A response only to the word, "sectarian." As a slur, the word is empty -- utterly meaningless.
But it does (or can) have a useful sense: A sect is an organization defined by the ideas it holds. To be sectarian is to focus on ideas in abstraction from actuality. Now, that is not a mere slur because there _are_ contexts in which 'reality' or 'actuality' is impervious to action. In such periods (usually recognizable only in retrospect) in which anti-capitalism and/or the hope to overcome capitalism, has not immediate material ground. Ideas (or, if you will, dogma) keep something alive through the night. That was pretty much my condition from 1990 (collapse of LRS) to 2001, when 9/11 reignited anti-war activity, and with it the hope, however slight, that organized activity might be meaningful. Though we have experienced only defeats in the following years, activity has stumbled along. Isolated ideas, in such a period, are mere egotism. Any serious (anti-capitalist) leftist belongs to _some_ sort of organization; is engaged, however unsuccessfully in organized efforts to change the world. There is no room now for sectarianism. Carrol (Incidentally, I respond only to what appears on the list and rarely if ever click on a link. I don't, for example, have the slightest idea of what was the content of a post from Lou with a subject line referring to "The Left" and affirming that that abstraction "sucks.") The period after 1975 was such a period when _nothing_ leftists could do could make any difference. (Marx recognized such periods; see the opening paragraph on the working day in Capital.) Lou's blog, however, by its name, seems to assume we are still in such a period when there is no Left, when leftists are helpless to affect events, and Marxists can only remain lonely (unrepentant) keepers of The Flame. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Charlie Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 4:44 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Lars Lih and Lenin's April Theses | Louis Proyect Always quick to label someone sectarian, L.P. links to his post that is sectarian to the maximum. He argues by quotations, does nothing to establish that his snippets are not selective, and leaves us devoid of materialist analysis of the economy under tsarism. "The problem in Russia was industrialization. It was obvious by comparison with England, Germany, France, and so on. In 1917 there were three million workers among a population of 145 million. The working class was concentrated in large factories (one thousand workers or more) to a greater degree than the United States. Still, eight out of ten people were peasants, and 30,000 large landowners exploited them. The capitalist class was incapable of leading a revolution against the tsar, hoping instead to win a place alongside the land-based aristocrats in a reformed monarchy. Then industrialization could proceed over a span of fifty years, similar to Japan after the so-called Meiji Restoration. Although a few tsarist officials were of similar mind, notably the police-state expert Peter Stolypin, the regime did not budge. The working class made the 1917 revolution and proceeded to tackle industrialization run by the working class for the benefit of the working people." (The Hollow Colossus, p. 167f.) _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
