Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 14:27:00 +0200
Subject: Lisa R, Hugh - and a clarification by Engels


Lisa writes:

>Everyone is not required to duplicate the conditions under which
>Trotsky worked.  A variety of different discussions are allowed to
>exist.

This implies I made such a requirement. This is nonsense, historically and
in everyday terms. Historically because it would require the restoration of
the Stalinist bureaucracy in full bloom - I would never wish this, even if
it were possible to voluntaristically 'require' it of history. In everyday
terms, because people work under a whole range of conditions, and if I were
to 'require' anything, it would be to extend material access to the
democratic discussion and ease the conditions of those having trouble with
this because of low pay and overwork.

I have never made any stipulations whatever about which discussions are or
are not allowed to exist. Stating an opinion is not the same as 'allowing'.


>I agree there is "a lot more to chew on".  I hope you may like to get
>on with doing so, rather than spending your time cross-posting posts
>such as yours excerpted below.

This is provocative misrepresentation. First of all, Lisa makes it sound as
if I spent next to no time on the subjects I mentioned, which is nonsense.
Second, it makes it appear that my posting was an objectionable waste of
time, which it wasn't - it related directly to the conductibility of
Marxist discussions under conditions of stress - in the one case (Trotsky
in the 20s and 30s) physical threats face to face and subsequently in a
murderous game of hide-and-seek with Stalinist assassins, and in the other
case virtual threats and insults in cyberspace. It also reminded readers
that advanced topics such as dialectical materialism could be discussed
even under conditions of much worse duress than the PCP/SP crowd are
capable of creating on the list.

As for the cross-posting, what are we supposed to do when a point is
relevant to both forums, especially given the *unprincipled basis* of the
division as far as content/theme is concerned? If M2 has sartorial
requirements, contributors should at least be warned that a suit and tie
are required, if not a top hat and tails! We all know stories of cultural
guests of honour refused entry by boneheaded doormen (I've heard it about
Brecht and Peter Brooks). I'm waiting with some glee to see if a
theory/practice distinction is going to be introduced, or non-party/party.

I'd like to round this off with a statement by Engels on the position he
and Marx shared on the relationship of theory to practice from the very
beginning of their partnership in 1844 - no 'early' and 'late' metaphysics
here. I've only got it in German so we'll have to make do with my
translation and a German reference. I've put a paragraph that's specially
relevant to our current tribulations into capitals. The passage is from A
Contribution to the History of the Communist League (written before 8
October 1885), MEW Vol 21, pp 211-212.

        In Manchester [1843-1844], my nose was rubbed into the fact
        that economic circumstances that have only figured minimally
        if at all in the writing of history hitherto, constitute a
        decisive historical force, at least in the modern world. They
        provide the foundation for the emergence of presentday class
        contradictions, which in their turn, at least in countries
        where they have developed fully thanks to large-scale
        industry, provide the foundation for the formation of
        political parties, party struggles and with this the whole of
        political history. Marx had not only come to the same view,
        but had already generalized it in the Deutsch-franzoesische
        Jahrbuecher (1844) to the point where it is not the state
        that determines civil society at all, but civil society that
        determines and regulates the state, that is to say, politics
        and its history have to be explained on the basis of the
        economic circumstances and their development rather than the
        other way around.


        When I visited Marx in Paris in the summer of 1844, our
        complete agreement in all areas of theory became evident, and
        our joint labours date from this point. When we met again in
        Brussels in the spring of 1845, Marx had already finished
        developing his materialist theory of history in its main
        outlines on the above-mentioned foundations, and we set about
        the detailed elaboration of our newly-won view of things in
        all kinds of directions.


        This discovery, which revolutionized historical science and
        which, as is plain to see, is essentially the work of Marx
        and of which only a very small portion is attributable to
        myself, had immediate significance for the contemporary
        labour movement, however. The Communism of the French and
        Germans and the Chartism of the English no longer appeared as
        chance phenomena, that could just as well not have existed.
        These movements now took on the character of a movement of
        the oppressed class of modern society, the proletariat, as
        more or less developed forms of its historically necessary
        struggle against the ruling class, the bourgeoisie - forms of
        class struggle, but distinguished from all previous class
        struggles by the single circumstance that the oppressed class
        of present-day society, the proletariat, is unable to carry
        out its own emancipation without simultaneously emancipating
        the whole of society from division into classes and thereby
        from class struggles. And Communism no longer signified the
        hatching out of the most perfectly ideal society in
        the imagination, but rather insight into the nature, the
        preconditions and, on this basis, the general objectives of
        the struggle being conducted by the proletariat.


        IN NO WAY DID WE HAVE ANY INTENTION OF PUTTING OUR NEW
        SCIENTIFIC RESULTS INTO THICK BOOKS TO BE WHISPERED
        EXCLUSIVELY INTO THE EARS OF THE 'LEARNED' WORLD. QUITE THE
        OPPOSITE. WE WERE BOTH ALREADY DEEPLY INVOLVED IN THE
        POLITICAL MOVEMENT, ENJOYED A CERTAIN FOLLOWING IN  EDUCATED
        CIRCLES, NAMELY IN WESTERN GERMANY, AND HAD RICH CONTACTS
        WITH THE ORGANIZED PROLETARIAT. IT WAS OUR DUTY TO GIVE OUR
        VIEWS A SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATION. BUT IT WAS EQUALLY IMPORTANT
        FOR US TO WIN THE EUROPEAN, AND FIRST OF ALL THE GERMAN
        PROLETARIAT, TO OUR CONVICTIONS, TOO. AS SOON AS WE HAD
        CLEARED THINGS UP FOR OURSELVES, WE GOT STUCK INTO OUR TASK.


Cheers,

Hugh




     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---