Forwarded from Anthony (accepting aid)
furuhashi.1 at SPAMosu.edu
Wed Dec 13 12:54:04 MST 2000
>Accepting aid from monarchists and imperialists as Lenin did, is ussually
>very unwise, in fact it is a good way to destroy a political movement on
>the left. (Lenin also held fundraisers in the palaces of 'leftish' princes
>if I rememeber the collected works correctly.)
>The reasons not to accept such aid are many - but the two most important
>are practical, not issues of principle.
>1). Such aid always comes with strings attached - and the strings are
>ussually more important than the aid.
>2) The pious petty bourgeoisie who make up the ranks of militants and cadre
>of most revolutionary movements are repelled. When the revolutionary
>movement is discredited in the ranks of its militants - it is ussually
>3) The base of the revolutionary momvement among workers and the oppressed
>may come to distrust the movement if it accepts such aid.
>However, in exceptional circumstances, you break the rules.
>Making the right decision on when and how to break the rules is the mark of
>great revolutionary leadership. Most who aspired to lead revolutions didn't
>- and still don't- live up to that mark. They should never accept such aid.
>When workers accept such aid, they might be advancing their struggle.
>And when revolutions accept such aid, they might be advancing their struggle.
>Or do you think Lenin should have stayed in Switzerland?
No. You are indeed correct that you & I "are thinking about
different problems." While I see nothing to disagree with you in
your post, I wasn't thinking -- in the post to which you replied --
of how rules of accepting aid differ when seen from workers'
perspectives as opposed to revolutionary leaderships'. Since the
discussion originated in a debate on women workers in Maquilas in
Northern Mexico, I was mainly thinking of circumstances in which
revolutionary leaders were either absent or still too marginal to
make a difference for the time being.
More information about the Marxism