THE LENINST PARTY

["Karl Carlile" <joseph@xxxxxxxxx>]

That  "the Bolshevik organizational model" was more
centralist and less democratic only partly explains why so many
vanguardist organisations...have been characterised by bureaucratic, more
than democratic, centralism." Clearly there are other factors such as
ideological ones which entail the distortion of the theories of Marx in
order to give them a radical petit bourgeois quality. But to do
archaeological work  by digging deeper. It is necessary to look at the
class character of these organizations, the class  interests they
advance. The class interests they represent are that of the petty
bourgeoisie and not the working class. Consequently their politics,
organisational forms and ideology will reflect this. In many cases they
represent those sections of the modern petty bourgeoisie that are
disgruntled and in some ways alienated and oppressed by the system.
Consequently they want radical change but not to the degree that involves
the overthrowal of capitalist society.  But to effect radical change
within the system they must appear to be revolutionary in order to win
the necessary support of  more radical sections of the working class.
This is why they formally  seek revolution and  claim to be marxist.
However it is only formal so that marxism is emasculated of its political
and theoretical substance. The bureaucracy that you talk about is
designed to contain any radical movement that emerges and to prevent the
threat of authentic marxism replacing the petty bourgeois content. This
section of the petty bourgeoisie also seek to mobilise sections of the
lumpen element of the oppressed: the non- working class that has
experienced generations of unemployment many of whom are clients of
welfare corporatism and parasite of the working class through theft and
other means. This latter section of the oppressed masses tends to be
politically petty bourgeois by instinct.

What reinforces the existence of these radical petty bourgeois
organizations is the welfare corporatism that has been such a
distinguishing feature of post-war capitalism. It has successfully
integrated the trade union movement into the corporate state. This has
influenced the ideological and political character of the working class
by reinforcing its petty bourgeois characteristics. This has been done
partly by deceiving it into believing that workers have a stake in the
system and an interest in keeping it going. The Cold War played a
decisive role in further reinforcing this ideological stance.
Consequently workers fought for reform within the system and for greater
integration into corporatism. Radical corporatism imperceptibly became a
substitute for revolutionary politics. Even the character of petty
bourgeois politics changed converting itself from traditional radicalism
into corporatism. Modern corporatism, as politics and ideology, shares a
point of commonality with fascism. It is this that helps explain both the
demise of marxism as a left revolutionary doctrine and fascism as a right
revolutionary doctrine. New corporatism grounded in a reorganization of
the world economically, politically, ideologically and culturally after
the second world war formed the underlying basis for this new hybrid. In
other words new corporatism constitutes a new imperialist strategy to
undermine, so to speak, both the extreme left and right. This has  the
"new consensus politics".

>From the left the only "threat" to it was the radical petty bourgeois
movement dressed up in the  clothes of marxism. However all it sought
for, in the guise of marxism, was a more leftward corporatism. More of
"this and that" for the masses: a more inclusive corporatism. At the end
of the day fascism was the real victor in the second world war since the
victorious section of the imperialist camp, in its substance, took over
the programme of fascism as a means of disarming the working class: the
integration of the working class into the bourgeois state. The new
western corporatism was "fascism without fascism". To put it in a
nutshell: The post-war period has been a counter-revolutionary period
dressed up in all kinds of euphemistic ideology, politics and culture
designed to perpetuate the sedation of the masses. The masses have been
so disarmed through, among other things, bribery and sedation that their
class vision has disappeared. Indeed the presentation of drug abuse as a
symbol of modernism is not at all inappropritate. Consequently even the
more astute observers of society cannot objectively evaluate the
character of modernism. The post-war period has experienced one of the
most gigantic, complex  and successful disembowlment of the working
class. If mankind succeeds in emancipating itself from the capitalist
straitjacket this epoch may be viewed as  the greatest tragedy that ever
befell the working class.

The frequent references to German fascism and its leader Mr Hitler is a
an ideological ploy designed to keep our eye off the real ball. The
Holocaust is thrown in for good measure too since it reliably brings a
sad tear to the eye. Don't misunderstand!  I am not suggesting that
these events should be ignored. Instead I am simply indicating their
ideological function within modernism. Fascism and the Holocaust are,
furthermore,  integrated with the latter are promoted because they create
a false solidarity that transcends  class boundaries thereby reinforcing
the ideological and political disarmament of the masses. After all who
will support fascism or the Holocaust. It is considered unthinkable.
Those few reactionary voices claiming that there never was a Holocaust
may be playing an ideological role in undermining the post-war corporate
ideology since they may provoke elements to have a relook at the
Holocaust and the ideology that surrounds. Even the term Holocaust is an
ideological shibboleth. It is for this and other rreasons the new
imperialist coporatism dislikes overt fascism. It is a threat to
modernism because it draws too much attention to the real issues. They
don't dislike it for "progressive" reasons.

Few refer to the massive death and destruction of capitalist induced
famine and war etc. since the second world war as the modern "Holocaust".
Neither was the rape of Vietnam is not viewed as a Holocaust.

This reply represents quick off the cuff jottings. There may need
for qualification and elaboration.


                             Yours comradely,
                                                         Karl Carlile




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---