> Date sent: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 14:28:13 -0500
> Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: What Is to Be Done?
> Ricardo:
> >
> >As you would have it, there were no differences at all! So, how do we
> >explain the mystery of the split? Personality squabbles?! What a
> >marxist!
>
> >From the sounds of this, you were never a political activist. Those of us
> who were 1960s activists walk around with the scars of personality
> conflicts, unprincipled cliques, ego-tripping, etc. that could turn any
> group into a madhouse. There were certainly were to be differences between
> Martov and Lenin, but not at the 1903 conference in the manner you seek to
> project on the event. Furthermore, the position one takes on a resolution
> in 1903 does not predetermine one's political trajectory. A majority of
> Mensheviks would back the 1917 revolution. Meanwhile, Lenin's "Old
> Bolsheviks" had refused to endorse the April Theses of 1917. What people
> like Adam Ulam and other Lenin-haters are interested in is defining
> something called "Leninism" and making it the original sin of 20th century
> left-totalitarianism. He is joined in this superficial interpretation by
> "Marxist-Leninists" who view the 1903 conference as something like the
> formation of a church. Meanwhile Lenin wrote long before 1917 that "What is
> To be Done" is a document that reflected the political exegencies of the
> day and was obsolete already.
I know personality is always a factor. I disagree, however, with
those who try to elevate this factor into the supreme factor behind
the history of the Bolshevik-Menshevik relation.
Just because I cite Ulam it does not follow I accept his
interpretation of Lenin. Anyone who reads my comments on
him will know I have great admiration for him. I just think
Lenin and his politics are over.
> >
> >Why would Lenin exclude someone who was committed heart
> >and soul to his Party from rising to positions of authority? The
> >Bolsheviks were always more active and in closer contact with
> >activists, therefore what Lane says above does not surprise me; in
> >fact, it is to be expected.
> >
>
> This is a stunning rebuke to an argument that I did not make. I argued
> that the Bolsheviks were more "bottom up" than the Mensheviks, who have the
> reputation of being much better on this score. I don't blame you for
> ignoring this inconvenient bit of information.
Yes, and my respond was they were more "bottom up" because they
were in closer contact with committed activists.
ricardo
But now I am leaving. I will try to keep messages, however.
> Louis Proyect
>
>
