|
In a message dated 6/24/2004 9:06:54 AM Central Standard Time,
nomorebounces@xxxxxxx writes:
--- Reply
Everyone has their own brand and definition of Marxism
Leninism, although I most certainly believe that it is dead for complex and
specific reasons. Just as Lenin was held on display long after he died, Marxism
Leninism is still on display in various intellectual circles.
Above all we are talking about a doctrine of combat as
distinct from simply the method Marx deployed to arrive at this theory of the
societal advance driven by changes in the mode of production.
Leninism is a form of industrial ideology and revolutionary
combat down to its organizational forms no matter how one defines the forms of
organization. This does not mean that there is nothing relevant in Lenin's many
writings.
I most certainly would not try and apply the program Karl Marx
outlines in the Communist Manifesto to today and in this sense the doctrine of
Marx's strategy and tactics for 1848 are outdated.
Actually, I would resist rasing the slogan of the late 1970s
and early 1980s of "Jobs, Peace and Equality," and most certainly reject out of
hand the 1930s slogan of "Black and White Unite and Fight."
My general approach is to try and better understand the world
on the basis of fighting to change it in a certain direction. The
"direction" contains a lot of economic logic and how people react and understand
what is in front of them.
The economic categories called classes - however one defines
them, have undergone lots of change since the time of Marx and Lenin (in their
form) and some classes no longer exist in a real way.
The forms of capital in its mode of accumulation has changed
over the past decades. The industrial working class and industrial classes have
changed in the sense that they are on longer on the wave of ascendency based on
the expansion of the industrial system proper.
If all the fundamental conditions - in their inactivity, that
gave rise to or was the basis for the emergence of Marxism Leninism are
undergoing transformation, it seems to me that an ideology or doctrine that
arose to address a specific boundary in history automatically becomes obsolete.
It not like we have large political groups in American society
advocating the industrial concentration of the past period of history because
the industrial structures of society are undergoing profound change.
Actually, it seems to me that Leninism (Marxism-Leninism) died
twenty years ago - definitely and on a world scale. I was not a pallbearer
but closed the Church doors after the casket was carried out.
What is needed today is a doctrine of the American Revolution.
Melvin P.
|
- Re: EMH, (continued)
- Re: EMH, Devine, James Thu 24 Jun 2004, 14:41 GMT
- Re: EMH, Chris Doss Thu 24 Jun 2004, 14:46 GMT
- Re: EMH, s.artesian Thu 24 Jun 2004, 15:32 GMT
- Re: EMH, Chris Doss Thu 24 Jun 2004, 15:38 GMT
- Re: EMH, Waistline2 Thu 24 Jun 2004, 16:13 GMT
- EMH, Charles Brown Thu 24 Jun 2004, 16:21 GMT
- Re: EMH, Daniel Davies Thu 24 Jun 2004, 16:58 GMT
- The Green Party National Convention, June 23-28, 2004, Yoshie Furuhashi Wed 23 Jun 2004, 03:23 GMT
- Re: Mark Jones Still Among the living (was titled Wrong) - Correction, Waistline2 Tue 22 Jun 2004, 23:29 GMT