Javad Eskandarpour wrote:
Comrade Klo,
Good luck with your "Marxist-Leninist" peasant "theory" of
revolution!
My reply,
Comrade Javad.
Correction! It is a Marxist-Leninist analysis of a peasant revolution
assisted by the proletariat and led by the vanguard of the proletariat in such
a manner as to create a dictatorship of the proletariat and is far more fact
than theory.
Before ending this "discussion" due to the "logical" essence of your ideas,
I would like to draw the attention of readers to some of your
"Marxist-Leninist" ideas:
My reply,
There is no need to put the phrase Marxist-Leninist in quotes as I am sure
Stalin would reject and Trotsky would applaud your objections.
(1) "I repeat, it [the Great Russian Revolution] was not a
proletarian but a peasant revolution that gave rise to the dictatorship of
the proletariat".
My reply,
That is correct and was due to the actual leadership of the revolution and the
goals they established.
(2) "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".
My reply,
Finally! It was a long time getting there but we have arrived.
(3) "It [the Great Russian Revolution] was not a proletarian
revolution so please don't try to slip that through".
My reply,
Correct! The peasantry was aided by the proletariat in the fighting and other
activities and guided by the vanguard of the proletariat along a
Marxist-Leninist path but the revolution itself was a Peasant Revolution.
(4) "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".
My reply,
Correct repetition again. This is your first post with which I really feel an
affinity.
(5) "The two forces [the two main forces in Russa--the proletarait
and the bourgeoisie] 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"?
My reply,
This could do with some clarification but I am reading it as a restatement of
my position rather than a caricature or debasement.
(6) "It [the peasantry] was never the main force with respect to
leadership, guidance, and direction".
My reply,
Had they exercised that role the program of the Social-Revolutionaries would
have prevailed and the petty bourgeois mentality would have reigned supreme all
over Russia, which would have eventually only rejuvenated the original problem
of concentrated land ownership. Had that been the program it would have only
been a matter of time before Russia would have gone full circle and returned to
square one. That is exactly what Lenin could see coming and fought to
prevent. He could easily see the basic fallacy of the Social-Revolutionary
approach, as it is nothing but a modified version of the capitalist Anti-Trust
legislative philosophy--the idea that the playing field will remain level and
just under private ownership if you can just break up or restrict the big
bourgeoisie. Not a chance! Family farms are not the way to go. The
petty-bourgeois mentality is the Trojan Horse of private ownership and must be
fought interminably.
(7) "But it [the peasantry] 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".
My reply,
Most assuredly. Again you have quoted me correctly. That is what occurred in
China, Vietnam and Cuba as well, unless you are going to maintain that these
countries did not establish the dictatorship of the proletariat after their
revolutions. Is that your position?
(8) "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".
My reply,
That is a key component of the philosophy that put Lenin and Stalin in power.
Many Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks fought alongside the Bolsheviks
during the Civil War and Intervention.
(9) "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".
My reply,
Correct again. That’s how you make a successful revolution and maintain
leadership after the initial victory. If you are looking for a group that is
100% anything, forget it.
This is by far your best post on this issue.
In lieu of another of your "Marxist-Leninist" ideas, I would like
to suggest something to you. It is not any kind of "slurs, slanders, and ad
hominems", but a good one for a "Marxist-Leninist" of your type to take: Read
and understand carefully before commenting on anything!
My reply,
I try to do so, and do you really think putting Marxist-Leninist in quotes is
going to detract from the accuracy of what I am saying.
One example of your "careful" reading:
" `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 [Klo's] 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".
Do you see any problem? Your reply to MY passage, which you took
mistakingly for a supposed passage by Lenin! Well, this shows how you are
fond of "authoritative" quotations without understanding, and how
"carefully" you "read" and "understand"!
My reply,
Valid point. I should have read this more closely but was misled by your
rather poor delineation of who was saying what. You should have felt
complimented because your paraphrase was so Leninist in tone that I mistook
your comment for his and merely felt it needed to be interpreted correctly.
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
