Thanks for your note, Matt, It means the negation of some aspects of Leninism. Not to be cute, but I'd say approach it dialectically as a supercession or sublation, overcoming and preservation of the Leninist phase of Marxism.
What is preserved ? first, I'd say the Leninist concept of finance capitalism from the imperialist thesis is "truer" today than even in Lenin's day. Look at how Wallstreet was able to just demand $11 trillion plus from the US state to basically not go bankrupt. _All_ of the finance sector was broke by its own admission that the several individual bankruptcies posed a _systemic_ threat. "Too big to fail" means the whole finance sector was broke. My point here is that as they were able to avoid that by just getting an $11 trillion gift proves that they are the ruling sector. Even GM had to go through bankruptcy. The Detroit papers had headlines contrasting the treatment of the Wallstreet firms and GM. So, the Leninist concept of finance capital dominating industrial capital has reached an extreme that wasn't even true in his day. The current situation is best understood as a dialectical transformation of the imperialism outlined in Lenin's thesis, based on the changes , in the first place, by the existence of the Soviet Union for 75 years, and its struggle with imperialism. Inter-imperialist rivalry was negated because imperialism had to unite against the SU and socialist countries. Imperialist countries still export capital, including to other imperialist countries. As I said finance capital is still the dominant sector. It is no accident the central organs of transnational capital are hedge funds, the US treasury, IMF and World Bank etc. , in other words finance capital institutions. Colonialism has been through an overthrow of the old system , especially bulwarked by the existence of the SU, institution of a neo-colonialist system, and now a "neo-liberal" colonialist system after the fall of the SU. Also, that industry is scattered and not concentrated geographically/in space , does not mean that industry is not still an important part of capitalism technologically, and that industrial workers are not an important part of the working class. So, Marxists should not fail to pay attention to industrial workers. Leninist's thesis on opportunism based on imperialist booty corrupting the US and other imperialist countries' working classes and trade union leaders is pretty much the story " of our lives" , no ? So, that aspect of Leninism is unfortunately quite valid today. The Leninist party model from _What is to be done ?_ was largely specific to Russia with its lack of experience with democracy relative to countries like the US even in 1905 -1917. Add to that the US party going through McCarthyism, requiring strict participation in the US traditions of electoral politics all along and certainly for 60 years, not to mention the whole Cold War intense brainwashing of the American population in anti-Communism, anti-Sovietism, and that's substantially or completely negated. Having said all that, the US Democratic and Republican parties, and unions operate on the principle of democratic centralism, but just don't call it that. So, in a certain sense, democratic centralism is as American as apple pie. It 's basically the represtentative or republican principle. Also, the two-party system is something of a fraud and a one-party system operating as a phony two-party system. Effectively, on this issue the main thing is not to be quoting Lenin, but a lot of his ideas are still pertinent. The principles in _Materialism and Empirio-Criticism_, the critique of Kantian dualism and subjective idealism is very fresh in critiquing post-modernism. The heart of post-modernism is neo-Kantianism , I'd say. There may be some other aspects that are preserved. I appreciate your pushing me to articulate this I see you quote James Boggs. Are you in the Detroit area ? What say you ? Charles On 10/11/09, Matthew Birkhold <birkh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Charles said, > "The end of Fordism is the end of the big plant. The > capitalist can move parts etc around so fast that they do not need the > efficiency of concentrating workers in big plants, in ghettoes in the > city, the whole ball of wax that gave rise to Leninist tactics in the > class struggle by which workers got a sense of their power by their > great numbers etc." > I agree with this analysis of this shift completely. Does it mean that the > end of Leninism has been reached in the US? > > Hope all is well. > Peace, Matt > > On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 11:52 PM, c b <cb31...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > post-Fordism and geographical scattering of > > Charles Brown charlesb at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us > > Tue Apr 28 19:52:54 MDT 1998 > > > > Previous message: M-TH: Bouncing around socalled globalization > > Next message: M-TH: Re: Australian working class and superimperialist > > Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To: Dave > > From: Charles > > > > Here's some more on globalization as > > a qualitative shift from what Lenin defined > > as imperialism, monopoly capitalism; the > > uniting of financial and industrial capital; > > export of capital as a shift from export of > > goods; the "advanced" European colonialist > > countries dividing and redividing the world; > > socalled world wars, meaning all European > > wars.=20 > > monopoly concentration; labour aristocracy > > bought off with superprofits of booty from > > colonialism; etc. etc.; electricity, trains, > > assembly line as technological innovations > > in the means of production. > > =20 > > Gramsciians would say the culture of this > > was Fordism, as discussed below. > > =20 > > >>> "Charles Brown" <charlesb at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> 03/29 4:16 PM > > = > > >>> > > > > From ground zero of Fordism here in Detroit, we experienced the last 45 = > > years of change from the classic big industrial plant (such as Ford = > > Dearborn with 100,000 workers)concentration to scattering of the points of > > = > > production as plantclosings, runaway shops, and white flight to the = > > suburbs. So the transition to socalled post-Fordism got our attention real > > = > > good and we've been trying to figure it in Marxist political economic = > > terms. > > > > It occurred to me that the "new global economy", transnationalization= > > of monopoly capital represents a dialectical qualitative change in the = > > following sense. =20 > > Marx in Capital defines two factors in the > > qualitiative emergence of industrial capitalism over manufacture = > > capitalism. They are the use of machinery=20 > > and the concentration of workers in one big factory. > > Thus, the graphic locus of the classic Leninist agitation and = > > propaganda the giant industrial plant. > > The qualitative change of today is the the revolution in science and = > > technology which has begotten a revolution=20 > > in transportation and communication, creating such things as just in time = > > delivery, containerization . Thus a revolution in machinery, one of the = > > original two breakthroughs in Marx's analysis of industrialization, has = > > made it possible for the capitalists to decentralize and scatter the = > > points of production. The end of Fordism is the end of the big plant. The = > > capitalist can move parts etc around so fast that they do not need the = > > efficiency of concentrating workers in big plants, in ghettoes in the = > > city, the whole ball of wax that gave rise to Leninist tactics in the = > > class struggle by which workers got a sense of their power by their > > great numbers etc. > > I suggest the above infrastructural sketch as=20 > > corresponding to the cultural change now > > named post-Fordism. > > But don't count the proletariat out. The slogan=20 > > workers of the world unite , is more true today > > than when Marx and Engels coined it. And the > > proletariat is fresher than post-Fordist theory might > > know. In other words, the proletariat knows how to > > go with the new. Detroiters probably could show > > post-ologists a thing or two about what is new. > > > > from Proletarian Central, Detroit > > Charles > > =20 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > > Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu > > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > > > > > > -- > If one needs a community to resist interdependence must be seen as a moral > obligation. > > "Men don't need to show our manhood, we need to show our humanity" -- James > Boggs, 1990 > _______________________________________________ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
