leninism

Leninism is not perfect nor should it be copied mechanically, but abandoning it for vague principles — as Dan La Botz proposes — leaves us without tools to confront the realities of power, contends Antony Teso.

Responding to his critics, Dan La Botz argues that Lenin’s decisions not only proved incapable of defending and advancing a democratic socialist revolution but contributed to the revolution’s failure.

Whether you are “for” or “against” “Lenin” and “Leninism,” John Marot contends that discussing these in their historical context is essential to gaining a better understanding of the issues.

Paul Le Blanc engages in a critical dialogue with Dan La Botz’s “Goodbye to Lenin and Leninism,” arguing we should continue to learn critically from Lenin’s experiences, successes, shortcomings, mistakes and unfinished tasks.

Responding to Dan La Botz’s “Goodbye to Lenin and Leninism”, Anthony Teso writes that what we need is neither a Lenin cult nor an anti-Leninist shortcut that confuses renunciation with strategy.

Leninists seldom asked themselves: if Lenin was always right, why did things go so wrong in Russia? Dan La Botz argues it is time to say goodbye to Lenin and Leninism.

Paul Le Blanc shares some thoughts on Leninism, democratic centralism, party organization and related matters for today’s socialist struggle.

Karl Marx once commented: “Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.” Less mature activists prefer the posture of changing the world over the hard work of understanding it, but as the young Marx also thundered: “Ignorance never did any one any good!”