MY PREVIOUS MESSAGE DID NOT GET THROUGH IN ONE PIECE, HENCE THE REPEAT:: I get the impression Sam that you are more interested in character assassination of Leninist-Staliniststs to silence what you call the "Leninist aplogists" than a serious discussion of Leninism. You quotes are all from second hand sources and you are obviously filled with hatred for Leninism. What is interesting is that you are usually very good at vigorous reasoning. However, in this particular case you are full of cynisism and your argument is largely based on roumers like Stalin was HitlerÆs role model. Implication: Since according to you, Lenin was the creator of Stalin, then presumably Hitler and Lenin can somehow be equated. Or Lenin's attitude and ideas stemed from a grudge he bore against the Tzar due to death of his brother (And neither any of the intellectuals around him nor the general public who supported him were bright enough to notice this at the time!!) This is a sort of "reasoning" that I expect to hear from an "anti-communist" propagandist rather than someone of your caliber. If you would like some first hand knowledge of LeninÆs ideas, check out this link.
: : Centralization? Sorry, I'm working in the exact opposite direction. Maybe that's one reason I tend to ignore apologists for Lenin.
: We are certainly working in opposite direction but not on the question of centralisation. So plase do not twist what I said. My argument was that centralisation of party was one of the MAJOR MISTAKES of Lenin. Does this mean to you that I agree with centralisation?
: : And how do you propose to restrict the forces of capitalism which work towards profit accumulation and centralisation of capital. If we don1t somehow control these natural tendencies of capital, won1t your "less capitalist" system soon get back to where we are now?
: : Did I say I or Habermas or anyone else who cares was NOT interested in controlling the "centralization of capital"? The point is to empower individuals at the local level to discover for themselves alternatives to being hooked into the system.
: I tell you genuinely that your argument does not look consistent to me or maybe it is not complete. What is this system that individuals at local levels will be "hooked" into? Are you talking about a "central" system that all prepheral systems will interact with? Are these "alternative" systems are entirely autonomous of each other and the "central" system they are hooked to? Are these alternative systems governed by any common laws? I know these are complex issues, but please try to simplfy your answers so that the "less educated" can understand it too.
: : as a teacher I should merely remind you this opinion of mine has been available in several of my previous posts, which you are still free to read, and that I have little time to repeat myself endlessly for the convenience of individual readers.
: Well I am surry to have taken up your time, but as another teacher I should remind you that positive reinforcement of knowledge through repetition is one of the cornerstones of the learning process.
: If anything, it's apologists for Lenin and Leninism who are interested in defending the "centralization of capital" that created the state-capitalist regime that was the Soviet Union.
: It is not the matter of defending it or not. The inherent laws of capital accumulation dictate centralisation. An this is something that Marx investigated at length. Now if you want to work against this tendency, you will have to control these laws of capitalist development. This is when you will have to confront the capitalist system head on, as Marx himself pointed out. In which case "coercion" which you so despise becomes very likely. Your interpretation of Marxism, judging by your previous posting (specially your reply to Daniella) is more similar to ProudhunÆs ideas of small-scale production which Marx ridiculed in his book "the Poverty of Philosophy". But this is not the place for detailed discussion of this issue.
: http://www.idbsu.edu/surveyrc/staff/jaynes/marxism/lenin.htm
None.
