Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 11:18:35 +0200
From: Hugh Rodwell <m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se>
Subject: M-TH: Re: Immigration


Rob S writes:

>G'day Hugh,
>
>If one were to acknowledge that (a) the logically inevitable privations of
>late capitalism are more objectively manifest than ever and (b) we are
>still far from subjective conditions such that we may speak of a
>revolutionary period, would one be a socialist by your definition?

Socialist? Why not. Some people call Blair a socialist. I use Marx's
definition of socialist in his Critique of the Gotha Programme when I talk
about modes of production, and this is basically what I go by generally, ie
I'd probably say that Blair's not really a socialist at all because he
doesn't accept this definition or work for it as a goal.

The two points Rob mentions -- one, that late capitalism causes manifest
and inevitable misery on an ever-growing scale, and two, that a
revolutionary period requires certain subjective conditions to be fulfilled
-- are both relevant but utterly separate. I think it's quite likely that
people holding one are socialists. Those holding two don't have to be
socialists at all, they could just be academic sociologists or historians.
The outcome of a revolutionary period might be determined by the subjective
consciousness of mass leaderships and the masses themselves, but the period
as such could be revolutionary with a huge variety of subjective attitudes
in the masses. I would always qualify "revolutionary period" with something
more definite relating to the character of mass consciousness and the
leadership or leaderships and their consciousness.

Rob goes on:

>As you
>no doubt realise, I happen to think this.

OK, he wants to consider himself a socialist. So does Blair (perhaps, for
electoral reasons...). Look at all the bourgeois parties in Latin America
that call themselves revolutionary and popular! The name isn't the
important thing. Programmatic definitions such as Rob gives above are a
much better approach.

>And I happen to think today's
>pain has to be alleviated/attenuated/made tolerable in ways that are
>conceivable today - in today's way of being.

As Marx said, society only sets itself problems it can solve. Since
problems are rarely solved all at once on a world scale instantly,  some
solutions take place in slow motion and dispersed around the globe.


>One who focuses solely on the ultimate moment, and sees piecemeal responses
>to current problems in current lives as distortions or distractions in/from
>correct practice has lost sight of what matters: real people.  I don't
>accuse you of this, for if I did, I think I'd be making a mistake of the
>same order as you make when you write:
>
>>I don't think Chris is after real solutions.
>
>Sincerely comradely,
>Rob.
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





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