En relación a Re: [L-I] On Centrism Today.,
el 13 Jan 01, a las 9:05, Louis Proyect dijo:
>
> ... If you are trying to establish
> connections between Economism and centrism, then we disagree. Economism ...
> advocated struggles at the plant-gate level around
> demands that were of immediate interest to the working class. It was an obstacle
> to the consolidation of a nation-wide Marxist movement. Centrism, by and large,
> refers to a current *within* Marxism that emerged after 1917 and which occupies
> a space between the Second International and the Third International. Forces
> opposed to the creation of a Third International, such as the French Socialist
> Party and the German Independent Socialist Party, are classic "centrists".
I would keep a closer eye on this. Economism was dealt with in the only really
important parts of _What is to be done?_, which were not precisely the ones on
organizational issues. In this sense, there is a common root to economism and
centrism IMHO, and this root is what is wrongly defined as "immaturity" of the
working class. In both cases, revolutionary Marxists are dealing with working
classes which either _have not yet_ raised themselves above the crass though
essential level of economic struggle ("tradeunionism") towards the higher level
of full political (thus, in Lou's words, "national") struggle, or either _do
not want to_ do it. Centrism is the expression of the second situation, and in
this sense I do not share Lou's definition below of the MIR in Allende's Chile.
The MIR represented a far higher level of political consciousness, and
addressed a more intrepid audience, than any of the remaining Left parties in
those times. It should be no surprise to anyone that in today's Chile, the MIR
is the only Leftist formation with both some roots in actual people and with no
compromise of any kind with the ruling coalition of "progressives" and
"leftists" so aptly represented by that child of Purgatorium known as Isabel
Allende.
It is my own impression that since on these lists we are seriously attempting
to generate something (what will this be, we still do not know) that helps
restoring the red thread of world revolution after the debacle of the last 25
years, and since our friends the imperialists are doing their best to help us,
we should watch the common kernel of economism and centrism ("Presbyter is
priest writ large"?), and extract the practical consequences thereof.
On another posting, Lou speaks of the beauties in the swamp, ironizing on the
actual things that can be found if we don't think of swamps as metaphores of
the ugly. True enough, and absolutely agreed. Even in the dismal-looking
colonies of crabs at Samborombom Bay in the Province of Buenos Aires there are
beautiful things to watch.
But if we are to stick to Lenin's ideas on this issue, we may go a step further
and say that the most interesting beauty in social life in its full
concreteness, misery and exaltation included, is that the swamp of capitalism
can be transformed into the dry ground of socialism.
Thus, if there is a "centrist swamp", the way out of the swamp (which step must
be taken if we want to do a revolution) towards dry land includes a clear
exposure of the economist roots (in the sense that, in the end, centrist
positions tend to support the statu quo insted of bringing about a revolt).
Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
