[Marxism] Re: re: The Duality of Marxism: is capitalism totalizing or inhibiting?

[Henning Böke <Henning.Boeke@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

M. Junaid Alam wrote:

> Well tortuous analogies aside, I would appreciate reading suggestions.

This is one of the really interesting discussions on this list.

I would like to reply to Junaid Alam's important question
recommending a piece of literature which is in my opinion one of the
best books on political theory written since 1990, but unfortunately
almost unknown outside the country of its origin (Norway).  I am
talking of "The Polyphonous Revolution", written by Kjersti Ericsson
in 1991.  Kjersti Ericsson had been chairwoman of the Norwegian
Communist Workers Party (Marxist-Leninist) (AKP[ml]) from 1984 to
1988.  "The Polyphonous Revolution" was her second theoretical book
(after "Sisters, Comrades!" on Marxism and feminism).  As far as I
know, in the USA it has been distributed by Freedom Road Socialist
Organization.  It is a brillant essay dealing with urgent theoretical
questions in a non-academic manner.  The complete English translation
is available on line on the AKP (former AKP[ml]) website:
www.akp.no/hefter/flerstemmig/polyphonus.htm
Below I will post you the second chapter, "The two models," which
indicates some important aspects with regard to Junaid's question.

I think we could reformulate Junaid's really important problem like
this:  Are Marxist theories of imperialism--from Lenin to dependency
theories--just something like an update of the outlook on history
given in Marx's and Engels's Manifesto, or do they imply a rupture
(which may be unconscious to the authors), a correction of some of
Marx's basic assumptions (which were clearly based on Hegel's
philosophy of history)?

Kjersti Ericsson's answer is clearly the latter.  The way how she
puts the problem is not driven by theory but by political experience:
She confronts "two models of the struggle for socialism."  The first
model is the "classical" approach to socialism, based on the
assumptions of traditional "orthodox" Marxism:  socialism as the
result of maximum development and concentration of industrial
productive forces with a united, disciplined working class which only
needs to "pluck" the results of capitalist progress by changing the
ownership.  The second model is based on the experience that there is
no worldwide even development of capitalism.  Capitalist integration
by commodity production is limited, in most parts of the world it
only works in connection with its opposite like unpaid labour of
women etc.  Socialism is an alternative way to construct society,
starting from multiple perspectives of the oppressed.

Find below the second chapter which might contribute some aspects to
Junaid's "progressive and moribund" discussion.  Kjersti Ericsson
recommends us not to understand "progress" as a "mighty wave" any
longer.  Her book describes a bundle of political experiences which
should be guidelines for analysis.

Regards, Henning

--

Kjersti Ericsson

T h e   t w o   m o d e l s

I am going to set two models or clear-cut pictures of the struggle
for socialism against each other. The first picture represents the
classic, socialistic model. It could, perhaps, be compared to a
mighty, united wave which rolls forward sweeping along everything in
its path (A). The other picture is concerned more with
multitudinousness and contradictions. There is not one wave here,
instead, there are many currents which cause the capitalist ship to
wreck (B).

These two models have different views on:

        *  how the foundation for socialism is formed;
        *  what constitutes revolutionary force;
        *  which task revolutionary force should perform;
        *  how future society is shaped.

These are the two models' views on how socialism's foundation is formed:

A: Capitalism develops the means of production, production becomes
more social, more concentrated. Capitalism penetrates everywhere,
bursting the old, pre-capitalistic conditions of production and
forming large industrial production. This process will gradually take
place all over the world. In this way the economic foundation is
formed so that socialistic conditions of production can be introduced
after a revolution.

B: Capitalism and imperialism as a system will unavoidably lead to
polarization in capitalistic centers and capitalistic periphery. The
periphery can never become "economically ripe for socialism" in the
classical sense within the framework of capitalism. Liberation from
capitalism and imperialism, and the building of a new society, must
therefore spring from many, radically different, starting-points. Nor
is everything re-made into large industry and production of goods.
The unpaid work outside of capitalistic production makes up a large
part of the total work done in society. In the capitalistic centers,
too, the new society will have to take as its starting-point an
economy where non-capitalistic production in small units within the
framework of the family is an important characteristic.

This is how the two models view revolutionary force:

A: Capitalism produces its own slayers, the modern industrial
proletariat. Capitalism brings up, disciplines and educates this
class in the role they are to play in the new society. This class
has, in the main, united interests. The foundation for the liberation
of women is that women take part in "social production" and thereby
become part of this class, become more like the men of this class. In
the poor countries, too, it is necessary that an industrialization
take place which can form the foundation for a modern proletariat.
Until this has happened these countries are not ripe for a
socialistic revolution.

B: The force which will carry through the revolution and building of
the new society, is not united, neither on a world basis, nor within
each society. The working class and working people in the
capitalistic centers and periphery have different material and social
situations, partially different interests and different
consciousness. The same thing applies to black and white, women and
men. A common struggle cannot build on everyone being the same. It
must build on an alliance where different starting-points are
respected, where contradictions and oppressive conditions are brought
out into the open and worked on.

This is how the models view the task the revolutionary force must perform:

A: The task of the revolutionary working class is to "pluck" the
economy which capitalism has ripened for socialism, take the power
away from the bourgeoisie, eradicate the anarchy of capitalistic
competition and steer the social, concentrated, large industry
economy according to a whole plan.

B: The task of the revolutionary force is to shape an economic
development which serves the majority and takes care of nature. Also
the task is to create as much equality as possible through necessary
differentiation in treatment. And it is to give people more power and
control over their own living conditions. The plan must be built up
from below, taking people's daily life as a starting point.

And this is how they view the shaping of future society:

A: A planned economy steered by the working class will be the
foundation for an even faster development of the means of production,
which will gradually reduce the time spent on material production. A
society of plenty will set in, people can receive according to needs
and render according to ability, the only form of equality which does
no violence to the indisputable fact that people are made
differently. Further, there will no longer be a material foundation
on which to differentiate a special class or special stratum to
govern society. The classless, communistic society will set in.

B: The new society can not, in the main, be built from a
starting-point where the production of the necessities of life takes
a minimum of time. Therefore there is a foundation for developing a
new governing stratum. To keep the people in power, those forces that
are against this type of development must be organized. That means,
among other things, building up power from below, by taking the
common people's interests, experiences and everyday reality as the
starting point in the production of knowledge, production of
technology and in the economic strategy. This is impossible if all
important planning and production of knowledge goes on in a center at
the top, instead of in many centers at the grass roots level.

The first picture I have sketched (in a simplified form with no
nuances), and which I have called the classical model of socialism,
is a grand system of ideas with an integral, inner logic. And it is
built on real features developing in history and society, observed
and summed up by central, socialistic theoreticians, such as Marx and
Engels. Marx and Engels wanted to grasp the important aspects in the
developmental history of society, and show how a new form of society,
socialism and communism, were necessary consequences of the
development of capitalism. In the main, this is the model which has
been called "scientific socialism". The use of the term "scientific
socialism" is meant to convey a strategy for socialism which does not
build on pretty wishes and ideal ideas constructed in the heads of
people who dream of a better world, but on real historical and social
processes. These processes can be gruesome and lead to enormous
suffering. Marx' views on this are illustrated clearly in his
writings on India. As is usual with him, he does no beautifying when
describing capitalism's and colonialism's terrible brutality. And yet
(Marx, "The British rule in India", p. 172, from K. Marx and F.
Engels, Articles on Britain, Moscow, 1971):

"England, it is true, in causing a social revolution (destroyed the
traditional social conditions, author's comment.) in Hindustan, was
actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner
of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can
mankind fulfill its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the
social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of
England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about
that revolution."

The mighty wave must roll on, literally over dead bodies. It is
impossible to make the wheels of history run backwards. But the
struggle of the working class can make them roll on more quickly.
Beyond the suffering and horrors the new society may be glimpsed, a
society where capitalism's inherent contradictions are solved through
a socialistic revolution, and the enormous forces of production may
be used in a planned way for the good of the majority.

This model also has a political/organizational aspect, which we
usually think of in connection with Lenin. The class struggle must be
led by a party which expresses the interests of the "slayers of
capitalism", the modern industrial proletariat. Since it is the task
of the class struggle to make the wheels of history turn more
quickly, the party must be a "conscious element" with insight into
the laws for the development of society. The party must supply the
struggling working class with this consciousness, so that the class
can fight with, and not against, history. Comintern, too, which in
practice was a world party for co-ordinating the struggle in many
different countries, arose within this tradition. It is not
surprising that the model with the mighty, united wave also led to
the idea of a mighty, united world party.

The classical socialistic model has been emptied of its revolutionary
contents in two rounds. The result of the first round became social
democratic reformism, which in our times appears as common
capitalistic growth philosophy and developmental optimism. The
results of the second round became the centralized, oppressing
bureaucratic regimes in Eastern Europe which are now falling apart or
being swept away.

So what are those of us who think that the world never had a greater
need of revolutionary change supposed to do now? Shall we hunt our
way to the original revolutionary socialistic model, dust it off and
use it again? Or is something more than revolutionary fundamentalism
needed?

I think the last possibility is the right one. Because the picture of
the mighty wave went awry at a pretty early stage in socialism's
history. Lenin, and even more clearly Mao, made the point that the
appearance of imperialism had created a new situation. The old form
of bourgeois revolution, which cleared away feudal social features
and created the basis for a national capitalism (which in its turn
could ripen society for socialism) was no longer possible. It was
clear to Mao that the poor countries had to carry through a new type
of revolution which he called "new democratic": a broad alliance,
from the working class and poor peasants to the national bourgeoisie,
tore itself away from imperialism and rid itself of feudal remnants.
But instead of building a national capitalism, new democracy was just
a first step in a socialistic development of society. Attempts to
build a national capitalism would of necessity end in a new colonial
and imperialistic oppression. World developments since the victory of
the Chinese revolution in 1949 have proved clearly that Mao was right
in his view.

This meant that the mighty wave was broken, with widespread and
unclear consequences for socialist theory and practice. Since then
more has been added: the women's movement has uncovered the enormous
mass of unpaid work outside of capitalistic production which is done
by women all over the world. Capitalism does not look the way
bourgeois economy and traditional Marxism have described it in their
common, one-eyed concentration on the things that are produced for
the market. Also, the huge destruction of the environment has made
the idea that the conditions for socialism must mature through
continued uncontrolled capitalistic development, absurd. In that case
the mighty wave doesn't only have to roll over dead bodies, it must
roll, in time, over an earth which has become uninhabitable.

These are conditions which socialist theory cannot ignore. It is "the
mighty wave" which appears utopic now, if we, by utopic, mean remote
from reality. Many of the premises for socialistic theory and
political practice have changed. Perhaps the other model I have
sketched, could capture some important aspects of today's world, and
aid us when we must act. I wish to try out this perspective in this
book.

But it is not only the many changes in the real world since the times
of the "classical Marxists", which make it necessary to try out new
perspectives. Everyone, even the greatest revolutionary thinkers and
leaders, are prisoners of their society and times. They carry an
inheritance "under their skin" which colors their thought and
actions, and the movements of which they are a part. This inheritance
can be enlarged and coarsened in time as it passes to new generations.

The problem with the "classical" tradition is not that it is too
revolutionary. The problem, instead, is that it is not revolutionary
enough. Parts of the old society's value system have hibernated with
the new, the revolutionary. The view that the oppressed, despised
classes, the working class, poor peasants in the Third World, are
heroes and history's motor, is a viewpoint so utterly in conflict
with accepted and ingrained values that it is a struggle to take it
seriously, even for those who have this view as their political
raison d'être.

That those whose position is even lower, the women of these classes,
should have any other role than to wait modestly in the background
until the men of the revolution hand them liberation as a gift, and
that they even have their own ideas as to what liberation is, not
just for themselves, but for mankind--is unbelievably difficult to
grasp. And that mankind is not nature's master, with an inevitable
right to use, control and rule, is a question which has lain outside
of the political field of vision.

There is a need to make a more thorough settlement with the
capitalistic and patriarchic tradition than that which
revolutionaries have accomplished as yet. It will be a settlement
with elements which far and away are common ground both for the
tradition in which revolutionaries have placed themselves and that
against which they have fought.

________________________________________________
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