At 10:11 12/12/00 -0500, you wrote:
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/12/00 08:58AM >>>
>Deep ecologists and Marxists share one fundamental premise. We might build
>on that.
>
>Both of us begin by rejecting compartmentalized, mechanistic science.
>
>I posted earlier about the shortcomings of Marxists with their faith in the
>industrial teleology of capitalism, socialism, communism. We can go back
>and say, okay, we didn't take this into account. That's our weakness. Our
>strength, especially of those who might be called Leninists, is a theory of
>political struggle. We have a pretty good idea of how to take power.
>
>(((((((((((
>
>CB: With due respect, Stan, ( and sad self-criticism) , Lenin had a good
>idea of how to take power, as have other Leninists such as Ho Che Minh,
>but some of us Leninists are not living up to the name. But maybe we can
>make a comeback.
Lenin was very shrewd at appraising the balance of power.
The fundamental weakness of his model nowadays is that his one single
correct Bolshevik party per state, does not effectively address modern
politics in an advanced overripe bourgeois democracy in which interest
groups and ideas are pluralistic.
Without succumbing to it, Leninist politics have to address the challenge
of post-modernism. It needs networks in which as many individuals play
their part in contributing to the vanguard, but without there being one
single vanguard. Networks are not best built by a relentless battle against
the forces of Menshevism but they do require a more pervasive inhibition of
opportunist politics whether of the left or the right.
Chris Burford
London
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
