Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 10:04:01 -0500
From: Louis Proyect <leata-AT-EarthLink.NET>
Subject: M-I: Congo: Marxism versus empty abstractions


David Bedggood:
"Louis problem is his petty bourgeois romantic view that the armed petty
bourgeois can of their own volition substitute for the working class as the
agent of revolution. He projects onto  Kabila his  subjective desires."

Louis P: 
How can African nations emancipate themselves when they lack a
revolutionary industrial working-class? Nations such as the former Zaire,
Burkina Faso, Mozambique, Angola, Namibia have had no industrial
working-class to speak of. Where there are small number of workers employed
in mineral or petroleum extraction, they often enjoy incomes at least twice
the national average and have little inclination to make revolutions.
Bedggood is as woefully ignorant of the class composition of these types of
nations as Rodwell was of Nicaragua. A Marxism that can not carry out a
class analysis is not worth the paper it is written on. For an alternative
to Bedggood's threadbare abstractions, I recommend Trotsky's writings on
Russia from the 1905 period.

David Bedggood:
"This is why instead of giving Kabila any political support as Proyect
does, it is necessary for revolutionaries to fight for an independent
working class and poor peasant "base" to press for reforms, and when Kabila
as the agent of SA and US capital baulks, take power from him."

Louis P:
It is necessary for revolutionaries to fight for an independent working
class and poor peasant base? Are you fighting in this manner when you peck
away at your keyboard in the sociology department of the University of New
Zealand? When you say things like "it is necessary", what you really are
saying is that you advocate a conclusion to the Congolese revolution based
on your wishes rather than on political reality. The political reality is
that Kabila's peasant army is what toppled Mobutu and not workers and
peasant councils. To advocate the formation of such organizations
represents wish-mongering and not Marxism. Soviets and other forms of
self-organization are the outcome of a spontaneous mass movement and can
not be summoned into existence by e-mail.

David Bedggood:
"What is meant by distrust of the state?  Mobutu's state was a corrupt
semi-colonial  dictatorship. Isnt Kabila's body of armed men an inchoate
semi-colonial state? He has been well received as the liberator of the new
DRC.And there will popular  pressure to eliminate  poverty and disease, but
the question is can Kabila do this?  To do so means heavy state spending
when Kabila has already committed himself to the neo-liberal IMF plan for
economic recovery.  Does Proyect seriously think that Kabila's  IMF masters
are going to be interested in eradicating Aids any more than it is worried
about poverty which is its immediate cause in Africa?"

Louis P:
Poor David has trouble understanding a contradictory situation. Over and
over again peasant-based rebellions have faced immense difficulties once
they have gained power. In Nicaragua, there was hatred for the Somoza
kleptocracy among illiterate peasants. Many of these very same peasants,
particularly in the remote northern area of the country, retained distrust
for the state long after Somoza was gone, especially when the state was
hard-pressed to deliver the goods in conditions of war and economic siege.
Mozambique faced the same sorts of problems. So did the USSR. The tension
between town and countryside has been discussed over and over again in
Marxist literature. Unfortunately, Bedggood lacks the background in such
literature to realize that problems like these bedeviled Lenin to his dying
day. I suppose that Bedggood is a much more profound Marxist thinker than
Lenin. We can be joyful that the sheep ranchers of New Zealand will present
no such problems when his LMRCI party takes power during summer break from
the University.

(The unfortunate thing about having Bedggood calling himself a Trotskyist
is that it gives Trotsky a bad name and might persuade others from reading
him. Trotsky's theory of the permanent revolution was closely tied to
concrete examination of the class struggle in Czarist Russia. For instance,
let us consider how Trotsky approaches the all-important question of the
Russian working class:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------
The same world-wide historical causes which have made bourgeois democracy
in Russia a head without a body--and a completely confused head at
that--have bred the conditions for the outstanding role of the young
Russian proletariat. The very incomplete figure of the 1897 give us the
following reply:

NUMBER OF WORKERS

A. Mining and manufacturing industry, transport, construction and trade:
3,322,000

B. Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting:
2,723,000

C. Day-laborers and artisans:
1,195,000

D. Servants, doormen, house-porters:
2,132,000

TOTAL:
9,372,000

Together with its dependents, the proletariat formed 27,6% of the entire
population in 1897, or little more than a fourth. The degree of political
activity differs considerably among the various strata of this human mass,
and leadership in the revolution is almost exclusively confined to the
workers of group A. However, to judge the actual and potential importance
of the Russian revolutionary proletariat by its relative numbers would be
to fall into the gross error of failing to perceive the social relations
behind the bare figures.

The importance of the proletariat is determined by its role in modern
economy. The most powerful means of production depend directly and
immediately on the workers. The 3.3 million workers of group A produce no
less than half of each year's national income. The railroads, those most
important means of communication--as shown by the course of events [Trotsky
is referring to the 1905 revolution]--are primary in turning the enormous
country into an economic whole, represent in the hands of the proletariat
an economic and political asset of immeasurable importance. To them we must
add the mails and the telegraph, which depend on the proletariat less
directly but very effectively.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------

Does this sound like anything that Hugh or Bedggood have ever produced on
this list? Now, I don't claim to be the incarnation of Trotsky as they do,
but I have tried to remain faithful to this approach of detailed class
analysis when I have written about Cuba, Nicaragua, Costa Rica or the
United States on this list. Thses are countries that I have direct
experience with or have studied in some depth. The reason that Hugh and
David don't take this approach is that their Marxism is the Marxism of
slackers. Rather than consult economic or social statistics the way that
Lenin or Trotsky did when they wrote about Czarist Russia, they are much
more comfortable dispensing opinions. Opinions are worth very little.
Whatever they write about former Zaire will consist of empty abstractions.
"The working class should do this. The peasants should do that." This is
not Marxism. It is the sort of idle chatter one can hear in student or
bohemian neighborhood bars in any large city. "The working class should get
its act together and take over the government. That's what I say. Blimey.
(Bartender, another Fosters for me and my mate.) And that's what Trotsky
said. Hiccup."




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