Date: Mon, 10 Mar 97 6:33:12 EST
From: boddhisatva <kbevans-AT-panix.com>
Subject: Re: M-I: G.A. Cohen: "Stagism" cloaked as Marxism





		To whom..,



	Louis Proyect wrote:
"Anybody accustomed to the hard work of building revolutionary parties will
read stuff like this and rub their eyes in disbelief. What in the world is
Cohen talking about? People join revolutionary parties not because these
are *rational choices* but because they are moved by a hatred for
capitalism."



	The problem with this statement is that the revolutions you cite
were not revolutions based on a hatred of capitalism, but revolutions
based on a hatred of feudal or neo-feudal regimes.  Although they may have
been socialist revolutions to the people who led them, they could be, and
I dare say were, "understood" or related to as bourgeois revolutions by
the majority of people who participated in them.  The problem with a
revolutionary approach to modern capitalism is that it lacks the "name
recognition" of feudalism, neo-feudalism or even earlier capitalism. 
There is no Tsar or Batista, Somoza, or Ford, Morgan and Rockefeller. The
leaders of bourgeois class identification are so watered down that there
is no focal point to be found, similar to the ones in these previous
revolutions.


	The "rational choice" in these previous revolutions was to bring down
those who were living above the law.  Modern capitalists don't care to live
above the law, they need the law to protect them.  


	Cohen may be all wet (he certainly seems to have his head in the
clouds from what I have read of "Theory of History") but if you follow his
observations and those of Morrow which you supported, you are left with
the conclusion that the post-war flowering of bourgeois democracy and true
capitalism (in the First World) has *logically* pulled the rug out from
under social revolution.  Furthermore, it seems that the bird's eye view
of the lofty stagist gives us some insight on the fact that socialism is
"stalled"  because capitalism is maturing.  The longest Bull market in
history (derived from the liquidity generated by your beloved "baby boom"
generation's firm embrace of global capitalism) with the greatest number
of initial public offerings in history seems to show a capitalism that is
near its logical goal of making every capital a commodity.  This matches
the conservative "a chicken in every (deserving, meritorious) pot and
every man a capitalist"  rhetoric. 


	When the liquidity runs out, of course, the fun will begin.  Yet I
do not, as you do not, accept the notion that socialism will start just
because capitalism stumbles or even tumbles.  Fascism is always an option. 
All the same, it can be posited that until post-war capitalism has lived
out its creed and been found wanting, it will be difficult to convince
people to mess with success.  It wouldn't be rational. 



	I believe that socialism in the West will begin, not with broad
political campaigns, but when capitalists sell the local factory, and the
people refuse to allow it to leave (a few such events have already
occurred).  A world socialist revolution seems contrary to the logic that
will make socialism the only rational and revolutionary choice.  That is, the
assertion of a community's sense of property over the legal claim by
shareholders.  




	peace





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