Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 17:25:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Marxism: meat and potatoes questions


ROSSERJB-AT-jmu.edu writes:

>     1)  You are correct that there is a lot of
>petty sectarianism on the marxism lists.  If you
>think this one is bad, check out marxism where 
>people routinely call each other police agents

Sectarianism is not debating differences;  its absaining from the working
class movemnet, sitting on the sidelines or refusing to concretly further
every step forward for the workers (as Marx says in the manefesto,
communists allways fight for the next step fwd for the workers, while seeing
2 steps ahead).
 In fact I would call most profesors (not all) sectarians since they don't
understand what praxis is:)

>The issue is democracy.  Marx claimed to be for it, largely
>on the presumption repeated by Rahul that the proletariat
>would be the majority.  Debates over who is in that blessed

Marx did was not for/against abstract "democracy".  Democracy is only the
outcome of certain struggles;  He only pointed out that the dictatorship of
the proletrait would be more "democratic" -- radical self-participatory
"democracy"; the end of parliamentrism and politicians; for the first time
in civilization the state would be run by everyday people.

>On the other hand, Marx occasionally made sneering comments
>about "bourgeois democracy" leaving it very unclear what he

This is not true.  It would incorrect imply that marx had illusions in, or
belived in the "democrtic" nature of bourgeois democracy.

>meant and opening the door to all kinds of interpretations.
>Lenin ran with a "democratic centralism" view that allowed
>debate within the party, but dismissed parliaments.  This

But he allowed full soviet democracy; which was slowly and painfully
retracted over the course of the civil war and was allways made claear that
it would be returned.




     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---