Re: BHA: Re: on Bhaskar's politics

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

Timothy A Dayton wrote:
>
>
>      Related to this is one thing Andrew seems determined to avoid: the
> point that the situation in Russia in 1917 was such that if Lenin and the
> bolsheviks did not accept the responsibility of power, then the
> alternatives were incredibly bleak.

There was of course debate among the bolsheviks themselves on this point
-- and their resolution of the issue seems to me to have established a
principle that transcends 1917
-- that is, in fact, as near to an absolute as is possible within a
materialist framework: If it is _possible_ to sieze power then the
working class has a moral responsibility to do so, however bleak the
outlook. Such a possibility will appear _only_ if the ruling class no
longer has the capacity to rule, and the capacity of the working class
to rule cannot be determined in thought but only in practice. And under
the hypothesized conditions (ruling class incapacity to rule) the
"alternatives [will indeed be] incredibly bleak." The Third Reich? Pol
Pot? (The revolutionary tradition should assume responsibility for all
its crimes & errors from Babeuf to the present -- we don't 'have' a
history, we _are_ our history -- but Pol Pot, like national 'socialism,'
is none of ours.)

Carrol


     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---