-
sible, revocable, moderately paid " managers and clerks
(of course, with technical knowledge of all sorts, types
and degrees) . This is our proletarian task . With this
we can and must begin when we have accomplished the
proletarian revolution . Such a beginning, on the basis
of large scale industry, will of itself lead to the gradual
decay of all bureaucracy, to the gradual creation of a
new order, an order without inverted commas, an order
bearing no similarity to wage slavery, an order in which
the constant simplification of the functions of inspec-
tion and registration will admit of their being performed
by each in turn, will then become a habit, and will
finally die out as special functions of a special class."


Sadly, this is the kind of political hucksterism which inspires people who are easily moved and not predisposed to critical thinking. This reads like a speech one might hear at the Democratic or Republican convention; higher minded and higher brow, but in effect and purpose pretty much the same. It's popularity is due to its addressing a political anxiety--in this case capitalism--and presumes to resolve it while presenting an enticing, cherubic future. However, on closer examination, this precis only superficially engages its putative subject and doesn't rejoin  any of the associated criticism. This snippet is a triumph of style over substance, and where it does grapple with the concrete, it falters. This passage is intended to stir, not elucidate. It's a rallying cry which targets emotion, not intellect. There is no program here, just nebulous meanderings through an undifferentiated polity that is to come at an unspecified time. This book was written before the Bol putsch in October and published shortly thereafter. It's purpose was to galvanize workers' and peasants' support for an all-to-real, here-and-now, authoritarian, state capitalist regime from whose loci of power they were to remain in indefinite alienation, and in which they were to be economically exploited. Their duty was to suffer obediently, and in the end, as a class, they would inherit the Earth. 

Let's look line by line. I'll use caps to differentiate.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

We

WHO IS 'WE'? THE ISSUE BETWEEN ANARCHS AND LENINISTS IS WHO SHALL HOLD POWER. FOR THE FORMER, IT MUST REST WITH THE WORKERS AND ALL DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY MUST BE MADE BY THEM AND SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE RECALL. AN ANARCHIST POLITY IS BUILT FROM BOTTOM UP, WHICH IS THE OPPOSITE OF LENINISM. BEFORE THE BOLS SUBVERTED THE FREE SOVIETS AND BROUGHT THEM UNDER PARTY CONTROL, THEIR CONTROL, IN THE ALL-RUSSIAN (I.E. NATIONAL) SOVIET, THE WORKERS AND PEASANTS ESTABLISHED THE ALL-RUSSIAN COUNCIL OF WORKERS' CONTROL (ARCWC). IT'S PURPOSE WAS TO MONITOR THOSE ENGAGED IN POLITICAL A/O BUREAUCRATIC ACTIVITY.

THIS IS ANARCHISM, SOCIALISM BY CONSENSUS FROM BELOW.

AFTER KERENSKY WAS DEFEATED, THE BOLS ESTABLISHED THE COMMISAR-LADEN VESENKA WHICH WAS TO RUN THE ECONOMY. WORKERS AND PEASANTS HAD TO COMPLY WITH VESENKA ORDERS UNDER PAIN OF PENALTY. THE ARCWC WAS SUBSUMED INTO AND SUBORDINATED TO THE NEWLY FORMED COUNCIL OF COMMISARS, THEREBY EFFECTIVELY ELIMINATING ANY SEMBLANCE OF WORKER CONTROL OVER THE "WORKERS' STATE."  

THAT IS LENINISM, SOCIALISM BY UKASE FROM ABOVE.

THE ARCWC OBJECTED FIERCELY TO NO AVAIL AND AROUND THE COUNTRY VARIOUS REGIONAL WORKERS' SOVIETS REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH VESENKA DIRECTIVES AND WENT ON CONDUCTING FREE ELECTIONS TO THEIR SOVIETS AND DECIDING ECONOMIC POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR THEMSELVES. DUE TO THE EXTREME AND INSTANTANEOUS WORKER HATRED FOR THE VESENKA, LENIN DECIDED NOT TO PUSH THE ISSUE IMMEDIATELY AND CREATED THE POLICY OF "DUAL SUBORDINATION." AS THE NAME IMPLIES, IT ALLOWED WORKERS TO FOLLOW THEIR OWN GUIDELINES UNLESS EXPLICITLY CONTRADICTED BY A COMMISAR. EVEN THIS PRETENSE DIDN'T LAST LONG AS WHEN SO-CALLED WAR COMMUNISM BEGAN FREE ELECTIONS TO SOVIETS ENDED.

SO WHEN LENIN SAYS "WE" HE MEANS AN UNACCOUNTABLE, AUTHORITARIAN ELITE WHO WILL RULE OVER THE WORKERS AND PEASANTS.  

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


We must organise production on a large scale,

NO, IT ISN'T NECESSARY. ACTUALLY, IT'S COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO UPSIZE ALL FORMS OF PRODUCTION.

SOME PRODUCTION LENDS ITSELF TO LARGE-SCALE OPERATIONS, SOME DOESN'T. THIS IS A LARGE TOPIC, BUT THE GOAL IS TO MARRY CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION, WHILE BEING AS WORKER- AND ECO-FRIENDLY AS POSSIBLE. THE POINTS ARE THAT A) WORKERS WILL DECIDE THESE THINGS NOT BUREAUCRATS, AND B) PRODUCTION OF THE FUTURE WILL INCLUDE LARGE-, MEDIUM-, AND SMALL-SCALE MODELS ALONGSIDE CRAFT AND ARTISINAL PRODUCTION.

AGAIN, THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS AND THE SUBJECT IS JUST TOO LARGE TO BE ADDRESSED HERE, SO TAKE MY WORD FOR IT OR INVESTIGATE AND YOU WILL SEE JUST HOW DISCONNECTED THIS LENINIST MANTRA IS FROM THE REALITY OF GLOBAL ECONOMICS. PEOPLE WHO SPOUT THIS INANITY DON'T HAVE A CLUE. THEY ARE CLEARLY UNFAMILIAR WITH THE SUBJECT AND ARE JUST MAKING FOOLS OF THEMSELVES.

WORKERS, MEET YOUR VANGUARD!

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


starting from what has already been done by Capitalism.


HE DOES SAY "STARTING," SO I GUESS THAT'S HIS GET-OUT-OF-JAIL-FREE CARD, BUT THIS BESPEAKS AN IGNORANCE OF THE SUBJECT.

FIRST, CAPITALIST PRODUCTION IS UNDERTAKEN TO SELL/LEASE GOODS/SERVICES, TO GENERATE REVENUE FOR THE PARTICULAR COMPANY OR CORPORATION WHICH MARKETS SAID GOODS/SERVICES. THAT'S A BAD PLACE TO START EVEN IF, PARTICULARLY IF, PROFIT IS NOT THE GOAL.

SECOND, AGAIN THIS IS A MORE COMPLEX ISSUE THAN IS GENERALLY RECOGNIZED, BUT A MAJOR FACTOR, PERHAPS THE LARGEST, IS SIMPLE LOGISTICS. I LIVED IN VEGAS, AND I HAD A DELL COMPUTER. SOME OF THE COMPONENTS WERE PRODUCED IN THE SILICON VALLEY, AND PASSED BY RAIL LITERALLY WITHIN A MILE OF MY HOUSE ON ITS WAY TO BE ASSEMBLED IN TEXAS AND THEN SHIPPED TO VEGAS WHERE I BOUGHT IT. CAPITALIST LOGISTICS ARE NOT JUST HIDEOUSLY INEFFICIENT, THEY ARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER. IT MAKES SENSE FOR SOME PRODUCTION AND ASSEMBLY TO BE CENTRALIZED AND SOME LOCALIZED. TAKE MY WORD FOR IT OT LOOK INTO IT FOR YOURSELF AND YOU WILL SEE THAT THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF WORKHOURS WASTED GLOBALLY AND AT AN ENVIRONMENTAL COST.  CAPITALIST PRODUCTION, ASSEMBLY, DISTRIBUTION IS A FUCKING MESS, AND NEEDS TO BE IMMEDIATELY REORGANIZED POST-REVO.

THIRD, WORKERS A/O DEPUTEES WILL MAKE THESE DECISIONS, NOT THEORISTS.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


By ourselves, we workers, relying on our own experience as
workers,


"WE' WORKERS? LENIN WAS NEVER A WORKER (AND IT SHOWS). HE HAS NO EXPERIENCE AS A WORKER. HE HAS NO SHAME.

NO, THE EMANCIPATION OF THE WORKING CLASS DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE WORKING CLASS ITSELF. THIS IS THE KIND OF EMOTIONAL SLOGANEERING WHICH PLEASES NON-THINKERS, BUT MORE SANELY, DEFECTORS FROM OTHER CLASSES ARE TO BE WELCOMED AND WILL PARTICIPATE IN THE REVOLUTION, BUT THAT IS WHAT LENIN IS--NOT A WORKER.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


must create an unshakable and iron discipline


SOMEBODY DID A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF LENIN'S CANON AND THE TWO MOST USED WORDS WERE "CONTROL" AND "DISCIPLINE."

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


supported by the power of the armed workers;


IT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS BOOK IS FOR PROPAGANDA PURPOSES. SOME OF IT IS SINCERE, AND SOME NOT. WHEN HE WROTE THIS HE HAD ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION OF ARMING WORKERS--ZERO!  AND, OF COURSE, HE DIDN'T. HE DISARMED WORKERS.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


we must reduce the rôle of the State officials to that of simply
carrying out our instructions;


OH, THAT'S THE BIG LIE. THAT'S THE MONEY SHOT RIGHT THERE.

HE DID THE OPPOSITE, HE NEVER INTENDED TO DO OTHERWISE. THROUGHOUT LENIN'S ENTIRE CAREER, HE WAS THE ENEMY OF WORKER POWER. HE WAS A VANGUARDIST BEFORE THE TERM. HIS MAJOR THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTION WAS TO REBUT MARX' BELIEF THAT WORKERS WOULD REACH REVOLUTIONARY CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS THROUGH STRUGGLE. LENIN INSISTED THAT BY THEMSELVES WORKERS COULD ONLY REACH TRADE UNION CONSCIOUSNESS, AND NEEDED A VANGUARD TO SHOW THEM THE WAY. IF ONE LOOKS AT HIS CAREER, HE HAS AT EVERY TURN SIDED AGAINST WORKER POWER. FROM HIS DISPUTES IN THE EARLY DAYS WITH PLEKHANOV AND AXELROD AND MARTOV, LATER WITH TROTSKY AND LUXEMBURG, ONCE IN POWER WITH BUKHARIN AND BOGDANOV AND KOLLONTAI, LENIN WAS ALWAYS ARGUING AGAINST WORKERS' POWER. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS, NONE! ONE CAN ARGUE THAT LENIN'S APPROACH IS THE PROPER ONE, BUT HE HAD NO PATIENCE WITH WORKERS.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


they must be responsible, revocable, moderately paid " managers and clerks
(of course, with technical knowledge of all sorts, types
and degrees) .


THEY WERE RESPONSIBLE TO THE PARTY-HIS PARTY; THEY COULD BE RECALLED BY THE PARTY; AND THEY WERE PAID WORKERS' WAGES FOR ABOUT A MONTH OR SO. THEY QUICKLY RECEIVED EXTRA RATIONS AND PAY SO AS, LENIN INSISTED, KEEP THEM FROM FALLING PREY TO CORRUPTION.

A Response to Red Menace's Podcast "The Conquest of Bread" by Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism versus Leninism

Will it ever end?

The problem with socialism from above as developed into a program by Lenin, is that it is a half measure. It is so because its proponents cannot free themselves from their bourgeois pedigree. The leading lights of revolution from above were all middle-class, especially Engels who was quite wealthy. None of the major figures on the Right-wing of the workers' movement came from working-class families--and it shows. They really don't understand us--and it shows. So there they are stuck on a sandbar in the middle of the Rubicon, unable to free themselves, but still pulling rank and shouting orders to return as the rest of us clamber up the beach and disappear from view. 

 Listening to Breht and Alyson, or any top-downs, talk about anarchism, one invariably finds they either don't understand it or deliberately mischaracterize in order to discredit those of us who favor the bottom-up approach. Lying goes hand in hand with Leninism as the latter is about controlling the working class and getting it to follow orders. This is done in the name of the working class, and, putatively, for its benefit, but excludes them from  any participation in the process. Lenin, in my view, was just such a liar. He directed events in accordance with what he believed was the best interests of the revolution. Sadly for the proletariat, Lenin should not have been entrusted to run a shoe store let alone a revolution. 

The Omaha Race Riot of 1919, the Prequel.

I post this because I've been working on a piece on the Omaha Race Riot of 1919 which will appear here. I'm working my way through a clutch of books and I'm almost finished. Like all pieces of historiography produced here in the United States of Race, the class antagonism which always attends race riots has been removed from the narrative so as to make it appear a simple matter of racism. And the Omaha riot of 1919 was barely a racial event at all. Race plays a role here, but a minor one. What struck me about the Omaha riot/lynching was how relatively (I say again, relatively) tame it was. A White mob of thousands with literally hundreds of captive Blacks at their disposal and only one was killed, the one accused of an horrendous crime. More in a future post.

host:  

Host: "I'm...struck by some of the factors in the backlash as described as the economic insecurity of white citizens, white supremacy...the fact that Black people were simply living their lives and that was an affront to...Whites. That ...resonates still in 2021..."

This characterization contains not an iota of truth. This woman is channeling her knowledge of the history of lynching and simply applying to this situation, which is natural and common enough, but I believe she has a responsibility to tell the exhumed truth and not assumed truth, which she did not fulfill. During WW1, there was a mass migrations of millions of Blacks to Northern cities. About a million went to Omaha. The entire city of Brewton, AL, moved to Omaha, every single person. When vets returned from the war they found that the jobs they once had were now filled by migrant Blacks working for lower wages than their White predecessors had. The lynchee, Will Brown, was a strikebreaker. Indeed, the newly declassed, lumpenized, returning vets were embittered--as they should have been--and impoverished by their joblessness. The Blacks are certainly not to blame, they were just doing what was best for themselves as everybody does, but is simply outrageously, racistly inaccurate to say that Blacks "were simply living their lives and that was an affront to Whites." As so often happens, workers of different races are played one against the other to their mutual disadvantage.


Deneen Brown: There was enormous economic envy of Black people who had prospered just years out of slavery..."


Nope. The Black population of Omaha was not particularly prosperous or powerful, as was the case elsewhere. "Just years out of slavery"????? Try 54.


Brown continues: Some of these people were formerly enslaved and they built these towns..."


Fifty-four years, not too many were former slaves, and Blacks most assuredly did not build Omaha.


Brown continues: [She talks about Tulsa where there were  wealthy Blacks due to the oil boom. The Black population of Omaha was not nearly so well off.] [Will Brown] had severe arthritis and could barely walk himself..."


Maybe so, but he was employed at the stockyards. It's not clear in what capacity.


Brown: Many of these massacres were sparked by the false accusation that a Black man had raped a White woman.


False? How does she know that? Is she racist and stupid enough to believe that Black men never rape White women? Is that a joke? Is she really a journalist? I don't know whether WB was guilty, but it is monumentally irresponsible to say that every charge of rape ever made against a Black man is unfounded. And it is disrespectful of those women who were raped however many other cases there may have been when the accusation proved to be untrue. Honor the victims of rape, and if  Brown can't bring herself to do so out of a sense of racial loyalty to the rapists she shouldn't be working for the Washington Post. Like me, D. Brown does not know whether W. Brown was guilty: when a woman claims rape she should be believed until it is certain that she lied. Then and only then should her allegation be dismissed. White women have made false accusations of rape against Black men, and Black men have raped White women. Given their importance, one would think that a "journalist" would accord the issues of gender victimization and race victimization more sobriety. Rather from her we get the tired racist trope of White woman lying about rape. Ms Brown here utterly and disgracefully abandons objectivity and journalistic integrity. Could Loeback have been raped by a Black? Yes, it is not clear why she would have lied under these circumstances as it was of no apparent benefit to her. Could she have lied? Yes, that there doesn't seem to be any motivation for such a deception doesn't mean there wasn't one. A journalists job is to evaluate such incidents in an evenhanded manner, not to cast them in accord with her own squalid prejudices.


Brown: [Will Brown] finally is pulled out of a window and strung up..."


Perhaps not an important detail but hers is the only account of the transfer of WB to the mob having occurred through a window. There is still a debate as to whether Black or White inmates handed him over as the building burned.


Brown: It was a horrible, horrible massacre..."


Does the death of one constitute a massacre?


Brown: [She describes the heroic attempt of the White mayor to save WB in which he too nearly died.} That's the kind of racial hostility and frenzy which consumes Red Summer.


What's remarkable about the Omaha riot is how restrained it was compared to others. A mob of thousands took control of hundreds of Black prisoners and harmed only one. I wonder if Omaha should be called a race riot at all. Other Blacks, about 5,  were accosted around town, but none seriously injured. There were a total of 3 fatalities: two mob were shot by police, and WB. Wow! Think about that, think about the unusual lack of racial hostility and frenzy on the mob's part. This is what has interested me about this case: Their contempt for the accused man didn't spill over into contempt for all Blacks. People need to be driven near mad to go and storm a government building. [There is a lot of background to be known to understand this event properly. Anger had been brewing for some time. WB was just the catalyst.] The mob clearly was not motivated by race, but by outrage over what had been presented to them as a horrible crime. Agnes Loebeck, the alleged victim, was walking with her boyfriend who was in a wheelchair when a Black jumped out and knocked over the chair and raped Loebeck at knifepoint. She contacted the police and told them a Black had raped her. Neither she nor her boyfriend recognized him. The police brought WB to her house and she couldn't be sure it was him, but eventually was persuaded, so it is said, by the police. WB was taken to jail in the courthouse.

That's what the public heard. There is good reason to believe it is erroneous at least to some degree. Nevertheless, the cruelty of tipping over a wheelchair and having to watch helplessly as your fiancé is raped at knifepoint resonated with a town which felt aggrieved by the rising crime rate and the inability of the city gov to slow it. This could easily have turned into a massacre as similar circumstances in other places and times had, but it didn't.

And I'm trying to figure out why.

Cost of Racism to White America

Racebot Watch 2, Imani Perry

 In contrast to the anodyne way in which its advocates present it, Critical Race Theory is just that--race theory. And it is every bit as reactionary and dangerous as it ever was. In American education and culture, we are not given a history but a racestory. I was born sometime during the Eisenhower administration--and that's as specific as I'm going to get--so when I entered the school system the racist mythology of White heroism and supremacy, of the White man's progressive, civilizing mission to the world; that racestory of White benefaction and Black backwardness and dependence, of White angels and Black semi-savages, was what prevailed. I was in school when that script was flipped. The tenor and content of my high school textbooks were quite different from those I knew in grade school. Suddenly, in fact quite suddenly, I was no longer reading of exceptional White virtue (thank goodness!), but exceptional White villainy. As a result of the civil rights movements (while acknowledging other interpretations exist), Jim Crow was giving way to what I call Jim Snow. The racestory, the official, plutocracy-sanctioned, state-mandated line had gone from White angels and Black monsters to White monsters and Black angels. One could not fail to notice the difference. 

 

Racebot Watch 1, Comrade Rhie. Racial Anarcho-Syndicalism?

[Been informed link doesn't work. here's the link un"inserted"  https://player.fm/series/red-library-a-political-education-podcast-for-todays-left/open-veins-of-latin-america. If still not working go to red library player fm page and scroll down to 'open veins...']

Open Veins of Latin America is one of the best pieces of historiography I have ever read. I saw that redlib had a podcast on the book so I listened eagerly. The host introed Comrade Rhie and she described herself as being "as far Left as it gets, I'm an anarcho-syndicalist." I prefer to see myself as an unhyphenated anarchist, but if forced to be more specific then I'll choose syndicalist. So we are both syndies. And I also often use the term "as far as Left gets" when describing myself. Sadly, if anarchism represents the far Left and fascism the Right, then she is nowhere near as far Left as Left gets. Not close. What I heard was distressing in two ways: her head is aburst with race--she is sick with race. She introduces it time and time again where it doesn't pertain. She cannot contain her contempt for White people. We can argue whether racial antipathy is in and of itself racism, what we definitively can say is that it is not anti-racism. CR isn't trying to bring the race war to an end, she's trying to win it. 

Racebots in the Raceworld, a Brief History of the Fascist Origins of Critical Race Theory, by Dr. Henginstein's Monster.

Racebots in the Raceworld, a Brief History of the Fascist Origins of Critical Race Theory,
 by Dr. Henginstein's Monster.

"Give them time."  Adolph Reed Jr., Prophet.

 

[JUST FINISHED THIS AND IT'S TOO LONG. I'V BEEN INVOLVED IN ACTIVISM A LONG TIME AND HAVE DEVELOPED SOME UNORTHODOX AND UNPOPULAR VIEWS ON RACE. THE MOST IMPORTANT BITS ARE IN THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS: 1, 31, 33, 43, 44,  44B, 46, 52, 54, 55, 57, 59, 62, 70, 71, 84, 86, 92, 94, 95, 131, 133, 148, 149, 151, 152, 158, 160, 162, 166, 170, 183, 187, 192, 206. THIS WAS WRITTEN QUICKLY AND INFORMALLY, PLZ DON'T LET THAT PUT YOU OFF.]

[After writing this I discovered  a great piece on Cedric Robinson's Black Marxism. This book is 1) horribly misnamed as it should be called Black Nationalism Contra Marxism, and 2) it's the most reactionary book in the last 50 years, and 3) it's racist to the core. Nevertheless, it is holy writ to many racebots, particularly Black ones. The article is well worth reading. Its authors also appeared on a Midwestern Marxism video which is also worth a look. What I like most about it is the anger. Rage on. https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/the-cult-of-cedric-robinsons-black-marxism-a-proletarian-critique/]

I've decided to write this for two primary reasons: one finds Robin D. G. Kelley everywhere on the "Left" these days. He produces his own books, and he writes many blurbs and introes, and is a ubiquitous guest on podcasts and/or videos and in documentaries. He is the racebot-in-chief. Much of what reaches the public, in regards to race, is filtered through him. Often, I find his interpretations difficult to reconcile with my own. In one of his videos on Walter Rodney, I wondered if Kelley were talking about a different Walter Rodney.[1]

Second, Kelley's essay, "Identity Politics and Class Struggle," is just so bad, so ineffably effing bad, that it cries out for attention. Nearly ever clause set my hair on fire. This is a story which must be untold.

On the Perils of Naive Realism, Race and Science at War again

 https://countercurrents.org/2024/06/on-the-perils-of-naive-realism-race-and-science-at-war-again/

The End of the Great White Bogeyman?

 https://countercurrents.org/2024/01/the-end-of-the-great-white-bogeyman-theory-of-history-have-we-just-witnessed-a-sea-change-in-american-racial-theory/

Your Teacher Lied To You

It has been nothing short of poignant to watch review videos by Black YouTubers as they encounter PragerU's "A Short History of Slavery." I am no fan of PragerU or the host of its video, Candace Owens, as I made clear in a recent essay. However, this presentation is largely accurate, and observing these young Black "influencers" reactions to the facts and point of view presented by Owens as they are disabused of some of America's racial myths has been quite moving and encouraging..

1) Ms. Rogers was wrong.

The host admits to being befuddled and recalls his high school and college teachers.

2) White People are immoral.

3) Never even crossed my mind of anyone who wasn't Black being enslaved in America. I have been in school all my life and I have never even heard of an Irish slave.

4) I had the idea that White people invented slavery. (Unfortunately, this man is a fan of Candace Owens. Maybe some day he will through her.)

5) "Two nations divided by a common language," said Winston Churchill. Two Black Brits say they have been taught that slavery is a White phenomenon. I understood the woman, but I couldn't make out everything the man said. I don't agree with everything they said, but they are bright people and hold an honest discussion.

6) This next video is the one that moved me the most. What stuck out was how ignorant these people are and how intelligent they are. Their ignorance is understandable. They are products of the American school system and have been lied to about race and any number of other topics. Also, it was painful to see the pain on their faces. One of the pillars holding up the house of racism is this idea of collective racial responsibility, which weaponizes guilt. They suffered to learn that their forbears were also to blame for the Transatlantic Slave Trade. They were not responsible, they played no role in it, yet something that happened centuries before their birth hurt them. 

These people are so bright. How quickly, and in my view correctly, they dissected what they had learned. The woman analyzed the appeal of such lies and the man their purpose asking the "who" and "why" questions.