Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 19:54:09 +0000
From: Joćo Paulo Monteiro <jpmonteiro-AT-mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: M-I: marxism


Louis Godena replied to my critics of his positions with references to a
cyberconference that I=92m really unaware of. I=92ve just came to these
lists last friday, I think. Could I get these materials?
I would like to make some comments on parts of his reply. But first, I
must do something else.
You wrote:

=93I work the night shift in Central Falls,  Rhode Island as a millwright
out of Local 94,  United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, 
AFL-CIO,  the same local that counted my father,  grandfather, six
uncles,  eleven cousins,  a brother-in-law,  two lovers,  and roughly
two dozen friends as members.    I will be unemployed for at least part
of this winter.   I am a high-school drop-out and Vietnam veteran
(enlisted,  Air Force).    I am a worker,  if nothing else,  and it is
>from this "standpoint" that I write to this list.=94

I can see I've made a catastrophic misjugment here. I thougt you were a
professor emeritus. You're working class credentials are in fact far
more impressive than my own. I=92m a proletarized intellectual
professional. Of course there won't be any more talk of hands off Marx.
Circunstances compell me instead to do something very strange indeed: I
apologize. No hard feelings?
Now, you also wrote:

=93I maintain,  in my own defense,  that the constant evolution of
doctrine in response to changing conditions is itself a canon of
Marxism.    Marxism was never offered to the world as a static body of
received wisdom.=94

All this is, of course, indisputable. But marxism remains indissolubably
linked to the workers=92 movement. In fact, those =93changing conditions=94
can only refer to the class struggle and the workers engagement in it.

    =93And Marx himself once confessed that he was no Marxist.    =93

That one is off the target. This observation was made against some
economistic elocubrations made by some so-called discipules of his,
entirely cut-off from the realities of working class struggle. Marx
meant he would have nothing to do with such =93marxism=94. That=B4s precisely
my argument. You seem to be telling: - If he was not a marxist so can
I... and still be a marxist (I wouldn=92t want to be more popist than the
pope himself). In that case we are all marxists and we don=92t need to
discuss it any further.
You wrote:

=93I think we have to consider seriously the hypothesis that the world
revolution of which the October Revolution was the first stage,  and
which will complete the downfall of capitalism,   will prove to be the
revolt of the colonial peoples against capitalism in the guise of
imperialism rather than a revolt of the proletariat of the advanced
capitalist countries.=94

and, a little later:

=93The working class is,  as I think history has shown,  most effective
when it is part of a *bloc* of classes,   itself armed with a
disciplined sense of class-consciousness, and of suffficient military
prowess to successfully execute the revolutionary overthrow of society.=94

Oh, that=92s guevarism revisited. I can see you=92re in a much narrow
dead-end than you think I am. If you=92ll take Bolivia now (and that=92s a
big if) the imperialists will just let you rot down there. They=92ve got
cheap copper (or whatever there is down there or elsewhere) in a dozen
different places. If they convince themselves that you=92re a real
nuisance they=92ll cut your life support lines and spray you with
=93tomahawks=94 and laser-guided bombs. They can see what brand of
cigarrettes you=92re smoking from their satellites. Having been in the Air
Force, you must have noticed that military material has evolved quite a
bit in these last thirty years, making =93people=92s war=94 and all that
=93focus=94 stuff virtually impossible - except as local level banditry or
as talk-shows like Marcos=92 in Chiapas. You just can=92t do it anymore. I
certainly love Che but he was wrong then and you=92re even more wrong now.
Even the vietnamese couldn=92t win the war today. And if they did win then
(only to be quickly isolated and sanitized), it was because: 1) they had
russian backing, wich is not available anymore; 2) there was mass unrest
on the U.S. =93home front=94. Without this last factor your generals would
have simply bombed them out of existence without a second thought.
You=92re living in the past, Louis, and you haven=92t learn much from it.
To catch some really big fish (say, Brazil, Egypt, South Africa or
Indonesia) you must have solid working class backing down there.
Nowadays most of the really important countries of the former =93thirld
world=94 are capitalist and industrialized, although peripherical and
dependent (they are not at all like Mao=92s China or even the Cuba of the
50=92s). To triumph in a couple of these countries will take us nowhere.
We would have to perform capitalist accumulation and compete on the
global market. The choice would be between selling-out or facing ruin.
Only linking these movements with mass strike and proletarian led civil
insurrection in the core capitalist (imperialist) countries can we have
a chance of turning the table.
Anyway I don=92t think we will have another round of national-popular
movements in the third world. Third-world nationalism is in shambles,
mirred by corruption and economic ruin. Right now, the fundamentalists
and the reaccionary have the iniciative. My guess is that the next round
of unrest in the periphery will have a strong presence (if not a clear
leadership) of it=92s working class. I will get back to this.

After some historical notes (through wich I=92ve first heard of Lorenz von
Stein and Pecqueur), you wrote:

=93Accordingly,  it is more appropriate today to study Marxism in the
light of its one hundred and fifty years of influence on posterity,
rather than as a canonical text to be memorized for all eternity.  
Marx himself (as well as Lenin) would have recoiled at such a
prospect.     Marxism has yet to appear in its fully developed form=94

This is more or less what what was stated before. The point, however, is
this: can you consider marxism just another objective science as, say,
physics or thermodynamics. These here also evolve and can even have
=93revolutions=94 or =93paradigm mutations=94 within. Marxism should have them
too. But can you think of a marxism discarnated of its class content and
allegience? That=92s a very weird monster indeed. For me, marxism will
always be a class science, the science of the proletariat however much
this here changes historically. The bosses think the same way and that=92s
why they run away from it like the devil from the cross.

.=94    Thus, to speak of the industrial proletariat
in the same sense in which it was exposited by Marx is not only
ontologically incorrect,  it dishonors in spirit the very ideology you
profess to uphold.=94

I haven=92t done this. You=92re the one who tends to do so. I=92m graduated in
Law and I consider myself a proletarian. The dictactorship of the
proletariat will be enforced by workers who can read =9318th of Brumaire=94,
Science for the People and any programming manual. In fact, they=92ll be
more of a conjuntion between today=92s manual worker and engineer. The
bourgeoisie will be kicked out like a dry, parasitary crust.

Lets go now to the following remarks you=92ve made:

=93the working class is becoming more diffused, segmented,  and
disheveled,  its leadership docile,  defeated,  lachrymose
and base.   Your talk of "unity"`and "leadership" rings hollow in an
actual purposive context;  there is nothing to "unify" or to "lead".  
As we would say on the graveyard shift: "You're blowing smoke out your
ass". (...);  the draw of nationalism,   including a deeply ingrained
racism and parochialism,  mitigates strongly against a revolutionary
formation of this type.   This is "Amsterdam International" stuff.    3)
Good leadership -- it's wonderful.=94

You seem to forget how the I International was created. Marx had nothing
to do with it. Some english workers were on strike and being replaced by
belgians and other continentals. A delegation of the english unions
asked for a meeting with its french colleagues to discuss it. That=92s how
it all started. Since there is capitalism, the bosses have always tried
to make the workers compete with each other. Of course, that has become
much easier now. You have hundreds and hundreds of millions of workers,
men and women, of all =93races=94, creeds and persuasions, thousands of
kilometers apart. I=92m not surprised you=92ll say it=92s impossible to create
an united front with them.
However, times are changing fast. A couple of years ago I wouldn=92t dream
of talking to you like this. Capitalism tends to create a unified
cultural environment all around the world. There=92s television, sports,
pop music. You could find yourself very rapidly talking to a korean or a
peruvian worker about lay-offs, delocalization and the sort. Then, there
is the dynamics of class struggle.
The bosses are on the offensive all over the developed countries. The
costs of labour are being compressed under the threat (among others) of
going abroad with their businesses. The american workers may be shouting
racist insults now, but sooner or later they=92ll have to talk. And the
mexican workers, if they stop to think a little bit, will surelly find
themselves in a talkative mood too. Once this is done all around, the
bosses will have no more =93scabs=94 left to hire in the entire world. Its
globalization, the workers=92 style. This is not some
all-men-of-good-will-join-together story. It has very objective economic
laws behind it, wich, unfortunately, doesn=92t mean it can=92t fail
somewhere.
All this process may take 20-30 years or more. It may even not take
place at all. But I=92m pretty convinced that in the first half of the
next century we=92ll have an International Union of Workers. And from that
(or, probably, from its left) we can build a party. I=92m not in the sect
trade, Louis. I hate it as much as you do.
You may say I=92m flying high, or =93blowing smoke out my ass=94 (o.k. pal,
you don=92t need to display your working class credentials any further).
But what the fuck are we to do instead? I can=92t see any other way.

=93Marxism is not about heroics.    Like water, it will always seek its
own level in politics.    It is applicable to any number of scenarios,
with an infinite number of re-configurated class models.    Marxism is a
method.    It is evolutionary and inanimate at the same time.    It is
not to be reified or "fetishized",  as you are doing here. =93

I have no plans for being a hero. But, as I said before, I will buy none
of this. What you=92re talking about is some sort of abstract science of
History. I believe (with Marx) the proletariat will put an end to class
societies. There won=92t be any more role for marxism. In case it doesn=92t
and we=92ll have another class society following capitalism, its oppressed
class will find its own emancipatory science.

Comradely,

                                    =C2ngelo Novo



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