>If Leninism is a methodology rather than a set-in-stone doctrine
Is it? If Leninism is just the "concrete analysis of the concrete situation," it means little more than having your head screwed on straight (no mean feat these days, I concede). If it refers to the model of party organization - a small band of secretive professional revolutionaries at the "vanguard" of a popular movement - then what does that mean today? Surely not the British SWP, and even more surely not the American SWP. Does it mean that serious radicals should openly try to push (not hijack, the way a lot of sects try to do) popular movements towards more radical analysis than action than they'd otherwise be undertaking? If that's what it means, then I'm a Leninist of some sort. But I'm not sure whether it really means that.
I asked a question in the title of that talk - what does it mean to be a Leninist in 2001? Three years later, I'm no closer to an answer.
Doug