Hi Hari, > On Nov 29, 2025, at 05:49, hari kumar via groups.io > <[email protected]> wrote: > >
... > I can certainly fully understand a level of disillusionment - which in many > people's case as yours - is profound. > > My problem with such disillusion is twofold. > First that in most cases this rests on (i) a false history of what happened True history comes from evidence that support a theory of the history. I have read relatively recent works that mined data such as Cheka records and official documents beyond the often-contradictory speeches and resolutions. Much new data were made available in recent decades. I think we can still learn from the history of the Russian Revolution and its aftermath. And our explanations for it may evolve as well. > (ii) direct personal experience of warped individuals. I was comparing State and Revolution with the subsequent use of the state to effect the revolution. > (i) - becomes a potentially resolvable issue on the basis of facts - > 'potentially' because 'facts' maybe apparently in conflict and have to be > fought out. To be useful, I think that facts need a context, an interpretation of what they mean and, for our purposes, identification of the historical forces that may have produced the observed phenomena. > (ii) - this is the 'human condition'. I had enough of it in my work (dayjob) > experience with ambition, pride, viciousness . . . it goes on . . Balzac had > something to say on this. Is there a singlular 'human condition'? > > My second problem, is that the onus is on those whe discard the Leninist > model (completely - not arguing to alter it in a way) - do not actually > propose anything concrete. > Or do they? When people organize themselves, then more often than not, we replicate the organizational structures we know best. I was in one group where the elected leadership acted like the faculty of a school where the members were like the students: They never brought problems for the membership to discuss but solutions to be voted on and/or implemented. Another local organization elects a leadership yearly that is a tiny fraction of the membership. Like many groups, the organization's governance structure apes public representational governance or executive governance with leaders assigned to functions; those not elected were not leaders, or at least not leaders equal in stature and authority to those with portfolio; this is not what we want in an organization that aspires to lead masses of people in dozens or hundreds of organizations. In many, if not most, left groups, the members don't run things but instead get to elect the people who do. At least many of those leaders will get replaced, often yearly, whereas self-avowed Leninist organizations tend to have perennial leaders who never rotate out, and the organization never develops new leaders at the highest levels. And maybe the problem is the very fact that there are "highest levels" in the leadership of socialist groups. Whether it be a school or corporation or political organization, the social structures that we reproduce in our fight against capitalism tend to replicate capitalism's oppressive structures with hierarchies and hatreds. I think there are ways to overcome some of these problems once they are recognized as problems, but that's a longer conversation. thanks, Mark -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#39580): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/39580 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/116549413/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
