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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005