Re: [Marxism] The two souls of socialism

[Jscotlive@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 19/08/2005 20:27:07 GMT Daylight Time,
jbustelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

This  idea of a "socialism from below" current arose at a specific time
under  specific historical circumstances. It has a degree of validity  in
popularization of socialist ideas and educational work, but when  taken
on as a fundamental analytical-theoretical framework, as  Callinicos
does, it is deeply flawed.



Reply:

I agree with you. The 'socialism from below' espoused by the (UK) SWP and
the ISO in the US, stems from one passage in Marx's voluminous writings
concerning the self emancipation of the working class.

However, history has revealed that between theory and fact lies that  wide
gulf otherwise known as material conditions. Marx, in this, was simply  wrong.
This isn't such a hard thing to imbibe if you believe, as I do, that more
important than Marx's writings - produced in the mid to late 19th century - is
the fact that Marxism is a living science, and as such constantly evolving and
adapting in line with those material conditions.

State Captialism, as popularised by Tony Cliff, arose out of the immense
pressure based on socialists based in Western Europe and the US during the Cold
War.  Defending the USSR and latterly Cuba in the face of so much  propaganda
and demonisation whilst trying to promote socialism to workers in  their own
countries became too difficult and directly led  to the promulgation of State
Capitalism as a fall back position.

I think Lenin had it right when he talked in State And  Revolution about the
necessity of raising the political and cultural level  of the workers AFTER
the revolution to the point where they are  equipped to take power.

'Act first, then we'll see.'

J


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism