Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 09:13:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Louis N Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu>
To: James Miller <jamiller-AT-igc.apc.org>
cc: marxism-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: racism, buchanan, lenin


On Sun, 17 Mar 1996, James Miller wrote:

>    I have noticed the same thing. Perhaps the editors of
> the Militant have decided that the formula Buchanan=fascist
> is too extreme. Or perhaps they have decided to tone down
> the language to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings about
> the extent to which Buchanan has developed a real fascist
> movement. I really don't know what the thinking is here,
> but if I find out, I'll try to keep everyone posted.

Louis: Jim say he doesn't "know what the thinking is here". I don't 
particularly care what the thinking is except in Jim Miller's noggin. I 
am in a debate with you over Buchanan, not the editors of the Militant. Can 
I expect you to defend the proposition that Buchanan is a fascist or 
will you see the error of your ways now that the Militant has stepped 
back? This should be interesting.

> THE DEMOCRATIC DICTATORSHIP
>
>    It's not true that, "Lenin changed his mind about the character
> of the revolution." Writing on the fourth anniversary of the
> October revolution (1921), Lenin said,

Louis: Look, Lenin advanced his April Theses as a sharp turn to prepare 
for the seizure of power by the Soviets under Bolshevik leadership. He 
was opposed by the "old Bolsheviks" who used all of the "stagist" 
formulations that were imbedded in "Two Tactics". Where did they learn 
these ideas from, if not from Bolshevik writings on the need to have a 
bourgeois-democratic revolution? Citing Lenin from 1921 is a little 
silly, isn't it? It would be much more useful to get a flavor of his 
thinking from the period prior to 1917. He obviously went through an 
evolution in his thinking as normal Marxists do.

>    As for Trotsky, he was a revolutionary Marxist with
> an ultraleft bias, and this weakness was particularly
> evident before the 1917 revolution. He didn't understand
> the Russian revolution as well as Lenin, nor did he
> understand the type of party that would be needed to
> carry it through. His theory of "permanent revolution,"
> though reflecting a lot of revolutionary energy, leaned
> a bit in the direction of overoptimism and workerism.

Louis: Here Jim is paraphrasing SWP leader Jack Barnes who opened up an 
attack on Trotsky and permanent revolution a year before an SWP 
convention ratified this policy shift. Some people are more equal than 
others I guess. I myself could never have denounced permanent revolution 
in a public forum before the party line changed. This is how this group 
operates: from the top down. This, of course, has nothing to do with the 
practices of the Bolshevik party.


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