" What is to Be Done" revised-- posits Lennin

[coda]

has anybody heard about this or read this book?

the theory sounds like a bunch of horseshit to me. Russians, atleast, must know the context of their own language to have corrected any error in transalation by now!!!


“The commentary is accompanied by a complete new translation of What is to be Done? that focuses particularly on hard-to-translate key terms. This study raises new and unsettling questions about the legacy of Marx, Bolshevism as a historical force, and the course of Soviet history, but, most of all, it will revolutionise the conventional interpretations of Lenin

http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/RecentAr...veredPart1.html (http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/RecentArticles/RecentReviewLeninRediscoveredPart1.html)

[Tweecore]

Yeah, that particular analysis does sound like horseshit. However, it is important to see What Is To Be Done in context.

What Is To Be Done was a "strong" argument for a vanguard party. It was written in response to economism, the theory that workers would develop political consciousness automatically through spontaneous action. In arguing against this nonsense, Lenin made a number of overstatements. Crucially, Lenin gives the impression that spontaneous action categorically does not lead to political consciousness, when in fact it can: spontaneity and consciousness are dialectically related.

Lenin himself admitted the need to take What Is To Be Done with a grain of salt, in light of its context:

"We all know that the “Economists” have gone to one extreme. To straighten matters out somebody had to pull in the other direction, and that is what I have done." - Lenin, Collected Works, 6:491

Some recommended reading on the subject - better reading than Lih's revisionism, at least:

Hal Draper - The Myth of Lenin's 'Concept of the Party', or, What They Did To 'What Is To Be Done?' (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm)
Tony Cliff - Lenin, Volume 1, Chapter 4, What Is To Be Done? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1975/lenin1/chap04.htm)

[Guest1]

Most importantly, Lenin's comment that workers alone can only develop trade union consciousness and that they require the help of the intelligentsia to develop political consciousness is just plain wrong. I think he admitted so himself in a later period, but if not, well, he was wrong.

[Lenin II]

Most importantly, Lenin's comment that workers alone can only develop trade union consciousness and that they require the help of the intelligentsia to develop political consciousness is just plain wrong. I think he admitted so himself in a later period, but if not, well, he was wrong.
How was he wrong? Let me guess, you take it as though Lenin was calling the workers "stupid" and "unenlightened," right? First off, he never said that the workers need the help of bourgeoisie intellectuals or intelligentsia to revolt. He merely said they needed to be led by a revolutionary party whose class consciousness was sufficiently raised. It doesn't matter what class they come from, whether proletariat, peasant or bourgeoisie as long as they are genuinely professional revolutionaries.