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

["Charles Brown" <cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 M. Junaid Alam

This is a question and concern open to all comrades, one that I have
been trying to grasp in theoretical and political terms for a few months
now.

I proceed from one fundamental fact: Marx clearly underestimated the
flexibility and lifespan of the capitalist system. Of course, it
requires no keen intellect to note this, but it is a starting point for
a critique which I think should flow from this fact.

-clip-

^^^^^^

CB: Sorry for overposting.

I think you might want to reconsider whether Marx underestimated the
flexibility and lifespan of the capitalist system.

A critical aspect of Marx's approach is the unity of theory and practice, as
succinctly presented in the "Theses on Feuerbach". The revolutionary
overthrow of capitalism won't happen mechanically,automatically, but only by
the conscious actions of people. Unlike all previous developments in human
history which are the result of unconscious actions by masses of people, the
socialist revolution is unique in history in the necessity that the
revolutionary masses be conscious of their goal. Thus, in the First Theses ,
Marx differentiates his materialism from all previous materialisms by
activating the subject, which had previously only been done in idealisms.
Marx announces practical-critical activity.

 People have to have hope and inspiration that they can succeed in order
_to_ succeed at revolution. Enthusiasm and spirit, genuine hope of success,
optimism, are necessary aspects of a mass consciousness that can do it,
because of the difficulty of the task. It takes a very strong "can do"
attitude in a lot of people.

If Marx had said, "well, revolution is possible, but it is going to be a
hell of a task , and frankly we might not make it because it's so difficult
, the bourgeoisie are vicious monsters..." or "it may be two hundred years
before we succeed ", he would have lessened the chances that revolution
would succeed , because it would have dampered the hopes and motivation of
those many who had to make the revolution.

So, there is an element of salesmenship ( !) and cheerleading in Marx's
certain and definite statements about the nearness of the revolution. The
most famous term is "inevitable".  Similarly with Lenin's statements about
"the eve of the world socialist rev." or the like. It is objectively
_possible_, yes, unlike 500 years earlier when the necessary social class
was not in existence. But the existence of the class with _objective_
revolutionary potential does not guarantee that class will succeed. It is
only combined objective and subjective factors that can succeed.

A most important factor is that the bourgeoisie have responded quite
skillfully and intelligently and viciously to the initial workers'
revolutions. There's  a sort of analogue to the uncertainty principle, in
that the Marxist theory and practice (the Russian Revolution and progeny
especially) have impacted its subject matter ( capitalism), by alerting and
, really, informing the capitalists as to the nature of the main threat to
capitalism's existence. The capitalists and their thinkers can study Marx
and Lenin, the Soviet Union, etc. to find where to concentrate their forces
in thwarting revolution.  Surely, the capitalists used industrial and
proletarian concentration in reverse, to counter the general Marxist
strategy of focus on those classes. I'd say the main thing capitalism used
was world historically horrific war and threat of war. The bourgeoisie have
turned out to be the most dastardly ruling class. Then there were things
like the discovery of superweapons, that couldn't be precisely anticipated.

In sum, Marx was not making a prediction in the sense that predictions are
made in natural science - "there will be an eclipse of the sun on such and
such a date and time."  He was making a statement about social developments
in which his statement itself would become a factor in determining whether
not the developments of which he spoke would develop in one way or another.
For this reason, making a statement that "sold" the revolutionary outcome to
the makers of revolution was the best way.

However, looking at said statements now, from one angle , looks like  failed
predications, as you say.



________________________________________________
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