>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/10/01 12:09PM >>>
Rob Schaap:
>
>There was a promising tide of mass revolt afoot when Lenin made his move in
>'17, and I remain to be convinced the Constituent Assembly, if supported by
>Lenin's bolsheviks (sterling contributors up to then it must always be
>remembered), might not have contributed to more sustainable and
>democratic-socialist a political culture than the one bolshevism ushered in.
Aren't you aware that Kerensky plotted with Kornilov to unleash mass murder
against the revolutionary left in the summer of 1917? All under the legal
cover of the Constituent Assembly.
((((((((((
CB: There was a death warrant out for Lenin when he returned to Russia in 1917, so he
had to go in disguise.
(((((((
> If the moment in which we live proves to be a foetal international mass
>revolt, Leninist theory might, for better or worse, have a chance in those
>parts of the world with weak governments, little international significance
>and large proportions of struggling peasants, but none at all in the core
>political economies of 2001. People just ain't what they used to be in
>these parts, and one thing I doubt we're looking for today is yet another
>bunch of vanguard elitists feeding us their gospels from on high. And even
>if Leninism did succeed in taking the moment, Kronstadt would look like a
>lover's tiff compared to what would follow. Revolution is but a means to an
>end, after all, signifying nothing in itself but what hold the manner of its
>execution has over what ensues.
There is no such thing as "Leninist theory". Lenin said that "What is to be
Done" was obsolete not five years after it was written. Within 2 years of
the victory of the 1917 revolution, he was beginning to rethink the
schematic proposals originally adopted by the Comintern as an expression of
"Leninism".
((((((((((
CB: Leninism is said to be the concrete analysis of the concrete situation, but one
shouldn't get too carried away with the idea that Lenin didn't have a theory , or one
might end up a Bernstinian ( the movement is everything. The goal is nothing ) to whom
Lenin, in WITBD, addressed the famous aphorism " Without revolutionary theory , there
can be no revolutionary movement ". Emphasizing the flexibility of Lenin's approach
is important to debunk the widespread slander that Lenin was a dogmatist and "too
rigid", but we various aspects of Lenin's writing can be genaralized to different
degrees. A number one principle in that regard is attention to working class
interests in the class struggle. Adherence to this is not dogma, but rather
recognizing that its importance won't go away until capitalism does.
We are still in state monopoly capitalism , finance capitalism and imperialism, with
some updating. All of that Leninist theory is still valuable.
_Wallstreet_ demonstrates the continuing rule of finance capital, and it is written by
a non-Leninist.
Much of Leninist theory is fresher than most of what has been written since.
Much of what Marx, Engels and Lenin wrote will not become obsolete until capitalism
ends. Valid theory does not become outdated dogma by the mere passage of time, but
only by the actual change of the world and mode of production. Thus, much of the petit
bourgeois left emphasis on Marxism as "dogma" is merely a misleading diversion of the
working class, tending to cause the masses to take their eyes off the prize.
>I'm menshevik enough to suggest that we have to rely a little more on (a) a
>more socialist belief in the capacity of working people collectively to act,
>reflect, learn and decide for themselves, and (b) where the forces of
>production have taken us (no longer necessarily enslaved by dawn-to-dusk
>necessity but closer than ever to irreversible environmental species
>murder/suicide).
You are menshevik enough. In fact you are more than enough.
((((((((((
CB: Menshevik means minority. Bolshevik means majority. The fact that the Mensheviks
accepted the name is evidence of their elitism, since in democracy, the majority
rules. As between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks, the Mensheviks were the ones who
thought the proletarian rank and file should not get involved in politics but leave
that to the petit bourgeois liberals. This was Economism, which Lenin polemicized
against in WITBD, arguing that the workers should not confine themselves to trade
unionism plain and simple.
This is a principle from WITBD that has validity today, by the way. In 2001 in the
U.S. and elsewhere seeking to involve workers in political issues wider than those
from the shopfloor is a main task of Bolsheviks, as in 1903.
>
>And perhaps Leninist enough to believe Lenin would write and do things very
>differently if he were around today.
>
>Cheers,
>Rob.
>
Bugger that. It is up to people like us, not those who would light candles
at his altar.
((((((((((
CB: I am sure Lenin wouldn't want any candles lit, but he would probably admit that we
could still learn from reading his books and revolutionary "memos".
_______________________________________________
Crashlist website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
