Javad Eskandarpour wrote:
Comrade Klo,
In order to have to a critical constructive discussion on any
subject, one must construct, logically, her/his own argument whenever one
has a claim or diagrees with anyone's claim instead of "yes", "no"
assertions, or "what about x?"-type questions. Let us practice this minimum
guideline in our discussion without any usual formal consent as to the merit of
this guideline without its actual practice.
My reply,
If you are saying we should all stick with facts and reason logically while
eschewing opinions, slurs, slanders, and ad hominems, I fully concur.
I would like to make some brief remarks on some of your statements
because most of your statements are paraphrases of your previous ones that I
have already made my remark on.
(1)You state, refering to Lenin's The Proletarain Revolution and
the Renegade Kautsky, that you are "well aware of that book's title" but I
should realize that "Lenin is focusing on the outcome of the Revolution and the
society that was established, not the nature of the class that actually
carried out the revolution". So, according to Lenin, what is "the outcome
of the Revolution"? A proletarian revolution?
My reply,
The outcome is the dictatorship of the proletariat. How can the “outcome” of
the revolution be a proletarian revolution? That’s like saying the outcome of
the revolution was a revolution. Your logic eludes me.
If "the outcome of the Revolution" is a proletarian revolution,
My reply,
I just said it was not.
why do you insist that "the kinds of revolutions [proletarian revolutions] you
[I] are [am] referring to are yet to come"?
My reply,
To repeat. I just said that it was not. In fact, I stated in prior posts
that the outcome was the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is becoming
redundant. How many times have I said it was not, I repeat, it was not a
proletarian but a peasant revolution that gave rise to the dictatorship of the
proletariat. Hopefully I will not need to repeat this even more. So you are
building and thrashing a strawman. You are pounding on a position I do not
hold.
Also, when you say that Lenin supposedly was not focusing on "the nature of the
class that actually carried out the revolution" while focusing on "the outcome
of the Revolution", you appear to insinuate the that the peasantry "actually
carried out the revolution"! Well, if the peasantry "actually carried out the
revolution", then why did not Lenin call "the revolution" a peasant revolution?
Or Lenin was not focusing on this matter?!
My reply,
It’s your final comment that matters. He was not focusing on this as I stated
in a prior post. He was more focused on the outcome than the agent involved
when it came to categorization.
(2) I asked the following question: "which class is alone the
revolutionary class against capitalism"? And you replied to it evasively
again in the following way: "Well, the peasantry carried out the revolution
and the latter resulted in the overthrow of Russian capitalism. What would
you call it?" So, it seems that your answer to my question is "the
peasantry"!
My reply,
You have this fixation with the word “alone.” No class “alone” did anything
of significance that I am aware of; so please don’t invoke it further. This is
that all or none, black or white, approach popping through again.
Secondly, I am now compelled to repeat for who knows how many times that the
Russian Revolution, the Civil War and the Intervention were all parts of a
Peasant Revolution against the bourgeois dictatorship, but the peasants were
assisted by the proletariat and guided by its vanguard.
If you disagree with "the peasantry" as an answer, could you provide us with
an answer without any verbal wrapping and "What would you call it?"-type
questions.
My reply,
I believe I just answered your question as it was answered in prior posts.
The problem lies not with my failure to reply but your failure to accept. It
just doesn’t mesh with what you believe.
(3) In relation to the peasantry, I have made the same remarks on
its class nature in my e-mails regardless of your misconceptions. One of
your misconceptions in understanding what I state as to the class nature of
the peasantry and its role in a proletarian revolution
My reply,
It was not a proletarian revolution so please don’t try to slip that through.
stems from your making no distiction between the peasantry as a class by
itself and "the peasantry" as an ally to the proletarait as the only
revolutionary class facing capitalism.
My reply,
I assume there is a point in there somewhere but it’s yet to appear. And you
have the roles reversed. The peasantry was not an ally to the proletariat; the
proletariat was an ally to the peasantry. Remember, it was a revolution by the
peasantry, aided and guided by the proletariat, not a revolution by the
proletariat aided by the peasantry.
(4) In connection to the Great Russian Revolution, you make the
following statements and ask questions which resemble the questions of
"Have you been miscomprehending Marxism-Leninism recently?"-type: "You call the
Russian Revolution, and perforce the revolutions of China, Vietnam, and Cuba,
"Proletarian Revolutions," yet when I ask you to explain how that can be when
the role of the proletariat was minimal, your silence is deafening. How can
you have a revolution by a class that barely exists throughout a nation when
compared to the vast peasantry?" So far, I have talked about the Great Russian
Revolution. So, let us not entertain your "perforce" statement--"and perforce
the revolutions of China, Vietnam, and Cuba, `Proletarian Revolutions'".
My reply,
Now let’s don’t be disingenuous. The only difference is one of degree, not
kind, and we both know it. How was the Russia of 1917 different in kind from
the China of 1949? Both were overwhelmingly peasant countries and both were
experiencing peasant, not proletarian, revolutions. And I could include
Vietnam and Cuba in this scenario as well. You are trying to duck out on these
others because the fallacy of your stance is exposed even more readily. There
were not enough proletarians in Vietnam in the 1960’s and 70’s to fill a large
football stadium. And yet the outcome was a proletarian dictatorship.
You are still ducking and dodging my original question of eons ago. That is
readily apparent by your attempt to escape through the back door by saying,
“So, let us not entertain your "perforce" statement--"and perforce the
revolutions of China, Vietnam, and Cuba, `Proletarian Revolutions'". So I will
repeat my query for who knows how many times. Perhaps I need to speak a little
louder because we all tend to become numb to voices that are not melodious.
HOW COULD THE REVOLUTIONS IN CHINA, VIETNAM, AND CUBA HAVE BEEN PROLETARIAN
REVOLUTIONS WHEN THE PROLETARIAT BARELY EXISTED IN THESE COUNTRIES AT THE
TIME? How do you explain that?
Second, You are the one who wants to give a "minimal" role to the proletariat
in the Great Russian Revolution, not me. So, I cannot answer your question,
which has the false premise to start with--"the role of the proletariat was
minimal"!
My reply,
Instead of asserting my position is erroneous and yours is not, you should
feel obligated to provide some evidence of same. Mere assertion that you feel
its role was not minimal with respect to fighting in the revolution is
insufficient.
Incidentally, could you state the questions to which you are replying as my
memory does not encompass everything I have written. In other words, I am not
sure of the question to which you are responding since I have asked so many.
Even worse, I have to keep repeating them, since I get no replies. Reminds me
of my sojourn on the Trot list. They loved to attack Joe, but boy did they
hate questions. They especially avoid questions like: How would you have done
it differently and be specific?
Third, I have answered you in different e-mails in differernt forms, but still
I can draw your attention, specifically regarding the proletariat, the
bourgeoisie, and the peasantry, to the apt words of Lenin "Actually everything
depends on the outcome of the struggle between the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie, and the intermediate, middle classes (including the entire petty
bourgeoisie, and hence the entire peasantry) inevitably vacillate between the
two camps".
My reply,
I fully agree with this. So what’s your point? He just told you that the
petty bourgeoisie and the peasantry vacillate between the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat and during the Russian Revolution the pendulum of those two groups
had swung to the side fighting the bourgeoisie. He did not say the proletariat
and peasantry could never be allies nor did he say the revolution could only by
carried out by the proletariat alone.
" The issue is this -- which of the main forces, the proletariat or the
bourgeoisie, these intermediate sections will join. There cannot be any
third way; he who has not understood this from reading Marx's Capital has
understood nothing in Marx, understood nothing in socialism, but is in fact
a philistine and a petty bourgeois who blindly follows in the wake of the
bourgeoisie. On the other hand, he who has understood all this, will not
allow himself to be deceived by empty phrases about "freedom" and
"equality", but will think and speak of PRACTICAL THINGS, that is, of the
concrete conditions for a RAPPROCHEMENT between the peasants and the
workers, their ALLIANCE against the capitalists, AGREEMENT between them
against the exploiters, the rich and the profiteers"(Foreword to the
Published Speech "Deception of the People with Sloagans of Freedom and
Equality").
My reply,
I fully agree with these comments of Lenin as well. He talks of an alliance,
a rapprochement, and an agreement between them which is what I have been
referring to all along. You are undermining your own position and
corroborating, rather than refuting, mine. Welcome aboard.
The main points of Lenin are clear, but for the sake of
spinners, I would like to draw their attention to the following ideas: (a)
The main forces, in the Great Russian Revolution, are the proletarait and
the bourgeoisie.
My reply,
You are not interpreting what he is saying correctly. The two forces in
what?--leadership, direction, and assistance or strength, numbers, power and
force. Surely you can’t be so misled as to claim that Lenin is asserting that
the main physical force in the Russian Revolution, the Civil War, and the
Intervention was the proletariat? Are you serious? The proletariat was
primarily confined to cities such as Moscow, Leningrad, Baku, Tiflis, Novgorod,
Tsaritsyn and other factory centers but their numbers, strength, and
contribution to the actual revolting were far less. You are acting as if what
came to be known as the Soviet Union was primarily a capitalist power on the
world scene around 1917 when, in fact, that region was overwhelming plagued by
feudalism. As I said before, over 80% of the population were serfs and
peasants.
(b) The intermediate classes, including "the entire peasantry", are inevitable
vacillatore between the proletariate and the bourgeoisie.
My reply,
Of course. I already answered this. Lenin could not be more correct and
during the revolution etc. the swing of the pendulum was toward the proletarian
position if only inadvertently for many.
(c)The issue of the Great Russian Revolution is this--which side these
intermediate classes will join, the proletariate or the bourgeoisie.
My reply,
Correct. And they joined the side for change.
(d) There are some "concrete conditions" for the alliance of the proletariate
with the intermediate classes. As it is clear from the above points, the
peasantry as an inevitable vacillating intermediate class cannot be the main
force in a proletarian revolution by its nature.
My reply,
It was never the main force with respect to leadership, guidance, and
direction. Had it been, there would have been no successful Russian
Revolution. The platform of the Social-Revolutionaries would have prevailed
and catastrophe would have ensued. But it most assuredly can be the main force
for the abolishment of bourgeois control in a revolution led by the proletariat
and its vanguard. That is why it is a Peasant Revolution that gives rise to
the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. in addition to some fighting, the
proletariat and its vanguard did the thinking, planning, directing, and
establishing of that which emerged following the victory.
In connection to those "concrete conditions" of the alliance of the
proletariat with the intermediate classes, specifically with the peasantry, one
concrete condition is necessary--to abolish itself as a class and adopt the
standpoint of the proletariat.
My reply,
You are misinterpreting Lenin here as well. Notice he said “adopt the
standpoint of the proletariat.” Precisely! That is what I have been saying
from the outset. By turning the ideological leadership of the revolution over
to the proletariat in general and its vanguard in particular, the peasantry
has, in effect, done just that. That is why it is a Peasant Revolution with a
proletarian leadership and purpose. When he said “abolish itself as a class”
he did not mean to actually abolish itself physically, although that appears to
be your contention.
If anyone is in doubt to this one necessary condition in conjunction with my
claim that the proletarait alone a really revolutionary class facing the
bourgeoisie , then let us listen to Marx: "Of all the classes that stand face
to face with the bourgeoisie to-day, the proletariat alone is a really
revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face
of modern industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product".
"The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the
artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from
extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are
therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are
reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance
they are revolutionary, they are so only in view of their impending
transfer into the proletariat, they thus defend not their present, but their
future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that
of the proletariat"(Manifesto of the Communist Party).
My reply,
That is unquestionably correct in the overall scheme of history to which I
have referred several times. But you are concluding from that that no other
class will ever fight the property owners even when doing so under the
impression that they are fighting it for their own personal benefit rather than
the larger good, i.e., socialism.
You are also ignoring the critical first line in your own citation which says
“The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the
artisan, the peasant, ALL THESE FIGHT AGAINST THE BOURGEOISIE.” Notice it
says they all, they all, fight against the bourgeoisie.” You talk as if this
never occurs and is essentially impossible.
And if you can simultaneously turn this fight into a struggle for socialism,
even if it has to be “sprung on them” after the success of the revolution, that
is a viable, intelligent, and proven-effective way to proceed.
I would like to draw the attention of spinners to the last statement in the
above passage by Marx:
"If by chance they [the intermediate classes] are revolutionary, they are
so only in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat, they thus
defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own
standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat". Thus,
intermediate classes, for example, the peasantry among them, can be
revolutionary allies of the proletariat if "they desert their own
standpoint
to place themselves at that of the proletariat".
My reply,
First you should note from your own citation that they can be revolutionary
vis a vis the bourgeoisie, a status you claim they can never have.
Second, why they are fighting against the bourgeoisie is of far less
importance than the fact that they are, and once they are successful their
energies and goals can be directed toward the establishment of the dictatorship
of the proletariat. Do you want a successful revolution or not? If you do,
then you had better work with whatever forces and classes you can muster and
stop worrying about the purity of their aims, be they socialist or otherwise.
First you overthrow the main enemy with whatever allies you can find, whose
aims will no doubt differ from yours in many respects, and then you turn to
your former allies and give them some news they will not want to hear. Why do
you think the bolsheviks accepted Trotsky as a member in the summer of 1917
after his endless attacks upon Lenin and the bolsheviks? Why do you think they
accepted the Social-Revolutionaries as allies, when the bolsheviks knew full
well that their program focused primarily upon providing poor peasants with
parcels of their own land after the landowners’ land had been expropriated? In
fact, why do you think Stalin broke bread with one of the most vociferous
anti-Communists of the 20th Century, Churchill. Why, because they both opposed
an even more dangerous common enemy.
And third you also appear to have ignored the comment that “intermediate
classes, for example, the peasantry among them, can be
revolutionary allies of the proletariat.” And they were allied in the
Russian Revolution. Of that there can be no doubt.
Again, I must note the overlap of your views and those of Trotsky in this
entire matter.
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
