Re: LENIN Vs. "MARXISM-LENINISM" (G-PDS et al.)

[Luciano Dondero <DOND001@xxxxxx>]

There is always a danger in trying to express oneself briefly on topics of a
certain importance and complexity. In trying to delay a more substantial
intervention of the points Louis raised in his paper, and touching only upon
a particular aspect of it, I nevertheless made the mistake of condensing my
views. That was my fault.
However, how can my careful formulation - "by and large what Carlos writes
is not far from my views" - become translated into " while you say you
'agree' with him". By putting "agree" in quotation marks Louis makes it look
like this is my formulation.
Ungood!
Double plus ungood!
In relation to the meat of the matter, Louis wonders about misunderstanding
my "understanding of the directions the 'Refundazione' was taking". Was it
"a rejection of 'vanguardism'"?
OK, where do I stand on the "organization" question?
In a general sense, I believe that the "Organisational Theses" adopted at
the Third Congress of the Third International in 1921 still remain valid, in
spelling out how communist parties should function. I don't doubt that Louis
too would agree with them, when taken in their historical context.
The point today is how to go about establishing the basis for those parties,
and again I don't see much of a practical, concrete, day-to-day disagreement.
What Louis characterises as the "vanguardism of Maoism and Trotskyism" is
something I have rejected after I left the Spartacists to their destiny, ie.
what I jokingly refer to as the "spermatozoi theory of revolution", seeing
one's little group as the centre of the universe. Others may call this
"sectarianism".
But this does not lead me to also put in the same category (and throw into
the same can/bin) the political analysis and positions formulated by various
Trotskyist organisations at various times. I also happen to be today a
member of one such organisation (Militant's international, the CWI), and
this should say something.
In his document *LENIN VERSUS "MARXISM-LENINISM"* Louis says a number of
positive things about various political formations. Carlos took him to task
for calling them revolutionaries, and I can't fault him of that - in my
previous post "On Stalinism and Trotyskyism" I have pointed out areas of
disagreements among various participants to this debate (including between
Carlos and myself; I also concurr with Luigi Candreva's point about the
necessary broad equation between Stalinism and socialdemocracy).
In a nutshell, I don't think that I have to call Rifondazione comunista
"revolutionary" in order to be able to work to build it. It is similar to
the position that Militant Labour (and others) have adopted toward
Scargill's SLP. If it is step forward in the right direction, then, to
paraphrase Trotsky, "it would be worse than a crime, it would be a
stupidity" not to join in that effort. On this there should be no dispute
between Louis and myself (and other comrades).
But if we are supposed to maintain a critical approach toward Marxism and
ourselves, why on earth should we be embellishing what beautiful is not?
Read again what I wrote about the German PDS: it is perfectly conceivable to
take it a tool for progress in the struggle, but we should know it is a
blunted instrument.
In struggle,
Luciano




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------