Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 13:31:16 -0800 From: Mark Jones <Jones_M-AT-netcomuk.co.uk> Subject: M-I: "Godena Thought" on Lenin It is a nice sunny globally-warmed winter's day so I'm taking the cat for a walk in a minute. A minute is long enough to encapsulate Thoughts in askerisks: Hitler's rise to power was *NOT* a result of the existence of the Soviet Union. The October Rising was *NOT* a minority affair led by putschists. Dimitrov did *NOT* argue such a thing. The word "fundament" *is* a synonym of "bottom". Lenin did *NOT* seek personal power. *All* politicians do *NOT* lie, double-deal and worse. Hope that isn't too lumpen gangsterish. I am happy to seriously debate the issues if the moderator first proscribes asterisks. Sororally, Asterix the Gaul Louis R Godena wrote: > You write: > > >I think Pipes and Carr are worlds apart, even though there opinions may > >converge > >on the question of Trotsky or Buhkarin. Carr was a serious scholar, > >about the > >best that the bourgeoisie can produce. Pipes is an ideologue, who's > >work is > >much cherished by the most rabid reactionaries; Carr is out of print, > >probably > >because he's a bit too sympathetic. > > Well, Carr is not out of print, though you have to go to Macmillan (London) > to get his magisterial *History of Soviet Russia*. There is another > difference. Carr always wrote for commercial publishers; his work depended > on widespread public acceptance to remain in print. Practically everything > Pipes has written has come to us through the agency of a university press, > the standards of which do not rest on strong commercial sales. > > As for their similarities, I've already given you a number of citations. > Have you read Pipes? > > >This is really wrong: Nazism justified itself as defending Western > >civilization > >against the Communist, asiatic horde, and here you're saying they had a > >point. > >Fascism was stongest in Italy and Germany because those countries had > >experienced > >powerful revolutionary waves that nearly toppled the old order. The > >roots of the > >Nazis where in the freikorps, who fought German communists long before > >they fought > >Russian ones. Look, I *know* you're not anit-Lenin or anti-Communist, > >but sometimes > >you say things that clearly converge with reaction; it seems to be more > >deliberately > >provocative than iconoclastic. > > Agreed. This is exactly what I'm saying. The ferocious character of the > Nazi holocaust against the Jews, the working class and the Communists may > not have directly stemmed from capital's fear of the Soviet Union, but the > very fact that they were able to take power certainly does. Where is the > problem? I follow Dimitrov very closely on this. > > >You say over and over that Lenin "lusted for power". People like Lenin > >and Mao > >knew that political power was fundament, everything was geared towards > >it's > >conquest. The bourgeoisie always try to paint this as "see, they're > >just like > >us, they crave power for it's own sake", distorting the fundmental > >difference of > >power for the class vs. personal power. I think you blur the lines here > >a lot. > > I said (echoing, again both Carr and Pipes), "Lenin wanted power, the others > didn't", just as I have said that, today "Yelstin and international capital > want power in Russia, and the Communists don't. The latter simply want to > share in the spoils and enjoy their bygone privileges". Lenin *did* lust > for power, but not for himself, he wanted to seize control on behalf of the > proletariat (however one defines "proletariat"). This to me is incontestable. > > >You've also said elsewhere that the Bolsheviks didn't have working class > >support, > >that they launched a coup. This clearly converges with reaction. 1) > >they were > >able to win majority votes in the Soviets (read your Carr!) by sticking > >to their > >principles and exposing their rivals among the Mensheviks, Anarchists, > >etc. > > I did read Carr, notably the very essay I quoted from the Pipes' volume. I > suggest, instead, that you read it. > > >Had it only been a coup, they would have been unable to hold power in > >the face > >of opposition both by the reactionaries and the people. Over the course > >of the > >civil war they were able to win over large sections of the poor > >peasantry which > >they didn't have before, to say nothing of mobilizing large sections of > >the > >working class to fight the war. Anarchists always bring up Krondstat to > >prove that the Bolsheviks betrayed the revolution; we must understand > >there > >deep contradictions within the class, but to go to the extreme position > >that > >the Bolsheviks had no working class support is both ahistorical and > >liquidates > >the whole notion of the party of the working class. I think you are too > >influenced by your own perceptions of what the U.S. Left is today. > > I have never brought up the issue of Krondstat, on which you and I pretty > much agree. This has nothing to do with my labeling the October revolution > with what it was, essentially a *coup d'etat* by a tiny elite of determined > revolutionaries. Due to the anemic nature of its opposition, the coup did > not need mass support to succeed, though the Bolsheviks (as you point out) > *did* later amass considerable support in the countryside, as well as among > selected sectors of the working class. But that is unrelated to what we are > speaking about here. > > >I'm too uneducated to know what "pecululation" means, but deception and > >double-dealing? > >Marx, Lenin, etc. NEVER where deceptive about what they wanted -- look > >at what Marx > >said in the Manifesto. Social dems. and revisionist who claim to want > >socialism > >but then betray the class -- they apply deception and double dealing. > >Perhaps you > >meant Lenin was willing to deceive and double-deal with the > >reactionaries -- you > >should make this clear. And even then the Bolsheviks make honest > >treaties with > >the reactionaries. One of the things that should distinguish the > >communist from > >the opportunist is precisely on the question of honesty and > >double-dealing. > > You're beginning to sound like my aunt Agnes when she discovered that Jesus > may have had sex. *All* politicians lie, double-deal and worse. It is the > nature of the system in which they move. Your scenario of certain men > standing above history possessing only the purest of motives, honest and > self-abnegating at all times, is simply too silly to waste powder and shot > on. Yours is a coloring book version of what motivates historical actors. > For me, the issue is not the "honest" or "dishonest" character of an act or > personality; it is the nature of the change being sought and resisted. As I > wrote last year to Adolfo; "whatever advances the destruction of the > bourgeoisie and the cause of communism, is moral, whatever retards them is > immoral." > > >Fine. Just don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. The reason I'm > >going > >on about this is that I think you've shown some bad judgement in your > >posts: you've > >been charged with being anti-Semetic and now anti-Communist. I know you > >are not > >those things, but the way you word things you create doubt and undermine > >your > >credibility as moderator. It's not that you should pander after [] > >(who in my opinion is about as "Marxist" as any other penny-a-dance > >Trot), but > >that you should aim a little better before you shoot. > > I reject completely the charge that anything I've ever written on this list > is anti-Semitic, or, for that matter, that I am anti-Communist in any > meaningful sense. I do stand four-square against the lumpen gangsterism of > the "vanguard" groups and those among their number, past and present, who > persist in behaving in their old ways. This list, while I am moderator, > will never succumb to the Thought Police, of whatever stripe and carrying > whatever credentials. > > Louis G > > --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005