File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1996/96-12-08.085, message 41


Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 10:36:23 +0000
From: m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Hugh Rodwell)
Subject: M-I: Re: M-G: La porta si apre di dentro - Jon F and Adam R


Vladimir B wrote on M-G:

>I must admit I do not understand the concept of the "crisis of leadership."
>Its relation to classical Marxist understanding of historical change is not
>clear to me. Does it actually explain anything or is itself in need of
>explanation?  Perhaps, my question is naive. But let me ask it: if the
>leadership of a communist party is bad and even treacherous, why the rank
>and file don't overthrow and replace it? How come that the people who
>intend a revolutionary transformation of the entire world fail to make
>a revolution of a rather modest scope, one within their own party? And
>why do the workers tolerate the corrupt, indeed, anti-labor leadership of their
>unions? Or to give another example of what I am aiming at by questioning the
>concept of leadership and its crisis. Robert Malecki has recently wrote an
>open letter to the Communist Party of Cuba with the advice to change the
>bad leadership and the entire political course.  Let say his letter has
>convinced the Party to follow this advice. Castro goes to retirement,
>Robert takes his place and invites you and other revolutionary marxists to
>lead the Cubam masses.  What would happen then, with good leadership? My
>feeling:
>nothing different will happen *at the very best.* And not only because of
>objective external conditions but because the Cuban working class and
>society as
>a whole had nothing to do with this change on the top.


This is the central question. I'll be replying, but it'd be great to hear
>from everybody on this one!

Cheers,

Hugh




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


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005