|
|
I read with interest the threefolding web site. I
would like to comment on some of the historical inaccuracies I wound in its
contents.
It is important to remember that Lenin's theoretic
contribution in the Communist movement was based on Karl's analyses of the Paris
Commune in light of the situation of WW1; a situation that found most socialist
parties joining the war on the side of their particular nation. Those
that did not do this were mostly non-European. Those two contributions were; the
need for a democratic-centralist party, and the tactical strategy not merely of
revolution but of using the party to seize the capitalist state for the purpose
of using it as a club against the former ruling class. The worker councils
(Soviets) were always seen by the Bolsheviks as the functioning replacement for
private ownership management in their respective organizations; never as the
basis of a workers state.
The concept of a threefolding society has not
been universally rejected in communist circles as this site suggests. This is a
concept that I find remarkably compatible to a Trinitarian view of God and the
three basic elements in the classical dialectic; the thesis, the anti-thesis and
the syn-thesis.
There is much to criticize in the idea's and
practice of Lenin, Stalin and Mao. It is not necessary to validate
anti-Communist lies in order to find fault with the Communist Movements of
yesterday or today. When Communists
of the past have followed their principles and
promoted leaders that were unknown in the capitalist press; they have been
called bureaucrats and ideologues. (Well boohoo. Unknown to outsiders does not
make them unknown to their membership.) When Communists of the past of the past
have compromised on their principles and promoted leaders that were well known
out side of their closed circles, they have been accursed of being authoritarian
followers of dictators. I find that it is illogical to make both criticisms at
the same time.
Roger Rouge
Hey
Thank you for your comments ... I think you make
some very good points, and would like to add your comment to the page .....
However I've found few among the Marxist-Leninist
tradition who in political sense acknowledge spirituality - though many
individually may have an interest in the matter, the official line is always
anti-spiritual and often repressive towards individual freedom and spirituality.
The point that religious matters should not divide
the working-class in the economic struggle, I find valid within the pure
economic sphere of production - distribution and consumption of goods and
services -
But put forward as a totalitarian cultural/spiritual
claim that the working-class may have no interest in spirituality, and the
proclamation of materialism as a new dogma, enforced by state oppression of a
free cultural sphere, in reality excluded big parts of the working and
middleclass from the socialist strivings...
Among the radical Christians you find more tolerance
towards atheist socialism, than you find among socialist atheists towards the
radical Christian left ...
I have for several years worked as trade union
activist in an anarcho-syndicalist union, which
separate the political struggle from the economic struggle, and leave the
spiritual foundation up to individual choice - this tradition have been in the
shadow of the apparently more effective and successful in the "outer form"
working socialism of Marxist decent - but I see these trends emerging again with
renewed strength - very encouraging ... and acknowledge that as Christ is living
within each human souls heart, true humanity can speak from impulses that
apparently have no spiritual foundation, simply because the person in his/her
context seek truth and work in love to his/her fellow beings .. one such person
I mention on my pages is the Iranian
Marxist Mansour Heekmat:
"The basis of socialism is the human being… Socialism
is the movement to restore human being's conscious will."
Once again thanks for you comments -
Love Soren Groth
Back to article
|
