[Marxism] Marxist critique of Leninism

Mark Lause markalause at gmail.com
Sun Feb 3 11:59:27 MST 2013


I think the discussion's essential and it doesn't need to be a
meaningless dispute over vocabulary.  It's just that it tends to
become that.

There are any number of models for how revoltuions have been attempted
and made.  The importance of the bolshevik model in the western world
grew from the claim that it had not only mapped a way for the workers
to take power but to keep it.  History has not been kind to the claim
on various levels.  It has been even less kind to the numberless
attempts to follow that blueprint . . . to which many here are
committed, despite years and decades of bashing their heads against
that particular wall.

However, none of these problems change the results of other models.
Not can arguing over what did and din't happen 70 to 100 years ago
change those results.

With all comradely respect, I think that what you are discussing on
workers councils and the structure of decision-making may mean
something conceretely where you are, but I suspect it would strike
most parts of the working class as being as abstract as a debate over
which Five Year Plan got the best results.  The concept of
"revolutionary unionism" might mean something to workers in some
circumstances, but it doesn't mean anything at all.

We might as well be arguing for the merit or lack of merit of the Cathars.  :-)

It might well be different elsewhere--though I doubt that different in
similar industrial nations--but in the US, the weight of virtually
every major institution--including the feeble unions, in most
cases--tend to crush any kind of natural impulse to class soldairty.
This gives us tasks that should be far more fundamental and immediate.

Mark L.

More information about the Marxism mailing list