Episode 398 of RevolutionZ discusses how a revolution that topples a targeted regime can nonetheless fail to meet its grass roots aims even while celebrating victory. It continues a sequence of episodes aimed to assess Marxism Leninism as an ideology that might or might not usefully guide contemporary revolutionary practice. Having presented Classical Marxism and Leninism in the prior two episodes, this time we look hard at Bolshevik practice in Russia not as an academic exercise, but as a stress test for Marxism-Leninist revolutionary strategy, and for what working-class power is supposed to mean in real workplaces and communities.

We start with a simple problem: if the goal is liberation, what counts as “winning”? Using voices from Volin, Bakunin, Luxemburg, Goldman, Castoriadis, and of course Lenin and Trotsky among others, we track how the 1917 upheaval surged from below and how the Bolsheviks, in the words of their own chroniclers, scrambled to catch up. Then we see how the trajectory  intentionally, self consciously bent until Soviets and factory committees that expressed mass initiative became subordinated, workers’ control was absorbed into centralized state machinery, and even leftist dissent was treated as sabotage rather than feedback.

From militarization of labor and one-man management to the destruction of internal factions, and again in the words of Lenin and Trotsky, the pattern became steadily clearer: discipline replaced solidarity, bureaucracy replaced self-management, and “party dictatorship” was justified as the only path to socialism. The episode finally culminates with the Makhnovist challenge and the Kronstadt rebellion of 1921, where demands for free Soviets, free speech for left currents, and an end to party privilege were met with force and a tightening of repression.

At the close of the Sixties many who participated cared about the Russian Revolution, socialism, anarchism, worker self-management, and particularly the recurring problem of revolutions reproducing hierarchy. Responding to those concerns I wrote What Is To Be Undone, the book which this episode's chapter was excepted from. Some will hear this episode and feel it is too critical. Some others will feel it is too gentle. Is it one, the other, or neither? I hope it will appear as an article shortly to facilitate in depth reactions. People will also feel such emotions, perhaps even more so, about the next two episodes that will assess Leninism and then Classical Marxism in light of this episode's account of Marxist Leninist practice. I hope advocates of the Marxist Leninist ideology will engage with the material, leave comments, and perhaps even write articles in reply. 

Support the show