Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 14:31:40 +0100
Subject: Re: Marxism: meat and potatoes questions


Mark Adkins shed a little more of his wide-eyed innocence in his most
recent post. Won't be long now...

Anyhow, he asked me a direct question:

>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?

They don't have *anything* in common, except perhaps some kind of
acknowledgement of the authority of Marx as the inspirer of a very
influential socio-economic perspective. That should be obvious from even
the briefest of visits to the Marxism lists.

Mark'll have to do some reading of his own on the history of the labour
movement and its main ideas to work out the relationship of different kinds
of Marxists to each other and other socialists.

For a start, the Communist Manifesto (1848) draws up some guidelines
relating to proletarian, petty-bourgeois and bourgeois varieties of
socialism.

Later, the history of the First International (1864-1876) draws up a few
more, especially with respect to anarchism.

The history of the Second International (1889-1914; reformist
counterrevolutionary, revival 1919-present) provides graphic illustrations
of the dangers for the working class of reformism and revisionism.

The history of the Third International (1919-1943) highlights the
difference between the revolutionary Bolshevik-Leninist internationalism of
its first five years and the counterrevolutionary Stalinist nationalist
(Socialism in One Country) line followed after the mid-1920s.

The history of the Fourth International (1938-present) provides insight
into the importance of distinguishing between workers' states and the
regimes running them, and in general of problems relating to the epoch of
transition to socialism, such as the significance of the dictatorship of
the proletariat in a world in which the imperialist system still has
economic hegemony, the necessity of workers' democracy in revolutionary
parties, the fundamental necessity of one international party with national
sections instead of a loose federation of autonomous national parties and
so on.


As for the rest, Mark can be as determined as he likes. But I don't like
his pretence of innocence on topics where he is gradually revealing quite
solid anti-Marxist commitment.


>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
>side issues only marginally related to Marxism (if at all).  Zzzzzzz.

This parting shot just about says it all.

Mark arrogates to himself the definition of what is 'substantive
discussion', but he has a lazy mind. He says the working class hasn't been
defined. Yet the archives of the marxism lists are full of this discussion
(one thread worth looking at was headed 'working-class subjectivity'). The
books he's been recommended are full of it. Marx's most important work,
Capital, hinges on the economic distinction between exploited worker and
exploiting capitalist. But Mark will never dig into this.

Once again, it was a pleasant surprise to see the patient, well-meant
responses of list subscribers, and particularly the spot-on contribution by
Rahul.

ciao 4 now!

Hugh




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