Per comrade,
I am unsure whether you directed this post to any one in particular, or if
you wished to expand on your comment concerning a revolutionary leap and its
relation to evolutionary development. This Marxist concept certainly is at
the root of the topic.
fraternally Alan.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Per
> Rasmussen
> Sent: Saturday, 28 October 2000 13:14
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: SV: [MLL]The Communist Manifesto.
>
>
> Dear friend and Comrade!
>
> As I read it ...
>
> You are talking about what lead to jumps in the evolution that gives a new
> level, a revolution.
> In that way it is the same and a new one?
>
>
>
> -----------------------
> Yours in solidarity
> Per Rasmussen
>
> Familien Rasmussen
> http://home0.inet.tele.dk/pera/
> Cuba SI!
> http://w1.1559.telia.com/~u155900388/
> Viden er Magt! - Magten til folket!
> http://w1.1559.telia.com/~u155900373/
>
> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]På vegne af Javad
> Eskandarpour
> Sendt: 27. oktober 2000 23:08
> Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Emne: Re: [MLL]The Communist Manifesto.
>
> Comrades,
>
> Again, I would to like to make a remark on Dover's latest wandering
> off to Lenin's writings in a haphazard way in order to "substantiate" his
> anti-dialectical process of "revolution and revolution".
> Dover distorts Lenin as he distorted Marx and Engels. Where are
> Dover's distortions? For example, in referring to Lenin's understanding of
> the Russian Revolution, Dover makes Lenin begin with the German experience
> of 1848 in order to provide the Russian proletariat and its
> allies a guide
> of action. Lenin actually begins with the Paris Commune and the subsequent
> Marx theoretical elaboration of this event.
> In addition, Dover refers to one of "those principles concerning
> tactics and strategy" that Lenin supposedly adopted from the Communist
> Manifesto: "To lead the temporary alliance with the bourgeoisie for the
> overthrow of the feudal state". Did Lenin say such a thing on
> "the temporary
> alliance with the bourgeoisie"? Let us listen to Lenin himself:
> "We must be
> certain in our minds as to what real social forces are opposed to
> `tsarism'
> (which is areal force perfectly intelligible to all) and are capable of
> gaining a "decisive victory' over it. The big bourgeoisie, the landlords,
> the factory owners, the `society' which follows the Osvobozhdeniye lead,
> cannot be such a force. We see that they do not even want a decisive
> victory. We know that owing to their class position they are incapable of
> waging a decisive struggle against tsarism; they are too heavily
> fettered by
> private property, by capital and land to enter into a decisive
> struggle....No, the only force capable of gaining `a decisive
> victory over
> tsarism' is the PEOPLE, i.e., the proletariat and the peasantry,
> if we take
> the main, big forces, and distribute the rural and urban petty bourgeoisie
> (also part of `the people') between the two. `The revolutions's decisive
> victory over tsarism' means the establishment of the
> REVOLUTIONARY-DEMOCRARIC DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT AND THE
> PEASANTRY"
> (Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution). As it is
> clear from Lenin's quoted passage, there is no word about "the temporary
> alliance with the bourgeoisie"; thus, Dover distorts Lenin, or rather
> "creates" a Lenin in his own image.
> Now, I would like to continue with previous discussion of the
> dialectical identity or unity of opposites. When I state that the opposite
> "components" of a dialectical identity (unity) of opposites are
> each other's
> limit of existence and self-contained in the same relation and the same
> time, I take each "component" or more correctly each moment of this
> dialectical identity as itself and not-itself at the same time. In other
> words, each moment is a self-sustained entity or process which goes beyond
> itself to determine and exist as itself. For example, let us consider the
> dialectical identity of evolution and revolution. Each moment of this
> dialectical identity, "evolution" or "revolution", is itself and
> not itself
> at the same time. In other words, "evolution" is "evolution" and
> "revolution" at the same time; and also, "revolution" is "revolution" and
> "evolution" at the same time. Thus, whenever a
> dialectical-materialist talks
> about either "evolution" or "revolution", she/he talks about
> either of them
> as itself and not-itself at the same time. In contrast to this
> understanding
> of dialectical identity of opposites, Dover-type "dialecticians" come up
> with their own "dialectical" identity of opposites, in which each
> moment of
> the unity does not have its otherness in itself. That is reason that
> Dover-type "dialecticians" assume "evolution" just as evolution,
> without its
> otherness--"revolution", and "revolution" just as "revolution",
> without its
> otherness--"evolution". Thus, Dover-type "dialecticians" attribute
> anti-dialectical ideas, like "revolution and revolution", to Marx, Engels,
> and Lenin through their own ignorance of dialectical-materialism.
>
> Javad
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
>
_______________________________________________
Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
