Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 10:16:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Louis N Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: M-I: Re: The former Soviet Union: what went wrong?


On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, MA&NG Jones wrote:

> 
> For Marx never argued for 'terminal crisis' (and neither do I, as is 
> clear from a proper reading of the letter of mine which you so object 
> to). Engels misread him, misunderstood him and in rejecting the 
> Marx-that-never-was, also rejected the real historical Marx.
> 

This is an important point. The notion that Marx was some sort of
"stagist" who believed that proletarian revolution was inevitable is a
crude one. A more subtle reading of Marx would reveal a much more
dialectical interaction between the past and the present. This interaction
makes it nearly impossible to make timetables for the socialist stage of
humanity. There are even passages in the Communist Manifesto, his most
"stagist" work, that militate against this unilinear approach.

Somebody who taught me a lot about the correct way to understand Marx was
Randy Martin, Jerry Levy's "boss". (Boss?! What a joke for anybody who
knows Randy.) In a seminar on Marx he led at the Brecht Forum in NY a
couple of years ago, we read some key works by Marx in order to understand
this better. The whole point of the seminar was to show that the
postmodernist, postcolonial and femist critique of Marx is based on a one-
dimensional understanding of Marx. Randy also pointed out that the "posts"
actually can be useful, once this is understood, in helping to illuminate
various aspects of modern society *within* an overall Marxist context.

One of the works of Marx that most emphasizes this anti-stagist and non-
economic determinist aspect is the 18th Brumaire, one of my very
favorites. Examine the following passage: 

"Bourgeois revolutions like those of the eighteenth century storm more
swiftly from success to success, their dramatic effects outdo each other,
men and things seem set in sparkling diamonds, ecstasy is the order of the
day- but they are short-lived, soon they have reached their zenith, and a
long Katzenjammer [crapulence] takes hold of society before it learns to
assimilate the results of its storm-and-stress period soberly. On the
other hand, proletarian revolutions like those of the nineteenth century
constantly criticize themselves, constantly interrupt themselves in their
own course, return to the apparently accomplished, in order to begin anew;
they deride with cruel thoroughness the half-measures, weaknesses, and
paltriness of their first attempts, seem to throw down their opponents
only so the latter may draw new strength from the earth and rise before
them again more gigantic than ever, recoil constantly from the indefinite
colossalness of their own goals -- until a situation is created which
makes all turning back impossible, and the conditions themselves call out:
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!"

("Hic Rhodus, hic salta" comes from an Aesop's fable in which a flea is
challenged to jump over the city of Rhodes. This, in effect, is the
challenge that the working-class has faced throughout its entire history,
including the days in which it has the most revolutionary reputation.)

When Marx says that proletarian revolutions "deride with cruel
thoroughness the half-measures, weaknesses, and paltriness of their first
attempts", doesn't this describe a way to understand the efforts of the
20th century, including the great Soviet experiment? Marx of course was
referring to the revolutions of the 19th century in France, but there is a
common thread.

The bourgeoisie has a relatively easy job of consolidating its class rule,
but the workers have always been in a position of advancing and retreating
as if in some interminable and frustrating trench warfare. The problem for
proletarian revolutionaries is what to do with this fundamental reality.
If one lacks patience, it becomes easy to blame the workers.  "Lookit,
people, what's the matter with you. You had your chance in the 1930s and
blew it. Why'd you have to go listen to those [Mensheviks, Stalinists,
Liberals...fill in the blanks].

The other day I had the temerity to suggest that capitalism might face
giant revolutionary upheavals in the mid 21st century but not any sooner. 
If you take me at my word, this might suggest to you that the best thing
you can do with your time is watch the telly and drink beer.

Of course, others will reject my pessimism out of hand and point to signs
of growing proletarian unrest on all sides. This becomes an invitation to
join one sect or another that has the brilliant insight to state that
revolution is right around the corner. (When have you ever heard a
sectarian outfit admit that we are in a period of quiescence?) 

Speaking of the type of period we are in, take a look at the cover of the
new Time magazine. It is all about the boom in jobs and not growing labor
militancy. It's interesting that the Doug Henwood scooped the newsmagazine
months ago when he was putting a cork in Aronowitz and DeFazio. 

So here we are in 1997 and big class battles might be at least 20 to 30
years off at least. My recommendation: clear away the shit that confuses
and weakens us today and prepare for the future. Sharpen your knives
today, oil your guns. They will be used. This means clearing away the
detritus of academic Marxism in all of its manifestations: postmodernism,
analytic Marxism, neo-Althusserianism, Deleuze-Guattari, etc. It also
means turning the page on "Marxist-Leninist" sectarianism. 

We have also to engage in the class-struggle on *its own terms*. This
might mean working with Yale strikers who are rapidly achieving class
consciousness rather than Boeing machinists who are trying to extract a
few extra dollars from their bosses in a boom industry. We have to pick
and choose. 

This list represents progress on this front. In a true sense, this list
corresponds to the classical Marxist confrontation to Social Text and
Rethinking Marxism. It is the declaration of a political current that puts
class first. It is also the declaration that a socialist party must not be
organized like a church. It takes a lot to make me happy nowadays, but the
advances on marxism-internationalism is one such thing. 

Louis Proyect



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