Blanquism

From Polcompball Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

"Humanity ... is never stationary. Its progressive march leads it to equality. Its regressive march goes back through every stage of privilege to human slavery, the final word of the right to property."

Blanquism is an authoritarian, economically left ideology and revolutionary strategy based on the ideas of Louis Auguste Blanqui. It advocates for revolutionaries to take the most radical line possible, and to never accept compromises in any situation at all. It also believes in the idea that revolutions are dictated by a small minority through careful planning.

Alleged Connections to Lenin and Leninism

Leninism has often been compared to Blanquism, usually by left-wing critics of it. Rosa Luxemburg was one of the first to make the comparison, due to Lenin's vanguardism, and his favoring of highly centralized and repressive governance[1]. Modern-day council communists, libertarian socialists and anarcho-communists also often criticize Leninism as being similar to Blanquism. Lenin himself rejected this comparison, and was heavily critical of Blanquism, as he said, "We have always heard a chorus of accusation that we were too inflexible and ossified, too adamant. And yet our opponents call us “Blanquists”, “anarchists” and “true socialists”. The Blanquists are conspirators (they have never been in favour of the general strike), they exaggerate the importance of revolutionary government"[2] and "To become a power the class-conscious workers must win the majority to their side. As long as no violence is used against the people there is no other road to power. We are not Blanquists, we do not stand for the seizure of power by a minority. We are Marxists, we stand for proletarian class struggle against petty-bourgeois intoxication, against chauvinism-defencism, phrase-mongering and dependence on the bourgeoisie"[3].

History

Comrade Plekhanov published a detailed account in Kurjer, entitled Where is the right?, in which he accuses the so-called Bolsheviks of being “Blanquist”.

Our aim is not to defend the Russian comrades, against whom Comrade Plekhanov aims the batteries of his wisdom and dialectics, as they certainly can do that themselves. But it is true that the question deserves some attention, and may also be of interest to our readers, which is why we have opened a space for it now.

In order to characterize Blanquism, comrade Plekhanov quotes Engels about Blanqui, a French revolutionary of the 1840s whose name ended up baptizing the entire movement. “In your political activity,” says Engels

, “[Blanqui] was basically a ‘man of action. He believed that a well-organized minority, which, at the right moment, attempts a revolutionary sleight of hand, is already able to drag the popular mass along with the first successes and thus make a successful revolution. […] From the fact that Blanqui conceives any revolution as a coup d'état of a small revolutionary minority, the necessity of dictatorship follows after the success – of course, not of the entire revolutionary class of the proletariat, but of the small number of those who carried it out. the coup and which, beforehand, will once again be organized under the dictatorship of one or a few”.

Friedrich Engels, a collaborator of Karl Marx, is undoubtedly a great authority, but whether or not this characterization of Blanqui applies remains an open question. For in 1848 Blanqui need not necessarily assume that his club would remain a “small minority”; on the contrary, in that epoch of a great revolutionary movement he certainly counted on the whole working people – if not in France, at least in Paris – to follow his call to fight against the sneaky and shameful policy of the bourgeois ministry, which tried to “ wrest their conquests away from the people'. But this is not the case, it is the fact that Plekhanov tries to prove that Engels' characterization of Blanqui could be applied to the so-called Bolsheviks (which Comrade Plekhanov now calls a minority, because during the party's unification congress they turned out to be a minority).

Literally he puts it this way: "The whole of this characterization may be fully applied to our present minority." He then confirms his own words this way: “The relationship between Blanquists and the masses was utopian in the sense that they did not understand how important their revolutionary autonomy is. In his plans, in fact, only conspirators participated, the mass appeared only when it was dragged along by the well-organized minority”.

Therefore, Comrade Plekhanov thinks that the Russian Bolshevik comrades (let us stick to the usual expression) are hostages to this “original sin of Blanquism”. In our opinion, Comrade Plekhanov has not substantiated his accusation. Comparison with the Populists, who were actually Blanquists, proves nothing, and the malicious remark that Sheljabov, hero and leader of Narodnaya Volya, would have had a keener political instinct than Lenin, the leader of the Bolsheviks, is too bad. I like that we dwell on it.

We believe that it is enough to put the questions in this way so that everyone who is even a little familiar with the current revolution and who has come into contact with it directly can answer in the negative. Therein lies the whole difference between conditions in the year 1848 in France and those in the Russian state today, because the proportion between the “organized minority” – that is, the party of the proletariat – and the mass has fundamentally changed. In the year 1848, self-styled socialist revolutionaries were making desperate efforts to inoculate these masses with socialist ideas, in order to draw them away from the support of empty bourgeois socialism. Socialism itself was ill-defined, utopian, petty-bourgeois. In Russia, the matter today presents itself differently: neither our putrid progressive democracy, nor the cadet society, nor the tsarist constitutionalists in Russia, nor any other bourgeois “progressive” party in other parts of the state has managed to win over the broad masses. workers. Today, these masses are uniting themselves around the banner of socialism: since the outbreak of the revolution, they have spontaneously and by their own motto followed the red flag. Our own party offers the best proof.

How to draw

Flag of Blanquism
  1. Draw a ball with eyes
  2. Fill it red
  3. Inside it draw a white sword
Color Name HEX RGB
Red #FF0000 255, 0, 0
White #FFFFFF 255, 255, 255


Relationships

Friends

  • State Socialism - Based. In fact, to be able to put in practice socialism, we need to have authoritarianism and have a centralized authority. The LeftUnity and the LibLeft are just naive people.
  • Oligarchy - The best form of government to achieve socialism.
  • Reactionary Socialism - You are WAY TOO religious, decentralized, and culturally right for me, but you are a fellow authoritarian, elitist, and anti-Marxist socialist, so I consider you a comrade!
  • Burmese Way to Socialism - We both have state socialism as an end goal and support coups as a method of takeover.

Frenemies

  • Utopian Socialism - I am technically a form of you, but you're pretty cringe most of the time.
  • Left-Wing Populism - While I appreciate your socialism, you need to realize that ELITISM AND AUTHORITARIANISM ARE NECESSARY TO CREATE SOCIALISM!!
  • Illuminatism - Blf ziv yzhvw, yfg R droo mvevi gifhg blf, zmw ru hlnvlmv nfhg xlmgilo vmgriv xlfmgirvh, vhkvxrzoob Uizmxv, gszg hlnvlmv nfhg yv nv, mlg blf. Mlgsrmt kvihlmzo. (You are based, but I will never trust you, and if someone must control entire countries, especially France, that someone must be me, not you. Nothing personal.)

Enemies

  • Marxism - You are cringe, old idiot. I disagree with you about so many things that I don't even know where to start. And... It should be me that the leftists around the world look upon as a reference person, not you. Damn it!
  • Anarcho-Communism - No coups? No elitism? Class analysis? CRINGE, CRINGE, CRINGE!
  • Populism - Why do you want to be helped by the stupid masses? How can you trust them to do what you want to do politically? They will ruin your plans. I do not understand you. CRINGE!
  • Right-Wing Populism and Islamic Populism - You are right-wing, religious and populist? TRIPLE CRINGE!
  • Populareism - ...You're just pathetic.
  • Ochlocracy - Never trust the masses, ladies and gentlemen.

Further Reading

Wikipedia

Literature

Websites

Citations

Gallery

Navigation