This position is not simply ahistorical in the extreme; its logical presupposition is that we can not learn anything, for learning takes place precisely through practices upon which we reflect, and use the fruits of our refllection to shape future practices accordingly.
It is a truism that we never step into the same river twice, since it is in the constantly changing. But it would be a remarkably undialectical notion of change that did not understand that everything does not change at once -- that continuity and stability are always present with change. If I attempt to ford the river at spot 'x' under 'y' conditions, do I learn any lessons about places on the river and river conditions that are amenable to fording, or do I simply say that, since the next time I attempt to ford the river it is a different river, there is no point in such reflection? The answer is so obvious, that the question seems rhetorical in nature.
This selection is a very poor argument, based on rather faulty logic, all in attempt to abstract Leninism from not just its historical context, but any historical context, so that it will stand on its own as a 'pure theory,' notwithstanding its devastating effects in practice.
Leo Casey United Federation of Teachers 260 Park Avenue South New York, New York 10010-7272 (212-598-6869)
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has, and it never will. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. -- Frederick Douglass --
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20010403/4837cd8c/attachment.htm>