>>> Louis Proyect wrote:
you wrote:
>On this left self-hate, I call one form of it self-redbaiting. An example
of self- redbaiting just occurred on a marxism list , wherein the old saw
of studying Lenin too much popped up, reference to books from 1903 as too
old when on e-mail lists people discuss literature much older than that all
of the time.
>
>Charles Brown
Louis: Charles, this is a distortion. My position is simply that works like "What is to be Done" are irrelevant to building the socialist movement today.
Chas responds: My position is that works like What is to be done are relevant and helpful for building the socialist movement today. We disagree. You haven't convinced me and I haven't convinced you. For example the aphorism "Without revolutionary theory , there can be no revolutionary movement is in full force as valid TODAY. It is critical today. It is NOT old. To fully understand it, you must get the gist of What is to be done. The difference between reform and revolution made there is an important guide for making the same distinction today, etc., etc., etc. The distinction between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks is helpful as a guide in distinguishing petit bourgeois and working class revolutionism TODAY.
Louis: They should be of interest to scholars, but we should be writing our own version of such articles today.
Chas. There is no contradiction between such books' scholarly use, us writing our own version of such articles today (which I have done and am doing and was typing onto the thread) and our using such books as what our articles today are a continuation of. That's not that complicated. Almost simple like you say.
Louis: Lenin made the same point himself in 1907, not four years after the famous "split" conference:
Louis "Concerning the essential content of this pamphlet it is necessary to draw the attention of the modern (!) reader to the following. The basic mistake made by those who now criticize 'What is to be Done' is to treat the pamphlet apart from its connection with the concrete historical situation of a definite, and now long past, period in the development of our Party."
Charles But this statement does not mean that What is to be done does not contain principles that apply to other concrete historical situations. The critics he would be referring to would be saying "that aspect does not apply today". He defends, "Yes, some is specifics no longer are pertinent". But that does mean the whole thing doesn't have application even to 1907. They still needed revolutionary theory and not economism in 1907. etc. etc
Louis: If Lenin described the 1907 period as "now long past", what does that say about left-wing groups and individuals who treat this pamphlet as some kind of organizational handbook in 1998?
Chas. Well I could be funny and say his 1907 statement about 1903 being long past is concrete to 1907 and not 1998. The point of the joke is that you are being absolutely concrete. You are being too concrete.
Sometimes the best way to learn general principles is a very beautiful and true concrete example. You know this , Louis. You are a literary critic and what are novels or plays but concretes to convey the general. This is a, b,c stuff
1871 was long past in 1917 , but Lenin used Marx on the Paris Commune in a very concrete work for State and Revolution
gotta go, more later,
Charles