[PEN-L:2502] 1998 Bad Writing Contest winners

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 01/22 5:47 PM >>>
I wrote: >>I never said that the current downturn [of leftist politics] is
permanent. Nor do I think so. In that light, I can skip over replying to a
lot of Charles' other contributions.<<

Charles replies: >Does this mean we just skipped over a lot of stuff we
agree on ? <
_____

Jim then said:
No, it's more a matter of (a) my not having anything intelligent to say or
_______

Charles: I can't buy that.
________
Jim wrote: >>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 answers: >I agree that revolution is a very stringent test, but I
can't see how we can accept a lower standard ?<

Jim D.:
In a recent pen-l missive, Mike Yates pointed to a "lower" standard, a more
reachable goal, i.e., aiming for helping to mobilize workers' discontent
(and that of other dominated groups), if I understand him correctly. I
think that this fits with my view, which is that we should ideally aim to
increase the class consciousness and self-organization of workers and the
other oppressed. I believe that this sets the basis for winning of not only
needed reforms but in the long term, for creating socialism.
________

Charles: I agree with this. Mature revolutionism means
Reformplusrevolution. "Revolution only" is ultra-leftist.
However, a revolutionist attitude to reforms
always views it in relation to revolution
(and vice versa). But even the necessary
struggle for reforms is measured by the
revolution test.
__________-


Charles:
>Scholastics per se, which means "in-itself. Scholastics that are not in
unity with practice is a problem...<

Jim D:
Charles is referring to the need for unifying theory and practice. I agree
with that need also, though it's very hard at this point in history. I am
good at that kind of practice which mobilizes workers (especially given my
current family difficulties). But it's what I argue for in political
discussions, hoping that those who are better at it than I am can achieve it.

Charles:
>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.....<

Jim D:
I agree with you that the USSR was important. For a long time, the
oppressed of the world could take advantage of the split between the two
super-powers. The problem is this situation is over.

Charles: As an analogy, the Civil
War is over, and there was even
a counterrevolution in Post-Reconstruction
and Jim Crow. The Radical Republicans
were defeated when Andrew
Johnson withdrew the bluecoats
from the South (Johnson should
have been removed from office
for that in my opinion ) and then
the Tilden/whataya callit compromise
ended the Civil War revolution.
However, it was not utterly reversed.
It still impacted and impacts the
struggle for Black freedom.

Similarly, the impact of the Russian
Rev. on the world, which was
the oppressed exploiting the
split, but much more than that,
still effects the world today.
The potential for the next world crisis of
capitalism to be resolved
by socialist revolution will be affected
by the remaining impacts of
the Russian Revolution. Just the
fact that Marxism is known far and
wide is a result of the Russian Revolution,
for example.
________



Jim wrote: >>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: This may sound ultra-leftist,
but I think we have about maxed out
on making the Western workers of
the world happy with reforms. We need
to emphasize more that reforms have
clearly meant only temporary and
partial happiness for the workers ,
when we look at the history. We
should emphasize the transitional
character of reforms in relation to
revolution. We need a full scale
assault on the current bourgeois
mindcontrol method of creating
extremely unhistorical consciousness
in the masses, because they won't
get this recent history of reforms
point (New Deal is going,
Great Society is gone, Civil
Rights are eroding badly) if they
don't think historically. This is
why the bourgeoisie "ended"
history, with Fukayama (sp).
________________


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 ?<

Jim D:
sounds good, but how can we link that to the concrete practice of actual
workers?

Charles: For me the idea of constit. amend
for a right to a job came out of the
concrete struggles against plantclosings
in the 80's. We couldn't control the
plants because of the Fifth Amendment
Takings Clause would make it a Taking
of Private Property to take away the
corporate perogative to move a plant.
Whatever struggles workers are
having with Private Property (Capital)
now will have this dimension somewhere.
We should just bring it out.
____________________

Jim D. wrote: >>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 ?<

Jim D.:
No, I wasn't saying the over-use of certain words was dogmatic. I was
saying that _I_ didn't want to over-use words. And one reason is that a lot
of social-scientific writing isn't scientific enough to require the
constant use of the same words. "Pride" is simply a more interesting way of
saying "dogmatism." (They aren't synonymous, but they are close in the
context of what I said.)

Charles: I don't think you are over
repeating words, myself. I think you
should be proud of your thinking
and writing. And I think you should
be more convinced of the validity
of your opinions, because we
need people like you to practice
your theory, and you need a "moment"
of high certainty and conviction to
persuade others to follow your theory.
Yes, I said "your" theory.
Don't worry, there is a "moment"in
the process when you get to
criticize your practice too,
to criticize your "pride" in
this trial and error thing.

I say that recognizing that
your family situation limits
that practice. But be certain
in even that limited practice,
comrade.
_______________
________________
Charles:
>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.<

Jim D:
Since we're not currently in a revolutionary situation, I see nothing wrong
with a little doubt. In fact, Rosa Luxembourg, one of the best, took "Doubt
All" as a personal motto. Still, she was quite an activist.
______

Charles: It won't be a revolutionary
situation unless we make one.
Doubt is not banished in a rev.
situation either. Some of the certaintly
is regarding principles that apply in
both revolutionary and non-rev.
situations.

I respect Luxembourg, but "Doubt
All" is more skeptical or agnostic philosophy
than dialectical or materialist. The latter
sublates the skeptical moment as
criticism. Thus, Marx's practical-critical
activity, as the equivalent of "revolutionary."

By the way, Rosa Luxembourg passed
the "revolution test" I mentioned
earlier better than I have
myself.

.....
JIm D.
>Lenin also wrote on Empirico-Criticism and his notebooks on Hegel. ...
they were the type of scholasticism that Lenin thought was necessary to
deal with the big issues of his time. ...

>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).<

Jim D.
right.

Charles:
>Victory is certain,<

Jim D.
I wish I could be as sure as you seem to be.

Charles: This is from the
South African National Congress slogan
"The struggle continues; Victory
is certain." and ironically from
that context it is quite sober and
pertinent to our dialogue here. For,
if you recall even just ten years ago,
it seemed that the end of Apartheid
would come, but probably way in
the future and after much bloodshed.
Victory seemed least certain their.
So, this slogan seemed almost
religious in its faith or refusal to
doubt, as Rosa might advise. Yet,
look at the facts. Victory WAS
certain. Take heart. This period
of reaction (as in 1908-1912 in
Russia) makes it seem that the
rev is further away than ever. But
it is not based on nothing
in history , that the rev can
surprise you (and "them").
Also, some of us have to be
certain to make it occur.

Charles


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