"A Leninism for the 21st century"

[el_chavista]

Do you think that this review by Barry Healy of Lars Lih's "Lenin Resdicovered: What is To Be Done? In Context" (http://links.org.au/node/1510) overestimates what is happening in Venezuela?


As the Bolivarian Revolution emanating from Latin America forges a new tradition of socialism of the 21st century, Lars Lih, without stating it, has made an important contribution towards creating a “Leninism of the 21st century”. He has brought penetrating linguistic expertise and an ability to forensically dig deep in the archives to bring Lenin’s original conceptions to light.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'd recommend the book (but it is long and dense) but the review does a good job of giving you a feel for what the book is about.


But enough of the shameless Haymarket Books plug:D. In my opinion, Venezuela specifically is not 21st century socialism in the sense that radicals mean socialism. I thought that Chavez coined "21st century socialism" and so I thought that was what the author was referencing in his review.

However I don't think it's an overstatement to say that a lot of political developments in Latin America in the last decade were the first examples and steps towards what could be called "21st century socialism". Not that they achieved socialism, but they are some of the first mass working class movements to begin seriously taking on questions of the conflict between democratic popular demands and neo-liberalism and capitalism in general. These movements created neighborhood councils and factory occupations in some countries and led to the election of social-democratic and reformist Presidents and parties (so the question of state power and the relationship between movements and political power was a factor in these Latin American movements).

[automattick]

Do you think that this review by Barry Healy of Lars Lih's "Lenin Rediscovered: What is To Be Done? In Context" overestimates what is happening in Venezuela?

Never read it, but to be honest judging from the title, I would safely say "Yes" it is a bit much.


"As the Bolivarian Revolution emanating from Latin America forges a new tradition of socialism of the 21st century, Lars Lih, without stating it, has made an important contribution towards creating a “Leninism of the 21st century”. He has brought penetrating linguistic expertise and an ability to forensically dig deep in the archives to bring Lenin’s original conceptions to light."

Well, two qualifications must be present in order to consider it socialist: the removal of 1) Primitive Accumulation and 2) Negation of the Theory of Value. Thus far, this represents what Paul Mattick said about the Bolshevik Revolution in that it was nationalization of resources in order for international competition in the global market.

[Q]

The review (http://links.org.au/node/1510) btw is excellent reading which does a good job in summarizing Lih's book. I recommend to everyone to read it in its entirety.

[Zanthorus]

Never read it, but to be honest judging from the title, I would safely say "Yes" it is a bit much.

Although the title doesn't look much he does an excellent job of turning the traditional story about Lenin and the Bolsheviks as an ultra-centralised party of "proffesional revolutionaries" on it's head.

[chegitz guevara]

Well, two qualifications must be present in order to consider it socialist: the removal of 1) Primitive Accumulation and 2) Negation of the Theory of Value. Thus far, this represents what Paul Mattick said about the Bolshevik Revolution in that it was nationalization of resources in order for international competition in the global market.

The privative accumulation phase of capitalism has been over for a long time. Yes, some primitive accumulation still occurs, but by and large capitalist accumulation is through the exploitation of labor and the absorption of one capitalist firm by another.

[automattick]

The privative accumulation phase of capitalism has been over for a long time. Yes, some primitive accumulation still occurs, but by and large capitalist accumulation is through the exploitation of labor and the absorption of one capitalist firm by another.

Of course it still occurs, especially in the so-called developing world. That still does not refute my point, which is to say that in order for an actual abolition of capitalism, it needs to entirely get rid of primitive accumulation and negate the law of value. So far I have yet to hear about a revolution which carried out precisely those two tendencies of capital.

[el_chavista]

... he does an excellent job of turning the traditional story about Lenin and the Bolsheviks as an ultra-centralised party of "proffesional revolutionaries" on it's head.

Further more, it practically supports the Kautskyite socialdemocrat thesis of the merging between socialism and the working class. So, for instance, a Venezuelan marxist would do better belonging to the PSUV than to a traditional sectarian communist party.

The motto would be "The broad masses be with you!" :lol: