From: "commie00" <commie00-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: Re: Re: re: the real movement definition again
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 18:17:44 -0500


hi monty

> I wonder, is not the program in the Manifesto essentially social
democracy?

heh... yeah, you know, i'm kinda guilty of a little ahistoricism here.
thanks for calling me out on it. ... i tend to look at the manifesto as a
whole these days (including the various introductions), which changes the
nature of how i understand it. that is: i easily forget that in 1848, sans
later introductions, the tone would have been more social democratic.

that is: by the time marx wrote his later introductions he was certainly no
longer a social democrat, the way i understand it (see below).

> - participating in the daily concrete struggles of the class, supporting
its practical demands, trying to participate in that process - perhaps of
class becoming for itself, knowing that in the course of struggle it may
well only do so partially and hence, we might say today, not transcending
social democracy which is in essence the exercise of working class power
within capitalism (writing in context of 1848 revolution, the Manifesto;
participating in support of the north in US civil war, against slavery)

i think you might overstate the case here, esp since we (as a class) often
use non-social democratic means (direct action, etc.) to accompish "social
democratic", in a sense, (read: reformist) goals.

see, i define and understand social democracy as being an end unto itself.
that is: for social democrats, qualitative changes comes thru parlementary
means... that is: the capturing of the state, via parlement, by the
"workers' party".

contra this, an anti-social democrat may shoot for reforms by any means
possible, including parlement... however, the intent is qualitatively
different: while the social democrat sees this as an end, the anti-social
democrat sees this as only a means to increase working class autonomy until
an insurrectionary rupture can occur.

now, we can discuss the tactical merits of using parlementary means from an
anti-social democratic perspective. i don't think there are any, esp. these
days.

hrm... actually to some all of this up, i'm going to quote something from
the mechanics for disrepair document:

"Most importantly, we should avoid allowing reforms to become ends in and of
themselves. We have to understand that reforms only exist because we fight
for them, and not because the ruling class wants us to have them. In fact,
the ruling class, in order to preserve its power and in order to maintain
the growth that capitalism requires,  must strip us of anything that gives
us power. Thus, reforms are, at best, temporary, which history has shown
repeatedly. Reforms provide us with breathing space that we can use to widen
and strengthen our movement to destroy capitalism. They are nothing more
than that, and if we don't take advantage of them, we will find ourselves
set back. as we have been many times when we see reforms as ends instead of
means. When reforms become ends, when we use capitalist means of opening
breathing spaces (such as voting, mediators and hierarchical organizational
forms), we create reformism. Reformism strengthens capitalism by maintaining
the illusion that capitalism can be "permenantly reformed to meet our needs"
. Reformism doesn't understand that globalization is the natural movement of
capitalism. Reformism doesn't understand that capitalism is class struggle,
and thus inequality cannot be ended save through the movement to end
capitalism - in capitalism's final destruction."

i think the distinction made here is very important, and can easily be
applied to this discussion... that is: social democracy is in a very real
sense reformism, while revolutionary practice often must shoot for reforms
(concrete struggles to increase autonomy) while avoiding falling into the
social democratic / reformist trap.

as to marx himself, a case could easily be made for his being somewhat of a
social democrat in 1848 (tho most social democrats then and now didn't /
don't support the insurrectionary aspects of revolution that marx did his
whole life), but it seems to me that by the mid-1850s he was well beyond
that and into the "revolutionary practice" side of this.

> PS - do you have a costume in mind for, or the special powers of, Marx the
destroyer?

hrm... haven't given much thought... well, the costume would be mostly red
with black dodads, naturally. prolly just a pair of furry underwear. powers,
are a good question. following on the conan theme, he could just carry a
really big hammer and scicle. but that seems kinda boring. in some books,
conan could do spells... sooooo: marx the destroyer could have magical
incantations, which would, of course, be various provacative quotes from his
work (which could give multiple readings). and, of course, like conan, he
would hang out with *red* sonja.

wow... i know waaaay too much about this!



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---