Re: Bolshevism vs Menshevism?

[Jorn Andersen <ccc6639@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Louis N Proyect wrote:

> > But . . . the Mensheviks also called themselves Marxists, even though
> > in fact they had moved away from the centrality of the working class.
> >
> Louis: Everybody calls themselves Marxist, but so what.


Jorn:
How does this relate to what you wrote earlier the same day:
> A party that sees the "working class as the primary agent of
> change" is simply a party based on Marxism.

As far as I have understood your argument it is basically:
1. That a revolutionary socialist party is necessary for socialist
revolution to succeed. (Here we agree.)
2. That such a party should not be built along the lines of
for example the ISO, the SWP UK/US) or the like - but should
include all those "within Marxism". (Here we disagree - although
we can agree that some of those around are/were caricatures.)

This is valid position, IMHO. But with your latest remarks I don't
quite get the picture any longer. Could you explain where the
dividing line between Marxism and "non-Marxism" is?
Is the centrality of the working class a basic line of division?
Who is "within Marxism" and who is not?

Jorn

--
Jorn Andersen

IS
Denmark




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---