Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 20:05:09 -0400
Subject: Marxism and Mark's schism.


List,

    This is a response to some points that Mark has made to my earlier post
on the basic questions of Marxism.   I am not 100% sure that his post ever
made it on the list.  He sent me an advanced copy, and the fallowing post is
my response.  
   
    However, in a post I just read Mark states:

"In a previous post, I wrote in part:

>Not only are socialists morally obliged to fight for and defend
>full and true democracy -- social, economic, and political -- they
>are obliged to..."

      This quote is included in the advanced reply Mark sent me.  Therefor I
assume that this letter made the list and I simply missed it.

    I don't know if any of the above makes any sense to anyone.  It doesn't
really matter, anyway.

  Mark sez,
   Mike says,
      Mark sez,
        Mike says,...
 
 <<<The important thing is to insure that people have a fair share of the 
 wealth they help create, and that they have more democratic control
 over the ways in which this wealth is used.  I'm all for making
 this economic democracy as direct as possible, as decentralized
 as possible, and as complete as possible.  >>>

      We must remember that social systems don't change because anyone thinks
they *should*.  Capitalism didn't replace Fuedalism because anyone thought it
would be a nice thing to do.  Fuedalism fell because it's system of social
organization could no longer accomodate the means of production.  Like a
balloon filling to it's maximum capacity, it soon burst.  All the cries about
"libery, equality, fraternity" etc. were merely results of this long, hidden
process.  
      Today it is no different with capitalism.  The system has become a
fetter on the means of production.  This is obvious when one looks at the
monopolies, government aid, and desperate imperialist expansion currently in
existence.  It is because of this fact that the system will slowly be
stretched to it's capacity, then explode.  We must recognize that our wishes
for a more complete democracy, and improved share of wealth are just
pre-revolutionary (political or social) wishes.  Socialism can be expected to
be more democratic (for reasons that I stated earlier) and worker's will
necessarily have more power (they will have ALL the power -- they then cease
to be proletarians).  Those are facts that can be deduced from the
analyzation of the capitalist contradictions.  But all our talk about utopian
style equality etc. can be passed off as hopefull dreams.  Utopia, as you
would agree, is nonsense.

<<< I do feel, however, that the key word here is democracy, not
 dictatorship.  The latter word makes me very nervous and can have
 nothing to do with socialism, which by its very nature must mean
 rule by the people.  That's the people, not the proletariat, the
 party vanguard, the workers, the bourgeoisie, the Overclass, 
 or the capitalists.  The people means everybody, regardless of
 current status.>>>

    Weather we like it or not we have to face the facts.  Society is
organized into class, not nationality, race, or sex.  This means that the
battle must be on class lines.  If their is more then one class, there is a
power structure.  Class's would cease to be different classes if they could
"get along".  In fact, classes form the contradicting forces that make
history.  Classes CONTRADICT.  They fight.  Wherever there is a power
structure their must be a top.  At the top of the current class structure is
the bourgeoisie.  This class DICTATES society.  I do not mean dictates in the
bland, obvious way as do bourgeois historians.  Franco is a perfect example
of a dictator.  But he is a bland, obvious example.  Classes can dictate as
well.  Dictate simply means to command, or to rule.  The bourgeois class
rules, it commands, it therefore dictates.  We now live under the
DICTATORSHIP OF THE BOURGEOISIE.  If the workers (ie. the people) take
controll we will live under the DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT.   The people
will have to take power away from the current dictators.  After we have that
power, what do we do?  Can we just get along with the losers?  Will they just
get along with us?  No.  Like I said, classes contradict.  They are always in
battle with eachother.  The proletarian class (ie. the people -- well, 90%)
will have to prop itself up as the new ruling class.  It will do so in order
to seperate the capitalists from the capital.  In doing this they will
suffocate the former ruling class.  After the former ruling class dies, the
proletariat is left alone.  
  1 class = no class.     
 
<<< Not only are socialists morally obliged to fight for and defend
 full and true democracy -- social, economic, and political -- they are
 obliged to design their system of government as intelligently as 
 possible so as to reduce, not increase tyranny.>>>

    Again, social systems are not designed by any specific people.  No one
decides how nice a system they will have.  Tyranny will be reduced out of
necessity.  To have a class systm in which totalitarianism is a frequency is
a serious hinder with regards to survival.  It's an evolutionary concept.  A
classless society (which had been in existence for the majority of human
history) is best suited for the survival of any animal.  Socialism arises out
of evolutinary necessity, not out of the high morals of it's occupants.  I
would argue that class struggle will either bear socialism, or human
extinction.  The only thing immoral is morality itself.       


 <<< They are obliged
 to obtain the consent of the people.  This may be tough when the
 media is corporately controlled, but people have won tough fights
 before for radical social change despite the forces of reaction.
 Whether revolutionary or transformational, socialists are going to
 have to develop their own organizations and media outlets, just as
 they once did, because as you say, socialism can't work without
 the people.  Since this is true, the entire justification for
 socialist revolution unsupported by formal popular consensus falls
 apart.  The only exceptions to this are countries which are already
 so authoritarian that this kind of political organizing isn't 
 permitted.>>>

    As any sensible person would argue (and I know you are sensible), things
change.  When times are good the masters are kind.  They can afford to give
handouts.  But when times are bad they take it all back.  Right now it may be
realistic to think that socialists would be able to be elected into office.
 Unfortunatly the people of the world do not support socialism.  It is to
radical.  Radical choices are avoided when times are good.  That is
understandable.  But when times get rough, the radical becomes sensible.  It
is when the system enters a decline such as war or depression that people
seriously question authority.  So it would be a time of crisis in which
socialism gains massive support.  But something else happens simultaniously.
 The democratic rights of these poeple dissapear.  It happens as measures of
security etc.  WW1's alianation and sedition acts are perfect examples.  So,
it seems that as soon as the socialists and other radicals gain support, the
system ceases to accomidate them.  Democracy is a gift that a ruling class
provides it's subject during good times.  It can be easily taken away.   It
is under these conditions that society dramatically changes.  This is the
stage in which the insane idea of revolution becomes sane.
 
<<<The idea that we can 
 replace the whole system in one fell swoop is foolish.>>>  

   Remember, the system is not replaced in "one fell swoop".  The system is
constantly being eaten away at and becomes more and more reactionary.  Like a
pot of heated water, it starts to boil.  This is a sudden change.  It happens
at a precise moment. The system has to give.  The balloon pops.  The kettle
screams.  The shit hits the fan.  Use any stupid analogy you want.  This
process is reapeted in nature, science, math and everywhere else.  It's the
way things work.  History provides numerous examples of this.  Fuedalism
lasted hundreds of years, yet in the course of less then a decade (1789-1848)
it was replaced world-wide by a new system.  Why should the case be any
different with capitalism?


<<<People *should* be scared when groups
 with the Philip Locker mentality talk about scrapping the entire
 system and have nothing but pipe dreams and "the laws of history"
 to replace it with -- that and a new dictatorship.>>>

    Strange you should say that...  



  
<<< I think too many leftists have a tendency to throw up their hands
 and say the system won't change.  This ignores the vast systemic
 change which has occurred since 1789.  It's a mistake to drop
 out of the system, because when leftists do this it inevitably
 results in a vacuum of power exploited by the right.>>>

    Do you read a lot of Lenin or something?  This is exactly what he writed
in _Left Wing Communism:  An Infantile Dissorder_.  You and Lenin may have
more in common then you thought!

 
 
<<< Dividing the people up into classes of friends and enemies --
 workers and bourgeoisie -- will not advance the cause of social 
 justice, democracy, or socialism.>>>

    No socialist has ever divided people into classes.  Nature does that for
us.  Marx didn't invent the law of class struggle any more then Newton
invented gravity.  By the way, key to the whole of Marxist theory is that
class struggle is the process in which primitive socialism gives way to the
slave states, the slave states give way to the fuedal states, the fuedal
states give way to capitalism, and capitalism gives way to socialism.  Of
course, this is simplified.  But, you get the idea.  This is a DIALECTICAL
process.  If you are interested in Marxism (contemporary or "classic") please
study dialectics.  It will clear up a lot of your misconceptions.

   ---Mike Dean
      Labor Militant
      Seattle  






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