Carrol
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
On
> Behalf Of 123hop at comcast.net
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 1:59 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] [Pen-l] Meditations on Trotsky and Occupy_2
>
> And yet this theorist led the Red Army to victory.
>
> ???
>
> Joanna
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Lenin was not a theorist -- he rather 'applied' Kautsky to Russian
> conditions. (See Lars Lih). Trotsky was not only a theorist but suffered
> from the worst disease of theory: the assumption that theory could
directly
> control practice. See Lenin's article (Vol. 8) on Trotsky's words on
Father
> Gapon. Trotsky argued that there would be no more Father Gapons, and that
> Marxists would have to do that work themselves. Lenin responded that
Trotsky
> was a blowhard, that for there to be a revolution there had to be many
many
> more Gapons. Rather than speak of "Leninism" one should adopt the Chinese
> vocabulary and refer to Martxism-Kautskyism Lenin Thought. When faced with
a
> theoretical problem which Kautsky could not solve Lenin produced his most
> unfortunate work: Left-Wing Communism, though it contains a number of
shrewd
> empirical observations.
>
> The errors of so many left intellectuals in their early response to OWS
were
> essentially 'Trotskyist' errors: they tried to fit Occupy to their
abstract
> theory and there was no fit. The implicit theory, for instance, assumed
> "demands" as the basis for political action, and that led to an inability
to
> grasp the "concrete conditions" which engendered Occupy.
>
> Carrol
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pen-l-bounces at lists.csuchico.edu [mailto:pen-l-
> > bounces at lists.csuchico.edu] On Behalf Of Chuck Grimes
> > Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:41 AM
> > To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> > Cc: Progressive Economics
> > Subject: [Pen-l] Meditations on Trotsky and Occupy_2
> >
> >
> > Returning to Jim Cgreegan's answer to my post Meditations on Trotsky and
> > Occupy, I want to develop the last point 3).
> >
> > The first part of the point was that Lenin and Trotsky worked as
> journalists
> > within socialist movements, as opposed to the journalists that I
mentioned
> > for example like Chris Hedges, Bill Moyers, Arun Gupta, Doug Henwood and
> the
> > many others we depend on to get the word out on this issue or that.
> >
> > Hold that thought and consider that the above list amounts to a duel
> > personality. One part is advocate, expose, and communication media of
> > journalism. While all of the above have a spectrum of personal politics,
> the
> > all share something of an intellectual life that in some vague way can
be
> > called leftist. Most have at least read some of Marx, but likely not in
a
> > programmatic fashion that Lenin or Trotsky did. In a way it doesn't
> matter.
> > Once you get a handle on what capitalist bourgeois society is all about,
> you
> > can usually fill in the blanks. This battle between classes has been
> around
> > a long time and there is plenty of intellectual and historical material
to
> > read, discover, and articulate, which in turn leads to shifting
> > understanding of the `forces' of our world.
> >
> > Now to the second half of point 3). The basic thrust of it was that the
> > intellectual class or intelligentsia in the US here and now do not have
> much
> > contact with the working class and the working class seems more or less
> > immune to whatever insights and messages the intellectuals might offer.
> >
> > All true on the surface and that is why I've been thinking about this
> > separation. This is also a bit of self-examination because I live or
lived
> > in both worlds, and frankly, thank age and social security that I could
> > leave my long standing working class jobs behind. Believe me, it is a
> > liberation I would wish on anyone.
> >
> > Unfortunately there was an upside. Working in a mechanical trade puts me
> on
> > the front lines of class war and in my case, in direct contact with a
> broad
> > spectrum of the poor and working class america. It's a view that only
the
> > sociologist, committed advocate, and radical journalists are likely to
> know,
> > see, and understand. It creates heart, in the vernacular.
> >
> > So journalism in its expose and drumbeat modes, informed by less
explicit
> > intellectual background and instincts forms a bridge between the vast
> > collection of knowledge and ideas of the historical intelligentsia and
the
> > current working class in the US, and certainly in Europe and the Middle
> > East. That's the interface.
> >
> > I realized that most of my posted links and much of my time goes to news
> > stories, lectures, panels, and conferences posted on the web. The news
> > stories may make it to the interested and receptive working class, and
the
> > detailed and archane discussions at conferences and panels will probably
> > not.
> >
> > The central art form for this intellectual class is the documentary and
> its
> > most effective medium is video and film. But that requires a lot of
money
> > and a production crew. The less well endowed don't have those means. The
> > most traditional medium is print and once you are used to reading and
> > writing it is still just as effective, and hopefully by some more
hawking
> > the wares, those works will form the basis for a video or film
production
> > which has the capacity to reach many more people.
> >
> > It was afterall print that has been used since Guttenburg to advocate
and
> > organize. That was certainly Marx, Lenin and Trotsky's greatest skill,
the
> > word.
> >
> > It took me forever to finally start reading them. I was stalled out on
> > Capital maybe fifteen years ago. It is certainly no pleasant read. It
took
> > David Harvey's video lectures to get over that hump. In a couple of
weeks
> I
> > was half way through Capital and got distracted and frankly bored. Yeah
I
> > got the basic ideas, and I was not interested in the archane economics
> > theory. On the other hand, once I started reading just an outline of
> > neoclassical economics, it was enough to realize there was no there
there.
> > It's pretense to objective social science was an outright fraud. This
> wasn't
> > just an ordinary fraud. It was an ideology and went to the root of most
of
> > our social, political and economic history. As such, unfortunately, it
> needs
> > to be studied anyway.
> >
> > If anything it was Marx who was the social scientist, because at least
he
> > went to the factories, he studied the production systems, and he looked
at
> > the social consequences of the economic systems that oppressed society.
He
> > made no pretense to objectivity or place it beyond judgement. This
system
> is
> > brutal, destructive of everything alive, and it has to be changed in a
> > radically different direction.
> >
> > In any case that is a sketch to answer how the intellectual class can
> begin
> > to effect and merge in a virtual sort of way with working class life.
> >
> > It helps tremendously to join the working class for awhile to get your
> > bearings as Barbara Ehrenreich and others have in various books. It is
in
> > the grand tradition of journalism, social reform movements, and directly
> > corresponds to the history of field studies in other social sciences.
> >
> > CG
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pen-l mailing list
> > pen-l at lists.csuchico.edu
> > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk