At 15/07/01 11:36 -0700, you wrote:
> "Remember when you were young?
>From: "Dustin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 1:14 AM
>Subject: [marxist] In need of teacher
>
>
> > I've just recently gotten serious about marxism, discovered that
> > Lenin was a genious, and grasped dialectics. I need someone to debate
> > with and teach me. I want to understand Marx like Lenin did.
I was just reflecting on the sad posts from Alan Freeman, from Leo, and
from Justin and a passage from Lenin came to mind. Then I saw this poignant
post. Perhaps these problems are ones of growth and development and can be
turned round into something more optimistic.
Lenin wrote the passage below in the context of the Party, but with the
amazing network of the internet, "what goes round, comes round" and IMO
there are significant echoes.
"Everyone knows that a certain political figure began in such and such way,
passed through such and such an evolution, behaved in a trying moment in
such and such a way and possesses such and such qualities and,
consequently, *all* party members, knowing all the facts, can elect or
refuse to elect this person to a particular party office. [substitute:
"bother to read their post", "subscribe to their e-mail list", "quote their
book"] ...The 'natural selection' by full publicity, election and universal
control provides the guarantee that, in the last analysis, every political
figure will be 'in the best proper place', will do the work for which he is
best fitted by his capacity and abilities, will feel the effects of his
mistakes on himself, and will prove before all the world his ability to
recognize mistakes and to avoid them."
I certainly do not believe all Lenin's views are applicable to the
beginning of the 21st century, but he wrote in a highly disciplined and
engaged way. Oddly or not so oddly he writings about the attempts to unite
small groups into a party, have some echo currently in the processes by
which small internet circles are breaking down, and people are having to
find a common and constructive way of dealing with issues, including
differences.
I do not think this means sweeping issues of policy under the carpet - it
is inevitable that there will be arguments in unions and elsewhere between
people who think that the other side is left opportunists, while others
think the other side is right opportunist. It is inevitable in academic
life that rough decisions get taken; there is prejudice and there is
unfairness.
It is particularly difficult for left wingers who are often driven into
action by a revulsion against unfairness, to tolerate the fact that
relatively minor or not so minor unfairnesses may be perpetrated on them,
worst of all by people they once thought of as friends or comrades.
Compete honesty is a high standard, but there are coded ways in most
societies for addressing conflict. It is wise to try to find the language
that permits this constructively even at the risk of some hypocrisy in the
emotional intensity with which differences are expressed.
Basically we should be trying to build the ability of civil society to
solve such conflicts non-antagonistically, perhaps through mediation,
perhaps through defining the differences better, and finding temporary ways
of tolerating them, by playing the ball and not the man (or woman).
It is much easier when you are not in the middle of the argument yourself
to think it looks stupid from the outside.No doubt some feel that about
arguments that I have been in. People then stand back for fear of making it
worse, and often that is right. I do not think it shows disrespect to Alan
Freeman or Andrew Kliman that no one has joined in on Alan's post. That
does not necessarily imply total agreement or total opposition, just an
awareness that the issues might best be discussed off list.
I would say one thing though about the academic dispute which may or may
not fit. If what is important is professional and radical integrity, then
both the journal and the individual have an interest in building up
credibility in their own standards whatever the other side does. I note
that RRPE on its web page would like to be judged by high standards of
reviewing articles. Perhaps good practice guidelines could be agreed with
some mediator valued by both, about how this could be above question. But
if the issue is a little different from this, as it may be, then it would
be best that someone other than a court of law could define as
sympathetically as possible what the area of mistrust or lack of confidence
was.
Doubt, rumour, and arbitrariness in forming judgements about other people
will not be eliminated by the socialist revolution. I think we have to work
with these problems in the present among those who should be among the
ranks of the people.
We also cannot avoid the fact that some people may have gone through a
religious, an anarchist, a social democrat, a "Trotskyist" or a "Stalinist"
trajectory to reach where they are now. In fairness even your worst enemy
is better judged by what they say or do than by a label reflecting a
prejudice even though prejudices are sometimes unavoidable.
That almost certainly sounds pious, at least to some. While not weighing in
on either side in the latest disputes among at first sight progressive
people, I think it is important to make some sort of meta observation about
how differences might be handled, because differences will continue to
arise among sincerely committed people. Also the more contradictions that
can be resolved without relying on bourgeois law, the less we need the
cooercive power of the state.The power of the network has to be used
sensitively, but it may help to build, not the single Leninist party, but a
sort of emerging communist society even within the framework of capitalism.
Chris Burford
London
