<digression topic = "religion"> Reading this, I am reminded of the analogy sometimes drawn between Paul and Lenin, and thinking about Paul's letters, which are just as you describe Lenin's here, and how we only have one somewhat systematic, extended effort from Paul, a letter to the Roman church. I've thought for a long time (I think since before Zizek went all keen on Paul) that there was little question to be asked about his organizing powers, even if one *could* ask questions about about his theorizing, and even that wasn't always bad (our friend Mr. Badiou would say it was pretty good, I think). But probably, if I had to give it a grade, B+ would be a suitable one. Of course, what the church does is turn Paul into a theorist, when in fact he was way more interested in concrete "organizing." </digression>
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> I had forgotten this passage from Lenin. It fits in with my sense of
> Lenin as someone who was _essentially_ an activist, not a theorist,
> driven constantly to theory because he _needed_ it and the damn fools
> around him wouldn't or couldn't provide it! This is why to appreciate
> what a greate figure he was one should read his letters, his short
> articles responding to other revolutionariesd, etc. They exempligy what
> he meant by "concrete analysis of concrete conditions." At that he was a
> master. As a theorist he deserves at most about a B+. And those who
> _made_ a theorist out of him (primarily Stalin and Trotsky) royally
> fucked up in doing so.
>
> Carrol
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>