(DISCARD MY EARLIER VERSION AS I ADDED MORE)
Javad Eskandarpour wrote:
Comrade Klo,
My remarks on your statements:
(1) When you state that "It was a peasant revolution led by
the
proletarian vanguard and assisted by the proletariat which led to
the
Dictatorship of the Proletariat", It seems that you want to make the
proletariat an ally and assistent of the peasantry, not the other
way
around, in contradistinction to Lenin's ideas;
My reply,
It was a symbiotic relationship, as neither could have succeeded
without the other. Each aided the other. It was a peasant revolt but
led to the goals of the proletariat and its vanguard. I feel quite
confident that Lenin would concur with my summation.
You call it a Proletarian Revolution because you are focusing on the
society ultimately established with little concern for those who
actually did the fighting, while I call it a Peasant Revolution giving
rise to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, due to the vanguard’s
leadership, because I am focusing on those who actually did the fighting
and dying overwhelmingly.
also at he same time , you acknowledge that we have a proletarian
revolution contrary to your previous claim that "the first proletarian
revolution is yet to occur".
My reply,
Where did I say it was a proletarian revolution? You are the one who
keeps making that assertion. I said it was a revolution of the
peasantry which was led by the vanguard of the proletariat and assisted
by the proletariat. It was not a proletarian revolution, although some
misleadingly refer to it as a proletarian revolution because it was led
by the proletarian vanguard. As I mentioned earlier in a point I think
you missed: Was WWII on the Eastern Front a war between the “brains” of
the operation, Hitler and Stalin and their associates, or between the
“muscle and masses,” the Wehrmacht and the Red Army? How could it have
been a proletarian revolution when the proletariat’s role was dwarfed by
that of the peasantry when it comes to numbers and the actual fighting
involved?
From your perspective one might just as well call it a Women’s
Revolution because a number of women did some of the fighting and dying
and victory led to the emancipation of women in Russia.
(2) The concept of "revolution" against capitalism in
Marxism-Leninism means the process of a qualitative restructuring of
the
mode of production through overthrowing capitalism politically and
abolishing private property. So, this concept does not mean any
generic act of rebelion by x against y, for example, peasantry against
capitalism
because peasantry does not and cannot qualitatively restructure the
capitalist mode of production and abolish private property due to
its own
foundation.
My reply,
Now you are replowing the same ground. The peasantry can, and actually
did, participate in the abolishment of private ownership. They
willingly fought against feudal landlords on the premise that the lands
of the latter would be taken from the small minority and distributed to
the vast majority.
You are again exhibiting this Trotskyist conception of the peasantry in
which the latter is totally incapable of supporting collectivization or
the abolishment of private property. Not so. As I mentioned in the
prior post, the overwhelming majority of the peasants were not kulaks or
middle peasants but poor landless peasants who could be persuaded that
collectivization was superior to private ownership by each individual
member of that class. They fought to take the land from the few wealthy
landowners and once that was successful the vanguard needed only
convince them that it was in their best interest to collectivize that
which had been seized rather than distribute parcels to each peasant
individually.
In addition, the nature of any revolution is based on the
specific mode of production which is declared politically and being
established economically,
My reply,
How a mode of production is “declared” politically or otherwise has
nothing to do with what it is, as that is based on objective
conditions. Calling something a duck does not make it a duck.
but it is not based on the number of the participants who might come
from different classes. So, your questions, like "What class did more to
overthrow the Czar and the Provisional government than any other? What
class fought the capitalists during the Intervention and the Whites
during the Civil War more than any other by far?", are not relevant to
the detemination of which class is revolutionary against capitalism, and
which class has its dictatorship.
My reply,
According to you, even though a particular class provided the
overwhelming majority of those doing the fighting and dying, it could
still not be a revolt by them but by another class. That’s quite a
accomplishment don’t you think. Can you give me some examples of
revolutions in history executed almost completely by members of class A
but you consider to actually be a revolution by class B?
I can think of revolutions by class A which I would call a revolution
by class A, but which were led and controlled by class B and created the
society desired by class B. The Russian Revolution of 1917 is a good
example. But I can’t think of one that was executed as well as led and
controlled by class A that I would call a revolution by class B.
Incidentally, I am still waiting for you to explain to me how the
Chinese revolution and the Vietnamese revolution and the Cuban
revolution were proletarian revolutions when the proletariat’s
contribution to the actual fighting and dying was dwarfed by the
peasantry. Your only escape is to claim these countries never
established the Dictatorship of the Proletariat or socialism to begin
with.
The idea of establishing the nature of revolution through numerical
strength of a particular class is not a Marxist-Leninist idea.
My reply,
To completely ignore the crucial role of the class that contributed the
overwhelming majority of those doing the revolting simply because other
classes are involved is erroneous; it’s not Marxist-Leninist. One might
just as well say the war on the Eastern Front was between Hitler and his
associates versus Stalin and his supporters because the winning group of
leaders was involved and determined the nature of the post-War society
in the Eastern Region, not the Wehrmacht or the Red Army.
Secondly, in effect, you are saying it is impossible to have a
revolution leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat unless the
proletariat is the class actually doing the revolting. So, I will again
ask you how much of a role the proletariat played in the actual
overthrow of the bourgeois dictatorship of Russia. What was the size of
the proletariat in Russia throughout the Revolution, the Civil War and
the Intervention from 1917 to 1920 and how much did they physically
contribute to the overthrow and victory? I am still waiting for a reply.
(3)In relation to your reference to Trotsky, I would like to
mention
that if you have a point to make, please argue for your point
without
conjuring up the amorphous "ghost" of Trotsky's ideas relevantly or
irrelevantly because, contrary to common misconception, the name of
Trotsky (assuming he is wrong) cannot make your point sound, and I am
certain that you can argue for your point without recourse to famous or
infamous names.
My reply,
Can’t agree. I think it is important for anyone reading this dialogue
to be aware of the similarity between your ideas and those of Trotsky.
Mine is not a case of trying to apply guilt by association but of making
people aware of those ideas which can, and did, lead to erroneous
theories and tactics. One learns from the past and we don’t want to
corroborate Santayana’s dictum that the only thing one learns from
history is that people don’t learn from history. People should know
that when they accept your analysis they are buying into Trotsky’s
conception of history and how we should act henceforth.
For Trotsky the proletariat was the be-all and the end-all at all
times. I am just glad Lenin and Stalin in Russia, Mao in China, Ho Chi
Minh in Vietnam and Fidel in Cuba did not operate on that non-Marxist
premise or we would be much farther behind than we already are on this
planet. One can only imagine the horrendous course history would have
taken if those leaders and nations had waited for the proletariat to
become THE major class in those societies, if they had waited for it to
become THE class providing the major components of the revolutionary
armies and forces. That era is yet to come, is looming on the horizon,
and will, indeed, witness the showdown of showdowns, the climactic
struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat predicted in the
Manifesto.
For the cause,
Klo
_______________________________________________
Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
