Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 10:54:21 +0100
From: Hugh Rodwell <m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se>
Subject: M-G: Re: Bolshevism and Menshevism on these lists


>I do detect ambivalence on the part of Louis and Doug about whether they
>want marxism-general to be a phoenix or a dead chicken. OK they do not want
>it to be a phoenix but I think they are both canny enough to know that the
>efforts they have put into their new lists, and the initial considerable
>success, may be better ensured by a wider environment conducive to good
>quality lists.

They want it to be a headless chicken that runs around so they can laugh at
it and feel good. Being better than a headless chicken is just about the
degree of competition they can take.

>I have long thought the exchanges between Hugh and Louis P are unduly
>personal on the issue of Bolshevism and Menshevism on these lists, and miss
>the fundamental point.

Personal commitment doesn't invalidate political relevance.

Proyechht doesn't give a toss about revolution or building an organization
to bring it about, except in as far as he's passionately commited to
hindering it. His politics are not based on Marxist principle but on
individual purposes of his own, which is why I hardly ever bother to engage
him any more. Occasional clarifications of principle are sufficient, plus a
political practice totally opposed to the disorganized, petty-bourgeois
self-aggrandizement he epitomizes.


>I do not see it is a point of issue that some
>posters such as myself must be in the eyes of other, menshevik. I am a paid
>up member of Democratic Left which exerts no organisational discipline over
>me except what I choose to accept myself, which is not to rubbish it, and
>does not accept democratic centralism. What is the point of arguing about
>it?

Because it is a model for political *action* that will get nowhere. It's
passive, reacts after the event (if at all) and encourages feel-good
clique-building.

>We are in a network. Networks are not conducive to democratic centralism.
>In that sense they are not Bolshevik. BUT the evidence is that over the
>months and years there are merciless to inconsistent and opportunist
>argumentation. In that sense they are not menshivik.

Some networks (Proyechht's and Henwood's new toys) embody inconsistency and
opportunism, the only thing they are merciless about is consistent
revolutionary priniciple. Mention October and you're out.


>The "Bolsheviks" on these lists have by definition made the enormous
>compromise that they will exchange with other Bolsheviks from the same
>country even though it was a principle of the Third International to have
>only one Bolshevik Party for each country. They have therefore accepted the
>idea of a network. I have no objection to how much internal discipline they
>carry out within their organisation.

The Third International (before Stalin disembowelled it) had the full
authority of October. There is no such generally acknowledged international
leadership today. Such a leadership must be built, and this will happen in
connection with both existing parties and with large-scale mobilizations of
working-class and poor people. And anyway, politics comes before
organization, so occasional overlaps will always happen.

>What we are developing in fact is also something wider. All good discipline
>anyway is conscious self-discipline. Each of us whether as individuals or
>members of an organisation knows that our conduct may be judged by others
>for the degree of responsibility and creativity at any time.

Expressing this in political terms, it says that democratic centralism
works best when party discipline is rooted in the deep personal commitment
and revolutionary consciousness of each member. That's the point of a
vanguard party. Those who are most committed and most conscious seek
membership because it is the best way to make the most of their individual
revolutionary contributions. Such militants are not Stalinist hacks or
spineless yes-men, as in the Proyechht caricature.

>I am very much against a dogmatic interpretation of marxism, but what,
>Louis P asks, is the purpose of being on a list with sectarians?

He should know. He's the most consummate sectarian around, under the banner
of "anti-sectarianism".

>People with sectarian
>tendencies often know their texts well

Just which Marxist texts does Proyechht know well? What he knows is the
glib rhetoric of the political putdown. He's trained in party infighting
and the compilation of ad hoc study material. He is totally at the mercy of
whatever "party" he ends up in and whatever leadership asks him to provide
study materials.

>and can be challenged as to the
>relevance of their ideas to practice.

They can be exposed (limiting any damage they might cause to others) but
they won't be influenced until they drop the sectarian approach.

Cheers,

Hugh




     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---