> You may have inadvertently committed some
> Leninism here and there, as in your concrete
> analyses of concrete situations, empiricism,
> practice, dogged atheism, focus on finance
> capital, but all in all, we can get you an
> official clearance that your are not a committed
> Leninist. Afterall, you are emphatic that today
> we have a stockmarket centered , _not bank_
> centered, system that rules the roost.
How does that mean that Doug is not a Leninist? If Leninism is a methodology rather than a set-in-stone doctrine, then a concrete analysis that recognizes that imperialism today is not the same as imperialism in 1914 could still qualify as "Leninist." Baran and Sweezy said that monopoly was now the defining feature of modern capitalism, and said that Marx's analysis was based on a study of what he knew then, competitive capitalism. Did that make them any less "Marxist"? Only in the eyes of doctrinaires.
Of course Lenin himself would not have considered himself a "Leninist," only a Marxist who applied those theories to the concrete conditions of his time. We would have to define what a "Leninist" methodology is before judging whether Doug or anyone else is a Leninist. Assuming that we reject ossified sectarian definitions of "Marxism" or "Leninism," I would probably argue that some of the defining features of Leninism -- as opposed to other strains of Marxism -- would include an emphasis on the need for political practice and agency ("If you don't hit it, it won't fall"!); a recognition that the struggles of all the oppressed (particularly those exploited by white supremacy worldwide) are as critical as the struggles of the workers in imperialist countries, if not moreso; and an unsentimental view of the nature of political leadership that rejects both the pseudo-democratic fetishism of "spontaneity" and the idealist conception that an ideologically "correct" position translates directly into a revolutionary movement. Leninists would say flat-out that revolutionary leadership (a "vanguard") is necessary to advance a struggle, but one thing that would distinguish thinking Leninists from doctrinaire ones would be the understanding that vanguards are defined much more objectively than subjectively -- it's not enough to be "correct," you also have to have the ability to actually lead people. Vanguards are drawn from the natural leadership among the *masses*, and prove themselves as vanguards by being able to lead masses of people into struggle.
I think these are some basic Leninist concepts, and they are also concepts of which I have become much more convinced over the years.
- - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com
People of the US, unite and defeat the Bush regime and all its running dogs!