Results 41 to 45 of 45
You highlighted the wrong half, Lukacs presumes 'If it is now the task of Communists to continue in Lenin’s footsteps...' Why would this be so for any Communist figure and why single out Lenin? You say the significance of Lukacs was that Lenin was part of wider tradition that we have to carry on. Well what was that tradition? Which other figures were preeminent in that tradition? Asking what would Lenin do, is a bit like the liberal Church of England clergy who claim to be atheists; they might not idolise God or Jesus but it makes you wonder what their sermons are about.
Because Lenin was the leader of the Bolsheviks at a time that even the SPGB thought they were cool.
What was that tradition? It was the revolutionary, Marxist wing of the Socialist International, which broke with the social patriots to form the Communist International.
OK the SPGB had already left the II Int, but the circumstances were less than ideal. However, men make history in circumstances not of their own making.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
It's one thing thinking someone is cool, it is another to encourage class struggle by following in any particular individual's (and mention few if any others) footsteps, let alone across space and time.
And at this point this is just a crass insistence on ignorance. I'm so fucking sick of Leftists who literally refuse to use their heads. The argument you make here has already been addressed in earlier posts, so what do you even expect? After explaining what Lukacs meant by "doing what Lenin has done", that we are not talking about Lenin as an individual but the implications of his practice, etc. - you actually want me to elaborate on this again? Like, for the third time? Really? Fine.
No, in fact you are insisting on highlighting what you conceive as "the correct half". The fact of the matter is that I do know very well that you were focussing on this aspect (doing what Lenin has done). The reason I put emphasis on the following statement ("this can only be fruitful if they attempt to establish the same active relation to him as he had to Marx") is that you simply ignore the justification for continuing Lenin's footsteps. You keep asking me "Why would we even do this?" when you can find the answer literally in the next few sentences. I'm not highlighting the "wrong half", because this other half directly refers to your doubts you pathetically defend. You don't have to tell me again that you despise every respect for Lenin. I've already dealt with your point. I'm arguing that we are not talking about Lenin as an individual, you can find this in almost every single post I've made here. Yet, you have not addressed this argument, which, I guess, is owed to your ridiculous contempt for Lenin.
You're simpy unable to understand that actions of individual subjects can have a wider meaning, a political one, in a certain context. The implication of Lenin undoubtedly being one of the most important politicians in modern history is that also his political practice is significant. Individuals can be figures who represent something greater, not because they possess special traits but because their concrete, practical lives relate to others in a way which makes them significant for humans. This has not been invented for Lenin or necessarily communists. We do the same with certain philosophers, we use terms like "Marxist" or "Kantian", people call themselves Chomskyans, etc. This is not criminal. Indeed, in our bourgeois epoch it might signify a fetish but the difference is that we Marxists have always insisted on the fact that the social totality constitutes individuals, that figures and personalities are irreducible to individual subjects, for figures and personalities only exist insofar as they relate to other humans. And Lenin is not an exception. If you had actually read my posts, you would understand that neither Lukacs nor I idolize Lenin as an individual but conceive him as a representative of a communist, Marxist, dialectical practice that has to be maintained.
Wow. Alright. First, I've quoted Lukacs, who summarized this tradition:
"Leninism means that the theory of historical materialism has moved still nearer the daily battles of the proletariat, that it has become more practical than it could be at the time of Marx. The Leninist tradition can therefore only mean the undistorted and flexible preservation of this living and enlivening, growing and creative function of historical materialism. [...] Leninism represents a hitherto unprecedented degree of concrete, unschematic, unmechanistic, purely praxis-oriented thought. To preserve this is the task of the Leninist. But, in the historical process, only what develops in living fashion can be preserved."
And this is what I wrote:
"The reason we approach socialists is that, as we are in a tradition, they are presently practically relevant. [... Lenin] understood what it means to be a practical socialist. [... H]e recognized the "unmechanical" nature of the practical implications of Marxism. It is exactly this recognition what justifies the legacy of Leninism. Lukacs is not arguing that Leninism is a kind of panacea you can apply to the here and now, but that our task is to do what Lenin would do if he was living in our context." (And as I've argued, doing what Lenin would do means not doing what an individual but a practical socialist would do - just in case you still didn't get it. Don't make me address this point again!)
What exactly do you want to hear from me? Do you want proofs? Do you want concrete examples which support the fact that Lenin was a practical socialist, who made historical materialism move "nearer the daily battles of the proletariat" and "more practical than it could be at the time of Marx"? In this case, that's why I've linked the text. It is a summary of six chapters, in which Lukacs goes into detail. For example, he argues that Marx's genius was that he understood the "macrocosm of capitalism" by analyzing the "microcosm of the English factory" - a genius that Lenin has carried on, in that he analyzed the concrete situation of the backward society in Russia but always in the spirit of the actuality of the (proletarian) revolution. That is why he was able to not only recognize that the proletariat has to be the leading class in the revolution, but to radically put this into practice (as opposed to "all 'proletarian' Marxists who [aligned themselves with the bourgeoisie, and thus] have interpreted Marx mechanistically instead of dialectically; who do not understand what Marx learnt from Hegel and incorporated in his own theory, freed from all mythology and idealism: that the recognition of a fact or tendency as actually existing by no means implies that it must be accepted as a reality constituting a norm for our own actions." That is why he was able to link his theory of imperialism with concrete political tasks. That is why his Realpolitik was always revolutionary.
Etc. I recommend everyone who is really interested in this (and not a self-opinionated Idler) to read the whole text. Lukacs is explaining it a lot better than I could do.
You unsurprisingly miss the point. Let's just say there was a second Lenin. Does this in any way argue against my (Lukacs') point that there is something to learn from (the original) Lenin? The real controversy here is not whether Lenin was the only "preeminent" practical socialist but whether he was a practical socialist in the first place. I can't believe that I have to explain this: Lenin did not bequeath a tradition because I want him to. I place a special emphasis on him because I argue that it is a fact that he did. It's not that we can arbitrarily pick and choose our predecessors. One was either a practical socialist, one we can learn from, or they were not. This has to be justified, and that's exactly what I am doing here. Thus, it's completely irrelevant if there were "other figures" who "were preeminent in that tradition". This thread is about Lenin. I did not arbitrarily choose to speak about him, I answered a question of the OP. Gosh, what a terrible argument.
That is because right from the beginning you did not want to get the point, you did not want to understand what it means to "do what Lenin would do". Speaking of Leninism as a tradition is so disgusting for you that you don't even consider the arguments at hand, and instead dodge them. However, the fact remains that I did not simply state "Lenin was part of a tradition", I have justified this assertion, I have defended it against your doubts. Yet, you refuse to address my points, which deprives you of the right to accuse me of quasi-religious worship.
I had something typed, but the site decided to log me out...and thus it is gone. I'll inbox you a link to something that I think will help.
