>Doug wrote (to Carroll):
>> I've read quite a bit of Lenin, and I still don't really know what it
>> means to be a Leninist in the USA of 2003. Perhaps you could join
>> Yoshie in clarifying this for me.
>
>Well, I'll throw out a few points about what it means to me. This is not a
>comprehensive picture and I am concentrating on the points which would
>distinguish me as a Leninist from a self-described 'radical', 'democratic
>socialist', 'non-Leninist Marxist', etc.
Thanks for your answer, Lou, and it's a reminder of why I'm glad you're here. But (and you knew that was coming, didn't you?)...
>(a) First, it means to be really serious about getting a socialist society.
>Not just some reforms here and there, not just affirmative action, a safety
>net, and so on. We need a radically transformed human world. We are really
>intent on getting one.
So are anarchists, democratic socialists, and non-Leninist Marxists.
> We are intent on studying the question of how it can
>be gotten very hard. We intend to be, to capitalism, what physicians are to
>disease.
Not to quibble over metaphors, but aren't you looking to kill the thing, not cure it?
>(b) Next, it means believing that the series of revolutions beginning with
>that of 1917 were generally a positive development and have lessons to teach
>us, and in some way show us the direction we have to go and the things we have
>to do, or redo; they were not just some horrible dead end that humanity went
>into.
Hey, I think the Russian revo was a good thing, and there's a lot to learn from it. And one of the things that I and many other non-Leninists learned from it is that there's great danger in having secretive, hierarchical organizations lead revolutions in the name of a whole class (which in Russia's case, barely existed - and even less so in China's).
>(c) It means always remembering that we are here as representatives of the
>workers and oppressed, and for that matter the workers and oppressed of the
>entire world, not of whatever stratum we happen to be in at a given time, and
>not of our own desire to make the world a nice place. If we are putting
>forward a position that can't be explained to the poorest and most exploited,
>it's probably the wrong position.
But the ones putting forth that position are usually educated and reasonably well off, while the poorest and most exploited are often either silenced or willing to make a deal with the established order for a few more crumbs.
>(e) It means maintaining independence from one's own imperialist ruling class
>at all times, never being overcome by the desire to be 'respectable' in their
>eyes, and refusing to be associated with its wars, war propaganda, schemes for
>global influence, and so on.
I don't see anything in this paragraph that Chuck0 would disagree with, and he's no Leninist.
>(f) It means acting toward people of oppressed nationalities, and of other
>oppressed groups, with sensitivity and with respect for the principle of self-
>determination. I find Lenin's writings on the national question to be the
>things I go back to most often.
I don't see anything in the first sentence of this paragraph that your average Kumbaya-singing crunchie would disagree with.
>(g) On the organizational side, it means a belief in the proposition that
>people who are agreed on what they want to do, and generally on the science
>and engineering of how to do it, and discuss the matter openly and honestly
>among themselves, can get a great deal accomplished (including what they get
>done by persuading other people of the correctness of their ideas), and that
>it is a good thing to have a party that is organized on that kind of basis.
Maybe it's because I've never been a member of a Leninist party, but this doesn't comport with what I've heard. I've heard that anticipatory conformity with the leadership's line is more often the practice, and that humiliating rituals and expulsion are often the price of failure to conform.
Doug