Re: The feminist vanguard against Putinist Neo-Czarism

hari kumar

You know, I really probably should continue to just keep quiet... 
My blood pressure will certainly suffer from the aftermath, I know this already.....

But this whole discussion has suffered from what I would consider an unwarranted set of extrapolations. And moreover, based either on selective reading or on ignorance - I remain quite uncertain which.  

Now as a ML-ist (BTW Anthony - if you truly wish to be non-derogatory in your language as you rightly advise others to be - you might wish to consider that particular useage) - I frankly do not expect most to either read this, nor to take it seriously. Prior biases will sway that decision. 

1. Citing Lenin or others - is not at all becoming de-cerebrate and reciting the past without thinking. As Mark put it - it is a repository of wisdom. 
Now I do not consider myself nearly as original as evidently many here consider themselves. Good for them. I know my limitations. 
I must rely on a continued dialogue (Sartesian does not want the word 'dialectic' otherwise he threatens to laugh... Indeed that would be a very serious and frightful thing - perhaps the words chosen here, will not tilt him into this.. Ah well, a forlorn hope I guess).  

2. In the 'Theses on Revolution in colonial type countries' there was a huge debate about Lenin's line on United Fronts (UF) with the 'bourgeoisie'. Only after M.N.Roy (originally from India) made repeated forays into the fact that there were two wings of the bourgeoisie in these countries; a compromising wing and a revolutionary wing - did Lenin put the Supplementary Theses to take this into account. Thus - his line became 'UF with the revolutionary wing" and ONLY until the working class/and peasantry can take the leadership. And - it *should* take the leadership or suffer counter-revolution. 
I give referencing in article written in the 1970s here ( My wording is less considered as I was a wee brash then - but I believe the message holds):

3. Both Lenin and M.R.Roy insisted on the tiniest gap between the bourgeois democratic stage and the socialist revolution. 
The point was to USE THE initial bourgeois democratic stage to enable the socialist revolution. 

4. That gap - was WIDENED into "a very long time" by such as Mao  Ze Dong- during his alliance formed between representatives of the 'vacillating; i.e comprador bourgeoisie and the national capitalist class (the ;revolutionary bourgeoisie). 
Referenced pretty fully at:

Or for Cuba for instance. (References upon request)... or many many other countries... since.

5. Sartesian and in some ways Bobby I think  (thought I suspect Bobby has other spins) is of course quite right - that that gap and moving into the socilasit revolution is key. That potential gap (the meaning of the word 'uninterruptedly' in many of the debates of the 1920s-1930s) - I think, or I should say I believe - has become ever smaller. Personally I do not think the gap is gone... It may have gone in places like India - certainly has I think, and many South American countries... but even there it still has some potential spark. 

6. Finally I will suggest that we socialists - allow me that we - constantly tend to over-emphasise our fellow-workers attachment to their nationalist sentiments. This is to my mind, dangerous. 

I am done. I will apologise in advance as I know that from 0500 am tomorrow I shall be embarking walking in the Black Forest. So I shall not be in a position to respond to remarks, or even vigorous attacks. 
But I will review such upon my return. 
Whether my BP will allow me to respond adequately remains to be seen. 

Hari Kumar

Join { to automatically receive all group messages.