>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/15/01 04:46AM >>>
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/12 6:47 PM >>>
In saying what he did about intellectuals bringing socialist consciousness to the
working masses, Lenin did not claim to be stating anything but the obvious, and he
didn't claim to originate the idea.
The significance of this point though is precisely what is getting lost here. If this
point is correct then it has really not that much to do with Leninism, does it? It
would be interesting to know what people DO regard as the essence of Leninism, if
indeed such a thing exists. I think that, while Lenin's thinking on the party
(together with his notions of strategy and tactics) is distinctive, his thinking on
questions of democracy, nationalism, imperialism and the state might be more pertinent
to an appraisal of his contribution. But I agree that the idea of revolutionary
consiousness deriving from the study of marxism is not as remarkable as is sometimes
made out. The question of science and scientism is somewhat more tricky: the
philosophy of science has come a long way in the 20th century and the very idea of
social science, where this is seen as something that is simply objective, does of
course have its dangers.
(((((((((((
CB: I think right from Marx's description of his treatment of political economy LIKE a
natural science ( and in other descriptions of method by Marx and Engels) we see that
Marxism recognizes that social science is a contradiction of an approach like that of
biology, etc. and an approach to human subjectivities and ideologies. See Engels'
letter to Bloch, etc.
_______________________________________________
Crashlist website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
