Re: [Marxism] Victoria Woodhull and dogmatic Marxism

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

Tom Chisholm wrote:
> both sisters found acceptance in the
> English upper class, publishing books and periodicals
> on eugenics.

Trotsky was also into eugenics. In any case, Woodhull's eugenics were
wrapped up in a discourse of feminist self-improvement and don't bear that
much connection to the more openly racist versions. She also had a severely
retarded son and was looking for "scientific" ways to "improve" the stock.
This is not to say that eugenics should be accepted on any basis, whether
it is coming from Woodhull, Trotsky or Nazi doctors.

> However heavy-handed Sorge's faction may have been in
> their "purges", you could easily argue that the First
> Int'l, first and foremost a working-class
> organization, has no place for such middle-class and
> ideologically suspect members who abused the Int'l's
> "open door" policy.

Well, considering Sorge's outbursts on Chinese workers, it would seem that
the door was not opened wide enough.

> Marx and Engels, anyway, are not responsible for what
> took place on the grounds in the American section:
> they received missives about this matter and made
> occasional comments, but they never had the command or
> power that, say, the central committee members would
> do in a Marxist-Leninist Party (which is a very
> different type of organization).

I don't blame Marx and Engels for Sorge's dogmatism than I would blame them
for Plekhanov or Kautsky's errors. In the late 19th century, there was a
tendency to use a heavy-handed adaptation of certain Marxist "verities". I
guess that's still true today.

> Also, I'm not at all convinced by Louis's point that
> "Lenin was the very first Marxist to SYNTHESIZE the
> proletarian and non-proletarian elements of the
> revolution," that his "most radical departure was to
> support the demands of the Russian peasantry who had
> been regarded by orthodox Marxism as an alien and
> hostile class."  As early as 1897, Lenin was attacking
> proposals to base a Russian peasant revolutionary
> movement on traditional communal landholding of the
> mir as being premised on "honeyed grandmother's tales"
> and derogatively calling these advocates of the
> Russian commons "sentimental Romantics".

For those interested in pursuing these questions, I'd strongly recommend
Teodor Shanin's "Late Marx" from Monthly Review. Shanin makes a convincing
case that Lenin's policy toward the peasants in 1917 represents a
rethinking of some of the positions he held in debates with the populists.
That is why he was accused by some of stealing their program.



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism