Re: [Marxism] Buying off the German people

["Ian Pace" <ian@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carlos A. Rivera" <cerejota@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition"
<marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 5:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Buying off the German people


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carrol Cox" <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> > 1) It is nonsense to say that marxist writers of the last 30 to 40 years
> > have dismissed any question as "superstructural." In fact, almost all
> > marxist writers have been (correctly) obsessed precisely with
> > superstructural questions.
>
> Yes, other superstructural questions. But on the question of the State,
> they either fall into defensists tactics of not touching "our" States or
> simply repeat "State and Revolution" as a mantra.
>
> Hey, I repeat "State and Revolution" as a mantra, but it is a guideline,
> not an specific and much less timely evaluation of an specific State, the
> USA.
>
> And again, I said that *I* haven't seen marxists texts as refreshing an
> innovative as Marcuse's or Chomsky's. If there are, I certainly would like
> to read them and discuss them. I hate to have anarchists and pomos guiding
> me.

(A slight tangent here)

I sometimes feel there is a reluctance on the part of certain types of
Marxists (especially those of a populist persuasion) to engage with some
superstructural questions, specifically those to do with the means by which
the State works to induce reactionary consciousness on the part of the
proletariat, for fear of seeming to advocate 'socialism from above'. In
countries such as Britain and the US in particular, there is an intrinsic
association of the word 'intellectual' with the word 'bourgeois' (not
surprising perhaps considering the restrictive educational possibilities,
depending on income, that are such a feature in this societies, especially
Britain). Thus if Marxist intellectuals are to engage critically with
proletarian consciousness, and the ways by which the forces and ideologies
of the State are filtered through such consciousness perhaps as a result of
necessity, it can look awfully like bourgeois people making lofty
pronouncements about what the working classes ought to want and believe, a
red rag to a right-wing populist. Of course this by no means intrinsic to
such superstructural engagement, just a common perception that causes some
to run scared. 'Intellectual' by no means implies 'bourgeois' (especially
not if one believes, as I do, that class is as much a matter of allegiance
as birthright - though of course I wouldn't conclude from that revolutionary
potential is best served by middle-class people who swear allegiance to the
interests of the proletariat); Marxist intellectuals can potentially come
from any class. Chomsky, as an anarchist, is less concerned with
demonstrating his allegiance to the revolutionary proletariat and so less
inhibited about dealing with the manipulation of mass consciousness by state
and corporate forces. The same is true of Marcuse or indeed most of the
Frankfurt School intellectuals, as engaged with false consciousness as
anyone could be (though this can be a primary reason why their work is often
preceived as 'elitist' in the Anglo-Saxon world).
> > 2) "Totalitarian" is (a) a general -- generic -- label, and many
> > specifically different forms of totalitarian states may well exist;
> > hence (b) The fact that State A and State B are both totalitarian
> > contributes nothing to the question of whether either is fascist or not.
>
> I agree, but, and this is pure deductive logic, if you know "Fascism" to a
> form of "Totalitarianism",  hence in determining if a society is moving
> towards "fascism" we must first explore if it is "totalitarian".
>
> So the question if the USA is a form of totalitarianism is a vitally
> important question in that it is a pre-requisite to answering if it is
> moving towards fascism.

With reference to what you write below, totalitarianism can be as much about
the hegemonic inducement of a particular state of consciousness, through
propaganda, economic necessity, etc., as something imposed by physical force
and intimidation. As Louis suggested in another mail, economic coercion can
be just as effective in this respect. In that sense McCarthyism was
totalitarian to a degree. Whether this definition is too wide to be
meaningful, I'm not sure - such forces apply to some extent in all
capitalist societies, just perhaps more prominently in the US than
elsewhere. I think this definition is necessary in order to describe fascism
as a form of totalitarianism, though, for reasons that are clear from
examining fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, as commented upon elsewhere in
this thread. Of course physical force and coercion did play a part in
stifling dissent and producing conformity in this societies, but those
factors are insufficient, I believe, to account for the development of
authoritarian consciousness in many of the population in either.
> > 3) Marcuse chose his terminology badly; the word he wanted was
> > _Authoritarian_, "Totalitarian" being a word exploited in the 1940s and
> > thereafter for the specific purpose of identifying Hitler with Stalin.
> > Here is the OED on the word (which includes Marcuse's passage quoted
> > above):
>
> I disagree. I think he precisely wanted to use that word, because his
> critique was one against the modern State in general.
>
> Marcuse actually treated "authorianism" as a separate concept from
> "totalitarianism", and he was clear about this.
>
> Lets let him speak:
>
> " In this respect, it seems to make little difference whether the
> increasing satisfaction of needs is accomplished by an authoritarian or a
> non-authoritarian system. Under the conditions of a rising standard of
> living, non-conformity with the system itself appears to be socially
> useless, and the more so when it entails tangible economic and political
> disadvantages and threatens the smooth operation of the whole. Indeed, at
> least in so far as the necessities of life are involved, there seems to be
> no reason why the production and distribution of goods and services should
> proceed through the competitive concurrence of individual liberties."

Does anyone have some thoughts on contemporary China in this respect, and
how it fits Marcuse's model?

I'm not sure if I entirely understand precisely what Marcuse means by 'the
competitive concurrence of individual liberties' in this context?
> In other words, for Marcuse, the question of "authoriatarianism" or
> "non-authoritarianism" is a moot question. A system could be both
> totalitarian and non-authoritarian, in so far totalitarianism could render
> authority as we know it obsolete. When a person internalizes the mode of
> thougth of the dominant regime, it is no longer needed for repression to
> exist in the form of authority. Yet this system remains totalitarian, in
> that the individual has all his or her's choices made by the State for its
> benefit.
>
> I think that actically he was replying, in essence, to liberal critics of
> the USSR, using their own terms, to basically expose them as hypocrites.
> Strategically, he was furthering a non-statist view on Marxism, and doing
> a general critique of alienation as phenomenon.
>
> I am not a non-Statist Marxist, but Marcuse's critique is interesting in
> so far it explains that hyper-alienation is a form of totalitarianism, and
> in separating, as different concepts, "autoritarianism" and
> "totalitarianism".
>
> > It is simply bad politics -- I would say, probably _disastrous_ politics
> > in the long run -- to lump all forms of capitalist tyranny under one
> > label.
>
> I agree with you in this sense, but it is also bad politics to ignore the
> writing on the wall.
>
> Right now, at this very moment, as you and I speak freely under the
> protection of the First Amendment, the USA has a concentration camp in
> Guantanamo, Cuba.
>
> They are no different, in content or form, that the camps for political
> prisioners the Hitler chancellorship of 1932-1933. Even the "legal"
> justification is the same, the popular support and/or apathy and even the
> legal challenges presented by the liberal opposition are almost verbatim
> the same.
>
> We cannot ignore the lack of a massive public reaction to the Guantanamo
> concentration camp in so far the other example in history we have of a
> society ignoring such move led to the worse fascist state we have known.
>
> Far from grouping all capitalists tyranies, in the abstract, together, I
> am preoccupied with the specific content of the specific capitalist
> tyranny I live under, and which affects the world the most: the USA.
>
> And what better, Marxist way to seek out answers for the future by
> learning from the past?
One might perhaps make a distinction between the capitalist tyrannies in
terms of the degrees of social democratic reform that remain present to such
societies? Or would the degree of liberalism be a better benchmark? Whether
or not such social democracy or liberalism represent merely a short-term
lifeline for such societies is of course another question.

Solidarity,
Ian



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