Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 02:11:20 +0200
From: Jorn Andersen <ccc6639-AT-vip.cybercity.dk>
Subject: Re: histoire du marxisme


Allow me to take a broader scope than just the
"american" - this can only be explained with
international glasses on.

Alex Trotter wrote:
> concerning my remark that the failure of theory are
> the failures of the proletariat, Justin took that to
> indicate that I'm 'blaming the victim.'<cut>
> It is possible to look at an example such as the
> Paris Commune and point out rather obvious tactical
> blunders of the revolutionaries ..., actions which
> may or may not have led to ultimate victory, but
> whose omission made defeat that much swifter and
> more certain. The victims can, I think, be "blamed"
> for their own mistakes.
>

What's the point here?
Aren't we beginning to get two things mixed up?

Of course you can "blame" the victims for their own
mistakes. But can you also "blame" the failure of
*theory* on the victims? - I think not.

Marxist theory IMO is the theory for those who will
fight for workers' power. When workers are weak,
Marxist theory advances very slowly - and vice versa
when workers are strong.

But the failures of Marxist theory can not be blamed
on the victims - it can be blamed only on the Marxists.

What were the failures of Marxist theory in the period
we are talking about (1930 to 1960 - or "after Trotsky")?

The most important factor is closely connected to this
subject - namely the influence of stalinism. The biggest
victory ever of the international working class - October
1917 and the few years after - was followed by its two
worst defeats ever: To fascism and to stalinism.

The influence of stalinism of course was the influence of
counter-revolution, i.e. anti-Marxism. But it was more,
and worse, than that: It was the influence of counter-
revolution in Marxist disguise.

This, I think, is needed to explain why Marxism didn't
advance very much in these years. (The defeat to fascism
was just as hard as to stalinism - but it didn't set
Marxism back in the way stalinism did.) Actually, what is
usually considered as Marxism made a lot of setbacks
- blurring all concepts of class, of the state, of
materialism, of revolutionary organization.

This, however, is not to say that no progress was made.
And now I'll turn to Justin Schwartz.

Justin named a lot of contributors to Marxist theory.
Many of them I don't, many of the rest I haven't read.

I usually have a quite broad concept of Marxism, but I
think advances in Marxist theory is not about every
insight made under guidance from some sort of Marxism.
(Some of the contributions were even made on a crude
stalinist background - others by people who didn't even
themselves claim to have other than a very remote
relation to Marxism.)

But what puzzles me is, why don't you mention contri-
butions from people who try to advance Marxism with
theory about Stalinism and the counter-revolution,
about the biggest ever boom in capitalism during the
Cold War, about the eventual collapse of the Stalinist
regimes?

After all: Failure of theory is about questions that
are not answered. Some of the developments after WW2
has to be explained if studying Marxism should be more
than studying ancient Greece.

The collapse of stalinism has been hailed by the bour-
geoisie as the collapse of Marxism. Sad to say, but
also many on the left have accepted that conclusion.
What they took for Marxism was not able to explain the
world to them.

That's why I would like to take away some of those
>from your list that covered up for stalinism and by
doing so hindered that Marxism would be able to really
explain stalinism.

Instead I would add some of those who actually tried to
explain stalinism, new imperialism etc. - and those who
tried to save Marxism from the influence of stalinism.

The most important of these of course are in the Trot-
skyist tradition - like Ernest Mandel, Tony Cliff and
others.

Insights don't make a theory. And of what use is it that
some insights have been made on "minor" issues, if these
are not linked to a general theory of the time we are
living in - and how it can be changed?

The "blame" is on the Marxists - not the victims.


Yours
 
Jorn Andersen

IS
Denmark




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