I have a good observation that begs many questions, and you all know alot more on this than I do.
Recently I read a bit of Lars Lih's "Lenin Rediscovered" which was helpful, I didn't manage to finish it, but it was the first real exposure to Lenin and 'leninism' I had. By real, I mean seeking to clarify, not misrepresent.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the take-away is that Lenin's formulation of 'making a revolution happen,' is to set your minimum programme at the very maximum of bourgeois democracy; free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, full voting rights, etc. If opinion does turn towards this position in a significant way, then by extension the road to a real social revolution becomes possible; perhaps even widely advocated by a large segment of the population that supports the maximum freedom possible under bourgeious forms of government.
Now, I'm willing to hear more, and to be corrected, but is the gist of this correct?
And, if so, let me move to why I think Julian Assange is a Leninist in practice, if not in self-aware consciousness. His actions, namely the war logs, the cablegate, etc., have always been defended by him as 'reclaiming transparency,' or 'de-privatizing' information. He often cites the American founding fathers; and defends himself and Wikileaks on grounds that he is a journalist. He often pays lipservice to the British and American court system and the 'innocent until proven guilty' formula.
To me, he seems like a very clever man; and furthermore, one who is able to cloak his real goals underneath more 'mainstream' positions. In this case, his claim to be fighting for free speech, and fighting for freedom of the press, and fighting for government transparency, are relatively modest truisms that we would find espoused by democrats, republicans, tories, and labour. Considering the extreme means he has taken to 'recover' or 'reclaim' as bourgeois a value as free speech, it seems that he carved out a 'staging ground' for activism to go well beyond these basic claims.
As I've personally seen, on that asshole of the internet, 4chan, Assange's acts have galvanized large portions of the 'fat unemployed basement dwellers' that constitute a huge part of the unemployed youth in western countries to engage in hacktivism, whether through the faceless borg that is Anonymous, or through newer groups like Lulz Security.
Now, I had this thesis in the back of my head for a while, but watching the Frontline Club Interview that Amy Goodman moderated between Assange and Zizek (who, wonderful slob that he is, wore a Lenin t-shirt) has only further clarified this matter to me.
It would destroy the credibility Assange has built up among modern youth who tend towards libertarianism and anarchism, and among the moderates who sympathized with him before the ridiculous rape case put him into media blackout territory, if he were to come out as an out-and-out marxist/leninist/communist/revolutionary, but his 'moderate platform/radical tactics' approach seems to be paying dividends, especially since it is cloaked under the inviolable catchall of 'free speech'.
Thoughts? Criticisms? Anyone wanna commission me to actually write this up into a real 'article'? ;)
Expect more impudent and uninformed questions/observations as they arise, especially since I had another tangle with the cops today and will probably lose my license, becoming a real honest hermit/homebody. Hopefully no jail time... oi vey.... I'd rant about that too, but Michael Perelman has already let us know about his terrible bad luck, and while mine is certainly comparable, I don't want to start a pissing contest of all our sorrows.