He wrote in praise of the first Junius pamphlet, calling his criticism of it a self-criticism. (I read that long ago & can't give details.) Also, he had suggested/ordered/whartever the publication in the Soviet Union of her collected works. So at least he thought her works important, but I know of no explicit statements on issues. I haven't read his reply to her original criticism of WITBD (or can't remember it), but according to Draper he merely stated that he had not said what she said he said. That it would seem to imply little disagreement with principles she expressed but rather denial that WITBD had violated them. Draper's article, "What have they done to What is to be done" is reprinted in Historical Materialism No. 4.
I have only the most superficial grasp of what Lih is saying so far. It's a dense artical and so far has cost me $88 with probably another $22 to go. Current issues don't seem to be on line, so I guess we'll have to scan it. The book is described as a behemoth -- I think over 400 pages. He has dug up scores of contemporary references of WITBD from before it was published to 1907, as well as of the two Congresses (2d/3d) at which it was an issue.
One part that I can't detail is of considerable importance -- the debate over the rule on membership at the 2d Congress. The opposition to it was grounded in distrust of workers: the Menshevik intellectuals did not want to be subject to the rule of party activists and workers' committees. It will take me some time to replay the reading of that section and get it as straight as possible. What seemed to have been at stake was whether detached intellectuals could dictate the goals of the struggle . (The general goal of overthrowing the Czarist autocracy and establishing political freedom was agreed on by all.) Specific struggles simply turned up in the ongoing activity of the local areas and as each arose Lenin demanded the Party stop lagging behind the struggle.
And that brings up the question of Zizek's assertion re Lenin & "the people." "People" is ambiguous in current left usage in the U.S. In terms of demographics, it refers to the same individuals as does "working class." But historically it is of course a non-class or even anti-class term. The best discussion I know of that is by Tamas on Marx & Rouseeau. But if Zizek means "workers" by "people," Lenin won't help him but be on the other sided. Lih quotes or references statement after statement by Lenin, 1898 to after 1907 the burden of which is that the S-D intellectuals are lagging behind the revolutionary zeal of the workers-- that the party owes them more support then it is offering. In other words, Lenin's references to "spontaneity" are pretty fucking complex, and the ordinary construal of WITBD (especially by Trotskyists) is way off the mark. I think I have already suggested that Lih's work clears up the matter of Lenin's "theoretical" weaknesses: he wasn't a theoretician! His example is of enormous importance; his "theories" aren't theories, they are practical responses to immediate problems in the struggle to overthrow the Czarist autocracy.
Carrol
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Angelus Novus Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 3:37 PM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] vaca reading
Carrol wrote:
> He was a staunch follower of the pre-1914 Kautsky
This is correct. Not only that, but Lenin also took Kautsky's position *against* Rosa Luxemburg during the "mass strike" debate within the SPD.
I'd like to think that Lenin's support for soviet power in 1917 represents an implicit revision of his position vis-a-vis Luxemburg, but does anyone know of any actual texts where he revises his position in favor of Luxemburg and against Kautsky?
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk