[PEN-L:2450] Re: Re: 1998 Bad Writing Contest winners

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 01/21 7:16 PM >>>
I had written: >>sure, but I bet you know about the criticisms that
Marxists have had of those revolutions <<

Charles answers: >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.<

I never said that the current downturn is permanent. Nor do I think so. In
that light, I can skip over replying to a lot of Charles' other contributions.
________

Charles: Does this mean we just
skipped over a lot of stuff we
agree on ? Oh well, I guess
contradiction drives the thought.
Can we draw on those revs
I listed ?
________________

Charles:
>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.<

James:
I see nothing wrong with scholasticism per se. But if we can't use the
scholastics' work at all, if it's written like the stuff I've seen by
Judith Butler or deals with totally irrelevant subjects, I can't say I'm
especially interested.

I would point to the work of Baran & Sweezy, and that of Braverman, which
were in the broad Frankfurt-school tradition but were quite useful to
leftist activists for a long time (even if their conceptions seem a bit
naive in retrospect).

I hope you don't see the creation of a revolution as the only criterion of
success, since revolutions are few in number. As Charles noted, their
success in the 20th century has been almost entirely against
paleocolonialism, not against capitalism. And the contributions of the
Russian revolution are pretty nil looking at Russia in 1999.
________

Charles: I agree that revolution is
a very stringent test, but I can't
see how we can accept a lower
standard ? Scholastics per se, which
means "in-itself. Scholastics that are
not in unity with practice is a problem.
This is a strict standard too. I am
sorry. I didn't make the standard.
But the rules of any science are
pretty strict at some level.

Engels and the others' scholastic
standards are high too. We know
Marx lived at the British Museum.
 So, it is not
no scholastics but practice must
be on an equal level with theory.

So, when Marx says in the
2nd thesis on Feuerbach "The
question whether objective truth
can be attributed to human thinking
is not a question of theory but is a
practical question. In practice man (sic)
must prove the truth, i.e. the reality and
power, the "this sidedness" of his
thinking. The dispute over the
reality or non-reality of thinking which
is isolated from practice is a purely
scholastic question," he speaks
as a true scholar to other scholars.
He knows scholars tend not
to practice enough. He is being
self-critical. Similarly, philosophers
have interpreted the world, the
thing is to change it. To practice
is to change the world.

I very much disagree that
the contributions of the Russ. Rev
are nil,even with the state of Russia
in 1999. The world could be under the
Nazis  for one thing, if it had not
been for the Russian Rev. It is
very difficult to know what
the Russian Rev. determined in
history. But even Russia today
has an education level and other
things that it probably wouldn't
have and which prevents the
crisis from being worse.

(well that was longwinded by me-CB)



James:
I think that most workers would be happy with some reforms. If we can
figure out how to win those while setting the stage for more fundamental
change, that would be a major victory in this generally dismal period.
________

Charles: Agree. When I say revolution,
the struggle reforms is part of revolutionary
struggle, otherwise would be ultra-leftism.

For reforms, how about shorter work
week with no cut in pay and
a constitutional right to a decent
job ?
_____________...

Charles had written: >>>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 ? <<<

I answered: >> 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 ..., so we don't crow about our
successes compared to the PoMo failure or the "classical Marxist" failure,
etc. <<

>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 ?<

James:
I was talking about the US only.
_______

Charles: A number of these are
directly against U.S. imperialism.
The revolution must be considered
in a total world picture first. The
revolution is international in content.
But do the other Marxist and
liberation theorists
mentioned above have more
success or any success in the
U.S. ? I know Marcuse influenced
the 60's rebellion some. But
it seems to me that the CPUSA
influenced much in that
period. I don't think the postmods
had influence in the U.S. in
the 60's-70's. The communists
were influencing the Viet Nam
war issue in the U.S. at the
Viet Namese end of it.


>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.<

I was arguing against dogmatism and sectarianism. However, I like to avoid
using the same words and phrases over and over again.
________

Charles: In a science, some terms are
used over and over. The frequent use of
certain words is not a sign of dogmatism
necessarily , but can be technical
terms of science, as in jurisprudence or
Marxism in this discussion. In other words,
they can be a sign of critical thinking
and rigor. What do you see as
dogmatic and sectarian specifically ?

Also, the certainty needed for practice
is sometimes misunderstood from
a scholastic point of view as
insufficient critical attitude. In other
words, to act ,to convince millions
to carry out a revolution ,one cannot
be as contingent or uncertain as
for theoretical discussion. This
authoritative posture is often mistaken
for dogmatism, and can be dogmatism.


This issue is connected to that above
on unity of theory and practice vs
scholasticism. To practice one has
to be surer, until an error causes
correction in trial and error, as I
mentioned earlier.


>>>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? <<

>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.<

Lenin also wrote on Empirico-Criticism and his notebooks on Hegel. Even
though these books were sorta obscure and actually contradicted each other
in important ways (I am told), they were the type of scholasticism that
Lenin thought was necessary to deal with the big issues of his time. If I
remember correctly, the notebooks on Hegel are partly a response to the
German Social Democrat's decision to back World War I.

In other words, we agree.
_______

Charles: We do. The great scholar
and practitioner Lenin said
without revolutionary theory (scholarship),
there can be no revolutionary movement
(practice).

Victory is certain,

Charles


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