I was not referring to the original analysis (Imp the Final Stage . . .) which I read 30 years ago, probably didn't understand then, and have long since forgotten.
Charles: Oh of course you have to give the mandatory , cookie cutter, joking
insult against this text from the dogmatic, tyrannical, all around evil
person , Lenin and his dumb ideas. It's part of the liberal ritual. I
understand.
>>>>>>>>>
???? What joke? Wherefore "dogmatic, tyrannical . . . evil . . . dumb"??? I didn't say anything like that. I said I read Lenin long ago and not since, at the time I read him I hadn't much understanding of economics, so I was ill-prepared to evaluate Imp the final stage etc. And whatever I did read I forgot, with one little exception, if you wanna tussle about this:
My overriding negative impression of Lenin is that under his philosophy it is too easy to shoot people. Other than that, no problem.
>>>> . . .
To return to one of your themes, I am pointing out that your comments on
issues are guided as much by ideology (anti-communist ideology) as those
like me who you acuse of being guided by ideology in some improper sense.
You do recall criticizing my posts as if their objectivity was compromised
by my ideology, don't you ? And then my reply was you are as much
ideological as I am. This is a clear example of how your political and
economic theory is ideological too.
CB ((((((((((
I plead guilty to ideology.
I'm not in any position to get into a debate about the wheat and the chaff in Lenin's oeuvre, so I won't contest on it except by abstention and summary rejection. Nobody can read and become an expert on everything. If half the world was in the sway of Leninist revolutions, it would obviously be worth more of my attention.
A more important point, going back to the inter-imperialist rivalry thing, is that there is a tendency to use heavy-duty methodologies, philosophies, or theories (bourgeois and otherwise) to explain what is often more simple, or which add nothing to description. A tendency to graft some kind of favored narrative onto something else.
In this sense I am skeptical (not invariably disbelieving) of all theory and inclined to strive for more matter-of-fact, transparent ways of talking. One reason the POMO stuff revolts me so much, incidentally. I also think there is a question of vanity in devoting oneself to the Theory of Everything. I'd be quite content to have made an important contribution to getting universal health care, or juking the public share of GDP up from 30 to, say, 40 percent. My tombstone don't need much.
mbs