RE: [Marxism] Reply to Carl Davidson

["Mark Lause" <MLause@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

As I said at the start of this discussion, it's a waste of time to argue
with the Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons or those who have faith in the
legitimacy of partisan politics.  A few observations on Julio's last
comments underscore that this is a matter of faith, service to a
perceived higher truth, in the service of which, the perception of all
other reality can justly be twisted....

In the face of Louis' quoting of Marx from 1850, Julio reconciles his
Democratic faith with his Marxism by trivializing Marx's advocacy of
class independence, saying that Marx wrote what he did in 1850 under the
specific expectation of an imminent revolutionary proletarian revolution
in Germany and Europe that had nothing to do with the U.S. at that time
(which I introduced.) 

Julio writes, "In the 1848-1849, Germany was still a confederation (as
it had emerged from the end of the Napoleonic wars) that included a few
kingdoms and a number of tiny states and free cities.  The central
powers were pretty much located in Berlin and Vienna."  The US to which
Julio contrasts this fictional German Confederation is equally creative.
It was a "coherent social formation, a large modern nation in a large,
mostly compact territory with a ramified, federal but -- as far as the
basic legal and political conditions for capitalism are concerned --
fairly centralized state."  

WRONG! And WRONG! Although Napoleon established a Confederation of the
Rhine and some of the major powers like Prussia had been long
establishing arrangements over tariffs with some of the smaller states,
Germany was nothing like a confederation in 1848, and it's condition was
one of the inspirations for that rebellion.  And, had Germany been a
confederation, it wouldn't have included Vienna, which was and is in
Austria.  Similarly fictionalized, the American social formation where
you had cotton production based on human slavery was extremely different
than it was in the rural Midwest, which was entirely distinct from life
in the secondary and primary cities and people saw themselves primarily
in terms of their state, their ethnicity, etc.  

The belief that the US was a coherent, modern nation in a compact state
is not going to lead to insight into the debates leading to the Civil
War.  And the belief that Germany was a confederation of some sort in
1848 bodes poorly for understanding the rebellions of 1848-49?  

Julio describes those rebellions as national outbreaks and discusses
"the independent, leading role of the workers in 1848-1849"--a time when
"the bourgeois parties were not nearly as effective in co-opting the
working classes as they later became."  Indeed, he says "socialism
looked like a social juggernaut in Europe," which it most definitely was
not.  

In fact, the outbreaks themselves were essentially LOCAL ones, but such
local risings in geographically smaller countries that may have only one
particularly key urban center are going to be different impact on that
country.  There was no American Paris--and not even an American Berlin.
Most importantly, the petty bourgeois and bourgeois forces were very
heavily involved and continued to retain considerable revolutionary will
and muscle, at least initially.  Understating this probably made it
easier for Julio to fictionalize the national context of Germany into a
confederation, In these abortive national and republican revolutions,
workers were content to follow, so long as the dynamic remained
revolutionary.

In fact, the bourgeois forces were strong enough to where the arts of
"coopting" the workers was totally unnecessary--they put down those
instances of class independence in blood.  Indeed, Marx was arguing for
class independence precisely because the absence of that kind of
independence had crippled the potential of 1848-49.  

Still, the portrayal of a mass, independent workers' movement on the
continent in 1848-49 is essential to Julio's description of Marx's
expectation in 1850 that another such revolution was imminent.  Awash in
radical nationalists émigrés in both Belgium and England, Marx was not
appeal to a past proletarian independence but urging it as a formula for
the future.  

And certainly, if Julio were correct in this conjuring of Marx's
motives, shouldn't we expect to find something in the subsequent 33
years of Marx's life indicating a reversal of that position.  Maybe an
"Oops! Called that one wrong.  Let's go make nicey-nice with Prince
Albert."  It never happened.

In short, Julio ignored the content of what Marx said in order to
fictionalize Marx's motives for saying it.  It is a classical logical
fallacy, though it may win junior high school debates.  So, too, rather
than to address the grossly mistaken arguments for workingclass support
for the Democrats in the 1850s, he dismissively writes me "If you
believe that history just repeats itself, then there's very little to
gain in our discussion."   There's nothing in what I wrote to justify
that assertion of my motives, but there was nothing in what Marx wrote
to justify Julio's misrepresentation of his motives either.

Julio writes, "We need to read carefully and fairly the overall
historical experience of socialism," but his mistreatment of that
experience simply represents it, mining it in the service of a faith
that will always deal selectively with reality.  I sincerely don't think
Julio's unconcerned with the truth, it's just that, from his
perspective, there's another, deeper truth, in the service of which all
can be creatively bent. 

On this list, I'm probably the least orthodox and the most willing to
consider about anything in terms of electoral politics.  That said, I
don't think Julio has not persuaded anyone of anything if they did not
already share his faith.  

All he's doing here is "witnessing" and hurling abuses the infidels.

Too bad.

Solidarity!
Mark L.

PS:   




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