File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2003/bhaskar.0306, message 20


Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 23:19:30 -0500
From: Carrol Cox <cbcox-AT-ilstu.edu>
Subject: Re: BHA: Zapatisting the social sciences and Lenin, Part I


Re: BHA: Zapatisting the social sciences and Lenin, Part I

Mervyn Hartwig wrote:
> 
> Hi Carrol
> 
> Well, your assessment of the Zapatista movement seems gloomy. This is
> almost a century-old tradition of struggle now, and while it may
> currently be in a quiescent phase, I doubt it has reached a dead end. In
> any case it's ideas, which are irreducible to the movement, live on. Why
> not *discuss* them instead of doing a put down? Do read the second part
> of the article - it was rejected as too long by our hosts.
> 

The key point in my response was not the put-down of the Zapatistas but
a query as to whether we were all that gloomy to begin with. I wish the
Zapatistas (and other resistance activities everywhere) well; I'm merely
doubtful that they provide any distinct model for others to follow. And
you make a demand here that I myself have never made on anyone when you
write, ". Why  not *discuss* them instead of doing a put down? Do read
the second part  of the article." I will discuss things I want to
discuss: it is up to others to decide whether of the hundreds of things
to discuss they should join my discussion. And I often make it clear
that a given position of mine is based on this or that book (or set of
books) --  but I would never insist that anyone choose my list to read.

And rather than single out any one struggle (or form of struggle) as 
being a "century-old tradition" I would rather focus on the fact that
the general struggle against exploitation and the oppression that always
accompanies it is a three or four-century old tradition." There was a
post on the marxism list about 4 years ago that, I think, catches this
up. It (and my expansion of it which I also include below) only partly
overlap the present discussion, but I didn't want to try to pick them
apart to keep only the immediately relevant.

James N. Stewart post on marxism list (May 1999) I have not preserved
the post to which he was responding. His quotations from that post are
enclosed in <>

****
<A different, fetal, explanation to why Socialist revolution has
hitherto  been unsuccessful.>

Who says it's been unsuccessful?

<Civilised society is based on one premise above all others: to grow.
With this as our driving force, we find the means by which to accomplish
this to the best of our ability, hence, now, we have capitalism: our
best, most efficient way of achieving growth at present.>

This is a charming nineteenth century approach to rationalization.  If
it is what youth is thinking I can only suggest that education is in
order. This appears to be just another version of vitalism.

The simple fact is that civilization is based on no such thing.  If this
premise were true we would have had the industrial revolution in the
vicinity of Jerico centuries ago.  What we observe, however, is that
civilization tends toward stability (or at least it tends to resist
change) and tends not to grow much, if at all.  Growth, as such, is an
element of capitalist ideology.  To post that it is the essence of
civilization is a a classic example of the reification of ideology.  Is
it not?

Worse still, you assume a conclusion and select your evidence based on
those conclusions.  This has been known traditionally as "begging the
question,"  i.e. you borrow the question from the conclusions.  Not
persuasive argumentation. ****

A rough and ready stability of whatever exists is a given, I should
think, and moreover it is not possible to predict in advance when and
from what causes a given stability (stagnation) will suddenly come
(partly or wholly) unglued. Hence (I think hence -- perhaps just and
moreover) both cheer and gloom on the part of leftists are sort of
beside the point.

Here is an expansion of James S's post that I wrote at the time:

*****
Re: An extension of Marxist history Fri, 07 May 1999 08:07:05 -0500
Carrol Cox  marxism-AT-lists.panix.com

I missed the post to which James S. is responding, but if his quotations
are representative that post was indeed deeply anti-marxist. I would
like to expand on both parts of James's comments.

(1) "Who says it's been unsuccessful?" This is excellent. Based on any
available historical as opposed to mechanically utopian evidence,
socialist revolution has in only a little over a century become a major
element in world history. It has been hugely successful. Quite aside
from the technology, this maillist would have been inconceivable in
1865.

(2) "The simple fact is that civilization is based on no such thing." If
one were writing the ABC's of Marxism, Proposition A would be:
Capitalism introduced growth as a goal into human history, thereby
subordinating human happiness (which exists in the present) to the
Future. Proposition B would be: The aim of socialist revolution is to
recapture the present as reality, which is to be achieved only by
destroying the reality of the future (growth).

It is true, of course, that capitalism is/was the most efficient method
of growth that ever has been and (we hope) ever will be devised. That is
why it must be destroyed to make room for humanity.

Note: An *Immediate* future is embodied in work. I make a sandwich, and
my eating of that sandwich in a minute or so is implicit in the making.
But that is not growth. That, in fact, is a virtual present. Capitalism
by making the sandwich a commodity deprives the making of it of any
meaning, for its meaning (if it has any) is only to be determined when
(first) it is sold and (secondly) the value (not worth) of the price is
discovered in a yet further future (the market for means of production
for the production of more sandwiches [growth]).

It is in that sense that under capitalism the Future is the Real, while
under socialism the Present will be the Real. - Carrol ****

I'm afraid until reality imposes a different perspective on me (which
may happen), I can't really give serious consideration to political
views which don't put opposition to and contestation for state power at
the center. (Ellen Meiksins Wood is my main guide here.) 

Carrol



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005