Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:23:03 -0600 (CST)
From: Timothy A Dayton <tadayton-AT-ksu.edu>
Subject: Re: BHA: Re: on Bhaskar's politics


     Andrew's objection to Lenin's practice in some ways (though not in
its invocation of existentialism) seems to be like Kautsky's: the
situation was such that willy-nilly the bolsheviks will be forced to take
strongly anti-democratic measures simply because of the relative
backwardness of the Russian economy and society that they inherited. By
substituting themselves for a capitalist class as the leading social force
behind industrialization, the bolsheviks condemned themselves to be
oppressors. It seems to me that there is some truth here: the
transformations necessary were going to be to a greater or lesser degree
ugly. But I don't think the points of validity here justify the
"straight-line" theory at all.
     Related to this is one thing Andrew seems determined to avoid: the
point that the situation in Russia in 1917 was such that if Lenin and the
bolsheviks did not accept the responsibility of power, then the
alternatives were incredibly bleak. And this initial situation kept
reproducing itself in different ways right up to the end of the civil war.
"Existential freedom" does not, in my opinion, speak to this point
effectively.
    As to Hegel, one may criticize him aplenty, no doubt. Hell, anyone who
writes that much is going to left wide open on more flanks than you can
count. Still, go back and read him. It is difficult not to be
impressed. The most recent thing by him that I've read or re-read is the
Aesthetics.  Still well worth reading, in my opinion.  
    Now, if I can just find that opening under the woodwork [sounds of 
scuttling legs on linoleum].
Tim

Tim Dayton
English Department
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506-0701



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---