>That's roughly Lenin's assertion (I hesitate to dignify it with
>"argument"). It is, however, bullshit. I doubt you could find a single war
>fought for this reason.
ahh. it wasn't in What is to be done? it was in a link yoshie quoted (and I read) years ago, and her interpretation of it at the end of the quote in the link below.
and holeee shitliotta. i was reading the archives, through that exchange i quote below, and omigawd. lenin speaks about a number of classes! crap! i have been duped! duped I say!
Lenin: "...We must "go among all classes of the population" as theoreticians, as propagandists, as agitators, and as organisers. Noone doubts that the theoretical work of Social-Democrats should aim at studying all the specific features of the social and political condition of the various classes. But extremely little is done in this direction as compared with the work that is done in studying the specific features of factory life. In the committees and study circles, one can meet people who are immersed in the study even of some special branch of the metal industry; but one can hardly ever find members of organisations (obliged, as often happens, for some reason or other to give up practical work) who are especially engaged in gathering material on some pressing question of social and political life in our country which could serve as a means for conducting Social-Democratic work among other strata of the population. In dwelling upon the fact that the majority of the present-day leaders of the working-class movement lack training, we cannot refrain from mentioning training in this respect also, for it too is bound up with the Economist conception of "close organic connection with the proletarian struggle". The principal thing, of course, is propaganda and agitation among all strata of the people...." from: http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2003/2003-March/008571.html
This is the passage from yoshie that i was thinking of: http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2003/2003-March/008384.html
"What Lenin advocated in the context of an inter-imperialist war was (1) revolutionary actions by the proletariat of an imperial power against "their own" government, reaching out in practice to proletarian brothers and sisters of the "foreign" countries at war with it; he thought that (2) the working class taking such revolutionary actions and practicing international solidarity basically amounted to wishing and contributing to the defeat of "their own" imperial government; and he further argued that (3) military defeats and even setbacks of an imperial power would in turn foster revolutionary conditions in its own home territory. (1), (2), and (3) are the essence of (A) "revolutionary defeatism"; (A) is not at all the same as (B) "wishing horrors on people." How many LBO-talkers actually hold Lenin's perspective on an imperialist war and have recently argued for it here?"
She also posted a link to this chapter from Lenin:
http://www.marxists.de/war/lenin-war/ch1.htm
>--- On Mon, 10/6/08, shag <shag at cleandraws.com> wrote:
> >
> > wasn't that lenin's argument? i've never read
> > much of lenin, but i seem to
> > recall an essay (what is to be done? maybe?) where he
> > argues that the
> > financial meltdowns associated with capitalist boom/bust
> > cycles will
> > require the foremost capitalist nations to engage in
> > constant warfare to
> > prop themselves up. it was the task of the revolutionary to
> > oppose war b/c
> > it was in opposition to war that you could a advanced
> > movement that
> > traversed national boundaries.
>
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)