From: Carrol Cox <cbcox-AT-rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> Subject: M-TH: Re: M-I: MR Sept 1968. French Upheaval and Leninism (fwd) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 17:44:35 -0600 (CST) Forwarded message: From: Carrol Cox <cbcox-AT-rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> Subject: Re: M-I: MR Sept 1968. French Upheaval and Leninism Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 11:46:10 -0600 (CST) Lou P writes: <<My problem with the MR article is that it conceives of a Leninist party in an orthodox Cominternist fashion. This is no surprise since the entire Marxist left in 1968 had not really thought through the question of "democratic centralism", the "vanguard", etc. After the Marxist left imploded in the 1980s, it was up to many of us to perform an autopsy.>> I don't think the core point Sweezy and Huberman raise is necessarily implicated in their (or our) conception of "the Party," but rather how *any* communist party, primarily engaged in certain varieties of "reform" or "defensive" struggles, can *remain* a communist party and not sink into some variety or other of social democracy, thus becoming a barrier rather than a part of revolutionary action. Their two empirical points are historically accurate: (1) No workers revolution has occurred in a bourgeois democracy (2) All revolutions that did (even temporarily) succeed were led by parties engaged in illegal struggle. That does *not* establish *in principle* that a wholly legal party can *not* remain committed to workers revolution, it is merely an empirical summary, but as Thoreau said someplace about finding a trout in the milk can, it should give one furiously to think. Lenin's point about *What Is To Be Done* being outmoded (cited by Lou Proyect) does justice to only one aspect of the work. If one abstracts from its more concrete and immediate content, it has surprising accuracy as a *description* and analysis of *actually existing* organizations of all kinds inside capitalist society. That is, "democratic centralism" can be read as descriptive rather than merely prescriptive. This perspective would not refute Lou's critique of what he calls "orthodox comintern" interpretation of "Leninism," but it would require some restatement of the critique. Please, everyone, note that *all* conceptions of revolutionary strategy and revolutionary parties in the advanced capitalist world exist only in the mind: we have no positive models with a record of success. Carrol --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005