Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 22:18:34 +0000 (GMT)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Scott=20Hamilton?= <s_h_hamilton-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: Perplexing perplexion



materially speaking, in history, parlements and
> leninists have, taking each
> as a whole, acted in counter-revolutionary ways...
now, i think it is safe to say that we should not
> trust parlements or
> leninists, due to our accumulated material
> experiences of them. 
 
What does 'material experiences' mean here? It seems
to me simply to mean 'real experiences'. If basing
generalisations on this sort of 'material experience'
counts as materialist, then practically every brand of
thought is 'materialist'. Surely this sort of approach
counts more as 'empiricist', rather than materialist.
A materialist approach would see you a) try to relate
the behaviour of Leninists to the behaviour of other
political currents and to social reality as a whole
and b) enquire into the cause of the behaviour of
Leninists, not just make generalisations from what
they have actually done.

You actually sneak in a sliver of a materialist
explanation for the causes of Leninist behaviour into
the following sentence:

"given historical examples, we can also say that
leninists have acted as  petit-bourgeois
revolutionaries initiating capital  accumulation
toward  capitalism wherever they have taken power,
always in  place of a strong  bourgeoisie"

Despite what its first three words say, this
explanation is not based on mere empirical
observation.
We cannot assert it on the basis of history like
Kronstadt and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. It leans
not on the facts of history books but on a complex web
of generalisations about capitalism, class, and
underdevelopment. Mistaking this tangled web for
common sense and historical fact will only lead to the
dogmatism and short-tempered assertiveness that one or
two people on this list have exhibited towards
would-be web-spinners.

A couple of other comments:

"i think one of the reasons we are  seeing fewer and
fewer  leninists, and almost no leninists making any
kind  of headway toward their goals in any meaningful
way"

This statement needs to account for the apparent
recent success of two Trotskyist groups: Partido
Obrero in Argentina and Lutte Ouvriere in France, and
also for the Maoist movement in Nepal, which
apparently now controls one third of the country (this
last example may possibly be assimilated to your
theory about underdevelopment and Leninism, but the
other two certainly cannot).

"does this  mean we should reject  every leninist who
comes along out of hand? of  course not, since history
also shows us (and dialectics tells us) that
leninists are capable of change."

This statement seems to have two possible meanings. On
the one hand, it might mean that Leninists, although
incapable of positive political action as Leninists,
should not be ostrasised, because they can be
converted from Leninism. 

On the other hand, it might mean that people who are
not really Leninists sometimes can call themselves
Leninists, and that these people should not be
excoriated. In either case, it ignores the obvious
fact that many *conscious Leninists in theory and
practice* can undertake positive political actions. I
have seen this with my own eyes over the last six
months. History also shows it, just as surely as
history shows the crimes of Stalin et al. 

You need to come to a reckoning with Zimmerwald as
well as Kronstatdt, if you are to create a real
materialist theory of Leninism.

Cheers
Scott

--- commie00 <commie00-AT-yahoo.com> wrote: > hi thiago
> 
> i think maybe what you and scott are missing what
> some people are saying is
> this:
> 
> materially speaking, in history, parlements and
> leninists have, taking each
> as a whole, acted in counter-revolutionary ways.
> now, this "as a whole" is
> important because it leaves room for understanding
> how certain actions by
> leninists and members of parlements have not been
> counter-revolutionary
> given the complexity of any given situation.
> 
> that is: given historical examples, we can safely
> say that parlements in
> general act on behalf of the ruling class (since
> they are a part of the
> government, which marx understood to be the "general
> council" of the ruling
> class).
> 
> given historical examples, we can also say that
> leninists have acted as
> petit-bourgeois revolutionaries initiating capital
> accumulation toward
> capitalism wherever they have taken power, always in
> place of a strong
> bourgeoisie (i think one of the reasons we are
> seeing fewer and fewer
> leninists, and almost no leninists making any kind
> of headway toward their
> goals in any meaningful way is possibly because they
> have played their their
> part, and are now redundant). leninists also have
> the honor, time and again,
> of participating in the squashing of working class
> self-activity, including
> insurrections.
> 
> now, i think it is safe to say that we should not
> trust parlements or
> leninists, due to our accumulated material
> experiences of them. that is:
> given what has happened in the past, and is
> happening still, it is safe to
> assume that we can not count of parlements or
> leninists to help further the
> communist movement in any direct way, and that, in
> fact, we can prolly count
> of them to stand in its way if they can. does this
> mean we should reject
> every leninist who comes along out of hand? of
> course not, since history
> also shows us (and dialectics tells us) that
> leninists are capable of
> change. does this mean we should reject parlementary
> reforms out of hand? of
> course not, since reforms gained from class struggle
> can have the effect of
> expanding the floor of our cage, enabling further
> prole self-valorization,
> etc.
> 
> hrm... i realize that the lang i've used here might
> seem condescending... i
> don't intend it this way, but given the volitile
> nature of the list lately i
> feel like its important to be a clear as possible.
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list
> aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- 

===="Revolution is not like cricket, not even one day cricket"

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---