I much appreciate the importance of Greg's textual quibble and Chris Doss's illuminating inisght into the problems of translation.
Yes I was taking a bit of a swipe against ultra-leftists who IMO severely damage the possibilities for creative applications of Marx's critique of capitalist economy by simplistic, dogmatic, and mechanistic distortions.
More carefully expressed my thinking is very similar to Greg's on this - as seen in the post I recycled to LBO-talk about Lenin against terrorism and in favour of street protests and mass struggle.
Yes in my copy of State and Revolution I have ringed the English word "violent" where Lenin, as you quote, refers to "this panegyric on violent revolution" and I have noted in the margin that "Engels uses the word 'force' "
Below I noted "The argument about force is an argument for self-reliance." (As indeed can be checked because you quote the whole of Engels' argument.
There are plenty of people languishing on lists to do with Marx, who do not know how to apply the ideas concretely. My intuition remains that at the moment it is important to continue (within the rules of debate) to smite the ultra-leftists hip and thigh, if the fundamental relevance of the marxist approach is to be recaptured for the struggle against global finance capital in this unbelievably cruel world.
(This world is as cruel as the nineteenth century when the British administration having supported two extensive charity appeals, continued to preside over the exportation of corn from Ireland during the potato famine!) It really is so unacceptable as to be ridiculous. Marxism is too important a tool for criticising global capitalism to be left in the hands of the smug and arrogant dogmatists.
Chris Burford
London
From: "Greg Schofield" <g_schofield at dingoblue.net.au> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Subject: Re: Negri interview Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 00:20:03 +0800
Thank you Chris, I am not sure how it helps, but at least it confirms my suspicion that the translation brings its own interpretation (my mono-linguistic abilities curse me yet again). If it is probably the word 'neistovy', I guess it draws close to a meaning like "unpiously aggressive" (based on it being a negative of fanatical/devoted which could mean I suppose something like pious and saintly - violence would be a fair rendition but not really an exact one). Thankyou for you expertise, on such little things a lot may turn. Greg Schofield Perth Australia
--- Message Received --- From: Chris Doss <chrisd at russiajournal.com> To: "'lbo-talk at lists.panix.com'" <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 18:43:24 +0400 Subject: RE: Negri interview (does anyone know the Russian word which has been translated into violent, perhaps it has more than this meaning?) Probably 'neistovy.' It's a negative. 'Istovy' on its own means something like 'fanatical' or 'devoted.' Can't figure that semantic logic out, but there it is. Chris Doss The Russia Journal