>So being Leninist means being flexible and open? Who's against that, except
>maybe the parties that call themselves Leninist today? I still have no idea
>what it means to be a Leninist in 2004.
I'm not saying that "Leninism is this" or "Leninism is that", so I don't think you're "wrong" in saying Leninism = being flexible. It just seems to me, at least in my limited knowledge based on what little I've read by Lenin and that Draper piece, that there is no such animal as Leninism, outside of the minds of doctrinaires, ultra-leftists, and those who are simply mistaken.
"Leninism" seems to make no serious breaks (again, based on what little I know) with a fairly orthodox Marxism, so no wonder the two are "confused": it's like confusing your ass with your gluteous maximus.
That's not to say that something called "Leninism" hasn't associated itself with X,Y, or Z, such as seems likely the case today; I guess that's that thing about an idea gripping certain elements of the masses who thereby turn it into a material force (aided, no doubt, by the old USSR).
John Lacny's characterization seemed ok by me fwiw.
I guess a "Leninist" = a Marxist who doesn't give a rat's ass about being called a Leninist.
Todd
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines