Date: Wed, 10 Aug 1994 00:16:46 +0700 From: djones-AT-uclink.berkeley.edu (donna jones) Subject: fascism/bolshevism I have been reading all the posts. In restudying my position on the labor aristocracy, I came across a very interesting passage from Mattick, Sr. on the petty-bourgeois roots of state capitalism, of which for Mattick both bolshevism and fascism are expressions. I found the passage especially interesting because it concentrates not on a labor aristocracy but non-proletarian strata. To the passage that I now reproduce, I would only add that the strength of the class to which Mattick Sr calls attention would, I believe, be more evident in imperialist countries and thus there pose special problems for proletarian revolution. "Under capitalism there exist only irreconcilable class interests. Therefore capitalistically inclined social strata that are the victims of monopolization cannot be won over to socialism because their special social positions would be destroyed even more rapidly and thoroughly under it than under monopoly capitalism. At most they can be won over to a capitalist program that caters to their special interests, in a word, an antisocialist policy. Thus behind the slogan of a struggle against state monopoly capitalism lurks the proclamation of a counterrevolutionary policy directed against socialism. "It is, however, quite conceivable that as monopolistic pressure intensifies, driving segments of the petite bourgeoisie into the proletariat, some of these petit-bourgeois layers will be persuaded that their last chance lies with state capitalism, which they hope will throw open the gates to the career monopoly capitalism had barred to them..."(From the 1977 Economics, Politics and the Age of Inflation, p.86) This passage indicates the importance of understanding how Marx moved beyond radical democracy to a proletarian exclusivism. As Mattick suggests, the failure to understand that conceptual break only makes more possible that capitalism will preserve itself by transforming itself into some form of state capitalism--fascism or bolshevism. I also thinks that this passage is important because it allows the unity of the proletariat against the democratic incantations of the threatened petit-bourgeoisie. In other words, instead of leading to divisiveness within the proletariat over who is still Lenin's labor aristocracy, there is indicated here a project of true class consciousness. (I do not mean to foreclose a discussion about Lenin's understanding of the labor aristocracy in Imperialism and the Split in Socialism, however). This passage also points to the dangers of such engaging works as Barnett and Cavanagh's recent book on multinational corporations--it leaves the door open for the democratic politics of a reactionary class. No wonder the book has received praise from the small business administration. In conclusion if we understand bolshevism as but one manifestation of state capitalism--and not a specially Russian problem--then we must also understand the dangers of its consolidation in the imperialist countries. The project then becomes not the disassociation of Marxism from Stalinism only but, more fundamentally, from the petty bourgeoisie who would turn marxism into any form of state capitalism. And that is of course not just a problem for a people with a czarist past. For the petty bourgeoisie could hegemonize a bloc either based on opposition to the New Left's monopoly capitalism or based on some form of Maoist ethnic nationalism against imperialist white supremacy. Trotter's question remains (raised in his question about the Stalinist development of the productive forces): what happens to the proletariat as a subject? Or more precisely, mustn't the emancipation of the working class be conquered by the working class itself? d jones ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005