Julian, I've read only the following portion of your post so far. I'll comment on that part in a bit. But first, I'm rather amazed that you picked up Lih to read, yet don't seem familiar with the "Lenin" that Lih is seeking to 'do away with'; that is, the Lenin created by Stalin, Trotsky, various Mensheviks and bourgeois scholars after Lenin's death. Lih claims, and I find his claims rather persuasive, to have dug back to the "real" What Is To Be Done, and gives alternative translations and interpretations of some of the more famous (or infamous) phrases and sentences in the book. My knowledge comes from Lih's response to critics in a symposium on his book in a recent issue of Historical Materialism. I have not read the book itself. Also, actually, I had it read to me, since I'm legally blind and can't see text. I have a somewhat sloppy scanned text of the article and have read parts of it. It is a densely written text and I have yet to achieve a firm grasp of it.
Now, very roughly as a start: If LIh is correct, there is no such thing as "Leninism" -- i.e. an abstract theory of socialist revolution. On the contrary, Lenin accepted Kautsky as a correct interpretation of Marxism; and even after 1914, when Kautsky became a renegade in Lenin's eyes, Lenin continued to regard the pre-1914 Katusky as the best guide to Marx. Lenin's _theory_ then is simply Kautskyism. And he regarded the SPD as the proper model for a revolutionary socialist party _in a democratic society_. But Czarist Russia was not a free society. There was no freedom of speech or freedom to organize. Therefore something different had to be worked out in Russia. Previous Russian revolutionary groups or parties had been _conspiratorial_, and did not attempt agitation and propaganda - education and outreach, as a free paraty in Germany could. Lenin did not want a conspiratorial party; he wante one as close to the SPD and its internal freedom as was possible in Russia: a party of a new type, not the old conspiratorial kind of party. Such a party had to a great extent been built up in the yhears after 1890 by "Committees" in various localities, which conducted agitation among workers. Lenin was a member of such a Committee in St. Petersburg - and they all got arrested and sent to Siberaia. Nevertheless by the early 1900s there had emerged in Russia in connection with these Committees a number of people who had mastered a certain skill or trade: the skill or trade of not getting arrested. In references to this skill in all English translations of WITBD they are called "Professional Revolutionaries." In Trotskyist / Stalinist organizations they are also usually referred to as "cadre." The concept thus translated has wreaked endless havoc on revolutionary work in the west for a 100 years.
[Slight digression: Lenin's faith in Kautsky was misplaced. Lenin's faith in the SPD was misplaced. We still don't really know what kind of a political organization is needed to build a revolutionary movement in advanced capitalist democracies. That has to be worked out in practice, not deduced from abstract pricnciples found in Marx's books or the books by Stalin or Traotsky et al. We do not have a revolutionary theory - and there is in fact no such thing as a revolutionary theory.]
You write:
.*********
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?
.********
It's hard to say. Lih is emphasizing Lenins insistence on working for democracy in Czarist Russia, and in keeping the RSDLP as democratic as possible (which was not very democratic - but not as bad as some claim either). He was engaged in what the Chinese call "Thought" rather than "Theory." One might describe the result as "Kautskyism-Lenin Thought." And the whole point aboaut "Thought" (as opposed to theory) in this Chinese sense is that it is relevant only to the concrete conditions of a given time and place. Its not exportable. Even in Russia WITBD, after around 1910, ceased (eand in Lenin's own opinion as well) to be relevant. It was forgotten until Stalin turned it into a Bible after Lenin's Death, and Trotsky claimed it for his Church and so forth.
Lenin was a great man; I rather think he does stand over the 20th century. But not for the reasons usuallyl given, that he was a greata theorist and passed on to us a great theory which we have only to implement to go on to utopia. He didn't, and he would laugh at us for thinking that he did.
So yes and no you are correct in the paragraphs quoted. But you are incorrect in thinking that is the key to revolution. There is no such key.
Carroil
.=======
.=======
.======= .=======
.=======
.=======
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm