From: John Lacny
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."
^^^^ CB: My sentiments exactly.
There is a bit of fun going on here, too. Kind of hard to say Doug is a committed Leninist if he says he is not, no ? He's more of eccletic and critical Leninist, maybe. Or maybe Doug's an underground Leninist. Shhhhhhhh.
(You know, "Lenin" was not Lenin's real name. Marx was not a Marxist, and Lenin was not really Lenin or a 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.
^^^^ CB: I'd say it made them Leninists, to their credit. See _Imperialism_ where Lenin defines Imperialism as the monopoly stage of capitalism. Baran and Sweezy seemingly were independently corroborating this fundamental principle of Leninism ( which was an affirmation of a tendency that Marx had noted).
^^^^^^
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.
^^^^^
CB: Yes, I agree, substantially.