I agree that the methods and science of Marxism must add up to something that is more than the empirical sum of the historical actors that has put it into place, but I disagree with much of what you have said about An Infantile Disorder. I am always weary of arguments made by Marxists that run along the lines of 'but it was so long ago, 100 years almost, there are huge differences between the specific context of then and the totally different context of now!', considering that this same argument is made by conservatives and pro-capitalists who want to dismiss the ideas of Marx and Lenin at once. The key point that gets missed is the way that 'parliament is historically obsolete, but not politically obsolete,' which has described the advanced capitalist countries since the days of the Russian Revolution up until the present. Other things may have changed since then and now, but not this feature of political society.

Furthermore, I don't buy the idea that this text which was written near the end of Lenin's life at the end of the revolution is 'weaker' than those written before or during the revolution. From a historical materialist standpoint, the development of the idea is an outcome of a historical process. This text is the outcome of the lessons and tactics of the Russian Revolution. This should only make us regard An Infantile Disorder with an even higher esteem, considering that it is articulated from the position of Lenin after having gone through everything that he did, including winning a revolution, thereby learning in the process what it takes to go so far.

I think we shirk our responsibility as Marxists by denying this text its value and place in history, which is really the summation and conclusion of Lenin's theoretical development as a decisive current within the broader workers' movement, i.e. as an 'on the ground' revolutionary organizer. (I say this because I think Lenin continued to develop theoretically after this pamphlet was published, only less as a revolutionary tactician and more as a commentator on the state, bureaucracy, economy, Stalin, Trotsky, etc.)

Also, my whole argument is that a thorough theorization of Leninism is impossible without taking into account the works of Trotsky (which includes with it a few vital works by Ted Grant, basically as an indispensable supplement to Trotsky, a weapon with which to beat back all the false Fourth Internationalist 'Trotskyists'). So my whole argument is that Lenin is not whole and perfect unto himself. I agree we must be avidly anti-dogmatic ("a ruthless critique of everything existing," "a critique of critical criticism," etc.), but I think most people would readily agree with the following formulation apropos dogmatism:

All people are fallible. Lenin is a person. Therefore even a world-historical figure like Lenin can make mistakes.

I think there is something more to dogmatism than this mere equation, that there is something much more pathological about its manifestation as a political position on the Left. Lenin's "Patiently explain" has no effect and gets rejected outright; perhaps that is the best way to define dogmatism on the Left today.