The correct Marxist definition of "revolution" is that which inspires today's working (or that of 1920) to carryout their historical task. By calling on the American revolutionary tradition in addressing the American workers, Lenin and the Comintern were not just "trotting something out" in the sense of some superficial pandering to vulgar sense as opposed to a truly "scientific" concept of "revolution".
Louis misrepresents the debate between us when he claims I have not gone into it in historical depth. What he means is he disagrees with me, but it is not true that I have not responded to him with historical depth equalling his. I have quoted people other than Lenin (though there is no lack of historical depth in that). For example, I have referenced Herbert Aptheker , a prolific professional historian, who is a Marxist. Aptheker's historical depth is equal to but really greater than Louis Pro.'s So , he is off on that characterization. I also cited Hobsbawn to Louis at the suggestion of another professional historian and Marxist, Professor Mark Solomon ( not on the list) who sharply disagreed with Louis' analysis of the French Revolution., which I sent to Solomon.
Louis reference to "holy scripture" approach is not an accurate criticism of me. I have given him very critical analysis and argumentation in the exchanges on this. It is a typical, tired old attack on any classical Marxist perspective that it is "holy scripture". In fact the "holy scripture" line itself has become an anti-Marxist thoughtless, mantra or a stereo typical slander by those who can't refute cogent argumentation.
Louis Pro's position below is scholastic and not dialectical relative to Lenin's real Marxist analysis of the American Revolution.
I'll see if I have the old posts on the French Rev.
In sum,it is Louis Pro's narrow bookish approach to Marxism which is a problem of dogmatism in this debate, not the theory tied to practice of which Lenin is a great exemplar. For example, Louis is using an abstract schematic definition of revolution, instead of using Marxism's focus on changes in socio-economy as a guide to ACTION (a la Lenin).
Charles Brown
Workers of the West , it's our turn
>>> Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com> 11/23 12:09 PM >>>
>So, I would say the "standard" Marxist
>answer is that the Am. Rev. was a
>truly great rev.
>
>
>Charles Brown
>
Lenin's remarks to American workers was not a Marxist analysis of the American revolution. It was instead a typical revolutionary greeting that the Comintern trotted out on special occasions, to greet delegations, etc.
A more interesting discussion of the American revolution would involve the degree to which social-economic forms were transformed. Revolutions are supposed to abolish one form of property ownership and institute another. In Cuba the army and police marched into privately-owned plantations, factories and banks and announced that they now belonged to the people.
In point of fact nothing like this occurred in the French Revolution or the American Revolution. Furthermore, Europe generally evolved peacefully toward modern capitalist relations as the aristocracy happily joined the bourgeoisie in exploiting the working-class. Everything that was revolutionary about 1789 and 1776 can be traced to the plebian elements like the sans-culottes or Tom Paine, who struggled against the so-called "revolutionary" bourgeoisie.
I have attempted to debate Charles on these questions on the Marxism list, but he seems to lack the time and interest to dig into the historical detail. Quoting a speech or article from Lenin to make a point is the curse of Marxism. It is the sign of dogmatism. Burford is fond of this practice as well.
If we can't get past this type of "holy scripture" approach, then we might as well leave politics to bourgeois ideologists, who seem much more motivated to dig beneath the surface. Can you imagine Francis Fukuyama quoting Adam Smith to make a point? No wonder the left is in such horrible shape.
Louis Proyect
(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)