Rediscovering Lenin

Phil Gasper writes on Rediscovering Lenin.

Gaspar argues that Lenin was not an elist as portrayed in Western propaganda, rejects the two (2) arguments raised by leftist critics of Leninist parties:

The first argument is that Leninism has always been undemocratic and elitist. The second argument is that it is implausible to think that the experience of Lenin and the Bolshevik Party that he led to power in the Russian Revolution of 1917 has any relevance for anti-capitalists today operating in completely different circumstances.

Gaspar argues that Lenin saw:

… the whole point of a revolutionary party was to prepare the way for revolution. Historical forces might present the opportunity for revolutionary change, but without active organisation and intervention, the ability to influence a mass movement during a period of intense crisis, and an understanding of when to advance and when to retreat, the moment would be lost. More than that, socialists would have to spend years patiently engaging in smaller struggles, both to learn how to lead as individuals and to build a party with the capacity to lead a successful revolution in the future.

The core tenet of the Leninist theory of the party is:

…the principle of democratic centralism, which he summed up as “freedom of discussion, unity of action”. Lenin argued for the need to “work tirelessly … to see to it that all the higher-standing bodies are elected, accountable and subject to recall”.

Gaspar concludes that:

The bottom line is that revolutionary organisations today need to draw on the most democratic elements of Lenin’s legacy, and where necessary to create new structures and processes of their own. Democratic centralism requires not just formal democracy before unity in action, but a culture of debate and discussion, where those in the minority can express their views fully.