[Marxism] DISILLUSIONED WITH MARXMAILers!

[Haines Brown]

> 
> Haines Brown wrote:
> > I suspect the term "Marxism-Leninism" is broadly used as an
> > (arguably unfortunate) label to refer to the developing ideology
> > of the working class. As such, it can't "die off", for the working
> > class is permanent and so too is its ideology, whatever form it
> > takes.
> 
> We obviously have differences over how to interpret this term.

I assume you here refer to the term "Marxism-Leninism". I'm unsure of
its history, but apparently it is not only a certain development of
working-class ideology (regardless of how one might assess that
development), but also has sometimes been used to distinguish
communist and social democratic parties. I did not refer to parties,
but to working-class ideology.

In that sense you may be objecting that "Marxism-Leninism" represents
a pathological form of working-class ideology developed by a
particular kind of political interest within a certain kind of party.

I think it necessary at this point to recall the context of this
discussion. Unfortunately, the thread bifurcated, but the present
context is the meaning and/or utility of the term "petite-bourgeois",
which came up only because I used it in a non-pejorative way to refer
to the teaching staff of universities. You apparently object that the
term is necessarily pejorative because Marxist-Leninist parties have
used the term "petite bourgeoisie" to de-legitimate opinions that
differed from those of party leadership.

If I understand it correctly, I do not find your objection to the
phrase "petite bourgeois" to be persuasive for three reasons: a) the
suggestion that the term was _generally_ abused by communist parties
(to discredit an opinion based on the class of its holder rather than
the class implications of the opinion itself) is here neither a
demonstrated consensus nor a proven fact, and b) the debate over the
history of this supposed misuse seems a storm in a teacup with little
obvious impact on the meaning of the term "petite bourgeoisie" today
-- a term with an otherwise broad and respectable history, and c) I
can think of no alternative term that would avoid the troublesome
issue and at the same time convey the same meaning (Carrol kindly
suggested "petty producer", but I wasn't too happy with it).

I don't wish to debate point (a) because motive is very hard to prove
and (b) because the reference group for such a debate will be
differently defined (I'm not much interested in party debates, but in
working-class consciousness). Given my three objections, so far I have
been offered no persuasive reason to abandon the term "petite
bourgeois".

> > Because it is so conventional to use the term "Marxism-Leninism"
> > to refer to the only ideology specific to the working class, there
> > is a danger that a justified criticism of dogmatism or a
> > thoughtless embrace of Marx and Lenin's specific views despite
> > changing circumstances will be construed as a rejection of
> > working-class ideology per se. I'm sure that is not your intent,
> > and so I regret how you expressed yourself here. It could easily
> > be misunderstood.
> 
> That was not my intent. I was referring to the mechanical
> application of Bolshevik organizational practices like "democratic
> centralism", etc., and not to the need for socialist theory and
> practice.

OK, understood. There should not, of course, be a mechanical
application of anything. That's understood, whether it involve
ideology or organizational practices.

But I'm uncertain about what you then add to this point. You seem to
counterpoise democratic centralism and socialism. Are you using the
term "socialism" broadly so as to include the revolutionary socialism
of the Bolsheviks? That would be contradictory (socialism would and
would not entail democratic centralism). So I suspect you are
reserving the word "socialist" to refer to only non-Leninist
parties. Is this inference correct? If so, it would have helped had
you made this restriction explicit, for many people mean socialism by
the word socialism and resist non-constructive distinctions.

What I next say is not meant to start a sectarian and off-topic debate
over past party practices, but only to let you know my own position on
the issue you brought up, that of democratic centralism.

My comment is limited to democratic centralism as a general
organizational principle in the present. I believe that democratic
centralism in a broad sense is a natural and necessary organizational
principle to reconcile democracy and solidarity.

This is roughly the way unions are supposed to work in times of
strike. Democratic centralism as an organizational principle seems to
mean that issues are openly and fully debated; a vote is taken; and
everyone is bound unequivocally to support the outcome of the vote,
not only formally in terms of not promoting their own private
disagreement with it, but emotionally as well, which is achieved
through an intensive critical self-development that hopefully ends
with one's own will beginning to correspond to the common will.

A second application is in a healthy marriage. Opinions naturally
differ, but must ultimately be reconciled to achieve a greater good,
which is the bond of a loving relationship which arguably is the
condition of personal satisfaction. One of course debates an issue,
but in the long run what is more important than being proven right is
a loving accord, and so you look at your own opinion very critically
and struggle to develop what to you are so that you end a better
partner without any loss of self; it is a development of self. not its
denial.

In other words, democratic centralism as much serves the development
of social being as it is a mechanism for settling differenes. It might
seem an organizational principle suitable only for times of intense
struggle and appropriate to relatively closed and disciplined
organizations (as opposed to society at large). However, I believe it
is applicable in any situation in which the development of the self is
a primary consideration, and not just in times of crisis. The reason
is that it alone explains how the development of a social being can be
ensured in a way that is preferable to just a formal education, which
more often than not operates in just a short time frame to change
one's culture without any clear transformation of self. All college
graduates are acculturated, but whether they are as a result better
people is doubtful. 

Let me re-emphasize: I have no intention of entering into a debate
over my points about democratic centralism in this thread, for it
would derail it even further; the thread has to do with the meaning
and appropriateness of the term "petite-bourgeois" today. On the other
hand, if someone were to open a new thread with a subject line
referring to the concept "democratic centralism", as long as it does
not focus on the past practices of certain political parties, I'd be
happy to join in. That is, I find sectarianism hard to take.

And a technical aside. The term "petite bourgeois" or "petite
bourgeoisie" is sometimes spelled without the e at the end of
petit. This happens so often that I'm left feeling very insecure about
my own spelling. In French, the words bourgeois and bourgeoisie, being
feminine, should be preceded by "petite". However, the words bourgeois
and bourgeoisie have been incorporated into English. If the French
phrase "petite bourgeois(ie)" is incorporated as a whole, then there
has to be a final e on petite. However, according to my dictionary, it
seems that _sometimes_ "bourgeois(ie)" is carried over by itself
without the French petite. I infer this from its suggestion that
"petite bourgeoisie" is synonymous with "petit bourgeois" and "petty
bourgeoisie". This might suggest that anything goes (unless you are a
purist like me).
 
-- 
 
       Haines Brown, KB1GRM