[Marxism] Re: "The Two Souls of Socialism"

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I actually think almost nothing  of lasting importance in history comes
simply or even primarily from above.  I start with the idea that all the
wealth created by humanity is the product of the common labor of human
beings.  This is the source of history, of primitive communisms, class
societies, and socialism.  While industrial labor is a product of
capitalism as a mode of production, all capital is produced by labor.  I
think the materialist conception of history, and the interpretations
which have stemmed from it, tend to undermine the primacy of  "above" in
history.  This is actually the starting point of my disagreements with
"socialism from below" which I admit has some value in agitation and
discussion as counter to the myth that socialism -- or indeed much of
anything else -- can be created simply from the attitude of the
aboveniks, who are NOTHING -- literally nothing -- without the
belowniks.  To me this concept is part of the heart of what Marx conveys
in the introduction to the

Pace writes:
"It is fundamental to all those that think socialism can only be
achieved
starting in the developed world (which is in line with classical Marxist

teachings)."



I consider Marx's writings on the Russian question, Lenin's writings on
the national and colonial questions, and the resolution on this of the
second congress of the comintern to be part of the classics of Marxism,
but let's leave that aside for now.


Your statement that "socialism can only be achieved starting in the
developed world" suggests that socialism must first take hold in the
developed countries. The underdeveloped countries, in their struggles,
move simply in a vicious circle in which one revolution from above MUST
succeed another until the workers in the developed countries open the
actual socialist revolution.  The workers in these countries, though
they are driven to struggle, are simply spinning their wheels like the
Chinese peasant wars under the Asiatic Mode of Production (and down to
today in fact).

Their struggles do little or nothing to advance the class struggle in
imperialist countries although, I assume, as internationalists, the
socialism-capable workers in the advanced countries must oppose the
imperialist depredations against the workers and  peasants of these
countries in their futile cycles of struggle.

But then is not the socialism made possible by the workers in the
imperialist countries for the masses of Asia, Africa, and Latin America
a form of socialism from above.  In effect, the workers of the
imperialist countries generously BRING socialism to the workers and
peasants of the poor countries whose struggles themselves can have no
fruitful outcome. Isn't this SOCIALISM FROM ABOVE? Isn't the
aristocratic noblesse oblige relationship suggested here betweeen the
Advanced workers and the Backward workers  a stratified relationship
carrying all the "logic" of bureaucratism, privilege, corruption, and
recreation of the old "crap" that was suggested by all the concepts of
"socialism from above" that Hal Draper condemned.

It seems to me that the more integrated conceptions of class struggle
developed by Lenin, Trotsky, Castro and others in the twentieth century
are a good antidote to Pace;s conception which really reflects the
attitudes, structures, and strata -- the real life conditions that
produce them -- that have largely blocked the workers in the imperialist
countries from acting in fact with any kind of consistency as a
revolutionary transformative force.  Getting past those conditions
requires economic changes, which I think are in the process of taking
place.  But it also requires smashing through the ideological barriers
that have grown up, of which Pace's version of "socialism from below" is
one.

So Pace's conception turns out to have the wrong "soul."

The way Pace's "socialism from below" becomes in fact "world socialism
from above" highlights the problems of turning "socialism from below"
into an ideological panacea that stands above the actual class struggle
which, after all, must generate leadership, organization, and all the
rest.


Frankly, I like Draper's pamphlet as a politically and theoretically
challenging work, and I like even more his volumes on Marx that are in
part a sweeping development of his thesis.  But yes, I disagree with
"socialism from below " as a panacea.
I really think that in this usage (which is Draper's) "socialism from
below", as Joaquin notes in his comments and points out about
Callinicos' bow to Holloway, pushes workers away from really fighting
for state power, which tends to imperceptibly dissolve into concepts
like workers control, dual power, pure democracy, and so on.  Workers
should struggle only from their place, which is, of course, "below"  Be
afraid, very afraid,  of rising above -- of  holding power, of the
dictatorship of the proletariat and its mass allies on the march to
socialism.

I have to admit I kind of like the perspective raised by the Black
slaves in the civil war about their perspective: "Bottom rail on top."
I am afraid that "socialism from below" has a built in tendency to
contain the class struggle on the sub-state and perhaps even
sub-political level.

I don't think this isn't all I will have to say about "socialism from
below," but it will have to do for now.
Fred Feldman


________________________________________________
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