Bolshevism vs Menshevism?
ccc6639 at vip.cybercity.dk
Fri Jun 7 03:45:11 MDT 1996
Louis N Proyect wrote:
> > But . . . the Mensheviks also called themselves Marxists, even though
> > in fact they had moved away from the centrality of the working class.
> Louis: Everybody calls themselves Marxist, but so what.
How does this relate to what you wrote earlier the same day:
> A party that sees the "working class as the primary agent of
> change" is simply a party based on Marxism.
As far as I have understood your argument it is basically:
1. That a revolutionary socialist party is necessary for socialist
revolution to succeed. (Here we agree.)
2. That such a party should not be built along the lines of
for example the ISO, the SWP UK/US) or the like - but should
include all those "within Marxism". (Here we disagree - although
we can agree that some of those around are/were caricatures.)
This is valid position, IMHO. But with your latest remarks I don't
quite get the picture any longer. Could you explain where the
dividing line between Marxism and "non-Marxism" is?
Is the centrality of the working class a basic line of division?
Who is "within Marxism" and who is not?
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism