Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 09:40:48 +0100
Subject: Re: the state (fwd)


Pablo writes, and his English is just fine:

>4. Why am I arguing with you, Adam?
>Because I think that there are some POLITICAL/ETHICAL dangers in sustaining
>the theses of Communist Archadya you soustain:
>(a) It's the type of argument that was used for justificate the totalitarian
>"socialisms" of USSR, etc: Don't worry about current sacrificies, sooner or
>later you will be absoluty happy when I (the burocratic State) removed the
>obstacles for communism.
>(b) They may cause an absense of thought about the way in which we have to
>organise the transition to socialism from capitalism and so on.
>(c) They breath a teological tone from which Marxism has still to be
>liberated from.

There is a huge chunk of Marxism missing from the Stalinist arguments for
"socialism" in the USSR. The Stalinist theory of "Socialism in One Country"
overturned everything Marx wrote about the development of capitalism as an
international system and as a process of the natural history of society
leading to its own destruction. To reject Marxist perspectives on the later
developments of society because of Stalinism is inadmissible.

Obviously, Stalinism causes a lack of thought about most things, not just
"organizing the transition to socialism from capitalism". Again, this does
not apply to the ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin (or Trotsky either, for
that matter).

To bring in teleology is to open up a whole new can of worms. Marx saw his
analysis of capital as providing a natural history of its process of
development, particularly its origin and flourishing, but also the onset of
its decay and the contradictions that would *necessarily* lead to its
destruction. If you consider chemistry teleological because it claims that
certain compounds will result from the fusion of other substances, well and
good. If you don't, then why do you consider this aspect of Marxism
teleological?

Note that "destruction" doesn't mean "inevitable transition to socialism".
The destruction of capitalism may well lead to barbarism if the leadership
of the proletariat isn't up to facing the tasks of a transition to
socialism. Whatever the result, the destruction on the basis of the
contradictions inhering in capitalism is inevitable.

Cheers,

Hugh




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