Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 00:42:49 +0100 From: m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Hugh Rodwell) Subject: Re: M-I: Re: Meera Nanda replies to Marxism-International Hinrich's reply to me is a perfect example of particularism. Not recognizing the validity of the point of principle I made, he places the nitty-gritty of the issue somewhere else -- lower down, in the peculiarities of a certain nation. The vital tradition in Marxism, the one that actually led to the overthrow of capitalism in a major nation and the setting up of a workers' state there -- Bolshevism-Leninism -- starts with the international situation, the character of the epoch of world history in which we are acting, and then deals with particulars *within* this framework. It's a question of method, how you attack a given problem. Of course Marx dealt in concrete facts and arguments and analysed events and situations at various and sometimes very detailed levels, but it's hopeless to try to convert him into an inductive positivist. Hinrich read my comments as an attack. This is ridiculous. What I did was to point out an enormously significant factor that was completely missing >from the discussion. Hinrich obviously disagrees with me about the significance of the factor involved, namely the international leadership of the working class, when it comes to shaping history and class-consciousness. But instead of taking up the point I raise, he doesn't even mention it. Without discussing the relevance of my principle, he launches an aggressive generalization at me: "Just expressing basic convictions kills every discussion, doesn't it?" As a generalization, I also think it's wrong. This list would fare much better if more subscribers made it a lot clearer where they stood on basic principles such as internationalism. I'd be interested in Hinrich's definition of the line between solid Marxist principle and old-fashioned fundamentalism. Is a person who insists "that there are lots of "unanswered questions"" automatically learned and wise? Sounds to me as if this is a recipe for liberal posing. "No questions have ever been answered. No principles have ever been established. Let's start from scratch -- again and again and again." For my money, the fundamental question concerning the central significance of the leadership of the working class in the current history of the class struggle has been demonstrated quite satisfactorily. Lots of questions remain relating to its concrete manifestations in different countries and different periods, and the best way to deal with the challenges involved, but these are subordinate questions. If the fundamental question is ignored, you can discuss these subordinate questions as much as you like, and you'll still be way off beam at the end of it because the most significant factor will be missing. It's like trying to work out your longitude at sea without a chronometer. "De omnibus dubitandum" is fine in the right hands -- as a constant check for ongoing validity. But as a substitute for taking a stand on principles and using them to change the world it's an academic cop-out. Cheers, Hugh PS None of the above in any way indicates that discussion of India (or any other country) and its class makeup, the situation of its intellectuals (and workers) or the development of crises in the class struggle there is unnecessary or superfluous in any way. Meera's contribution was welcome, and her presence here as a subscriber would also be welcome. --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005