Suchergebnisse

FROM 1895 TO 1919, LENIN'S IDEAS ON THE NATURE OF REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE OF THE WC VACILLATED FROM A RECOGNITION OF THE CENTRALITY OF WORKERS' STRUGGLES IN THE FACTORIES, TO A BELIEF IN THE INTELLIGENTSIA BEING THE AGENT OF PROLETARIAN CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS, TO AN EMPHASIS ON THE POWER OF THE SOVIETS. FROM 1895-1896, LENIN'S IDEAS REFLECTED SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC POLICY WHICH EMPHASIZED THE RISE OF REVOLUTIONARY CONSCIOUSNESS AS A SPONTANEOUS-MECHANICAL RESULT OF FACTORY STRUGGLES, & DEFINED THE ROLE OF THE INTELLECTUALS AS HASTENING THIS SPONTANEOUS PHENOMENON. AFTER THE STRIKES OF THE PERIOD ENDED, LENIN ISSUED A POLEMIC AGAINST SPONTANEISM WHICH RESULTED IN THE TEXT WHAT IS TO BE DONE (IN COLLECTED WORKS, VOL. V). HERE, HE SET FORTH BASIC THESES ACKNOWLEDGING THAT REVOLUTIONARY CONSCIOUSNESS WAS OBTAINED OUTSIDE THE WC; THAT ABANDONED TO ITSELF, THE PROLETARIAT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GO BEYOND CORPORATE LIMITS; & THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR BOURGEOIS INTELLECTUALS WITH SOCIALIST LEANINGS TO WORK OUT A REVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE & "DONATE IT" TO THE PROLETARIAT TO ORGANIZE ITS STRUGGLE. IN THIS CONTROVERSIAL FORMULATION THE PROLETARIAT ENDED UP BEING THE OBJECT OF HISTORY, NOT ITS SUBJECT. AFTER 1905, LENIN QUIETLY REJECTED THESE THESES BY ENDORSING THE SOVIETS AS REVOLUTIONARY BODIES NO LESS NECESSARY THAN THE PARTY. IN 1907, LENIN SUBSTANTIALLY RETRACTED THE THESES OF WHAT IS TO BE DONE & UNDERSTOOD THEIR UNTENABILITY IN VIEW OF THE HISTORICAL CHANGES WHICH HAD OCCURRED IN THE RUSSIAN WC BETWEEN 1904 & 1907. AS A RESULT OF THE 1917 REVOLUTION, LENIN REINTERATED THE POSITION THAT THE PARTY IS BUT AN ELEMENT OF THE SOVIET SYSTEM DRAWING ITS WEIGHT THROUGH THE FREE CONSENSUS OF THE MASSES. IN STATE AND REVOLUTION LENIN HYPOTHESIZED A DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT. BUT IN 1919, A BUREAUCRATIC DEGENERATION OF THE REVOLUTION OCCURRED, DUE TO THE CIVIL WAR & THE DEATH OF MILLIONS, FOREIGN INTERVENTION, THE UNTRUSTWORTHINESS OF RUSSIAN PEASANTS, & THE UNFORTUNATE NEED FOR PARTY FUNCTIONARIES FROM PREREVOLUTIONARY DAYS TO HELP RUN THE GOVERNMENT. AT THIS POINT, LENIN WROTE IN LEFT-WING COMMUNISM: AN INFANTILE DISORDER THAT THE NEED WAS EVIDENT FOR A STRONG CENTRALIZATION OF POWER. AT THE SAME TIME, HE STRUGGLED AGAINST THE EFFECTS OF BUREAUCRACY. THE "NEW LEFT" MUST RECOGNIZE THE INCONSISTENCIES IN LENIN'S IDEAS ON THE ROLE OF THE PARTY & THE MASS MOVEMENT, & BEGIN TO AUTONOMOUSLY INVESTIGATE THESE QUESTION INSTEAD OF DOGMATICALLY ACCEPTING STALIN'S INTERPRETATION OF LENINISM. A. KARMEN.

A discussion of the theory of the state, the autonomy of the modern state, & the world systems debate. Several recent developments in Marxist state theory controversies are reviewed & elucidated relative to the international behavior of core nations. The Karl Kautsky-V. I. Lenin debate on ultra-imperialism is reexamined & its relevance to Immanuel Wallerstein's world systems debate (Wallerstein, Immanuel [Ed], Political Economy of the World-System Annuals, Vols 1 & 2, Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage, 1979) is discussed. The theoretical difference between Kautsky & neo-Kautskyite writers is demonstrated by introducing a two-dimensional analytic construct of relations among core states. The discussion of relative autonomy points out a major ambiguity in the current instrumentalist-structuralist controversy. 1 Figure. Modified HA.