[Marxism] Answer attacks UFPJ

Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org
Tue Jul 25 12:37:46 MDT 2006


cleon42 > ^^^^^
> CB: It's not ridiculous. It's materialist.

If you think that's "materialist," it's even *more* ridiculous.

^^^^
CB: Is that so ?

> The proof of theory is
> practice.
> A good attitude may represent the best theory in theory, but the test
> of
> theory for Marxists is practice.

No.

You don't hit some programmatic viewpoint, then magically the masses flock
to your side. Real political work is not so simple. As someone recently
posted, it's not about *what* you think, it's about *how* you think.

^^^^
CB: However, I didn't say that "you hit some programmatic viewpoint and,
then magically the masses flock to your side". So, how does that point
contradict or refute what I said ?

How about how people respond to what you do ,a well ?

^^^^^^

Or as Marx himself said, every real step of movement is worth a dozen
programmes.

^^^^
CB: Actually, Marx's practice was fairly sectarian in the sense that he
wasn't in a mass party. Engels was in a mass party.

^^^^^^

The reality of whether a group is a "sect" or not is not a magic number
of members or whether their opinions are "correct," it's a question of
functioning. ("Attitude" was a bad word choice on my part.)

> Actually, yes, that was the way in which the Bolsheviks proved that
> they
> were no longer a sect, when they moved masses in practice,
> practical-critical activity.

Now you're changing your position. According to you, Solidarity is a
sect because Solidarity is small. Now you're saying that the Bolsheviks
*proved* they weren't by actually attracting the masses.


^^^
CB: Seems that what I said is consistent. "Small" and "masses" have to do
with numbers of people moved and influenced to move. I am consistently
making my definition of "sect" based in size, number of people, small/mass.
I am specifically  not changing my position in that I am referring to your
"100,000 Bolsheviks"

^^^^^

 Which means
that before they attracted the masses, they still weren't necessarily a
sect, but it just wasn't "proven."

^^^^
CB: I'm not mad at the Bolsheviks for being a sect before they succeeded in
moving masses. It was a sad, cruel and punishing fact. Of course, there's no
magic number. It's a dialectical number. Quantitative change turns into
qualitative change at some point, based on the concretes of Russia at that
time.

^^^^^
 
> I'm not happy that all left Marxist groups today are sects, but it's
> a fact.

Only for varying definitions of the word "fact." Your assertion that
Solidarity (or ISO, for that matter) is a sect remains unsubstantiated.

Adam










More information about the Marxism mailing list