Mark: 1) I agree that it was a long-winded piece. I just would not know why anyone would want any more assertions, especially from an unknown person such as Hari K - about what M &E's views are. Unless it was clearly citing sources. True it could have been via footnotes, but I don't think if you take that route - it is any shorter. Nor is it easier bu that avenue makes it much clumsier in my opinion. Hence my choice was - not an assertion but an attempt to derive from their writings where possible, their views.
2) Y ou ask: "Your plan in the booklet is "To show there is no major difference in the views of Marx and Engels versus Lenin..." You didn't say why you're doing that, and why there would be no significant differences between Marx, Engels and Lenin. Do we expect that great minds think alike, or is it a coincidence? Or is there only one, true party organization for working people under capitalism? My response: With respect Mark, I think I did state quite clearly why this was written. It followed a correspondence here on the list, where it was claimed that there was a distinct difference on the matter of a professional party between M & E on the one hand and on the other, the response in WITBDN much later by Lenin. I also referred to earlier attempts that had been made to divide the Marx(ist) from Engel(ist) viewpoints. I did not say, but this perhaps began sotto-voce with Eduard Bernstein, but within the fully formed Communist movement was taken much further I think, by Lukacs. I think I also pointed out how smoe prefer the 'comfort' zone of Marx in preference to the organisational challenges posed by WTBDN. I did not say - but I think most here might agree more in especial the academics in the universities that were once funded by the CIA and their magazines such as Encounter - have been encouraged to make Marxism an 'academic;' discipline instead of a fighting force. 3) You point to a 'nit' - I think you may mean 'nit-picking' (?)- but I get your point when you say: "I also have an issue, nit, or maybe I'm wrong, but I think the term "united front" is anachronism when applied to the 19th century: "Thirdly, another fundamental concept can be seen within this entire text. Without naming it as such, it expresses the need of a United Front." I understand the Comintern's united front tactic to be for specific campaigns and precluded any merging of the organizations. The united front of Lenin's time addressed the split mass socialist and communist parties. Engels' concept may include united front in the Comintern sense, but it seems much more general and also can apply to a fledgling International or labor union. In the post WW II era, many people have extended the concept of the united front to be made up of mass organizations in addition to, or instead of, the various small groups on the left." I agree that my usage was/is an unconventional use of the term United Front. But i was trying to get across the fact that pretty obviously, even after 1948 the M&E argument was to develop a large mass working peoples representation. So - I do not think the term is inappropriate as long as it is defined. What after all was the IWMA - going from anarchists, to initially republicans; through to those of a more recognisably M-E thought process, to Labour representatives? How can you not see it as a form of a UF? Call it what you will - you choose the neologism. But I think it is the same idea. Be well, H -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#40280): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/40280 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/117257520/21656 -=-=- 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]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
