In a message dated 7/12/2010 11:11:52 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, _cb31...@gmail.com_ (mailto:cb31...@gmail.com) writes: In the context of _What is to be done_, I think Lenin's "revolutionary theory" is a synonym for Marxism. More specifcally, a revolutionary movement had to be based on a concrete assessment of the classes and class struggle, relative strengths and levels of class consciousness in 1903 Russia. So, Lenin's reference to theory is not so "sexy" there. Comment Sure, but this pretty general. One cannot effectively combat and/or defeat their class opponent based on a general theory. A concrete assessment of contending forces means formulating a line of march and doctrine of combat. In China the theory of "political revolution" or insurrection was based on a military doctrine of standing armies, winning the peasant masses to the cause of revolution and against imperial control of China. In Russia the doctrine of political revolution - insurrection, was based on "the party of a new type" rather than building an army. In America we are discovering the form of our third political revolution. Mao’s theory of political revolution had more to do with doctrines dealing with the art of war, rather than anything specific to Marxism. Actually, Lenin’s concept of a "party of a new type" has more to do with doctrine of insurrection, than anything specific to the writings of Marx, although Engels calls insurrection an art. We - where I grew up, say "science knows" and "doctrine does." Marxism as the study of the science of society change - in general, is different from that aspect of Marxism focused on doctrine of combat. WL.
_______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
