RE: [Marxism] Camejo to speak at CCNY

[Joaquín <jbustelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Octob1917 says about Peter Camejo, "Also, let me expand upon my labeling of
him as a left-liberal. When any former avowed adherent of revolutionary
politics enters into constitutional political elections, and doesn't use
their platform to denounce said elections, or to advance a political program
calling for the overthrow of the existing capitalist state and a change in
the ownership of the means of production, they ipso facto legitimise the
prevailing economic and social structure of that state.

"To my mind it is simple: you either support revolution or you support
reform."

*  *  *

This isn't a position in the Marxist tradition, it is an anarchist position.
The essence of it is to preach revolution at the working people, rather than
trying to engage them starting from the current level of consciousness,
which is what Camejo and Nader have succeeded in doing to a  degree that is
unprecedented in living memory if one looks at the campaigns they have
waged.

Like Louis, I've known Camejo since 1971. This ultraleftism has *never* been
his approach, inside the SWP or outside it. The biggest difference between
Peter *then* and Peter *now* is that he has gotten *better* at presenting
core Marxist ideas without an overlay of "socialist" and "revolutionary"
rhetoric and ideological excess baggage that makes the ideas inaccessible to
all but a tiny handful of people. 

In this, Camejo is following the example of Marx and Engels. As Engels
explained in his article "Marx and the Neue Rhienische Zeitung," written in
the 1880's about events decades earlier (the role of Marxists in the
revolution of 1848): 

"When we founded a major newspaper in Germany, our banner was determined as
a matter of course. It could only be that of democracy, but that of a
democracy which everywhere emphasised in every point the specific
proletarian character which it could not yet inscribe once for all on its
banner. 

"If we did not want to do that, if we did not want to take up the movement,
adhere to its already existing, most advanced, actually proletarian side and
to advance it further, then there was nothing left for us to do but to
preach communism in a little provincial sheet and to found a tiny sect
instead of a great party of action. But we had already been spoilt for the
role of preachers in the wilderness; we had studied the utopians too well
for that, nor was it for that we had drafted our programme."

Remember, Engels is writing about the revolutions of 1848, what they did in
March, April and May after retrieving the Communist Manifesto from the
printers in February. 

Decades later, Engels singles out their decision to take the field as
democrats as an exemplary application of the tactical course advocated in
the Manifesto's section on Proletarians and Communists:

"Never has a tactical programme proved its worth as well as this one.
Devised on the eve of a revolution, it stood the test of this revolution."

Moreover, Engels makes clear that this approach wasn't a result of German
peculiarity or backwardness, but is generally applicable, by continuing
"whenever, since this period, a workers? party has deviated from it, the
deviation has met its punishment; and today, after almost forty years, it
serves as the guiding line of all resolute and self-confident workers?
parties in Europe, from Madrid to St. Petersburg." [Marx and the Neue
Rheinische Zeitung (1848-49).
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/03/13.htm>]

It is very important to understand that Marx and Engels were dialectical
materialists not just in analyzing (past) history but also in intervening in
current events. The approach advocated here, and with some rhetorical
variation practiced by many sects, is that the group the expounds correct
*ideas* will rally the proletariat to its side.

The Marxist approach is to engage with social forces in motion, or as Engels
puts it, "take up the movement, adhere to its already existing, most
advanced, actually proletarian side" in order "to advance it further."

Does this mean that education about the nature of the state, private
property, etc., is unnecessary? Of course not. But we need to be clear on
what audience a given comrade is addressing in a specific role. It is not
Camejo's role right now to direct his speeches at the microscopic layer that
is ready for a socialist education today. That, I would argue, is the role
of members of socialist groups like Solidarity and ISO that are
participating in the Nader-Camejo campaign and of their organizations.
Camejo's role is to address the tens of millions who sense there is
something radically wrong and false about U.S. politics and U.S. democracy,
and explain the road forward, which is working people organizing
independently of the Democrats and Republicans because both those parties
and controlled by the rich and corporate elite.

That is the core message of the campaign and these candidates need to stay
on message. Their role is to explain a few "simple" ideas (but which are the
source of all wisdom) to many people. Trying to play the role of ALSO
explaining much more complex ideas to a few people would undercut that.

Joaquín


 

-----Original Message-----
From: marxism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:marxism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Octob1917@xxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 2:12 AM
To: marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Camejo to speak at CCNY

In a message dated 9/22/2004 8:50:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
lnp3@xxxxxxxxx
writes:
I have known Peter Camejo since 1971 and was pretty close to him personally
and politically in the 1980s after he was expelled from the SWP.
Left-liberal does not describe him politically then or now. For those who
can detect anything "left-liberal" in this document, please share it with
the rest of us:

Would you care to share with me, and everyone else, the reason or reasons as
to why he was expelled from the SWP?

Also, let me expand upon my labeling of him as a left-liberal. When any
former avowed adherent of revolutionary politics enters into constitutional
political elections, and doesn't use their platform to denounce said
elections, or to advance a political program calling for the overthrow of
the existing capitalist state and a change in the ownership of the means of
production, they ipso facto legitimise the prevailing economic and social
structure of that state.

To my mind it is simple: you either support revolution or you support
reform. 
A relevant analogy would be the present situation in the six counties of
Ireland. There you have former revolutionaries now sitting down with the
colonial government they'd at one time been committed to resisting to
discuss the continued peaceful occupation of their country.

Like I said before, hopefully his lack of militancy now is merely a guise of
some sort or other. If not, I can only conclude that his politics have
degenerated into a position of reformism.

Joe
_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism