Date: Tue, 19 Mar 96 09:33:14 GMT
From: Adam Rose <adam-AT-pmel.com>
To: marxism-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: Jon F's grains of sand & dialectics



Hugh, the following message of yours seems to me to be well 
educated waffle. There's nothing in it for me to agree with,
expand on, or disagree with, as far as I can tell.

Perhaps I've just missed the point. If so, please rephrase
your point(s) for my benifit.

Thanks,
Adam.

Hugh writes:
> 
> The problem as I see it is to relate the surface impressions all of us get
> from our various sources of information with the underlying social and
> historical tensions Marxist theory makes us aware of.
> 
> It's like the big earthquake. It's there building up all the time - with
> every week that passes the tensions grow. But before it happens, everything
> *seems* pretty normal, apart from the odd tremor or two.
> 
> Marx saw capitalism as historically spent as early as the 1840s! Lenin and
> Trotsky, after the emergence of the imperialist phase of capitalist
> development, write in a matter of fact way of our epoch as one of
> transition to socialism, of the death agony of capitalism. 'Imperialism is
> capitalism pregnant with socialism'.
> 
> For them, unlike most of the participants in our discussions (perhaps we
> should organize a vote?) it was not a question of *if* capitalism would
> collapse, but *when*. The question of the fate of humanity after the
> collapse was in no way given, however, as there was a real risk of a
> collapse into barbarism instead of a transformation to socialism by way of
> an internationally dominant dictatorship of the proletariat.
> 
> The essential factor for the victory of socialism was seen by Marx (and
> Engels), Lenin and Trotsky as the consciousness of the class of its own
> interests, organized nationally and internationally in a revolutionary
> party able to fight for these interests.
> 
> Now, the problem with Jon's parable of the grains of sand is that there's
> no dialectics immediately obvious in it. The growth of consciousness
> throughout the class and the related but not pre-destined growth of party
> strength is not a linear process of piling up grains of anything. It's
> *organic*. Trotsky was fond of talking of *molecular* processes. And with a
> certain number of cells in the organism, a qualitative change appears in
> its nature. Engels refers to Marx very emphatically in this respect in ch
> 12 'Dialectics. Quantity and Quality' of Anti-Duehring (Collected Works vol
> 25, p 116), referring to the transformation of a growing sum of money from
> a heap of coins into a portion of capital.
> 
> If we don't appreciate the dialectics of the death agony of capitalism,
> we'll be constantly thrown off our feet when the quakes hit us. And we'll
> adjust to these reminders of the elemental power of history too late. This
> leads to voluntarist adventurism in the subsiding wake of huge but
> unconsummated upheavals (classical example: third period), and scepticism
> and cynicism in relation to the independent revolutionary potential of the
> working class when these gung-ho voluntarist adventures have failed
> (classical examples: Pabloism and popular frontism).
> 
> To get to grips with this we've got to shelve psychologizing concepts like
> optimism and pessimism and look at the scientific basis of Marx's analysis
> of the dynamics of capitalist society. If we grasp the logic of the
> processes analysed in Capital and developed politically by Lenin and
> Trotsky, we will be in a position to understand both the need for patient
> party-building work (no shortcuts!) and the need to be ready for immediate
> and drastic action when the *anticipated* earthquake actually hits.
> 
> What is needed is intellectual and emotional *conviction*. This can only
> come by way of getting as closely acquainted with the ideas and practice of
> Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky (and those seriously trying to follow them)
> as possible in the framework of sound party activities and schooling. With
> the concrete history and actions of the fighting working class
> 
> To sum up. Capitalism is ripe and overripe for the transformation to
> socialism. This in itself will not do the job for us. Until the power of
> the working class is concentrated in appropriate political organs, so it
> gets a mind and a social body of its own that is able to challenge for
> power, the interests of the class will be struggled for and defended
> unconsciously and blindly. And if the class is smashed in a historical
> defeat before it has developed the necessary power and consciousness, the
> risk of barbarism is acute.
> 
> So. Bring back the dialectics into Marxism and we'll be able to get a
> handle on the capricious lurchings of our unevenly developing imperialist
> epoch.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Hugh
> 




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