Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:04:13 +0100
From: m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Hugh Rodwell)
Subject: M-G: Re: Meera Nanda replies to Marxism-International


The core of Meera N's contribution on M-I seems to be:

>>Please don't misunderstand me: I am not suggesting that Third World
>>intellecutals *should* adopt a more consistent POMO.  I object to POMO not
>>because it is anti-essentialist but because it denies reason and any
>>basis for human universals. That is why I remain convinced that Marxism
>>is a far superior position: it denies essentialism by historicizing
>>national identities but retains space for universalism.
>>
>>But the question remains: What are the reasons why Third World
>>intellectuals would be drawn to the anti-science and anti-progress
>>elements of POMO?

In the first paragraph the fact that Marxism gives an international
perspective for the emancipation of humanity is pointed to
("universalism"), but the actual means of emanicipation is ignored
completely, ie workers' revolution led by a Bolshevik-Leninist party, with
the goal of establishing first a revolutionary dictatorship of the
proletariat in the country in which the revolution takes place, and second
a federation of workers' states to increase the effectiveness of the
revolutions that have taken place in influencing the revolutions that are
on the way.

In the second paragraph these omissions lead directly to the helplessness
of the question posed. In the absence of a clear socialist lead by the
working class and its revolutionary Marxist party, intellectuals and other
intermediate strata are drawn to bourgeois or petty-bourgeois movements.
They have no fundamental solution of their own to propose regarding how
society should be run, so they tail-end whichever of the representatives of
the three great classes of modern society (working class, bourgeoisie,
landowners) seems strongest or appears to offer them the best alternative
to complete extinction.

So by not making the leadership of the working class the pivot of enquiry,
Meera and many others end up contorted into one big question mark --
however, incisive, intelligent and lucid their presentation of the symptoms
of the crisis they are trying to get to grips with.

The very first words of the Transitional Programme (perhaps the most
important programmatic document for which Trotsky bore major
responsibility) put this basic requirement for understanding current
problems in the real world just about as clearly as anyone could wish:

        The world political situation as a whole is chiefly characterized by
        a historical crisis of the leadership of the proletariat.

Anyone who ignores this perspective on the problems and crises people
everywhere are grappling with today, ends up either in utopianism
(nostalgia for the good old days, etc) or hopelessness and a mess of
scepticism and unanswered questions. Or the equally hopeless cop-out of
particularism pretending to focus on a single question and refusing to see
the question concerned in its general social and political setting.


Cheers,

Hugh






     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---