Originally posted by Khayembii Communique+--> (Khayembii Communique)However, people here love simplifying it so it's easier to categorize people....[/b]
Can't really speak about the inadequacies, perceived or otherwise, of others....in my opinion, Leninism is really a touch to complicated to classify as "good" or "bad".
As a basic analysis, I do agree with redstar2000 that most present day Leninist Parties in the modern-capitalist world are vessels which are used, primarily, to further the interests of the radical petty bourgeois. The ICC, apparently, have some rather good pieces on this; haven't read any of them yet, but they supposedly present some very good arguments as to why Leninism can be considered, what I think they call, "the left-wing of capital"....and they do this, funnily enough, from a pro-Lenin standpoint.
In my opinion, that goes all the way back to Lenin and the Bolsheviks....but it doesn't necessarily mean that "all" Leninists are social-democrats "at heart"; and certainly just identifying with Lenin's theory X doesn't make one a social-democrat.
Stalinism and Maoism (bar the RCP in America) are virtually dead in the modern-capitalist world and "Orthodox Leninism" doesn't really represent really represent a significant political force either; which just leaves Trotskyism.
Now whilst more and more Trotskyist Parties seem to be moving further to the right, I've detected the "scent" of traditional syndicalist politics emanating from Trotskyist circles. And this, in my opinion, could lead to a split (and not the usual kind <_< ) within the Trotskyist movement itself.
I just realised though, that I'm straying quite a bit from the original point, because, in my opinion anyway, when Leninist Parties move away from traditional Leninist politics, then they move out of the social-democratic hogpen.
When, for instance, the CPGB decided to follow the policy of trying to set up Red Unions, they not only moved away from a traditional Leninist position (the one set out in, I think, Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder) but they also, in my opinion, followed a distinctly revolutionary policy suitable for the (then) modern-capitalist world.
It was certainly the sort of policy that British communists were promoting before the 10th (?) Congress when the proposal of setting up Moscow loyal franchise parties was adopted.
Basically, whilst some may think that the theoretical positions are still valid (and they may be), the methods of organisation and organisational proposals are, in my opinion, epoch specific. Applying them to the modern-capitalist world either ends up with the participants moving towards social-democracy or outright lunacy (see: MIM).
Parts of Lenin's theoretical work may still be valid; but like with some of Marx's political positions, Lenin's specific political positions have become, more or less, outdated.
Originally posted by Khayembii Communique+--> (Khayembii Communique)If Lenin's theory applies to a certain set of material conditions, and if someone advocates it in that particular environment, does that make someone a Leninist?[/b]
Quite probably; or they could slightly modify and give it a whole new name....if they find some use in Lenin's theories, good on them, but whether they call themselves Leninist or "Knobheadist" doesn't really bother me.
After all, as you said, "We are all Marxists", which means we should be looking beneath whatever political labels they choose to apply to themselves and seeing what class forces they represent. I, as I've said, agree with the ICC that Leninism, in general, represents "the left wing of capital".
Aside from that, of course, this question is purely academic from our perspective....we, after all, live in countries where the conditions are radically different to Russia 1917CE. Which makes Lenin's positions, mostly, irrelevant to us unless we want to start discussing how best to make the "transition" from a bourgeois democratic revolution to a socialist one.
And really, from my perspective, that discussion is of little interest to me. I don't plan on travelling to the "third world" and nor do I plan on taking part in a revolution there.
Originally posted by Khayembii Communique
If people follow Lenin's theory regardless of the material conditions in which they are attempting to apply them, aren't they unmarxist and therefore unLeninist (as Lenin was a marxist)?
Ask someone from the RCP that question! <_<
As it stands, my opinion of Lenin, is that he was a Marxist of the Kautskyist variety....and whilst he escaped some Kautsky's blather, he still suffered from "Kautsky's disease" quite a bit.
But, unlike most of his heirs, he did at least try to think in a critical manner about the world using the Marxist paradigm as his guide. We'll leave the discussion of the validity, or lack there of, of his theoretical work to another thread.
Aside from that, as I pointed out above, Lenin and co. were fine with imposing franchise parties organised in accordance to Moscow's wishes on the rest of the communist movement....and from my perspective, imposing the model used in feudal Russia on capitalist America, Britain and so on, was incredibly stupid.
It was, to borrow your phrase, an attempt to apply "Lenin's theory regardless of the material conditions".
Originally posted by Khayembii Communique
But how is that Leninist?
It possibly isn't....certainly if one disregarded Lenin's theories on the role and the organisation of the Party (not vanguards in particular, just Lenin-esque vanguards), then their Leninism would probably be on "shaky ground".
The role and organisation of the Party, is probably the most identifiable aspect of Lenin's legacy on the left today; and it's also the thing that most people find most objectionable. So really, if you don't agree with that, then I think you'd be better off calling yourself something other than Leninist.
Originally posted by Khayembii Communique
Isn't world revolution marxist?
Other than mentioning it in passing, I'm not aware of Marx making the "world revolution" into the theoretical position that it is given by Leninist-Trotskyists. Certainly Marx didn't say "unless" there is a "world revolution", everything will go to shit.
Marx thought that should Britain, Germany, France and America have revolutions, then that would be sufficient for the time being....in my opinion, other than Britain, those countries could survive even if they were isolated post-revolution.
Khayembii
[email protected]
Does believing in Imperialism make one a Leninist?
Well not Imperialism per se, but Imperialism as in the role of finance capital and the way this means that the revolution will start in the "third world" and spread to the "first world", blah, blah, blah.
Though you can agree with that and not be a Leninist....as I said above, issues about the Party seem to be the most obvious legacy of old Vlad.
clownpenisanarchy
This term is generally used to decribe what are considered revolutionary Marxists....
Do they do revolution before or after they run for Office? :P
________
Ah horseshit, I've just written a long reply, I clicked "refresh" and I find, albeit in a shorter manner, redstar's already taken half my points. :(