Re: [Marxism] Banal Platitudes and Marxism-Clulesslism (was Re:Diabolical and Histerical Materialism)

["Carlos A. Rivera" <cerejota@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Zivko Vukolaj" <zivko_vukolaj@xxxxxxxxxxx>


> No, Carlos, I am not a Trotskyist by any measure. I merely used him as the
> weakest example to illustrate a point. Of course, I could have used Marx,
> Engels, Lenin, and even Mao, but to me this seemed far too truistic and
> borring.

C'mon! Admit it, you just realized it wasn't the best of examples. Don't
worry, I won't use it against you! (we here after all are supposed to be
conversing, not prosecuting).

> I am also glad that you admit Trotsky's 'Permanent Revolution' to be more
> influential within the academia.

It is not an admission, as an admission implies some sort of shame. Like for
example, you admiting that the D&HM is something other than "banal". Truth
is seldom esay to swallow.

Our difference lies in that I preffer the dirty laundry out in the open to
clean, and you I suspect prefer to remold history to hide a past that shames
you. It might be my youth, but my old man is still a shameless tankie
nationalist, whose first marxist text was D&HM - when he was in the US Navy
during Vietnam, no less - so I would be surprised if that is the case.

On the specific, the example raised is a good one, particullary in the face
of Jurriaan's critique: "Permanent Revolution" departs from "classical"
marxism much in the same manner as D&HM does, it is much more Kautsky than
Marx, and justly so, Marx was long dead by the time either one was written,
but Kautsky was still very much the point of reference to then contemporary
Marxism. That you mentioned "Revolution Betrayed" instead of "Permanent
Revolution" I will accept was just offside remark.

> But you still haven't explained why you think that the DHM "won thousands
> upon thousands to Marxism".

I did explain it. My empirical experience, and my knowledge of other
movements worldwide, from my contact and that of comrades of many
tendencies, tells mes that in the majority of the "periphery" countries
there are two texts that the majority of marxists of any tendency read when
they started to become interested in marxism. One was the Manifesto, the
other was the D&HM.

> Where I come from, people used to be tought Marxism from primary school,
> and yes, Marx, Engels, and Lenin all occupied mandatory readings [Stalin
> never occupied more then a footnote.]. However, can we really say that
> through this their writings won millions upon millions to Marxism?
> Certainly not, as almost any honnest person here who comes from the old
> socialist camp can testify.

> My own children [who are now fine academics in the Marxist tradition],
> like countless others, used to literally run away from 'Marxism' classes
> to escape what they saw as the fatal boredom of those lessons.

But was D&HM the only book in the curriculum? You just mentioned Stalin was
just a footnote in those classes, yet, you use this boredom as "proof" of
the D&HM being banal?

> The classes ultimately proved themselves to be a very rude practical joke
> on Marxism. Consequently, professorship in Marxism also occupied the
> saddest position in the academia.

A question of method, not content.

I am saddened to hear that, but from what I gather and as example, the
FARC-EP/PCCC's Marxism school, which includes D&HM, is actually quite fun
and likable. It is true that the officialization and bureaucratization of
Marxism led to a certain academic alienation, but on the other hand,
liberalism and conservatism both suffered the same fate in the hands of the
postmodernists, in their marxian and neo-liberal flavors.

So, I don't see how academic aversion to outmoded modes of teaching a
subject connects to any specific body of work. Shakespear is still
Sheakspear, even if a drab, boring professor alienates people from him.

> So, do you see why I am doubtful about your claims on this?

Yes I understand, but you must also understand my skepticism on these
questions. When the decadent grey edifice that post-Brezhnevite sovietism
was fell, everybody and their grandmother decided all of the sudden to
revise history and forget that they had at one time read and built their
political formation upon D&HM, Foundations of Leninism and other such
"Stalinist" literature. I am of the believe that such denials, and such
revisionism are as great a political crime as the alledged airbrushing
Trotsky out of pictures.

That in Yugoslavia (I presume that is from where you are) Stalin was but a
footnote is of course a reason of politics. After all, minor anti-fascists
from Germany had universities, avenues and monuments named after them but
the greatest anti-fascist leader of WWII was himself a footnote in the USSR.

As to Juriaan, thank you for a toughtful, meaningful, and extensive
non-answer to my question. Later I will reply to it in a different, new
thread. But in case you haven't noticed by now, you failed to answer my
question!

I restate:

"Jurriaan Bendien, you are free to answer in what way calling D&HM a "banal
platitude" contribute to steering the list into the "humanist maturity" and
away from the "petty vendettas and games of one-upmanship" you call for?"

In other words, I didn't ask you to critique D&HM (a useful thing, and one
which I will reply soon) which is what you did. I asked you a very specific
question. You can, of course, choose not to answer it, but a digresion,
however interesting, is still a digresion.

sks


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