>>> owner-lbo-talk-digest at lists.panix.com 08/30/01 12:42AM >>>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 18:41:05 -0400
From: Todd Archer <arch0005 at algonquincollege.com>
Subject: Re: Reforms etc.
Tahir, since I'm so far having difficulty trying to understand what you mean by "Marxism", "Bolshevism", and "revolution"; could you please define your terms to me. Tahir: I find contextualising terms in an argument does much more to define them than dictionary type definitions.
You said:
>I didn't say that people aren't into socialism anymore I said that they aren't into Bolshevism anymore, >remember? But the slip on your part is revealing.
Revealing of what, my ignorance of what you're talking about? I have to confess: yes, I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Tahir: Ah, but I know what you're talking about. You're equating Bolshevism with socialism quite uncritically and you are perplexed that anyone could even question an unconscious discursive move like that. I was trying to explain to you that I don't equate Lenin or Bolshevism with communism. This line of thought has a very long pedigree going back at least to Luxemburg's "Marxism or Leninism?" and the debates in the 3rd international of the 1920s. There is much more to be said about the leftwing communist tradition, but you should first indicate that you are not familiar with it, openly and without sarcasm. Right?
>Todd:
>Abolish political power permanently?
>Tahir:
>Yep it's called communism. Remember? All that stuff about classless society, no state, etc. You do remember >all that Marxist bullshit don't you?
Yeah, I do. I also remember that "all that Marxist bullshit" was, theoretically, supposed to come after the creation of the "dictatorship of the proletariat," in some indefinite future period; the state doesn't just "wither away" by the mere fact that the Communists "take over" nor do they simply "abolish the state" once they are in control of it.
Tahir: My argument was that communists should not take state power unless they can do so on a sufficent scale to actually establish that dictatorship and a transition to communism. Grabbing power in some underdeveloped corner of the world, establishing a crude welfare-capitalist type authoritarian regime and calling that "socialism" cannot constitute a transition to communism. It just discredits the notion of communism. I'm not going to engage with the quotes right now, because they add nothing to this debate.
Regards Tahir