Date: 06 Jul 96 13:01:17 EDT
From: "Jos. Green" <73532.1325-AT-compuserve.com>
Subject: On concrete analysis and mindlessness


To:    All
From:  Joseph Green
July 6, 1996
Detroit #114

                    Neil recoiling in the face of reality

     Yesterday Neil circulated a message commenting on an article in ISO's 
paper. No doubt the ISO article is guilty of all the things that Neil charges 
it with, but I would like to deal with one point in Neil's remarks. In his 
message Neil reiterates his view about "capital's `ascendant period' up to 
about 1900" as contrasted to capital's present "decadence". For Neil and the 
"left communists", concrete analysis is summed up in contrasting capitalism 
before and after 1900. In message after message from Neil, and article after 
article of the "left communists", they in effect relegate Marxism to the 
period prior to 1900. History stopped in 1900, and all that is left is waiting 
for the jump straight into the future society.
     What could it mean to say that capitalism was "ascendant" prior to 1900 
but not after?
     One meaning of the word "ascendant" is "dominant". So it could mean that 
capitalism was dominant prior to 1900, but not now. But in fact capitalism 
remains the world system today. If anything, capitalism is temporarily 
intoxicated with the belief that it has put the specter of communism and the 
working class revolt behind it, although time will show that the present harsh 
period of proletarian reorganization is only the prelude to a new 
revolutionary period in the future.
     Another meaning of the world "ascendant" is "rising". So it could mean 
that capitalism has stopped expanding. In fact, one of Neil's ideological 
mentors, Jock (J.S. Daborn) of the "Communist Workers Organization", denies 
the growth of capitalism in the 20th century. But this means denying the most 
obvious facts about world economic and history. It is mindlessness taken to 
new and dizzying heights. 
     It could also mean denying that there are any bourgeois-democratic issues 
left, theorizing that they could only exist in the "ascendant" period of 
capitalism in the 19th century. But what about the struggles on bourgeois-
democratic issues all through the 20th century? What about the struggles 
against racism and national oppression and colonialism, for land reform, for 
women's rights, etc.? They can be dealt with in two ways: either they are 
regarded as automatically suspect (the way Neil and the "left communists" 
denounce the right to self-determination and the PLP vacillated on abortion 
rights), or they can be painted up as really proletarian and socialist in 
themselves.
     But this leads one straight towards Stalinism (or, more generally, modern 
revisionism). Neil, who regards himself as the voice of anti-Stalinism, agrees 
with Stalinism in denying the right to self-determination. The difference is 
that Stalinism sometimes gave this principle lip-service, although denying it 
in practice, while Neil--the notorious socialist-colonialist--denies it in 
theory. It's horrible that the colonies are independent, shouts Neil, since 
they are just capitalist countries. Along with the late, unlamented Soviet 
leader Brezhnev and his theory of "limited sovereignty", Neil also denies in 
principle the right to self-determination under socialism. Stalinism was known 
for denying democratic rights on one hand, while painting up various 
reformists as really socialist in essence. Neil's program leads in the same 
direction. 
     The reduction of concrete analysis to capitalism rising up to 1900 and 
falling afterward is outright mindlessness. It is simply a point in the "left 
communist" catechism, which is held to the more firmly, the more obviously it 
violates reality. Neil holds to it because he has abandoned real work to build 
a communist trend in the conditions of the 1990s, because he doesn't know how 
to fight reformism, and because he has replaced theoretical thought with 
mindlessness. <>





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