>Actually, I suspect that most of those (like Rob) who grossly
>distort Lenin's "theory of the party" have something of an inkling
>of this perspective. That is the principle they are actually operating
>from is that communists, _regardless_ of their appeal to the mass
>movement, should on principle turn over leadership of mass
>organizations to anti-communists. Rob's principle is that if he
>wins, we should go along. If "we" win, he has a divine right to
>threaten us with a split unless we turn the leadership over to
>him.
I have neither the capacity nor the desire to lead anything, Carrol. So
that's most definitely not my principle. And I'd stick with the best chance
at profound progressive change around. Abstract principles are fine things
to talka bout on lists like this, where we're looking for ways of working
together, conditions under which we might do that, and stuff we'd be
prepared to swallow to achieve that effective unity. Right now, I don't
think bolshevism is either promising or necessary. That could change. But
that'd depend on the concrete moment (eg the alternatives on offer and the
state of civil society du jour), not on empty negations like yours, nor on
refusals to countenance perfectly tenable alternative readings of history
(which is not to say I'm not wrong, of course - and saying what ya reckon is
a great way of getting yourself corrected if you're in the right company).
And I'd written:
>The proposition with which Lenin legitimised the substitution of party for
>proletariat was that a spontaneous mass movement must inevitably be
>bourgeois in character - that it needs a kernel of professional
>revolutionaries to guide it if it is to attain its socialist potential.
To which Lou responded:
"This was not what Lenin was talking about. "Professional revolutionaries"
were simply that section of the party that consituted a bulwark against
Czarist repression. Under conditions of clandestinity, such steps were
necessary. In other respects, Lenin's notion of the party was identical to
the German Social Democracy which he pointed to as an example in "What is
to be done"."
Well, Lenin did write the following:
'We have said that there could not have been social democratic consciousness
among the workers. It would have had to be brought to them from without.
The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by
its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness ... The
theory of socialism, however. grew out ofd the philosophical, historical and
economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied
classes, by intellectuals.' (*Works*, vol. 5, p 375)
Which rather ignores the unprecedented level of education and critical
capacity of today's workers, and also seems to me a rather one-sided notion
of praxis.
And to Charles, I suggest the bolsheviks were only a (thin) majority due to
a walk-out on the part of a couple of dissenting socialist organisations.
Finally, to Mark, I need to clarify one point. Yes, I agree with you that
communist revolution would be doomed in one or two peripheral and
undeveloped political economies. And I agree Lenin knew by 1921 that he was
in the business of making the best out of a fatally bad lot. This is rather
a menshevik point, I'd've thought, and certainly one to which I remain wed -
in this one important respect, we live in a moment of richer possibilities
than pertained then. I was referring narrowly to Lenin's practical ideas
about the role and constitution of the party and the particular cross-class
constituencies he had in mind at the time.
And I agree the current order is THE problem as far as a sustainable humanly
habitable planet is concerned. Overthrowing the order would be peachy, but
even a concerted intervention with capitalism's basic directive
('accumulate, accumulate') might do the trick for a decisive while. An
institutional setting that would allow this (although I suspect we had
something like it, had we chosen to exploit it to environmental ends, thirty
years ago) is probably at least as far from where we are and where we're
currently headed as would be a world-wide social revolution. But then, if
we're right on matters social and environmental, we could be in for one of
those Gouldian moments of dramatic punctuation, which have a way of bringing
things distant very close and very quickly.
I'm only trying to bring up some issues in organisation and unity, and long
threads about Red October have a way of losing that focus (not to mention
antagonising potential friends) so I'm out of it now.
Cheers,
Rob.
_______________________________________________
Crashlist website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
