Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 04:43:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Marxism: meat and potatoes questions


emerald-AT-aztec.asu.edu (MARK ADKINS) wrote:
>Well, I am a little puzzled as to why many members think fundamental
>questions are unreasonable, and what they think constitutes a reasonable
>answer to such questions. 

Because the questions you asked all require book-lenghth answers; not only
that but you asked thousands of book-lenght questions!!! But that is fine;
I  think it is excellent to go over these basic fundementals of marxism.

>not a bibliographic list and a bon voyage to the local library.  

It is vital to read the clasiscs;  This list is not a substitute -- it can
help, not replace.

>But perhaps you would elucidate?  Dealing for the moment with the U.S.
>case, the obvious question seems to be: if you can't even organize
>a political party whose positions people are willing to vote for, how
>can you organize a revolution?  And how democratic is it likely to be in

Marxists don't believe we can "organize a revolution".  Your whole argument
is based on a total misconception of marxism: that we believe we can change
the world due to our good intentions.  On the opppositite:  I nor 100,000
marxists can "organize a revolution".  It is the hot molton of history which
forges revolution.  The objective factors, i.e. history, is on our side.
Revolutionaries are allways in the extreme minority untill one very, very
rare momemt: the revolution.  The contradictions of capitalism will play
into our hands however; history will organize the revolution, not marxists.

If you study history the most basic fact that emerges is that nothing stays
the same.  Everthing comes & goes.  Nothing is infinite; it is finite.  The
only absolute is change.  Capitalism has not allways existed.  It will not
allways exist.  A new system will replace it at some point.

>the sense of being the kind of change that a majority of the public 
>wants?  

Ypu have a very abstract, bourgeois view of "democracy".  Everything I
expl;ained above is why a revolution will only happen when a "majority" are
ready for it.

>How practical and sturdy will it end up being, and if it's not

History only sets itself taks it can solve.  Was it practical to overthrow
feudalism and establish parliamentry democracies, freedom of religion,
freedom of speech, etc...Before the french revolution every borring fool who
had no vision into the future only looked around the world and observed how
it existed at that moment;  he then draws the conclusion, since its this way
now it can't be that way tomorow.  You are doing the same thing; of course
it seems impracticale bdcause under capitalism it IS impracticle -- i.e. the
need for revolution, it can't happen under the system.

>held together by the glue of popular consensus, the only other way it can
>be held together is by repression and force, in the form of hierarchical,
>authoritarian military and police bodies.  Or are you naive enough to 

There is no such thing as "popular consenous".  All governments, i.e. the
stare, have existed in class society.  The state is controolled and run by
the rulling class at different pints in history.  The apparent "popukar
consenous" is only the enforceed discipline both conciously & unconciously
in the oppresed classes.  When the oppresed become conciouss of there
oppresion the stare is required to conciously use armed force to hold them down.

We live under the dictatorship of big bussiness (lets be nice and say 5% of
society).  The dictatorship of the workers [DWC] (90% of society) would be
infinitky more democratic than currently.  But democracy, or our "moral"
prefences have ZERO, nothing to do with the question.  It is the way history
works.  The bourgeoisie acts inb its iontrests...so will the workers when
they seize state power.  Under the DWC there will be no "authortarian
military & police bodies".  There will be the general armed working class,
organized in workers councils and militias.

>imagine that the armies and police forces of a socialist 
>post-revolutionary state, unlike any other armies and police forces in 
>the history of mankind, will be based upon egalitarianism rather than 
>the orders given by an administrative structure of bosses, and will use
>flower power (or perhaps love potion #9) to gain the submission of 
>otherwise unwilling parties?

No, they will be based on raw human-self intrest.  The workers just like the
capitalists will act in there own intrests.

>Also, can't you see what a plausible excuse -- not to mention precident
>- -- you are affording reactionary authoritarian forces?  If you ask me,

You asked an abstract question; I gave you an abstract answer.  It is not
the tasks of amrxists today to go running around calling for the DWC.  We
are nowhere near that point.  This brings up the transitional method,
another book lenghth discusion.  Read Trotskys _Transitional Program_ -- or
ask and I'll make it a seperate post.

>any kind of revolutionary power struggle in this country is going to
>end up with a right-wing dictatorship, not a "dictatorship of the
>people" (whatever the hell that means).  The right is out there with

We are not anywhere near the point of "revolutionary power struggle".  It is
an academic question.

>Well, the latter statement is perfectly clear.  The question then
>remains, if you insist on a true revolutionary movement in the U.S.,
>what means would such a movement (under Marxism as you see it) employ?

That is an im,posible question to answer.  I can only tell you principils
which are generally true; how the principls are to be applied is a 100%
tactical question depending on concrete circumstances.  In my earlier post I
tried to outline what I saw the concrete tasks today for US marxists &
revolutionaries.  At this point it has nothing to do with overthrowing the
state (violently or not)...it has to do with speeding up the process 9f
class conciouness, building a labor party.

Revolutions can be violent or realitively non-violent.  They can not be
"peacefull" in the sense of going through the 'propber & legal channels".
France 1968 ahd very little bloodsheed -- it was not legal.  Eastern Europe
1989 was very bloodless.  The American Revolution was very bloody.  The
Russian revolution only killed around 10 people (it was the civil war which
killed everybody).  Most working class revolution in advbanced
indistraliized nationns would be quite bloodless, because of the enourmous
power that the worker sin these countries have -- again france 1968 is the
best example.

>>>How would the dictatorship of any class be more democratic, whether
>>>this class consists of plutocrats or workers?  And please define this

see above.

>>>term, "dictatorship of the working class."  Who are the working class?
>>>Everyone except current owners of business assets?  Business assets
>>>above a certain amount?  Factory workers only?  Factory workers
>>>plus the lumpen proletariat?  What percentage of the population,
>>>roughly, do you envision this "working class" to consist of?  And
>>>what do you mean by "dictatorship" in this context?

Marxist & Clasical economics & clasical intellectual tradition (going back
greek philiosophers) define class by relationship to the means of
production.  Workers are workers because they own no means of production.
All they own is there ability to work, or labor power.  What the capitalist
(somebody who owns the means of production & buys labor power) does with is
employed labor power has no realtion to weather the person is a worker or
not.  A capitalist can hire you to sweep the floor or mow the lawn or work
in a factory -- you are still selling your only commodity, your labor power
[lp].  The price of your lp does not change your relation to the means of
production.  Theoritically you could be paid $1Million to build a boat or $1
and you are still a worker [the $1M however could be used to buy capital and
then the worker has become a capitalist].

One of the biggest frauds of 20th century borgeiose sociology is to say
class is what quintille of income group you afll into.  Class & income are 2
totally different thing.  The emense, emense majority of americans do not
own capital and are objectively workers (which is not to say they might have
subjective illusions).

>If the working class is the immense majority, why does it need to
>rule by dictatorship?  An immense majority can impose its will through 

see above.  that is what every rulling class does; it ruthlessly keeps down
the other classes.  The french revolutionaries were not very kind to the old
feudal rullers -- and rigtly so.  If they ahd not oppresed them the feudals
would have recaptured power.  If the working class wisjes to remain in power
it must destroy every means by which the capitalists can fight them.

>astonished by the complete ignorance of history and of human nature
>demonstrated by those who pooh-pooh civil-liberties as bourgeois vices.

Marxists don't belive in abstract "human-nature"

>trivial question.  Even Lenin, as I understand it, defined the 
>proletariat in terms of factory workers and excluded all others,
>including farmers, peasants, and non-capitalist clerical, 
>professional, and other workers.  Given the developments since 

Where & when did he say this?  I don;t believe it is true.

>>>The problem with well meaning dictatorships, or their formal organs

As I explian above it ahs nothing to do with being well meaning.

>One must begin with an institutional design which encourages respect of
>constitutional rights, conducts tough background and psychological
>screening of applicants, and holds its officers liable to criminal
>charges in civilian court.  Then, if this is to be more effective

This is what marxist call an "idealist" arguement.  We do not mean that you
are utopian or a dreamer -- we mean idealistic in the philosophical sensel;
beliving that reality is made up of ideas.

What it says on a piece of paper (the constitution) is not fundementally
important to a materialist analysis (marxist).  The objective forces
determine how I will act, not wht the constitution says.  In fact, the
constitution is only the verbal & ideological expresion of a unique,
cystilizeed moment in the class struggle -- it formailizes into legal terms
what is actually happen below the level of the 'superstructure'.

>pay attention and to demand vigorous action or enforcement.  There
>is no absolute fix and no easy solution -- Marxist or any other ideology
>notwithstanding.

it has nothing to do with abstract, thouught out solutions.  that was marxs
major missions; to riducule "idealism" -- the idea that a philosopher could
sit down and plan out in his head a perfect system and then convence
evberbody of it & baty-bing its done.  marx argues it has noithing to do
with how good our planes are; it is the objective laws of hostory.  In fact,
Hegal would say that waht happens is allways the antithesus of what men
conciuosly strive for -- but that is under the topic of dialectics.

>I asked for a justification of revolutionary socialism in the United
>States, not why any domestic socialist movement must or should work to

That is up to you.  There are many reasons; intellectual attractio to the
correct ideas of marxism, alienation, fighting for your class, wanting to
buildd a better world, being in sync with the rythm of history, etc, etc,
wanting to fight back, etc.

>Well, can you help me to understand, then, exactly what "Marxists"
>all *do* have in common, and what separates them as Marxists from 
>other socialists?

That is a 100 volume serries question!  I'm sorry all these questions can
not be answerec all at once.  If you are so intrested you have to do soe
reading on your own!  But in a very short answer:  in the 19th century there
were splits btween the non-marxist, anarchist and marxists.
20th century splits of marxism:
S-D split into reformists and internationalists (Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemberg,
etc.) -- 3rd international set-up.
3rd international becomes stalinist -- trotskyists split and build 4th
international.
Maoists split from Russian Stalinist and create Chinese Stalinism
Trotskyist 4th international splits into 1 milliom directions -- today the
major trots are ISO, CWI, USec, etc.

>Heaven forbid I should express any determination in pursuing what I see
>as questions of fundamental importance.  I apologize for demonstrating
>any personal opinions whatsoever (whether in the form of "rhetorical 
>flourishes" or not) instead of appearing here as a tabula rasa and 
>uncritically accepting the comments of all other users. 

Its o.k to have your opnions -- we want more of that and less completly open
ended, endless questions! But keep firing away.

>My understanding of the term "dialectic," at least as Hegel used the
>it, is that it is a process whereby theses are opposed, with some
>truths from each eventually recognized and reconciled into a new
>thesis transcending both.  This thesis is then opposed by its opposite
>and the process repeats, presumably resulting in a cycle by which
>a more sophisticated understanding is reached.  I don't know if
>"dialectical materialism" is anything like this, but if so I haven't
>seen much of it in action.

I'm too tired to answer this...  
>
>As for when I'll go, that will be whenever substantive discussion is
>exhausted or whenever I get bored -- whichever comes first.  Then
>you can return to the safe, snug, somnambulence of minor sectarian
>skirmishes, carping about net censorship, and chit-chat about

That is not a friendly attitude!  To blame marxism for the foolishness of
most marxists (who are sectarian) is not an valadte argument.  But in the
marxist sense sect means being cut offf from the class struggle -- and
untill you join in you are a sectarian in the objective sense:) -- just
playing with you, but technically I'm correct.



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