Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

July 1, 2019

Lars Lih versus Eric Blanc

Filed under: Jacobin,Kautsky,Lenin — louisproyect @ 7:17 pm

Lars Lih, the master disowns his disciple

In what practically amounts to self-plagiarism, Lars Lih has written now what seems like the tenth article elevating Karl Kautsky’s reputation to heights not seen since the early 20th century before it was permanently damaged by his ideological scabbing on the Russian Revolution. Jacobin, the go-to place for neo-Kautskyism, has just published Lih’s “Karl Kautsky as Architect of the October Revolution”, which is meant as a corrective to his acolyte Eric Blanc’s attempt to consign Bolshevik-type revolutions to the ashbin of history. Ironically, Lih views October 1917 as a vindication of Kautsky’s writings while his disciple Blanc views those same writings as a disinfectant against the unreconstructed Leninism that stubbornly refuses to accept Bernie Sanders as the greatest revolutionary since Eugene V. Debs. In essence, Kautsky serves as a Rorschach test for the two Jacobin authors. Lih sees the image resembling Lenin and Blanc sees it as the anti-Lenin. Of course, before Blanc became so gung-ho on Democratic Party politics, his take might have been closer to Lih’s but why expect him to be consistent? After all, consistency is the hobgoblin of foolish minds.

While Lih himself has never said a word about post-1920s politics, he implicitly takes issue with Blanc’s attempt to replace Lenin with Kautsky as supreme helmsman for the revolution DSA will lead in the glorious future. Very few DSA’ers have ever read Karl Kautsky, let alone Eric Blanc, but among the Jacobin/DSA mandarins Kautsky plays the kind of role that Trotsky played for the sect I belonged to in the 1960s and 70s. If you need an excuse to re-register as a Democrat and pass out campaign brochures for Bernie Sanders, nothing tops citing Kautsky who at least never set up gulags or outlawed abortion.

Blanc’s Jacobin article “Why Kautsky Was Right (and Why You Should Care)” implicitly endorses Kautsky’s 1918 condemnation of the Bolshevik seizure of power in “The Dictatorship of the Proletariat”:

Following Lenin’s arguments in his 1917 pamphlet The State and Revolution, Leninists for decades have hinged their strategy on the need for an insurrection to overthrow the entire parliamentary state and to place all power into the hands of workers’ councils. In contrast, Kautsky argued that the path to anticapitalist rupture in conditions of political democracy passed through the election of a workers’ party to government.

You’ll note how similar this is to what Kautsky wrote in the early 1930s that was collected into a book titled “Social Democracy versus Communism”, long after his anti-Bolshevik stance had calcified into something resembling a Dissent Magazine article by Irving Howe:

There are people who believe that even under a democratic order Labor should utilize the methods of “revolution,” insurrection, the general strike, because, in their opinion, such methods will lead to Socialism more quickly than the casting of ballots, and that in the final analysis the opponents of Socialism in the democratic states will yield only to insurrection and the general strike.

In rejecting democracy, they go so far as to believe that a Socialist minority could achieve power by force in a democratic state. And, finally, they assert that Socialists cannot hope to attain an electoral majority even in countries where Labor represents the greatest number as long as the opponents of Socialism retain control over the economic and intellectual instruments of power.

How odd it is that a young radical like Eric Blanc can mutate ideologically into the Kautsky of the 1930s, probably without even being aware of it. One hopes that he does not lurch even further to the right. Over the past 50 years, I have seen many leftists lose their revolutionary fiber, an occupational hazard of living in the most brutally reactionary state in world history.

The word insurrection occurs repeatedly throughout Blanc’s article, a dirty word that summons up those Trotskyist Neanderthals that are as detached from reality as the eponymous hero of “Morgan: a Suitable Case for Treatment”, a failed artist who spends most of his day either fantasizing about being the leader of a Red Army detachment or a gorilla stomping through the rainforest.

This business about October 1917 being an “insurrection” does not fit into Lih’s schema, namely that Kautsky’s revolutionary tactics guided those of Lenin and all the other Bolshevik leaders toward the seizure of power in a massive socialist revolution based on Soviet democracy. He has made that argument many times in the past and repeats his talking points once again:

Bolshevik hegemony was not the only piece of tactical advice by Kautsky that proved crucial in 1917. In 1909, Kautsky published a small book entitled Road to Power. The Bolsheviks reacted with by now typical enthusiasm. In a glowing book review, Lenin’s closest lieutenant, Grigorii Zinoviev, brought out the book’s wide range of topics as well as its significance as a weapon of the “orthodox” against the “revisionists” — or, in Russia, the Bolsheviks against the Mensheviks.

Obviously, this does not take into account Lenin’s April Theses that broke with the Second International “stagism” found not only in Kautsky’s writings but Lenin’s as well prior to 1917. As I have pointed out a number of times, Lih does not consider the April Theses a breach with Lenin’s earlier writings that advocated a democratic-bourgeois revolution but instead just another example of Kautsky’s deep influence on the Bolsheviks. That Lenin complained about “Kautskyism” seeping into Pravda articles on April 12, 1917 somehow escaped Lih’s attention. What could have prompted Lenin to take up this matter in a letter to J.S. Hanecki and Karl Radek? Alexander Rabinowitch, one of the most authoritative historians of the Russian Revolution, filled in the details:

Beginning with the March 14 issue the central Bolshevik organ swung sharply to the right. Henceforth articles by Kamenev and Stalin advocated limited support for the Provisional Government, rejection of the slogan, “Down with the war,” and an end to disorganizing activities at the front. “While there is no peace,” wrote Kamenev in Pravda on March 15, “the people must remain steadfastly at their posts, answering bullet with bullet and shell with shell.” “The slogan, ‘Down with the war,’ is useless,” echoed Stalin the next day.

If Lih erred in granting Kautsky authority he did not deserve, at least he understood that the word “insurrection” was misplaced when it came to Bolshevism:

In his Jacobin article, Eric Blanc states the following: “Following Lenin’s arguments in his 1917 pamphlet State and Revolution, Leninists for decades have hinged their strategy on the need for an insurrection to overthrow the entire parliamentary state and to place all power into the hands of workers’ councils.” This remark brings together not one, but two, deep-rooted misconceptions about 1917: first, that a clash between two types of democracy — parliamentary vs. soviet — as found in the pages of State and Revolution, had anything to do with the October victory or the politics of the revolutionary year. (State and Revolution was drafted in 1917 but only published in 1918 and it is irrelevant to the events of the previous year.) Second, that the Bolsheviks took power by means of an “insurrection,” “armed uprising,” or whatever.

So, it looks like master and disciple have parted ways. I suspect that Lih had no interest in disassociating himself from Eric Blanc’s Democratic Party politics but in only fending off attempts to drive a wedge between Kautsky and Lenin. For all I know, the fact that Lih worked in Ron Dellums’s office for 6 years might have indicated that he could be just as flexible as Blanc. In an interview conducted by Dario Cankovic in the defunct North Star website, Lih hardly sounded predisposed to the kind of militancy found in the 1970s left: “My own politics—well, I don’t spend too much time thinking about them, because I’m too busy thinking about the early 20th century, you know, so I just characterise my views as vaguely left. Which I think is OK, because that means I’m sort of automatically not partisan and I think that’s good for everybody.” Vaguely left? I quite agree. In fact, the only thing he even begins to sound dead-set on is minimizing Leon Trotsky’s role in the Russian Revolution.

 

 

11 Comments »

  1. How boring.

    Comment by halborn — July 1, 2019 @ 9:16 pm

  2. Halborn, you are getting the boot. I can deal with flame-throwing at least if it has a slight relationship to the post. In your case, it just seems to be a function of not having graduated high school.

    Comment by louisproyect — July 1, 2019 @ 9:30 pm

  3. Good sign of difficulty consolidating the neo-Kautskyist camp at Jacobin which is in the thick of what latest NLR 116/117 calls “America’s New Left.” https://newleftreview.org/issues/II116/articles/dsa-members-america-s-new-left

    Comment by Dayne — July 1, 2019 @ 10:23 pm

  4. Christ, these people make me want to puke. Lih is a minor leaguer in terms of grasping Lenin. Tamás Krausz is the major leaguer. Eric Blanc is strictly sandlot. Lih’s mind is in the early 20th century. Really? And vaguely left? Then why write about revolution at all. Unless underneath it all, you cannot imagine one, which is true of the Jacobin crew and the NYC DSA thought leaders.

    Comment by Michael D Yates — July 1, 2019 @ 11:04 pm

  5. What is often overlooked in understanding the Bolshevik revolution is that due to revolt of the army after the strike waves started by the International Women’s day demonstrations the February revolution was victorious before the workers created the Soviets. When created the Soviets were dominated by the Mensheviks and SR’s with the Bolsheviks and Pravda becoming in essence the left flank of revolutionary democracy. In April Lenin attacks the leadership of the Bolsheviks and Pravda for assisting the compromisers (SR’s & Mensheviks) in expropriating the masses politically for the benefit of the bourgeoisie. Lenin’s thesis was that the proletarian revolution was imminent and what was needed was not a parliamentary republic, not a provisional government, not bourgeois democracy, but only the Soviet of Workers, Soldiers, and Peasant deputies. Furthermore, the proletariat did not seize power in Feb. because the Party was not up to its objective task. The struggle over the next eight months is to win a majority in the Soviets because they fully functioned as the representative of public authority and as such was the organ of dual power with the provisional government. Only when the Bolsheviks established a clear majority in the Soviets could then utilize the combat party and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. Without the primacy of the Soviets and the dual power created the October revolution would have been impossible.

    Comment by Michael Tormey — July 2, 2019 @ 2:10 am

  6. […] Source: Lars Lih versus Eric Blanc | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist […]

    Pingback by Lars Lih versus Eric Blanc | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist – 1848+: The End(s) of History — July 2, 2019 @ 10:30 am

  7. […] Source: Lars Lih versus Eric Blanc | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist […]

    Pingback by  The future will pass to amateurs who can’t figure out this debate… – 1848+: The End(s) of History — July 2, 2019 @ 11:51 am

  8. Suppose, for the sake of simplicity, that you are for an electoral socialist party winning bourgeois elections. How does that map onto the Democratic Party under Jacobin “Kautskyism”?

    A: It doesn’t. Working people are the ones who will lose. Biden and his ilk are Teflon.

    In Washington, DC, where I live, a stupendously corrupt thirty-year Democratic City Council member, Jack Evans–the patron saint of gentrification in Ward 2– has been reprimanded for numerous financial improprieties, some of which may lead to prosecution.

    One of the Hillary-loving social parasites who infest this area was presented with a petition to recall Evans and angrily refused because without Evans on the City Council, per the louse, “we will lose our dog park.”

    Why they’re planning to take away our veggie burgers!

    Is there any real difference from Trump? Well the really big money is in e.g. Georgetown Heights and Kalorama, where the Obamas until recently lived a stone’s throw from Ivanka and Jared (always such fun!), and are still within air-kissing distance of the lovely Jeff Bezos … .

    This is what happens when you trust the Democratic Party.

    Comment by Farans Kalosar — July 2, 2019 @ 11:57 am

  9. To Farans’s point …

    Here in California, “The Democratic Party currently holds supermajorities in both houses of the California State Legislature. The Assembly consists of 61 Democrats and 18 Republicans, with one vacancy, while the Senate is composed of 29 Democrats and 11 Republicans. ” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Legislature)

    SO … with that supermajority, if they really meant what they keep bleating about when it comes to healthcare, they could pass universal healthcare for CA residents today. In fact, back in 2017, there was a Senate Bill 562, introducing a single-payer healthcare system, and DEMOCRAT Assembly Speaker shelved it!

    “Rendon [assembly speaker] announced late Friday afternoon that the bill, Senate Bill 562 by state Sens. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) and Toni Atkins (D-San Diego), would not advance to a policy hearing in his house, making it all but certain the measure will not be acted upon this year.” (https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-single-payer-shelved-20170623-story.html). To my knowledge it was never re-introduced. Instead, they keep saying we need to support ACA, which basically means transferring more of taxpayers’ money to insurance and drug companies, who were the real beneficiaries of the Obamacare ordeal.

    Again, Dems have SUPERmajorities in both houses. They can outlaw private property if they wanted to!

    Dems are worse than useless. In fact, they are highly useful for the capitalist class, or they wouldn’t be around. They actively seek to demoralize and deflate any attempt to provide social justice or a better life for the working people. They suck so bad that even liberal publications can’t understand why they keep shooting themselves in the head. For an example read: “What the Hell is Nancy Pelosi Doing”? (at https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nancy-pelosi-house-democrats_n_5d155cece4b07f6ca57ac4cb)

    Comment by Reza — July 2, 2019 @ 4:52 pm

  10. Is the North Star site not getting rebooted? Last I checked it said the articles were all going to be restored.

    Comment by Ross Wolfe — July 5, 2019 @ 9:18 pm

  11. North Star is defunct. I’ll probably write something about before too long.

    Comment by louisproyect — July 5, 2019 @ 9:29 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: