Die Neue Zeit
3rd October 2011, 06:27
BACKGROUND
Von Schweitzer, you mean the Lassallean who characterised the internal structure of the ADAV as 'Democratic Centralisation'?!?! The one who Marx argued against because he advocated such a centralism? ("Here, where the worker is regulated bureaucratically from childhood onwards, where he believes in authority, in those set over him, the main thing is to teach him to walk by himself." - Marx to Von Schweitzer, 1868) Are you purposely trying to be facetious? Of course Marx hated the man.
To be fair, I'll give these flexible interpretations to what Marx wrote:
"Where the worker is regulated bureaucratically from childhood onwards": Can easily refer to alternative culture.
"Where he believes in authority": The authority of his Party and its myriad of organizations.
"In those set over him": Schweitzer was not referring to some elite central committee, especially since the Lassalleans didn't intend on remaining a sect. This can refer to a bureaucratic process of sorts.
"The main thing is to teach him to walk by himself": No need for interpretation.
I'm not entirely sure what the point of DNZ's 'flexible' interpretation is other than the fact that he has a strange fetish for a political tendency which actually prefigured Stalinism in many respects.
Well:
For all his faults, Lassalle stressed independent political organization:
Ferdinand Lassalle: balanced assessment of a German workers' leader (http://www.revleft.com/vb/ferdinand-lassalle-balanced-t150158/index.html)
That's a lot more that can be said of either Stalin or Trotsky on Popular/United Frontism.
Compare with:
TRANSLATION: Alexander Filippov on ‘Debates about Stalin's Role’ in A New History of Russia 1945-2006 (http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/articles/transl_filippov_on_stalin.pdf)
Any new worker-class movement needs to borrow key parts from the legacy of Ferdinand Lassalle, and for this to happen that legacy needs one or a number of Alexander Filippovs. Lars Lih and I may just be the spearhead.
That's not the least bit self-aggrandizing. ;) And here I thought I was being a bit unfair thinking to myself you fashion yourself as some would-be 21st C. Lassalle.
I brought up Stalin only in response to Zanthorus's post, and because there's an independence gulf between the two historical figures. I likened myself only to one element that would make up a new, Lassalle- and Kautsky-inspired worker-class movement's Alexander Filippov. You know, the guy who wrote that infamous Putin school textbook back in 2006-2007?
[The reputation of such a Filippov equivalent is nowhere near Lassalle's then-living German cult or post-humous European cult, let alone Stalin's cross-continental cult.]
FILIPPOV? [HUMOUR, PART I]
Who exactly is Alexander Filippov? Well, he wrote some controversial material back in 2006-2007. The translated material is provided in the attachment. A critical opinion piece provided the contour of his book:
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/april2009/putin-versus-truth.html
The history textbook favored by the government was heavily promoted by government officials attending the conference. Indeed it later turned out that The Modern History of Russia, 1945–2006: A Teacher's Handbook had been directly commissioned by the presidential administration itself, which had issued the following guidelines to the textbook's authors about how they should evaluate the leaders of the period:
Stalin—good (strengthened vertical power but no private property); Khrushchev—bad (weakened vertical power); Brezhnev—good (for the same reasons as Stalin); Gorbachev and Yeltsin—bad (destroyed the country but under Yeltsin there was private property); Putin—the best ruler (strengthened vertical power and private property).
Here's the first attempt at humour on the subject.
The following guidelines to the textbook's authors about how they should evaluate the movements and leaders of the period and the model today:
Lassalle - good ("vertical power" charisma and class independence but no institutional organization)
British trade unionism - bad (institutional organization but neither "vertical power" charisma nor class independence)
French socialism - bad (no class independence, no "vertical power" charisma, and no institutional organization re. Parti Ouvrier and SFIO)
Marx and Engels in relation to the IWMA - good (class independence but no "vertical power" charisma and no institutional organization due to liquidation)
Von Schweitzer - good (class independence and institutional organization but no "vertical power" charisma)
Bebel and the pre-war SPD - good ("vertical power" charisma and institutional organization but questionable class independence re. regional coalitions)
Italian Socialism - good (class independence but mixed "vertical power" charisma and no institutional organization due to lack of alternative culture centralization)
SDKPiL - bad (no class independence, no "vertical power" charisma, and clear rejection of institutional organization)
Modern model - needs to be "good" in all aspects (class independence, institutional organization, and "vertical power" charisma)
"GREATEST...?" [HUMOUR, PART II]
Just check out the various Victory Day polls today on the Generalissimus and substitute "Russians" with "workers" and that class-collaborationist with "Lassalle": over half as "undoubtedly positive" or "probably positive," and just less than half "wanted or would not object to having a leader."
Then check out the "Greatest Russian" TV fad and replace it with "Greatest Worker Leader" and naturally have Lassalle spontaneously voted upon massively only to land in third place perhaps by Old-School Left manipulation. [Somehow the Russian authorities manipulated the "Greatest Russian" contest because the Generalissimus in first place would have been quite embarrassing, to say the least.]
MEETING? [HUMOUR, PART III]
Costa: As you know, we have decided to readmit The Hammer to the ranks of the party-movement!
Demetrius: In my opinion, those other two should be readmitted. No matter what they say, Ferdinand Lassalle is of our history, worker-class history. No enemies ever harmed us so much as Progressive Party fellow travellers did with their loud mouths aimed against Populist Front tactics across the populist spectrum right up to pro-Bismarck working-class supporters, and against Lassalle!
Nicholas: Yes, if not for those fellow travellers our memory would never have been decimated within worker-class history. They besmirched us, our strategy, our tactics, and our platform in the eyes of the whole world!
Andrew: They irreparably damaged worker-class prestige. Thanks to them, Bernsteinism, tred-iunionisty United Fronts, Popular Fronts, and other pro-liberal idiocies were born!
Demetrius: Shouldn't we restore the name Lassalo to today's Marxina? Millions of class-conscious workers would support this!
[Source: Meeting of the Politburo of the CC CPSU, July 12, 1984]
Konstantin Chernenko: As you know, we have decided to readmit Molotov to the ranks of the CPSU.
Dmitry Ustinov: In my opinion, Malenkov and Kaganovich should be readmitted [...] No matter what they say, Stalin is our history. No single enemy ever harmed us so much as Khrushchev did with his policy toward the past of our party and our state, and toward Stalin.
Nikolai Tikhonov: Yes, if not for Khrushchev they would never have been expelled from the party. He besmirched us and our policies in the eyes of the whole world.
Andrei Gromyko (surprise!): He irreparable damaged the Soviet Union's positive image [...] Thanks to him the so-called 'Eurocommunism' was born.
Dmitry Ustinov: Shouldn't we restore the name Stalingrad to Volgograd? Millions of people would support this.
Von Schweitzer, you mean the Lassallean who characterised the internal structure of the ADAV as 'Democratic Centralisation'?!?! The one who Marx argued against because he advocated such a centralism? ("Here, where the worker is regulated bureaucratically from childhood onwards, where he believes in authority, in those set over him, the main thing is to teach him to walk by himself." - Marx to Von Schweitzer, 1868) Are you purposely trying to be facetious? Of course Marx hated the man.
To be fair, I'll give these flexible interpretations to what Marx wrote:
"Where the worker is regulated bureaucratically from childhood onwards": Can easily refer to alternative culture.
"Where he believes in authority": The authority of his Party and its myriad of organizations.
"In those set over him": Schweitzer was not referring to some elite central committee, especially since the Lassalleans didn't intend on remaining a sect. This can refer to a bureaucratic process of sorts.
"The main thing is to teach him to walk by himself": No need for interpretation.
I'm not entirely sure what the point of DNZ's 'flexible' interpretation is other than the fact that he has a strange fetish for a political tendency which actually prefigured Stalinism in many respects.
Well:
For all his faults, Lassalle stressed independent political organization:
Ferdinand Lassalle: balanced assessment of a German workers' leader (http://www.revleft.com/vb/ferdinand-lassalle-balanced-t150158/index.html)
That's a lot more that can be said of either Stalin or Trotsky on Popular/United Frontism.
Compare with:
TRANSLATION: Alexander Filippov on ‘Debates about Stalin's Role’ in A New History of Russia 1945-2006 (http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/articles/transl_filippov_on_stalin.pdf)
Any new worker-class movement needs to borrow key parts from the legacy of Ferdinand Lassalle, and for this to happen that legacy needs one or a number of Alexander Filippovs. Lars Lih and I may just be the spearhead.
That's not the least bit self-aggrandizing. ;) And here I thought I was being a bit unfair thinking to myself you fashion yourself as some would-be 21st C. Lassalle.
I brought up Stalin only in response to Zanthorus's post, and because there's an independence gulf between the two historical figures. I likened myself only to one element that would make up a new, Lassalle- and Kautsky-inspired worker-class movement's Alexander Filippov. You know, the guy who wrote that infamous Putin school textbook back in 2006-2007?
[The reputation of such a Filippov equivalent is nowhere near Lassalle's then-living German cult or post-humous European cult, let alone Stalin's cross-continental cult.]
FILIPPOV? [HUMOUR, PART I]
Who exactly is Alexander Filippov? Well, he wrote some controversial material back in 2006-2007. The translated material is provided in the attachment. A critical opinion piece provided the contour of his book:
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/april2009/putin-versus-truth.html
The history textbook favored by the government was heavily promoted by government officials attending the conference. Indeed it later turned out that The Modern History of Russia, 1945–2006: A Teacher's Handbook had been directly commissioned by the presidential administration itself, which had issued the following guidelines to the textbook's authors about how they should evaluate the leaders of the period:
Stalin—good (strengthened vertical power but no private property); Khrushchev—bad (weakened vertical power); Brezhnev—good (for the same reasons as Stalin); Gorbachev and Yeltsin—bad (destroyed the country but under Yeltsin there was private property); Putin—the best ruler (strengthened vertical power and private property).
Here's the first attempt at humour on the subject.
The following guidelines to the textbook's authors about how they should evaluate the movements and leaders of the period and the model today:
Lassalle - good ("vertical power" charisma and class independence but no institutional organization)
British trade unionism - bad (institutional organization but neither "vertical power" charisma nor class independence)
French socialism - bad (no class independence, no "vertical power" charisma, and no institutional organization re. Parti Ouvrier and SFIO)
Marx and Engels in relation to the IWMA - good (class independence but no "vertical power" charisma and no institutional organization due to liquidation)
Von Schweitzer - good (class independence and institutional organization but no "vertical power" charisma)
Bebel and the pre-war SPD - good ("vertical power" charisma and institutional organization but questionable class independence re. regional coalitions)
Italian Socialism - good (class independence but mixed "vertical power" charisma and no institutional organization due to lack of alternative culture centralization)
SDKPiL - bad (no class independence, no "vertical power" charisma, and clear rejection of institutional organization)
Modern model - needs to be "good" in all aspects (class independence, institutional organization, and "vertical power" charisma)
"GREATEST...?" [HUMOUR, PART II]
Just check out the various Victory Day polls today on the Generalissimus and substitute "Russians" with "workers" and that class-collaborationist with "Lassalle": over half as "undoubtedly positive" or "probably positive," and just less than half "wanted or would not object to having a leader."
Then check out the "Greatest Russian" TV fad and replace it with "Greatest Worker Leader" and naturally have Lassalle spontaneously voted upon massively only to land in third place perhaps by Old-School Left manipulation. [Somehow the Russian authorities manipulated the "Greatest Russian" contest because the Generalissimus in first place would have been quite embarrassing, to say the least.]
MEETING? [HUMOUR, PART III]
Costa: As you know, we have decided to readmit The Hammer to the ranks of the party-movement!
Demetrius: In my opinion, those other two should be readmitted. No matter what they say, Ferdinand Lassalle is of our history, worker-class history. No enemies ever harmed us so much as Progressive Party fellow travellers did with their loud mouths aimed against Populist Front tactics across the populist spectrum right up to pro-Bismarck working-class supporters, and against Lassalle!
Nicholas: Yes, if not for those fellow travellers our memory would never have been decimated within worker-class history. They besmirched us, our strategy, our tactics, and our platform in the eyes of the whole world!
Andrew: They irreparably damaged worker-class prestige. Thanks to them, Bernsteinism, tred-iunionisty United Fronts, Popular Fronts, and other pro-liberal idiocies were born!
Demetrius: Shouldn't we restore the name Lassalo to today's Marxina? Millions of class-conscious workers would support this!
[Source: Meeting of the Politburo of the CC CPSU, July 12, 1984]
Konstantin Chernenko: As you know, we have decided to readmit Molotov to the ranks of the CPSU.
Dmitry Ustinov: In my opinion, Malenkov and Kaganovich should be readmitted [...] No matter what they say, Stalin is our history. No single enemy ever harmed us so much as Khrushchev did with his policy toward the past of our party and our state, and toward Stalin.
Nikolai Tikhonov: Yes, if not for Khrushchev they would never have been expelled from the party. He besmirched us and our policies in the eyes of the whole world.
Andrei Gromyko (surprise!): He irreparable damaged the Soviet Union's positive image [...] Thanks to him the so-called 'Eurocommunism' was born.
Dmitry Ustinov: Shouldn't we restore the name Stalingrad to Volgograd? Millions of people would support this.