BTW, I can see no reason why Lenin's work should be idolized. After all, his
main achievement in practice -- leading the Boshevik revolution -- was, in
the end, basically a failure. The failure wasn't totally his fault, of
course, but neither does he deserve all the credit for revolution. (The
soviets workers, peasants, and soldiers had something to do with the
latter.)
^^^^^^^^
CB: In what sense do you mean "failure" here ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cf. Enrico Berlinguer in his speech to the Italian Commubist Party after the
suppression of Solidarity in Poland in '82. This account below says it was the
Afghan intervention. I read the report by Berlinguer in college. The Bertrand
Russell Peace Foundation of Ken Coates (from Socialist Register) reprinted it.
http://www.search.org.au/news/sovunion1.htm
>...he major break with the CPSU occurred after the 1979 invasion of
Afghanistan. In 1982 Berlinguer declared that the October revolution had
"exhausted its propulsive force". Until this period, Soviet subsidies continued
to go to the PCI. In 1972 it was over US$5m, in 1976, it was US$6.5m. From the
early 1980s subsidies were channelled to the pro-Soviet wing led by Cossutta,
partly to finance the pro-Soviet newspaper Paese Sera.
4/24/02 11:00:43 AM, Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> dem. cent. & Venezuela
>by Devine, James
>23 April 2002 21:06 UTC
>
>
>... Explaining why I described the idea of "democratic centralism" as coming
>from the "Marxist" tradition rather than from "Leninism," I wrote: >> It's
>from Lenin, but much of what's been written on "democratic centralism" comes
>from his epigones (Stalinists, Trotskyists, etc.), who are within the broad
>tradition of Marxism. A lot of it also came from Kautsky, from whom Lenin
>learned his stuff (see WHAT IS TO BE DONE?) <<
>
>> CB: Epigones are ? Are followers of Hal Draper his epigones ?<
>
>Of course, while being an epigone isn't always a bad thing. Some of Draper's
>best work (his multi-volume book, KARL MARX'S THEORY OF REVOLUTION) is
>totally epigonic, i.e., involving lots and lots of quotes from Marx. (In
>fact, Draper tries to dig up _all_ quotes by Marx on any given subject.)
>
>Note that I'm referring to the _idea_ (or ideal) of "democratic centralism"
>here. The usual practice of "democratic centralism," i.e., bureaucratic
>centralism, has been practiced by governments and private corporations for
>centuries. The basic idea of the Vatican's system of organization is
>bureaucratic centralism.
>
>^^^^^^^
>
>CB: When you use "epigone" to refer to Lenin's followers it seems to be a
negative epithet.
>
>^^^^^
>
>I said:>> The phrase "Leninist theory" is quite ambiguous since it is a
>contested theory (even more than Marxist theory), with Lenin's epigones
>fighting over it. Even Lenin himself did not follow a consistent theory all
>through his career (see, for example, Tony Cliff's multi-volume book on
>Lenin [another bunch of epigonic quotes, BTW]). It's unclear that such a
>dynamically changing vision can or should be distilled into an "ism." <<
>
>>CB: It wasn't so ambiguous to Lenin that it prevented him from taking
>definite and effective action. This is a key principle of both Marx and
>Lenin: not to get caught up in academic style "ambiguities" so as to fail to
>unite theory with action. <
>
>The ambiguities aren't "academic": they can be found in Lenin's written work
>itself. The problem is that the nature of the "definite and effective
>action" that Lenin would have taken changed several times in his career, at
>least given the way his position changed on paper.
>
>(BTW, I don't see why ambiguities are "academic." Are you saying that the
>law has no ambiguities?)
>
>^^^^^^^^
>
>CB: The best way to discuss this issue is for you to bring here which parts of
Lenin's work you think are ambiguous.
>
>I would say the comparison with the law is a good way to make the point I am
making. A significant difference between the law and most other academic
subjects is that the law places much more emphasis on the unity between its
theory and practice than most other academic social scientific fields.
>
>The greater emphasis on practice is reflected in one of the specific ways that
the law deals with ambiguities. This is the subject of statutory construction.
If a party asserts that some statutory language is ambiguous, the process is
that the parties argue for one side of the ambiguity or the other based on
principles of statutory construction, and then the judge decides. The result is
always that the statute is interpreted as not ambiguous, and to have the
meaning of one side of the ambiguities or the other.
>
>The point is that when there is more emphasis on action and practice than in
the typical academic situation, there is more emphasis on resolving
ambiguities, because ambiguity paralyzes action.
>
>Another legal concept can help here: presumptions. Presumptions are basically
"being certain for now". Unless evidence rebuts the presumption it is
"presumed" to be true ( based on accumulated experience , i.e. it is a
posteriori, not a priori) and acted upon with "certainty" of its truth. A
presumption allows action in the face of "ambiguity".
>
>^^^^^^^
>
>BTW, I can see no reason why Lenin's work should be idolized. After all, his
>main achievement in practice -- leading the Boshevik revolution -- was, in
>the end, basically a failure. The failure wasn't totally his fault, of
>course, but neither does he deserve all the credit for revolution. (The
>soviets workers, peasants, and soldiers had something to do with the
>latter.)
>
>
>^^^^^^^^
>
>CB: In what sense do you mean "failure" here ?
>
>Marx was also a failure , no ? Why would Hal Draper spend so much time
quoting Marx, when he was a failure ?
>
>In fact, has there ever been a "success" in human history in the sense of the
opposite of failure that you use it ? Name a success in human history.
>
>^^^^^
>
>CB:>Actually, compared with most other theories in this area, Lenin's is
>relatively unambiguous. And certainly in the spirit of Leninism, it would
>be out of character to emphasize any ambiguities so as to reach the
>conclusion that there is just too much uncertainty about Lenin's ideas and
>theory that it cannot serve as a guide to our action.<
>
>so the "spirit of Leninism" (a contested phrase, one that could be
>Stalinist, Trotskyist, or whatever) is to shelve all doubts, to cling to
>simplistic analyses, to think with one's blood?
>
>^^^^^^^
>
>CB: Please point to where I said the spirit of Leninism is to shelve all
doubts, to cling to
>simplistic analyses, to think with one's blood?
>
> I said, " in the spirit of Leninism, it would
>be out of character to emphasize any ambiguities so as to reach the
>conclusion that there is just too much uncertainty about Lenin's ideas and
>theory that it cannot serve as a guide to our action. "
>
>^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>CB:>The development in Lenin's thinking might be your overlooking that he is
>very concrete, so as things develop, he develops.<
>
>Of course. So does everyone else.
>
>^^^^^^^
>CB: I would say that not "everyone else" is as concrete as Lenin in approach.
Some people do not develop in their thinking.
>
>^^^^^
>
>
> The Lenin of 1917 was different from the
>Lenin of 1905 and from the one who later was in favor of repressing the
>Kronstadt revolt. It's been my contention for quite a while that Lenin was
>in many ways a "dependent variable," someone who was produced by his time
>more than he produced it. Both self-styled Leninists and anti-Leninists miss
>this.
>
>^^^^^^^^
>
>CB: Most Leninists follow the general principle of historical materialism that
"big men", including Lenin or Marx, don't make history, classes do, agreeing
with the principle you state here. So, who are you referring to here ?. On
the other hand, Marx's approach is that important individuals can speed or slow
the pace of historical development, so Lenin, it might be said , had this
impact of speeding up.
>
>
>I wrote:>>In retrospect, it was a major mistake by 20th century
>revolutionary leftists to attach too much prestige to any single individual,
>including Lenin. <<
>
>>CB: I don't see any proof put forth here to support the proposition that
>Lenin shouldn't have the prestige he has.<
>
>the failure of the Bolshevik Revolution seems enough proof.
>
>
>^^^^^
>
>CB: The Bolshevik led Revolution was a success.
>
>^^^^^
>
>
>BTW, I wasn't "proving" anything. Do you present "proofs" every time you say
>something in an e-mail?? I noticed awhile back that you wanted statistical
>evidence for my critique of bureaucratic-centralist political parties. This
>reminds me of my father. He liked to lecture us kids, and argue with us:
>when we agreed with his line, he would praise us, while if we disagreed, he
>asked for footnotes. (Trained by Jesuits, he was.)
>
>
>^^^^^^^
>
>CB: " Proof" means argument, statements supported by arguments. This is one of
the main things that goes on on these email lists, especially in disagreements.
Everybody, including you, makes arguments on email, which is the same thing as
offering proofs for your claims.
>
>The closer analogy would be that you are like your Dad in that you were giving
a lecture to the "kids" on bureaucracy, and I ( one of the "kids") asked you to
produce evidence in support of one of your assertions concering bureaucracy. In
fact, at one point you referred me to some books and articles (footnotes) on
bureaucracy.
>
>^^^^^^^^
>
>
>I wrote:>>(It was probably a mistake to do this to Marx, too. The poor old
>guy must roll in his grave every time his name is invoked.)<<
>
>CB:>I very much doubt that Marx would be upset that he has had so much
>influence after his death if he could know it. He certainly spent a lot of
>time developing a very distinct point of view, and he was very picky about
>criticizing pretty much everybody else except Engels. So, the modesty you
>suggest doesn't immediately square with much of his style and personality.<
>
>All sorts of horrible people, such as Pol Pot, have claimed Marx's banner.
>That seems sufficient to make Marx wince. Remember that during his own
>lifetime, he rejected the idea of "Marxism," by saying he wasn't a
>"Marxist."
>
>^^^^^^^
>
>CB: Pol Pot is one time not "every time" Marx's name is invoked. There are
many times when Marx's name has been invoked when he probably would approve.
>
>I interpret the quote "I am not a Marxist" as witty and as having narrow
application to some specific people , and not that Marx rejected his own
theory. This certainly seems to be the way Engels interprets it.
>
>^^^^^
>
>I wrote:>>"Democratic centralism" has always referred to a mode of party
>organization, not to a mode of analysis. You can stretch the meaning of this
>phrase if you want to (as academics so often do), but it makes it incoherent
>to me and to most other people.<<
>
>>CB: A key thing about the Party and party democracy (the "democratic" in
>democratic centralism) is that it be closely connected with the masses. You
>can't be democratic if you are not connected to the masses. The
>"democratic" in democratic centralism must be the extensive connections
>between the masses and its leaders in the Party.
>
>>It's incoherent to you because you have an idea that practictioners of it
>have not been connected to the masses. If you don't get the emphasis on
>connection between the party and the masses, then you don't understand the
>"democratic" in democratic centralist theory.<
>
>It's true that the measing of words is typically pretty arbitrary. So if you
>want to use the word "democratic" in that way, we're talking about two
>completely different things. (I was talking about democracy within the
>party, whereas you're talking about a party's relationship with the
>"masses.")
>
>
>^^^^^^^
>
>CB: I'm not sure in what sense you mean that the meaning of words is typically
pretty arbitrary. "Democratic" usually means popular sovereignty as opposed to
dictatorship.
>
>If "democracy" is confined to the petty democracy of the small minority of the
population that is in the Party, then it is not worth much. The decisions of
the Party must be based on the experience of the masses of the population as
well as the theory of the leaders in the Party. And I don't agree that
Communist Parties have completely failed at this process, though there have
been failures.
>
>^^^^
>
>
>I wrote:>> I didn't say "politically unconcious." In fact, I put the word
>"spontaneity" in quotes for a reason, because "spontaneity" is a vague and
>confusing concept. Rather, what I was saying was that much of the opposition
>to the coup came _from below_ (based on the short- and long-term class and
>national interests of those participating) rather than being orchestrated by
>the Bolivarist or any other organization.<<
>
>> CB: You assume the Party is "above" the masses.<
>
>Most self-styled "democratic centralist" parties _see themselves_ in this
>way. This is the tradition of the Kautsky-Lenin story in WHAT IS TO BE DONE?
>in which socialist consciousness among the "masses" must come "from above"
>or "from the outside" from the intellectuals of the Party. I haven't seen
>very many "Leninist" parties that hope to learn from the "masses" (or to
>treat them as peers) or emphasize the importance of democratic
>self-organization by the "masses." (Some Trotskyist parties go with the
>latter.)
>
>^^^^^
>
>CB: My impression is that the Bolivarians see themselves as from and with the
masses, especially the poor, not above them. The idea is of leaders who are
integrated with the masses, yet still lead. Democratic centralism is a
contradiction or a method for dealing with a contradiction: The need for unity
and leadership for successful struggle against an antagonistic opponent, the
capitalists, yet the need for empowerment of the masses as individuals as a
primary goal of the whole revolutionary movement. This contradiction arises in
any democratic effort, as perhaps you allude to in saying that the "democratic
centralist" ideal has a long history.
>
>I have "seen" many Leninist parties putting a lot of emphasis and effort into
democratic self-organization of the masses. In Russia, this was in the form of
the soviets, and in emphasis on recruitment from the working classes into the
Party. I agree that there have been failures, but I disagree that there have
not been great successes in this regard.
>
>
>CB:>If the Party is with the masses then it participates in the movement
>from "below". However, the point on consciousness is that the events of
>April 13 most likely did not happen without preparation of the consciousness
>of the masses by its political leaders in the Bolivarian movement. This is
>precisely conscious revolt and not spontaneous in the senses that Lenin
>discusses the issue in _What is to be done ?_ We already have prior
>information about this issue of raising mass consciousness in Venezuela from
>the repeated landslide election victories of the Bolivarian movement. The
>brilliant actions of the masses in reversing the coup were the result of
>this ongoing process of consciousness raising, no doubt, probably very
>unspontaneous. The whole situation bespeaks a very democratic centralist
>relationship between massses and leaders.<
>
>I would like to hear more information about this.
>
>
>^^^^^^^
>
>CB: I would too. Maybe Michael Pugliese can google "Bolivarian Circles" for
us.
>
>^^^^^
>
>
>gotta go...
>
>JD
>
>
>
