> CB: When you use "epigone" to refer to Lenin's followers it seems to be a negative epithet. <
I guess that negative connotation is part of the common usage. However, it misses my point. My point was that "democratic centralism" is something which doesn't have a totally clear meaning in Lenin, so that his followers had to fill in the blanks. So that one talks about the "Leninist idea of democratic centralism," one is discussing the product of generations of leftists. Given the varying interpretations, it's quite like that the version discussed simply represents what the writer -- i.e., you -- is in favor of _or_ what some other writer really hates. referring to my assertion that Lenin's concept involved ambiguity: >CB: The best way to discuss this issue is for you to bring here which parts of Lenin's work you think are ambiguous.< I don't think so, since I do have to work some times. As I said before, the ambiguity is indicated by the fact that the "Leninist" tradition has at least two different interpretations for the concept of "democratic centralism." Some even interpret the phrase as you do, not as referring to internal party organization but to the relationship between the party and the "masses." CB:>I would say the comparison with the law is a good way to make the point I am making. A significant difference between the law and most other academic subjects is that the law places much more emphasis on the unity between its theory and practice than most other academic social scientific fields.< Ambiguity seems to be a normal empirical reality, something that the Law has to deal with all the time. Academics sometimes revel in real-world ambiguity, but far too often get into iron-clad certitude and _a priori_ reasoning. For example, there's the belief among many economists -- maybe even a majority of them -- that the market is the best way to organize society. CB:> The greater emphasis on practice is reflected in one of the specific ways that the law deals with ambiguities. This is the subject of statutory construction. If a party asserts that some statutory language is ambiguous, the process is that the parties argue for one side of the ambiguity or the other based on principles of statutory construction, and then the judge decides. The result is always that the statute is interpreted as not ambiguous, and to have the meaning of one side of the ambiguities or the other.< The ambiguity of the law is due to the fact that it's impossible to write a law that deals with all of the possible concrete real-world cases. This is solved by using the subjective judgement of judges and juries. CB:> ... Another legal concept can help here: presumptions. Presumptions are basically "being certain for now". Unless evidence rebuts the presumption it is "presumed" to be true (based on accumulated experience , i.e. it is a posteriori, not a priori) and acted upon with "certainty" of its truth. A presumption allows action in the face of "ambiguity".< This is what scientists call a "working hypothesis" (and in fact describes all theories in the natural and social sciences, since scientific methods don't allow for the "final word" ever being stated as immune to empirical, logical, or methodological criticism). As mentioned, many academics go even further, into being certain about the Truth and then becoming activists. This can be seen in the way that the intellectual shock troops of the neo-liberal policy revolution have been mostly academic economists. (The MF springs to mind. However, many of these economists are outside of academia, in positions of power at the US Treasury, the IMF, and the World Bank, together constituting the vanguard party of neo-liberalism.) >>BTW, I can see no reason why Lenin's work should be idolized. After all, his main achievement in practice -- leading the Boshevik revolution -- was, in the end, basically a failure. The failure wasn't totally his fault, of course, but neither does he deserve all the credit for revolution. (The soviets workers, peasants, and soldiers had something to do with the latter.)<< > CB: In what sense do you mean "failure" here ? < The failure can be seen by looking at the Bolshevik slogan of 1917, which was pushed by Lenin: "all power to the soviets," where at the time, "soviets" referred to democratically-run councils of workers, peasants, and soldiers. Over time, this morphed into something completely different, i.e., "all power to the state and its monopoly ruler, the CPSU." Now, I can see that the replacement of goals of popular democracy by those of national economic development imposed from above makes a heck of a lot of sense for a poor country that was dominated by outside forces and then invaded and attacked by those forces. It sure looks in retrospect that Russia wasn't ripe for a proletarian-democratic revolution in 1917, though this case remains ambiguous. (If so, that means that the Mensheviks and Stalin were right, against Lenin and Trotsky.) But in the end, even the program of national economic development ground to a halt, so that the political forces that monopolized political power -- the CPSU under Gorby _et al_ -- decided to try to convert the system into capitalism. CB:>Marx was also a failure , no ? Why would Hal Draper spend so much time quoting Marx, when he was a failure ?< I can't read Draper's mind, especially since he's dead (and my medium is on vacation). (There is someone on pen-l who used to work with him, who might have some idea here.) But the fact is that Marx was successful in developing an alternative theoretical vision (to the dominant liberal ones) about how social change and capitalism work. The fact that his success was totally on the theoretical level suggests that it was a failure in practice. But that doesn't change the fact that people who are being screwed by the system need a way to understand the system in order to fight back -- or even abolish the system -- more successfully. I would see Marxian theory as a failure only if there were a superior alternative. But it can't be denied that in the historical sweep of the last 150 years, Marxism has been a failure in practice (except, temporarily, when it has been reinterpreted as an ideology of national economic development). This is a failure that has to be faced rather than ignored. >In fact, has there ever been a "success" in human history in the sense of the opposite of failure that you use it ? Name a success in human history.< Capitalism has been pretty successful at imposing the rule of capital on the world and at appropriating surplus-value. >>>CB:Actually, compared with most other theories in this area, Lenin's is relatively unambiguous. And certainly in the spirit of Leninism, it would be out of character to emphasize any ambiguities so as to reach the conclusion that there is just too much uncertainty about Lenin's ideas and theory that it cannot serve as a guide to our action.<<< I wrote: >>so the "spirit of Leninism" (a contested phrase, one that could be Stalinist, Trotskyist, or whatever) is to shelve all doubts, to cling to simplistic analyses, to think with one's blood?<< > CB: Please point to where I said the spirit of Leninism is to shelve all doubts, to cling to simplistic analyses, to think with one's blood? < what you said (quoted above) sure sounded that way. I was asking a question, though, and you didn't answer it. However, I presume that you reject the idea that the so-called "spirit of Leninism" involved the shelving of all doubts. By the way, part of Lenin's emphasis was to always call for "concrete analysis of concrete conditions." One of the unfortunate aspects of such concrete analyses is that they are typically more ambiguous in their meaning (for practice) than abstract theory is. ... >> The Lenin of 1917 was different from the Lenin of 1905 and from the one who later was in favor of repressing the Kronstadt revolt. It's been my contention for quite a while that Lenin was in many ways a "dependent variable," someone who was produced by his time more than he produced it. Both self-styled Leninists and anti-Leninists miss this. << > CB: Most Leninists follow the general principle of historical materialism that "big men", including Lenin or Marx, don't make history, classes do, agreeing with the principle you state here. So, who are you referring to here ?. On the other hand, Marx's approach is that important individuals can speed or slow the pace of historical development, so Lenin, it might be said , had this impact of speeding up.< Stalin, for example, idolized Lenin as a way to justify his regime. Trotsky did so too, as a way of shoring up his opposition to the Stalin regime's crimes and the rise to power of the bureaucratic "stratum." ... >>> CB:I very much doubt that Marx would be upset that he has had so much influence after his death if he could know it. He certainly spent a lot of time developing a very distinct point of view, and he was very picky about criticizing pretty much everybody else except Engels. So, the modesty you suggest doesn't immediately square with much of his style and personality.<<< >> All sorts of horrible people, such as Pol Pot, have claimed Marx's banner. That seems sufficient to make Marx wince. Remember that during his own lifetime, he rejected the idea of "Marxism," by saying he wasn't a "Marxist."<< > CB: Pol Pot is one time not "every time" Marx's name is invoked. There are many times when Marx's name has been invoked when he probably would approve.< I doubt that he saw his vision as one of national economic development brought about from above by a political party having a monopoly of political and economic power -- or one of a cross-class alliance in a national liberation struggle. After 1923 or so, those have been the increasingly prevalent meanings of "Marxism" in the real world. > I interpret the quote "I am not a Marxist" as witty and as having narrow application to some specific people , and not that Marx rejected his own theory. This certainly seems to be the way Engels interprets it.< _Of course_ he didn't reject his own theory! (Who has ever said that?) Instead, he rejected dogmatists and others who were making an ideology out of his theory. I wrote: > It's true that the measing of words is typically pretty arbitrary. So if you want to use the word "democratic" in that way, we're talking about two completely different things. (I was talking about democracy within the party, whereas you're talking about a party's relationship with the "masses.") < >CB: I'm not sure in what sense you mean that the meaning of words is typically pretty arbitrary. "Democratic" usually means popular sovereignty as opposed to dictatorship.< it's not the "democratic" that's arbitrary -- though the dominant interpretation of this word these days seems to be "capitalism dominated by US interests, holding meaningless elections" -- but the phrase "democratic centralism." CB:>If "democracy" is confined to the petty democracy of the small minority of the population that is in the Party, then it is not worth much. The decisions of the Party must be based on the experience of the masses of the population as well as the theory of the leaders in the Party. < I was NOT saying that democracy was restricted to "the small minority of the population that is in the Party" or parties. (Why singular "Party"? why capitalize "Party" the way people capitalize "God" or the "Church"? Which "Party" are you referring to -- the Socialist Workers Party?) Rather, what I was saying was that the dominant interpretation of the phrase "democratic centralism" within the left (both by self-styled Leninists and critics) has been referring to the internal social organization of party-type organizations, not to the "party/masses" relationship. >And I don't agree that Communist Parties have completely failed at this process, though there have been failures. < What successes have the CPs had at creating revolutions that allowed workers to rule their countries democratically? ... gotta go. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http:/bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." -- Richard Feynman.
