Good am Marv: The prior short exchange has drawn much dumping on Leninism by some, arguing how it became irrelevant (supposedly) in "free democratic" societies. I don't propose to try to tackle any of that. But 2 things that you note, I'll pick up on. I am not at all sure that we (that is you and I) are disagreeing that much. And moreover, I fear there is nothing startling or new in my comments below I suspect.
1. On changes, rates of change, and nodal points. I had noted that "There were long 'fallow periods' in the First International, ... Lenin was preparing the Iskra with his Bolsheviks for years before a 'break'. Such is the very long period since end WW2. But, we are into change now - in a big way I suspect." You replied: "We have been saying “we are into change now in a big way" since the Bolshevik Revolution.... So, with respect, your comment about an impending major change in the balance of class forces is a sentiment I have repeatedly heard in our milieu for all of my political life, akin to the faith-based “optimism of the will”... Of course, the long sweep of history is not static and capitalism will not last forever, but theory and practice should be attuned to the world as it is now." Comment: I agree in general with you. One problem with the many left mini-generals proclaiming 'the turn around the corner is here" so often, so loudly, and so repetitively wrongly - is that 'crying wolf' repeatedly does de-sensitise to that possibility. But today, there are currently a number, a concatenation of very large shifts. We are - really I think - on the brink of a new large-scale global war. So I think an equal and opposite error to 'crying wolf' all the time, is to fail to notice how large these shifts are. Maybe it will all blow over, and peacefully settle into a more easy stable equilibrium. But I don't think so myself. Just as we are not going back *exactly* to 1917; nor are we going back *exactly to post-war* relative levelling and a few more crumbs of the 'Welfare State. The point I was trying (badly) to make was that in my view - a leadership capable of analysing and then when warranted, to move fast - was more not less needed than in the period of post-war 'stablilisation'. I do think that we are at an objectively nodal point, where the working class standards of life are both - dropping now ; and also likely to drop further. Enough to 'force' the class to move, in a way that pamphleteers or social-media-thumb scrabblers cannot do. I do not think that this is an automatic trigger for a focused revolution. I think the subjective factors, are missing. There will be plenty of appropriate noise, light and resistances and revolts. I had used the phrase before of 'rivulets'. But channeling all that into a 'torrent' of magnitude and targeting adequate for pivotal change - I believe does require a subjective factor. Where is it? 2. On the nature of Labour leaders. I had said: " The reformist leaders "reflect the workers" - true - but I would have my cake and eat it, and say that a small layer of them also "lag" the workers, that layer being the labour aristocracy. You are surely not saying they have disappeared?" You replied: "I’ve been involved at both the rank and file and leadership level in four unions across different sectors of the working class, as I’ve noted previously. I rarely encountered union leaders and activists in any whose political consciousness lagged rather than reflected the base. Many rose from the ranks as local militants and most were NDP supporters while the working class majority voted for the Liberals and Conservatives. In the US, most union leaders and members are Democrats and the growing legion of working class MAGA Republicans who have broken with them can hardly be said to represent a higher level of political consciousness. In industrial disputes, when strike votes fail or poor contracts are ratified, it’s invariably because the majority of workers voting have made an assessment of the relationship of forces based on their experience in the workplace. To suggest, as is so often the case on the left, that these workers are easily manipulated creatures of the bureaucracy is to deny them, in the modern vernacular, “agency". My comment. Your personal history-involvement I've always respected. I don't dispute much of that over-view either actually - although I think you minimise the historical role of trade union labour aristocrats there has been. My relatively much smaller experience was only with 'white collar trade unions' ASTMS in the UK. But it echoes a bit of what you say. As I watch from afar the junior hospital doctors strike in the UK - the general tone of the leaders does follow the more militant sentiments of the junior doctors. And likely any 'settlement' will be a pragmatic weighing of potential benefit vs potential toil and struggle - involving the rank and file as well as the leadership. But as I recall it in the 60s-70s in the UK there were certainly many wild-cat strikes that were disowned by the trade union leaders. The so-called 'winter of discontent' was full of this. It took the Thatcherite breaking (and luring them into a fore-planned trap in my view) of the Miners Strike to completely strip the anti-leadership militancy of the TU-ists. But I would agree that the layer of trade union aristocracy was small, and right at the top. Personally I think it is still there. And in this regard, I would still "want my cake and eat it'. As the number of strikes rise (as per point about 'change'), this tendency of that small layer to restrain will come much more to the fore. Some will not change direction or be corrupted. For example I'd be a little surprised if Mick Lynch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Lynch_(trade_unionist) ) of the rail and maritime workers UK will stab his membership. Others will however. C'est indeed, la vie. Simply put - We'll both have to survive long enough to see whether this period indeed, is a true 'nodal' change-point - or yet another semi-wistful siren-song of the left! Be well, H PS. You may have mis-interpreted my remarks about surprise as being a 'charge that it was a 'distraction' ( "I’m surprised you regard my comments as a distraction. They were in reply to what I thought were implausible “blueprints”). But that is by the bye. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#33529): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33529 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109504727/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
