(fwd from Bijan Soleymani) Re: Rebuilding Western Marxism

[Les Schaffer <schaffer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Chris Warren" <cwarren@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Rekindling Socialism
>
> In the late 1960's Western communism changed political direction from an
> outmoded psuedo "Stalinist" platform to a more modern, independent,
> social-progressive and "democratic" platform.  Similar developments occurred
> in practically every Western communist party.  However, subsequently, this
> development led to a weakening of working-class politics, deformation of
> socialism, political dismay among socialist activists, debilitating splits
> and finally to complete extinguishment by 1990.
>
> The search for an independent and democratic form of socialism should have
> been a wholly renovating and exhilarating experience as was intended
> (perhaps even promised by some), but it is now clear that this went too far.
> At a crucial juncture Communists refocused their socialist strategies on new
> social forces and speakers often chanted slogans such as, there are 'many
> sites of struggle', there is no primacy for working class struggle, and so
> on.  Unions were often viewed as male-dominated, old fashioned, and as not
> being as far-sighted or modern as progressive EcoFemPax activists.

The problem in this case is that many unions simply aren't big enough
to deal with the "objective contradictions within capitalism", to use
your own words, and simply deal with "its surface phenomena".

So we want world peace and an end to capitalist wars! What about the
jobs that will be lost if we cut subsidies to the defense industry.

So we want livable cities where car ownership is not a pre-requisite
to citenzenship! What about all the workers in the auto industry who
will take pay cuts.

And on and on.

Yes these are all side effects of capitalism, but no, trade unions
can't deal with them. They can't deal with the problems inherent in
the means of production.

These new groups might be able to deal with them, at least to the
extent that these Environmentalist/Feminist/Pacifist groups do see the
primary role of private power (corporate capital) in all of these
phenomena.

> Such past strategies appear to set up political models and then seek to
> attract supporters from elsewhere in competition with other groups.  Unless
> such initatives are truly authentic expressions of a concrete force in
> political economy, they will never succeed.  If they are the expression of a
> concrete force in political economy, but this force is the gentrified or
> guilt-ridden middle class, they will forever remain little more than a
> progressive crusade for the better elements of that class.
>
> Clearly we need a new approach based on objective contradictions within
> capitalism and not on EcoFemPax discontent with its surface phenomena.  We
> also need to build socialist consciousness within mainstream organisations -
> not groups with socialist consciousness but well outside and even competing
> against mainstream organisations.
>
> All this was essentially stated in the Communist Manifesto.

We have reached a point where the surface phenomena can't be brushed
aside, they determine the extent to which resistance to the status quo
is possible.

Suburbanism and sprawl are technical means to strengthen private
power. In the city I often see workers on strike. They are clearly
visible and make a strong impact on passers by, who are able to
interact with them. The same thing is almost unthinkable in the
desolate car-dominated environment of suburbia.

A similar argument could be made for the mental environment, in which
we are constantly bombarded with propaganda, in the form of
advertising and entertainment.

In fact similar arguments could be made for all these surface
phenomena. These problems don't just make life less enjoyable for
middle class intellectuals. They determine what people can think, what
they can do, how they can live...

Bijan
--
Bijan Soleymani <bijan@xxxxxxx>
http://www.crasseux.com




~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.