Re: [Marxism] Reply to Carl Davidson (and 2 or 3 things I might, or might not, know about 'hegemony')

["rrubinelli" <rrubinelli@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It was clear, I thought, that David McDonald's question to Julio re
party affiliations was not intended as a personal attack, but a
realistic inquiry as to the success or lack thereof, Julio had had with
this "entry" "strategy."   Really, I don't think even Julio regards the
DP as a party of radical social change, so his strategy must be
tactical; to gain access to workers and others who can themselves be
changed.  Such a change then requires not just an entry tactic, but more
importantly, an exit strategy.  Hey, as we used to say:  90% of this
business, and 100% of the chance of survival,  is knowing the way out.

The last 70 years is replete with entries into the DP.  The history is
pretty barren of successful exits, and in the post WW2 era, the
impossibility of such transformation of the DP and/or successful  exits
was confirmed in 1964 with the refusal to seat the Mississippi Freedom
Democratic Party.

So no exit, no strategy-- and entry or access is truly dissipation,
cooptation, and the end of the road, the dead end of the road.

(A digression:  I think that dissipation and disorientation can be seen
right now in the US in the poor showing of yesterday's anti-war
manifestation in NYC-- the inability, for more than 2 years, to link
anti-war to anti-both parties--  meant the popular support could be
diverted and drained into the Kerry campaign, which of course, was
itself the key to the reelection of Bush .)

Julio makes far too much, and makes it incorrectly, of this notion of
the "dual nature" of capitalism-- its "progressive" elements combined
with its regressive elements.  Capitalism is not a "on the one hand,
while on the other hand" system.  And neither is that type of analysis a
true comprehension of the method and substance of dialectics.  The
"progressive" elements of capital exist only  momentarily, only
tangentially, only accidentally, and only passively: that is to say only
in that capital runs up a cage of its own making from the inside and
creates the opportunity for its own overthrow and abolition.  Just as
the satisfaction of any human need under capitalism is "accidental,"
exists only as a value to be expropriation, only to the degree that
expropriation supercedes need, so too this "progressive" component, the
actual development of the productive forces is tangential to capital's
goal.  That it is inherent, essential to the expropriation does not make
it, that development, any more progressive, or dual in nature.  In fact,
that development, when left to capitalists is very mechanism for
maintaining, enforcing, the most unprogressive relations.

One, all, have to be very careful of employing this "dual nature"
argument as it can be skewed, or appropriated, and has been by the "free
marketeers," who argue about the benefits of capital investment, the
progressive nature of  capitalism, and the good deeds, the charity of
avarice, of the "entrepreneurs" (missionaries of church and state, thugs
with licenses).  No "appreciation" of capital is realistic without the
barbaric nature of its duality.  We can ask the disappeared women of the
maquilladoras in Mexico, the abused women of the textile and shoe
factories in Thailand and the Quangdong about the "progressive" nature
of capitalism.  And they will confirm the true nature of the duality.

Beyond that:  if Julio is departing  because of personal insults, real
or perceived, then that's a big mistake.  Damn, brother, that's half the
fun (in my case more than half.). Far better to give it back in kind.
I mean there's nothing wrong with sarcasm, payback, and brush back
pitches.  In moderation, of course.

But if Julio is departing because the moderator urges the list not to
debate "entryism" into the Democratic Party, then that's the horse of a
different color, because the moderator is right.  Absolutely.
Unequivocally.Discussions of the viability  of the DP as an agent of
social change have no place in a Marxist forum.

We start from and with the boureoisie and its parties of NOT being
"dual" in nature, but part and whole of the apparatus of exploitation,
of preserving private property and wage-labor, thus antithetical to
human emancipation.
__________________

Now on to global hegemony and John Enyang's remarks on the US.  First,
most are aware of my disagreement on this notion of decline and
replacement of the US by any  or any combination of European and Asian
countries.

Europe, as a single integrated capitalist entity, simply does not exist.
And the recent absorption of countries of Eastern and Central Europe
will only increase the centrifugal forces at work.

In addition, the IMF, following OECD, has just revised downward its
estimates for Europe's economic growth in 2005, from 2.2% to 1.6%.
Germany's estimated performance has been reduced by nearly half.

Japan?  After the collapse of the bubble (and Japan's was
proportionately greater than the US's in terms of non-performing debt,
bankruptcies, etc. to GDP) Japan went into a 10-11 year period of
recession/no growth.  A modest recovery in 02-03 has again reversed
itself and Japn recorded negative growth again in 04.

China?  South Korea?  Malaysia?  Singapore?  Taiwan?

Not hardly.  The difficulties the US experiences are experienced by
capitalism as a whole.  To attribute those difficulties to "declining US
competitiveness" is simply wrong.  There has been no such decline.  On
the contrary, US "competitiveness has improved.

To regard the US's "shrinkage" in industrial activity as a sign of its
relative decline is equally wrong.  Such shrinkage is calculated,
demanded by capital and is offset by increases in rates and terms of
exploitation of labor.

All the countries of capitalism, advanced and not so advanced, are
engaged in sort of rotation, shrinking, or trying to control the growth
of fixed assets, and the impacts of that growth on profit.  The
oscillations between growth and shrinkage are dictated by profit, and in
this critical category, profit, US holds the lead, and that lead is
based on superior exploitation of its working class.

Finally, regarding the instructiveness of the British decline vis a vis
the current predicament of the US, yes, we should look at that-- and
what were the critical eruptions, moments, in that decline and
replacement by the US (and replacement is the key)?  Two world wars. And
what were the results of those two wars?  The undisputed primacy of the
US in the network of capital, and... the Russian Revolution, surviving,
just, the assault of WW2.  To think the US will be replaced without
another world war is folly.  With the defeat of the Russian Revolution,
the only replacement of US capitalism possible is that to be achieved by
an international workers' revolution.

rr


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