> On Feb 24, 2026, at 10:16, hari kumar via groups.io > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Can you give us a concrete alternative structure-framework-concrete > manifestation?
No. But does that mean we must choose to be Leninists? Despite fundamental problems? The first problem is that most of us don't agree on what "Leninism" is. Partisans of different Leninist parties have killed one another in the past, each claiming adherence to Leninism. I do think Marv correctly noted, however, that all 20th century revolutions that took state power, except Cuba, were led by Leninist parties. But let's ask why. In the Russian Empire, China, Korea and Vietnam, the Leninist parties operated in countries that were dominated by the peasantry with a very small industrial working class. Leninism was fundamental to one, but was it incidental to some of the other revolutions? In how many cases were the revolutions led by Leninist parties because of the USSR rather than something intrinsic to Leninism? If there were Soviet tanks present during the revolution, then maybe the outcome had less to do with principle and everything to do with power. I have suggested on this list that even the USSR did not follow the Leninist principles of State and Revolution, What Is To Be Done, and some other basic works. Maybe it's too much to expect consistency between what leaders write and what they do. But that affects how one feels about Leninism. There are multiple views on this list as to what "Leninism" is. Was it "Leninist" in 1928 for the Comintern to remove the elected leaders of the CPUSA? Nor will we agree on when the original Leninist party ceased being Leninist. Was it 1953 or 1991 or 1928? Leninist-led countries became capitalist with civil war or violent counter revolution, unlike the original revolutions. So even the Leninist-led parties rooted in Stalin's CPUSSR have fragmented on these issues as have the Maoist/Leninist parties. The Trotskyist Leninists, for some reason, are champions of fragmentation. In the US, the mothership Trotskyist/Leninist party, the SWP, birthed many Leninist parties before it devolved into a cult. It finished with the decades-long leader pocketing the sale of their Manhattan properties. Now they have a website for a newspaper that makes them look like a real party, but they are not. I think Marv made that point in general for today's Leninist parties. So, I'm skeptical about Leninism. And I'm not sure about the organizational strategy of starting with a core group of dedicated cadre and expect that it will organically grow when the class radicalizes. That was the experience of the CPUSA in the 1930s, but the USSR connection no doubt helped. Others did not experience such growth even after leading general strikes. Another strategy is to anticipate a split in a large organization like the socialist parties along the lines of Trotsky's French Turn. Or some group may invent something entirely different but democratic, which is something the Leninist parties often lack. Mark -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#40823): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/40823 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/117948992/21656 -=-=- 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]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
