>
>I would add that, for Lenin, tiny, minute differences in strategy and
>tactics were always of fundamental significance, for he knew, unlike
>anyone else, in revolutionary situations such differences carry
>enormous implications.
>
>ricardo
I have no idea what you mean by tiny and minute. Most of the well-known
fights that we associate with Lenin, and which occurred with right-leaning
social democrats like yourself, had far-reaching consquences:
1) whether to support WWI
2) whether to launch proletarian revolution in Russia, despite "immature"
capitalist property relations
3) whether to support nationalist movements despite the quality of the
official leaderships (Ireland, Poland, etc.)
These sorts of questions will always divide the left. For example, Michael
Harrington and Irving Howe backed the Vietnam war initially using arguments
quite similar to the "social patriots." Bogdan Denitch urged NATO bombing
of the Serbs. Paul Berman attacked the Sandinistas because they supposedly
forced socialism on a country not ripe for it. Bayard Rustin attacked black
nationalism in the 60s because people like Elijah Muhammed were in the
leadership.
Perhaps if you could give an example of Lenin as hair-splitter, it might
help to clarify why our perceptions are so different.
Louis Proyect
