Little bit of overreaction to Carl's remarks-- to be sure Carl's
remarks are robotic, but more than robotic they are "ideological," an
attempt to provide a moral assessment, as opposed to a material one.
And the response Carl gets is a least equally ideological, if not more
so, with references to dialectical materialism (an ideological
description of Marx's work if there ever was one, attempting to
recuperate that work into philosophy, into philosophical,
epistemological categories, when everything Marx wrote originates in the
recognition of philosophy as "alienated," and obsolete activity.. but
that's another ultra-left, sectarian position of mine for another
And if we want to examine Lenin's take on this, we should look at
Lenin's take on Hegel in his philosophical notebooks.
But I say "Up From Oxymoronism," the oxymoronism of Marxism as a
philosophy, as theories of knowledge, as a "dialectical materialism."
There's nothing "regretful" about such analyses, as offered by Carl,
just as there is little regretful about the substitute analyses, such as
they are of Fred and Walter-- which, in truth, really are a partcularly
deadly combination of idealism and vulgar materialism.
So if somebody wants to criticize Carl's robotic constructions, then it
should be more than a parody of "critical criticism." So the criticism
needs to be Marxist, to analyze the actual conditions and relations of
production in China, Vietnam, Cuba... the actual stresses on the
economy, on the classes therein....
Are the property forms developed in China, Cuba, etc. after the
revolutions fundamentally distinct or similar to those developed after
the Russian Revolution? Are the social administration of those forms
fundamentally distinct from the forms developed in the historic retreat
of the Russian Revoluion? Are those forms subject to the same
degeneration and decomposition under the stress of internally uneven and
combined development coupled with the dominance of capitalism? And if
so, are the prospects for the restoration of capitalism in China, Cuba,
by FDI, the collapse of agriculture, by hook, crook, debt and long range
artillery, similar to the experiences in Russia and Eastern Europe?
From: "Mauricio Martinez" <kidvanguard@xxxxxxxx>
> I can't think of a more undialectical, and frankly robotic
statement than this one right here, which only confirms Walter's
statement about the "regretfullness" of various sectarian analyses of
actually existing socialism (or attempts at socialism).
> The question is whether Trotsky's analysis of the degeneration of
the USSR immediately, without any further qualification, applies to
Vietnam, North Korea, China, Venezuela etc. This is ludicrous. Let's
remember our dialectical materialism people. Lenin provides a good
summary of the dialectical approach in "The Three Sources and Component
Parts of Marxism." He defines it as the doctrine "of the relativity of
human knowledge, which provides us with a reflection of eternally
> So Trotsky's analysis of the USSR, as human knowledge, was relative
to, and a reflection of, a situation that has eternally developed itself
out of existence. I mean, what the hell?! Is it too much to ask for a
more sophisticated analysis than Calvinist declarations of Trotskyist
dogma? Really! Just goes to show you that sometimes intelligent idealism
is closer to intelligent materialism than vulgar materialism.
> Mauricio Martinez
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