On the attitude of Marxist Leninists to Mamdani’s "victory" in NYC elections
Unfortunately, the narratives on
the elections in New York city focus on the ideological makeup of Mamdani disregarding the facts that : 1) this election
was not carried out in an underdeveloped or developing countries but in a
bellicose, warmongering aggressive imperialist county in where anti-communism
is a way of life. 2) in a country where fascisation of the state institutions
and population is at its highest speed, 3) in a city that over a million people voted for a “socialist”
candidate, breaking the chains of
anti-communist prejudices. That is a quantitative
vote that the communist parties in most countries could only see in their
dreams.
Lenin had mentioned that it is easy to be a revolutionary when there is revolutionary situation. In this sense, it is not easy to be a revolutionary in the US and those who are socialists deserve our respect. US’s written and unwritten “ laws” applied to the revolutionaries- socialists publicly in order to discourage anyone. Again, in Lenin’s words ‘the domestic policy of a country is the reflection of its foreign policy (or vice a versa) ” . Toppling foreign governments, murdering, assassinating foreign leaders and anyone against their subjugation policy and practices, setting millions of dollars bounty on the head of a sovereign country’s elected leaders are not only the practices of foreign policy. There are so many ways and examples of punishing the students, academicians, and activists domestically from blacklisting the students and academicians to planting cocaine to the car of a revolutionary and imprisoning for years. So, one should not approach the forward steps by the masses in the US especially at a time when fascism is organising in full speed. US is not comparable with any other country in the world and the “general” learned by rote theories applicable to some, cannot be applicable to US as a prescription.
I am one of those who believes
that the revolution and socialism in the
US will probably be the last one in capitalist world after most of the
countries of the world succeed in building socialism. That is why, I believe that the victory of Mamdani is a
step forward no matter how insignificant it will be in political practice. What we are concerned is the gradual change
in laboring people’s perspectives on
Socialism especially in a country like the US. The voter turn out and over a million vote to
someone who claims to be “democratic socialist” is not something to be
downplayed. People learn through experience in a very short time than tens
of years of “theoretical” education. I will not discuss here the obvious, known
facts about the US political system which has gatekeepers at every step
of the way for anyone who crosses the border drawn by the ruling class. I
remember the time of Mario Cuomo”, the
father who actually had socialist tendencies and narratives surpassing that of
Mamdani. As Trump’s presidency has proven one
more time, it is the non-elected bureaucrats who holds the key
positions (hand picked by the finance capital and military industrial
complex) who are decisive in political decisions. The subject matter is not Mamdani, but over a million vote to a “democratic-socialist”
candidate. We are well aware of what “democratic-socialism” means in general
and especially in a country like the US.
It is a common historical practice of the ruling elites to channel the
frustration of the masses to ‘bourgeois solutions”, to bourgeois liberal
leadership in order to prevent them becoming more “radical”; meaning socialist
under Marxist Leninist parties regardless of their deficiencies.
That is why, I will dwell on the
attitude of the ML left on the elections; not as a distracting identity
politics of a “man” but from the point of the “democratic struggle” of
the masses and their self education, self experience “ now” and “later” . They now learned or at least got a hint that if they are organized and active, they can do something about the issues
related to their future. They will – with repetition of similar occasions- learn
at the end that “elections” and “who they elected” cannot change
anything. They will start learning and comprehending that the capitalist system cannot be fixed,
socialism is the real alternative.
Our focus should be more on the
voter turn out and the qualitative change in voting, while stating
the fact and warning the people that under the current system the fundamental
changes they expect cannot be realized. Attitude should not be the same ultra left rhetoric of “ revolution or
nothing” for which especially the US people are not ready aside from the fact that it is a wrong
slogan at the wrong place and time which isolates people from the socialists.
Lets study the ultra-left
attitude to the event deriving from “either al lor nothing”, “either
revolution or nothing” approach. Even if they do not specifically spell
that slogan out, most of the rhetoric and criticism stems from that petty bourgeois
sectarian perspective.
Lenin stated, “It is the ABC
of Marxism that the tactics of the socialist proletariat cannot
be the same both when there is a revolutionary situation and
when there is no revolutionary situation.”(20)
(read
Lenin and Stalin on Revolutionary situation in detail.)
Only those who lack the ABC’s of Marxism can
take a stand based on such utopian argument.
For Marx and Engels, as for Lenin,
socialism is not a state-situation, but a process. "Socialism is not a ready-made system that will be a benefactor to
humanity. Socialism is the class struggle of today's proletariat, which is
advancing from one goal today to another tomorrow for the sake of its
basic purpose..." (1)
The consciousness of individuals,
especially the petty bourgeoisie, who develop outside the social consciousness
formed on concrete and social facts, reflects itself in the slogan of "all or nothing" because it
lacks concrete facts. Idealism – or revisionist, counter-revolutionary
consciousness- because of the illusion it pursues; "immediately"
and "all", it becomes "nothing-ism-nihilism"
that is defended in practical reality.
Marxist-Leninists
determine their practical approach on the basis of concrete facts, that is,
concrete evaluations of the balance of forces at that given existing
conditions, in a quality and form that fits that specific. They never
"generalize" their evaluations of stance to be taken, and especially
they never "sloganize" them.
In Lenin's words, "for those who parrot a slogan without
understanding its meaning, without thinking about it, for those who memorize it
without analyzing its meaning, every slogan is and always will be
"treacherous." (2)
In
every case, "All or Nothing" approach is a slogan that
reflects the characteristic feature of the petty bourgeoisie, who is
short-sighted, one-sided, and does not take into account the real situation.
The slogan of "all or nothing", which closes its eyes to concrete
facts, is an anarchist-Trotskyist approach that hinders the struggle for
the urgent democratic demands that are necessary in concrete situation with the slogan of "action for all or
nothing" without evaluating how effective the action will be or not.
The well-intentioned ones are those who have never understood Marxism-Leninism
and its dialectic, imprisoned in an "all or nothing" future mentality
that results in a hollow romanticism. Their slogan "All or
nothing" is the slogan of despair.
The
utopic baseless approach of” either all or nothing" cannot
see this difference. In this subject Lenin states; " In
politics utopia is a wish that can never come true—neither now nor
afterwards, a wish that is not based on social forces and is not supported by
the growth and development of political, class forces. The less
freedom there is in a country, the scantier the manifestations of open
class struggle and the lower the educational level of the masses, the
more easily political utopias usually arise and the longer they persist.
"(3)
Historical
experience has proven that all revolutions must pass through the path of the
common struggle of different classes under the leadership of the Socialist
party against the common enemy that holds the state institution. And this
struggle is not "in one blow", "in one day", “in one
leap” but a protracted struggle with
zigzags, ups and downs, decline and rise. For this reason, "all or
nothing" leftists are in reality leftists of "nothing ".
"Nothing-ist" leftism will break the masses, regress the struggle, strengthen
the bourgeoisie, or boycott everything and make the masses passive,
especially when there is no realistic possibility of seizing power under
the concrete conditions in which it exists.
Marx
was, of course, the main enemy of the anarchists in the International. His
fight with the anarchists was, first of all, on the basis of how the struggle
for a socialist revolution should be waged. Marx insisted on the necessity of political
struggle within the existing political framework, opposing the anarchists'
rejection of political struggle with their "all or nothing" approach.
"All or nothing" can be the slogan of the specific period when
the subjective and objective conditions of the revolution, the revolutionary
situation are ripe and there is a possibility of success.
This "all or nothing" approach manifested itself in both the "revolution" and "world revolution" theories of Trotsky and the Trotskyists, who borrowed theories from every current, in the revision of Leninism and in their anti-Leninist approach. If and when it comes to the struggle for socialist revolution, it is not possible to find such a generalized slogan as "all or nothing" in Marx, Lenin, and the Bolshevik writings. However, this is a slogan widely used by Trotskyists in different forms.
Trotskyist
Paul Temple revised it as follows;
"But, unlike the bourgeoisie, the proletarian revolution is "all or nothing" – including "the whole world, or nothing", as the defeat of the Russian Revolution at the hands of the Stalinist bureaucracy shows." (4)
James P. Cannon, a famous
follower of Trotsky, who was aware of the effect of ultra-left slogans on the
petty bourgeoisie, said;
"The revolutionary workers' movement is confident, compelling, rigorous to the highest degree, aware that it "holds the future in its hands". It repels all flirtations and semi-commitments. It asks everyone, especially leaders, "All or nothing." (5)
The liquidator Trotsky said the
following;
"Either the complete cessation of mutual criticism, i.e., the complete cessation of the struggle for tendencies in the working class, or the rejection of all joint action." All or nothing!" (6)
In periods when the objective and
subjective conditions of the revolution are immature, even intellectuals who
can make normal logical evaluations, let alone people who know how to apply the
ABCs of Marxism and its dialectic, can easily see the impossibility and
absurdity of this "all or nothing" approach.
This attitude can be taken on
some specific issues. But to use it only to emphasize that reforms are
not the end, that they are the deception of the bourgeoisie and that the
continuity of the revolutionary struggle is nothing more than to prevent one
illusion and to spread another.
"All" expresses an
ultimate goal, it requires a struggle for it. "Nothing" in
practical reality and its result refers to "submission" to
oppression, suppression, exploitation, injustice, and the power targeted by
"all". In other words, the slogan "all or nothing" thrown untimely as a sign of "ultra-leftist"
and "courage" on the basis of petty-bourgeois subjectivity, is, in
practical terms, the slogan of discouragement, escape from struggle and
submission.
Klara Zetkin said the following
about her October "retreat"; "In the face of the Party's
unfulfilled dream of the establishment of a proletarian dictatorship, there is
courage which was shown in the "October Retreat" far more than in
the "All or Nothing" theory of the Party struggle." (7)
Marx and Engels said the following against the Bakunist slogan of "social revolution", “all or nothing" in Spain; "Spain is so backward in industrial terms that there can be no immediate and complete emancipation of the working class. Spain has to go through various stages of development and all obstacles must be eliminated before it can get to that." (8)
As a conclusion, in periods when there
is no revolutionary situation with immature objective and subjective
conditions, the slogan and approach of "all or nothing" is not
revolutionary but counter-revolutionary. It is not a slogan of "all"
but of "nothing". In addition to being an anarchist slogan, when
studied with its dialectical conclusions, it is a slogan based on Trotskyist
counter-revolutionary theories such as; " socialism cannot be built in
one country", "world revolution in one leap", "there is
no revolution without the establishment of a world party", etc.
Marxist-Leninists, as Marx,
Engels, Lenin and Stalin constantly emphasized, see revolution as a long
process and the struggle in this process, especially the democratic
struggle to educate, organize and mobilize the masses, as an integral part
of the class struggle. The "all or nothing" approach is an
anarchist-Trotskyist approach that proposes to skip this democratic struggle and its process.
Marxist-Leninists do not forget the democratic struggle between "all"
and "nothing", they attach importance to it, but in order not
to spread illusion, they emphasize that this and the process are not an end
but a means. “All or nothing” supporters, proceeding from the fact that the
democratic struggle is about "reforms", they reject it as "ultra-leftists".
"Some," says Stalin, "think that Leninism is generally
against reforms, against compromises and agreements. This is completely wrong.
The Bolsheviks know as well as anyone else that in a certain sense there is
"profit in whatever you get", that reforms in general, and
compromises and agreements in particular are necessary and useful under
certain conditions" …"" To a reformist, reforms
are everything, while revolutionary work is something incidental, something
just to talk about, mere eyewash. That is why, with reformist tactics under the
conditions of bourgeois rule, reforms are inevitably transformed into an
instrument for strengthening that rule, an instrument for disintegrating
the revolution... To a revolutionary, on the contrary, the
main thing is revolutionary work and not reforms; to him reforms are a
byproduct of the revolution. That is why, with revolutionary tactics under
the conditions of bourgeois rule, reforms are naturally transformed into an
instrument for disintegrating that rule, into an instrument for
strengthening the revolution, into a strong point for the further
development of the revolutionary movement. "" (9)
Marxist Leninists do not create false consciousness by looking
for theories that are suitable for and
complementing their subjective feelings", Revolutionaries create class
consciousness based on Marxist-Leninist theories. In Lenin's words, the
Anarchist approach is "the subordination of the working class to bourgeois
politics under the guise of the rejection of politics (political
struggle)." (10)
During the years of reaction,
Lenin points out that ; "The present new conditions require
new forms of struggle. …A prolonged effort to educate and organise
the masses of the proletariat becomes particularly important. "(11)
Marx and Engels always said,
rightly ridiculing the mere memorizing and repetition of
"formulas", that at best they are capable only of
marking out general tasks, which are necessarily modifiable by
the concrete economic and political conditions of each
particular period of the historical process. “"(12)
The statements on the part of
deviations to escape from the democratic struggle, have become a habitual
routine losing its random nature, same way the rejection and belittling
of the democratic struggle to bond with the masses have become a
habit. As Engels noted;
"...‘We are Communists’ [the Blanquist Communards wrote in their manifesto], ‘because we want to attain our goal without stopping at intermediate stations, without any compromises, which only postpone the day of victory and prolong the period of slavery.’" (13)
Due to their impatience and/or
escape from the struggle, regardless of the concrete situation, the abstract
slogans such as "revolution now", "either
all or nothing" despite its catchy sounding, does not serve the
interests of working class and its struggle - unless the revolutionary
situation exists. For a " Marxist must take cognizance of real
life, of the true facts of reality. ' "" ... " A
Marxist must not abandon the ground of careful analysis of class relations.” (14)
The confusion is in the
difference between the support and or conciliation in general, and
in particular. In some concrete situation cases, whether negotiated
or not, the support of an ally against the chief enemy carries in
it the protection of immediate, short term interests but
also of the long -term interests. Socialists, "says Lenin,
" support the progressive social classes against the reactionary
classes, … the bureaucracy, the big bourgeoisie against the
reactionary strivings of the petty bourgeoisie. This support does not
presuppose, nor does it call for, any compromise with non-Social-Democratic
programmes and principles—it is support given to an ally against a
particular enemy. Moreover, the Social-Democrats render this support
in order to expedite the fall of the common enemy, but expect
nothing for themselves from these temporary allies, and concede nothing to
them.” (15)
For those opportunists
who reject any tactical alliance for the purpose of any given democratic
struggle on the agenda, again, with ultra-left sounding pretexts like
"supporting bourgeoisie", "tailgating Bourgeoisie" and
choosing to do nothing and thereby, serving the interests of
bourgeoisie indeed, Lenin states following;
" it is our bounden
duty to explain to the proletariat every liberal and democratic
protest, to widen and support it, with the active participation of the
workers,... Those who contemptuously turn up their noses at the
slight importance of some of these conflicts, or at the “hopelessness”
of the attempts to fan them into a general conflagration, do not
realize that all-sided political agitation is a focus in which the vital
interests of political education of the proletariat coincide with
the vital interests of social development as a whole, of the entire
people, that is, of all its democratic elements. It is our
direct duty to concern ourselves with every liberal question, to
determine our Social-Democratic attitude towards it, to help the
proletariat to take an active part in its solution and to accomplish the
solution in its own, proletarian way. Those who refrain from
concerning themselves in this way (whatever their intentions) in
actuality leave the liberals in command, place in their hands the
political education of the workers, and concede the hegemony in the
political struggle to elements which, in the final analysis,
are leaders of bourgeois democracy. " (16)
The question is whether downplay and disregard the movement of
laboring masses by which isolating
yourself from the masses, leave their political education and political
struggle to the bourgeois liberals or not.
Lenin responded to question ; " proletariat must solve in
order to utilize for its own purposes the services of those who have
come from the ranks of the bourgeoisie, in order to gain the victory over
bourgeois intellectual prejudices and influences, in order to weaken
the resistance of the petty-bourgeois environment. " (17)
Looking at the frightening developments
in the US, mobilizing a wide spread anti-fascist, anti– US imperialist front is
becoming the task of the day. That, in reality, has been the main task of the
socialists of the US in order to create subjective conditions which will
complement the objective conditions when the time comes. Without that, revolution in the US will remain to be an infantile utopia for a long time to come. It
is the democratic struggle, educating the masses especially through such
experiences, organizing them under a ML socialist party for the creation of
subjective conditions. US laboring masses will see and experience so many Mamdani
in its future. The question is not “Mamdani” by itself but over a million
laboring masses who seem to have broken the chains of anti-socialist phobia. That
is a plus even despite bourgeois liberal Mamdani who calls himself democratic-socialist.
Lets remind it again; the
subject matter is not any country but the US. General theories cannot be applied as “prescriptions”
without objective study of the concrete conditions and situations, not only
domestically but in direct dialectic connection with world in general.
It may be helpful to quote Lenin
as a conclusion;
“We will not forget, however, that if we want to push someone forward, we must continuously keep our hands on that someone’s shoulders. The party of the proletariat must learn to catch every liberal just at the moment when he is prepared to move forward an inch and make him move forward a yard. If he is obdurate, we will go forward without him and over him.” (18)
"People always have been and they always will be the stupid victims of deceit and self-deception in politics, until they learn behind every kind of moral, religious, political, social phrase, declaration and promise to seek out the interests of this or that class or classes. The partisans of reform and betterment will always be fooled by the defenders of the old régime, until they understand that every old institution, no matter how savage and rotten it may seem, is sustained by the forces of this or that dominant class or classes. And there is only one way to break the resistance of these classes, namely, to find in the very society surrounding us, to find and educate and organize for the struggle, those forces which can – and owing to their social situation must – form a power capable of sweeping away the old and creating the new." (19)
Erdogan A
November 9, 2025
NOTES
(1) Lenin, Conversation
(2) Lenin, Marxist Attitude to
War and the Defence of the Fatherland
(3) Lenin, Two Utopias
(4) Paul Temple, What Are the
Prospects for Socialism?
(5) James P. Cannon, The Struggle
for a Proletarian Party
(6) Leon Trotsky, A Talk with the
Socialist Workers
(7) Clara Zetkin, To the Congress
of the German Communist Party
(8) The International
Workingmen's Association, 1872
(9) Stalin, Foundation and
Concerning Questions of Leninism
(10) Lenin, Anarchism and
Socialism
(11) Lenin, On the Road
(12) Lenin, Letter on Tactics
(13) Lenin, No Compromises? 1920
(14) Lenin, Letter on Tactics
(15) Lenin, The Tasks of the
Russian Social-Democrats
(16) Lenin, Political Agitation and “The Class Point of
View”
(17) Lenin, Incorrect conclusions
from Concrete premises
(18) Lenin, Political Agitation and “The
Class Point of View”
(19) Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism
(20) Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, November 1918
.jpg)
