Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 01:28:15 -0500 From: lynne engelskirchen <lhengels-AT-igc.org> Subject: Re: BHA: Re: on Bhaskar's politics Thanks Sean for your post. It seems we are asked for reasoned argument and then when it occurs it is marked off list. I have always operated on the assumption that errors in practice could be traced to errors in theory. There is a virtue to this. For one thing it requires theoretical work; for another, historical events used to illustrate do not stand simply as assertions of fact, which may be disputed, but confirm tendential necessities of a way the world is represented and understood. That theory/practice inconsistency should have particular purchase in contemporary philosophy is not hard to understand: capital is through and through a hypocritical relation. But I wonder if it has always engaged philosophical attention. Aristotle talked of weakness of will, which is something different. Anyway, I rely on Hegel too. Howard At 11:39 AM 2/11/01 -0000, you wrote: >On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Andrew Hagen wrote: > >>when examining what Lenin said and did in his life, it's hard to >forget >>all of the political murders he ordered, all the terror he >inflicted, and >>all the ramifications of his actions that were felt by >libertarian forces >>around the world. > >Andrew, I know nothing of the context of your post, having recently >subscribed to the list, apprently at the tail end of a debate over Bhaskar's >politics, and perhaps their relationship to Marxist politics. But it is >decidely odd to see Bhaskar's comments on the theory/practice inconsistency >in Hegel used in this way to attack Lenin's politics. As you put it: > >>Does that sound like Lenin to you [the theory/practice inconsistency]? >He >>thinks one thing, does another, and then justifies his disreputable >> >actions with theory. > >Andrew, the tone of your post recalls the worst excesses of Cold War >anti-Bolshevik historiography. It is sad to see this being imported into CR. >This tradition basically blames Stalinism on Lenin's political practice, >which departed from his stated ideals. There are a number of strands here: > >1. The Bolshevik revolution was a coup, not an uprising validated by the >majority support it commanded amongst the proltariat and peasantry. > >2. Lenin's party was undemocratic from the start of its life, and these >authoritarian principles were inevitably transmitted into post-revolutionary >state practices. > >3. The Bolsheviks' dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, conduct of the >civil war, establishment of the Cheka, and so on, evidence the self-same >anti-democratic principles of Lenin's politics, and their departure from his >professed libertarian ideals. > >4. The logic of Lenin's political practice therefore led inevitably to 'war >communism' and then the consolidation of Stalinism > >Now a range of historical resources since the 1960s (by no means all of them >Marxist-inspired) have cast down each of these myths. > >1. Lenin held back the party from a 'premature uprising' in the 'July Days' >of 1917, precisely because at this stage the party had not a won a majority >of delegates in the soviets to a socialist revolution. Lenin was clear that >the revolution had to have a democratic mandate, and because it did have >this it was virtually bloodless. > >2. Lenin's party was from its inception dogmatic about the need for vigorous >internal debate. Democratic centralism meant collective party debate and >decision-making which having been formulated and ratified was then binding >on individual members. > >3. The dissolution of the CA was seen as necessary because it was >inceasingly compromised with the forces of reaction who wished to destroy >the fledgling soviet-based worker/peasant democracy and who were mobilising >a coup behind its cover. > >4. At the height of the civil war and the White Terror, where the workers' >state was struggling to survive, there were just 100,000 people detained by >the state, a smaller pecentage of the population than in modern Britain. >Under Stalin millions disappeared or were imprisoned. The systematic >degradation of prisoners was not a systematic featue of pre-Stalinist >Russia. The 1924 Corrective Labour Code forbade handcuffing, punishment >cells, solitary confinement, denial of food, keeping prisoners behind bars >during conversations with visitors, etc., and this was by and large upheld, >despite the White Terror and the economic devastation (and fears of >'traitors' in the ranks)it wrought. Prisoners were allowed freedom of speech >and the press. And Lenin himself intervened against arbitrary arrests by the >Cheka. It was Leninist practice, not simply policy, that after the civil war >emergency passed, the Cheka would be disbanded and the prisons emptied of >most of their occupants. > >5. Stalinism was a qualitative break from Leninism, and one which involved >the virtual destruction of the old Bolshevik party. Neither the forcible >collectivisation of the peasantry, nor the denial of trade union and other >rights, nor the radical suppression of the market, nor the introduction of >brutal regimes of capital accumulation, were part of Leninist principle or >practice. War Communism was a function (bitterly lamented by Lenin and other >leading Bolsheviks)of the desperate economic and social straits of Russia >during the civil war. And the extent of the economic and social collapse >cannot be exaggerated; it was truly catastropic, decimating the working >class, halving industrial production, shattering communications, and forcing >the Bolsheviks to adopt hypercentralised control simply to survive, thereby >substituting for the class which made the revolution. > >Andrew, doubtless you might be inclined to say that this is your point. >Lenin's political practice divulged from his socialist principles. But this >was not due to Lenin's 'incoherence'. It was due instead to the material >circumstances in which the revolution unfolded. In the real world of >politics, absolute consistency in terms of correspondence of practice to >ideals, is rarely possible. This does not mean Leninism was always right, >that major mistakes were not made. But such mistakes surely were bound to >occur, given the circumstances. To judge Leninism only in terms of the >question 'did his practice diverge from his theory', without proper regard >to the world outside politics, is idealism pure and simple. > >By ignoring the social and economic context of post-revolutionary Russia, >with which Leninist practice had to engage, you do nothing to develop an >understanding of Lenin's contribution to politics, and offer nothing to a >sober debate over the appropriate political practices of socialism in the >future. Incidentally, this is also Bhaskar's error. He to seems to think >that the experience of 'state socialism in Russia and elsewhere can be >simply read-off from alleged errors in philosophy and theory, without >considering the real messy world in which politics has to engage. > >This diverts attention away from the real issues: What kind of socialism? >What kind of party? Does socialism have to be 'market socialism' or is >democratic planning and the elimination of commodity production still >feasible or desirable? We cannot address these issues until we get to grips >with the real lessons of October. Because, until we do, debate will always >take place on the terrain of the right, which suits opponents of the left, >meaning a wider evaluation of political strategies cannot occur. > >Regards > >Sean > > > > > >w AnSince I am interested in this question, I wonder if Andrew wouldn't >mind reposting that to >_________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005