A chomraidi, I am glad to see that the list has at least enjoyed a lot of postings since I last checked it out. I am sad that they have included calls for expulsion and unconstructive name calling. We have a higher calling on this list than name-calling or credential parading. The focus must be on theory and action and as little personalities as possible.
I am not from the USA, I live in Ireland and am a full-time activist. I have found the discussion between Mark and Melvin interesting and educational (and potentially useful to some degree). I think that the idea of expelling anyone from this list is a bad one. How many people post to it regularly? How many read it? It doesn't seem like many more than 20? Losing Melvin would significantly reduce the variety of arguments presented. To some degree I think that Melvin is presenting an argument which is potentially new to my (limited) conception of Marxism-Leninism. Whether that is deemed to be 'revisionist' or 'a positive development' is really up to whether you agree with it or not. I think the separation of economic and political revolutions might well be considered 'revisionist' but then I also suspect that it may represent a huge development of marxist theory which in some sense takes us back to Marx as opposed to taking us away from him. It enables a return to a revolutionary strategy much more closely tied economic theory than is usual in theory since Lenin himself. It this necessarily wrong? Would Lenin himself criticise it simply on the basis that it stands against what he did himself back in the early 20th Century? I think we need to engage with it - if it is wrong - then it must be proven wrong on the basis of analysis rather than simply on the basis that it contradicts what was written in the past. Marxism-leninism is a great help to revolutionaries but it isn't an idealised monolithic conception which is impervious to all changes in society since the 1920s. To say that I believe undermines what Marxism-leninism is really about. To say that Marxist-leninist theory can remain unchanging would be to betray the materialist basis of marxism substituting it for an idealised framework arising from materialist writings from a past epoch and very different social circumstances. At the same time, we have all to be aware that this argument has been used by everyone who wants to dump marxist leninist theory for social reformism. But we can't afford to sit still. Marx was not an idealised thinker. We have to achieve a revolution - do we not? That is our task. Are we serious about revolution or is our theory limited to exegesis of almost 'talmudic texts'? My Marxism-leninism is ideological but practical and serious. Activity and revolution are the goals. We all make errors, hence the need for criticism and self-criticism. That cannot be achieved through excluding those without serious analysis of their arguments on the basis *of material facts and trends*. I consider myself a marxist. I am not an expert in USA or core economics. I am good at what I do - but can always improve. I can't determine what is the correct appreciation of the situation inside the USA. Afterall, such an analysis requires a close connection with a living mass movement there. I can't have that - I am active in very different circumstances. To expel someone rather than develop an effective engagement would be to cut off the development of new theory (new strategy) from the eyes of those of us who need to see it. What happens in the USA is, I believe, going to be critical to the world situation. I think those of us involved in anti-imperialist struggle elsewhere have a right to expect comrades in the belly of the beast to be a little more effective in the future. I don't necessarily believe that the centre of revolution is in the post-colonial (or semi-colonial) or even those few colonial states. It may be but I'm not convinced that that remains the case in the epoch of dominant finance capitalism as opposed to corporate capitalism. The pressures for revolution are much more concentrated on those areas of the 'core' which suffer from job losses. The risk is from fascism taking a root. In the periphery, the trend will remain accommodation of finance capital investors to create growth, albeit semi-controlled in the best cases. That's the reality of what everyone's at in that situation. Maybe, a few post-colonial countries which are in the anomalous position of having made a transition to a post-industrial economic base may be able to make a transition ahead of the rest but that's only an outside chance. To me, the greatest potential is in the imperialist core countries. Where that is located is obviously in the national (colonial) minorities and lower working class. I think that most agree to this. Melvin is making an additional argument, however. This needs a real engagement from people who know more about marxism-leninism than I. I'm afraid I haven't seen that yet. We're never going to build a mass movement if we rely on self-selecting a bunch of 'ideologically correct' individuals and talk together. I don't think that is what Lenin did. It is not possible to build a mass movement on the basis of 'ideological correctness'. In fact, that is utter sectarianism in my opinion. Such a mode of party-building could only come about because of a complete severance with the working class in the first place. I totally concur with Calvin. The A-list is too academic to be very useful. The Marxism list is appallingly Trotskyist. I would love all the marxist leninists to come together and constructively debate issues and to hammer out 'programmes of action' here. Why not? The only thing to prevent that would be sectarianism and the lack of supportive and balanced moderation to prevent unproductive flare-ups. Le meas, DoC. _______________________________________________ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
