But as I say , in a way that is just the sense
>in which Leninist analysis is Marxist analysis. It's
>empirical,concrete.
> I'm with you on this. Someone at Zizek's Lenin conference said the
> essence of L'ism was "concrete analysis of the concrete situation."
> Which is fine, but instead I hear/see a lot of L'ists quoting the guy
> as if he were scripture. And - given Ulhas' observation that a
> vanguard party only makes sense in a revolutionary situation - we
> even see a L'ist practice taken completely out of context. So it
> seems to me that "Leninism" today is a floating signifier that can
> mean anything people want it to mean. He does make a pretty cool
> looking icon, a sinister counterpart to the sexy Che.
>
> Doug
Charles: Well, "Leninism" today might mean a couple of different things. I don't know if it could quite mean just anything. Most importantly, Lenin can't mean bourgeois. Even Marx has been subverted by some bourgeois academics, but they could never do that with Lenin, well, not anytime soon. _The Communist Manifesto_ could become a coffee table book around Wallsteet. _The State and Revolution_ ? I don't think so. Lenin is not so much sinister, as scary _to the bourgeoisie_.
Yes, I think he does stand as an icon of "revolutionary success", and so to many he represents hope for the next big revolutionary success. Also, I think his writing is pretty timelessly inspirational for those who dedicate themselves to the struggle on behalf of la damne de la terre. He's always good for a very plain and trenchant turn of phrase against the rich and powerful. And then as I say, he wasn't just shootin' the breeze. Everybody knows he was able to back up his words like nobody' s business. He was a real life exemplar of unity of theory and practice. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030329/88dd2e7c/attachment.htm>