[PEN-L:2429] Re: 1998 Bad Writing Contest winners

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 01/21 3:11 PM >>>
At 02:01 PM 1/21/99 -0500, Charles wrote:
>Didn't classical Marxism demonstrate
>some validity to its theory of
>subjectivity and power, micro
>and macro,  by the success of the
>1917 Russian Revolution,
>Chinese Revolution, Cuban
>Revolution, Viet Namese
>Revolution, etc. ? Didn't they
>the hegemony problem some ?

sure, but I bet you know about the criticisms that Marxists have had of
those revolutions
________

Charles: Marxists practice criticism/self-
criticism, so of course, Marxists would
have criticisms, but such criticisms
would not have to amount to a conclusion
that these revolutions are failures in
the overall epochal picture of
the transition to socialis ;nor
that the current revolutionary downturn
is permanent; nor that future revolutions
will not draw upon the material and
theoretical successes of those listed
above.

Error is inherent to Marxist analysis
as trial and error is inherent to
scientific investigation. This
derives from an epistemology
which is that practice is the
ultimate test of theory, the
theory of knowledge expressed
by Marx in the second thesis
on Feuerbach.

Much of the impact of these
revolutions is still in effect,
especially the end of paleo-
colonialism.

I s
_______

Jim:

and how all but the Cuban one has fallen. BTW, those
Marxist critiques predated PoMo by several decades (such as the Frankfurt
school and even earlier, folks like Trotsky).
________

Charles: I'd say there is a lack of
sense of historical proportion to
conclude that these revolutions
have been utterly and absolutely
wiped from the history or that
they do not continue to effect
history today; or to predict
that they will not have more
impact in the future.

For example, Napoleon's
reign was a counter-revolution
to the French Rev. , but
in the long run, the French
Rev. is a big change in
France and the world. Or
the English Roundheads
were overthrown,but their
rev. changed English history,
ushered in capitalism. Or
the Civil War overthrew
slavery, but Jim Crow was
a setback. But in the longrun,
the U.S. Civil War has
lasting effects.

Dialectics teaches that
processes are ebbs and
flows, zigs and zags,
two steps forward,
one step backward.

Neo-liberal, global
triumphalism is premature
in a larger historical
picture.

The Frankfurt school , etc. critiques
are scholastic. They do not pass Marx's
test of practice. This doesn't mean
they are proven wrong, just that
they have not proven themselves
correct until that make a revolution,
like the postmodernist critiques.
_______

Jim:
If you define "classical Marxism" as Marx & Engels' ideas, you have to
address the facts that all of these revolutions were in places where Karlos
and Fred weren't expecting revolutions and that none of them were pure
anti-capitalist revolutions of the sort they favored.
_________

Charles: There are some late
writings by Marx indicating
he saw Russia as a possible.
However, the specificity of
country is not a main Marxist
prediction. Interestingly, in
the long run, Marx and Engels
are proven correct (by
the very current setbacks
in "socialism in backward
countries ") that there
must be a rev. in one or
some of the "advanced"
cap. countries to sustain the rev.
But that there has been a socialist
rev. at all is a better fulfillment
of the predictions of Engels
and Marx than all the other
social scientists in history.

Another classical Marxist
predicted that the socialist
rev. in Asia would be bigger
than in Russia. That insight looks
good right now.

Trotsky seems more a classical
Marxist than the postmods or
Frankfurters.
The predictive value of
classical Marxism, though
predictions on the specifics
you mention are not a claim
of classical Marxism. look
better than those of the
postmods and Frankfurters.

____

Charles:
>Where are comparable postmodern
>successes in practice even
> in liberation struggles
>other than workers' emancipation
>struggles ? How, where and when have
>the postmods' interpretation
>or understanding of the meaning
>of the world changed the
>world ?

Has _anyone_ been successful in recent years? The big successes in the US
since WW II  I can point to are only two: (1) the civil rights movement and
(2) the anti-war movement's forcing of the US away from a strategy of using
ground troops against Vietnam to one of strategic bombing and more
importantly, the general shaking up of US society that the movement
produced. Neither of these are recent. Maybe I'm overly pessimistic... But
the apparent failure of the US left in recent decades should encourage us
to avoid pride (what the Jesuits here call the sin of pride), so we don't
crow about our successes compared to the PoMo failure or the "classical
Marxist" failure, etc.
_______

Charles: Again, your use of
"recent" does not have
a good sense of historical
proportion. The transition we
are talking about is over
multiple generations. Just in
1979 the Sandinistas, Afghanis,
Ethiopians and Angolans, had
just added to the success of
Viet Nam of '75 and Cuba of
'59. All of Africa came out of
paleocolonialism after 1957
(Ghana). This is very recent
in historical terms. Who would
have thought Apartheid would
fall so soon ?

Pride ? Confidence , patience
and defense of victories from
shortsighted pessimissm are
critical for revolutionaries in
this epochal struggle. Otherwise
the bourgeoisie will steal our
wins by mental tricks. The struggle
continues victory is certain.

>How, when and
>where has the _Beyond Capital_
>theory changed the world ?

It hasn't changed the world at all. Not a smidgen! However, that doesn't
say that "rethinking Marxism" isn't something that we shouldn't be doing.
Given the general failure of what used to be called "the Movement" in the
last couple of decades, isn't it useful to think about theoretical basics?
Isn't it sometimes useful to think?
________

Charles: Yes, rethink we should,
but continue to think many of the
basic principles too, because they
have not been proven failures
by "recent" zags, which zags
we expect.

In 1908 in Russia , a period
of reaction, there was less
evidence of the success
of Marxist classical ideas
than today. Lucky thing
Lenin and the Bolshies
didn't throw out the baby
with the rethinking bathwater.
_Imperialism_ was a rethinking, but
a sublation, not obliteration of
the classics.

Regards,

Charles



Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx &
http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html