Re: Isaac Deutscher's..Marx's Capital in the ...

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 8/7/03 3:27:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time, bendien@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

> I agree with you entirely. "Melvin P.", whoever that is, typically imputes
> to me statements and opinions which I do not hold, and then he tells me to
> "shut up" or "prove something" I am not even concerned with in the given
> context. In future, "Melvin P." will get zero response from me on PEN-L, and
> an extremely nasty response off-list if he deliberately misrepresents my
> views in public again.
>
> Jurriaan




Nasty response off list . . . .How scary. Misrepresent you? Surely you jest. Here is what you wrote:

"As regards Karl Kautsky, he was reviled among revolutionaries ever since
Lenin's polemics, but as his articles in Die Neue Zeit show, he was actually
a quite sophisticated Marxist thinker and not merely a populariser. Among
other things, he wrote some thoughtful articles about the political economy
of gold ("Gold und Teuerung"). One of the main sources of difference between
Kautsky and Lenin was Kautsky's strong commitment to democracy, which of
course did not exist in Russia beyond the consultative Duma permitted by the
Czar after 1905 for some time. In Russia and Poland, the workers movement
had to break the law, or at any rate undertake very radical actions, in
order to win even bread-and-butter issues, whereas in post-Bismarck Germany,
a popular democracy existed, such that the social democrats could operate
legally "within the system" and indeed gain parliamentary representation in
elections; trade unions could generally operate freely and expand. The more
radical, revolutionary stance of Polish and Russian Marxism is in good part
explained by this fact alone." 


The question of democracy is posed different by different individuals, groups, classes and strata. In America we - a section of the working class, have had to break the law for a very long time. I understood what you wrote, the characters and the issue; understood some things about the evolution of the German Party and what you call "Russian Marxism."  You point of view was not distorted but rather unraveled in its simplicity. 

This question of democracy - which pours endlessly from the lips of the most privlege strata of the world imperial bourgeois social order, often amazes but does not amuse me in the least because at the end of the day. Here is another story Mr. Democrat.

The year 1963 was a turning point in American history. Dr. King went to Birmingham Alabama to desegregate. There he was arrested by the law abiding democratic peoples. While in prison, he wrote his famous response to eight White area clergymen who had called the march untimely and unwise. The liberal establishment also criticized him for "breaking the law." King responded to the clergyman indicating that Black Americans have waited 340 years for basic rights given to all by God. This statement ended up becoming a very famous historical document. 

The question of living politics is much different from that of creating "popular propaganda" including Marxist propaganda. The difference between a Dr. King and the local clergymen was not a question of democracy.  The difference between various political and theory postulates between you and I only appear as a question of democracy to the novice, which is why you must resort to Redbating - something I have long ago learnt to defeat in the real political life of our workers. The environment of Germany and Russia does not explain the difference between a K. Kautsky and a V. I. Lenin. Something else more subtle and insidious is involved. 

After 1967 when we stormed the democratic institutions, engaged in street demonstrations and street fighting and physical clashes with the unions and their members we of course were called not just Hitler types but black fascist. Interestingly when we conducted the last grass-root Vote Communist Campaigns in 1976 and 1978 we were called simply communist. Something else more subtle and insidious is involved in the difference between a K. Kautsky and a V. I. Lenin and even a R. Luxembourg that cannot be found in Capital - all books, including the Theories of Surplus Value. 

See, the very people that scream participatory democracy and socialism and democracy have a history. Actually, I understood what you wrote very clearly. The bottom line is that K. Kautsky did not morph into a supporter of imperial capital on the basis of a theoretical understanding of democracy. Mr. Kautsky according to you was "actually a quite sophisticated Marxist thinker." When you are challenged you scream "Stalinist" and that damn MP are trying to prevent me from talking. Actually, all you do is talk and no force on earth can stop human thinking. Once thinking appears as polemical the clashes become political not thought control. 

It's the politics sport, not your thinking. It was Mr. Kautsky and R. Luxembourg's politics not their thinking that is always the dispute. 

It is in fact you of course, that constitute the antidemocratic trend and Red baiter - according to your own words. 

What would make you think that no one reads books but you? Or for that matter understand real world politics and how these politics are expressed in words? Let me guess - you believe yourself to have read one more book than "me" and how dare someone challenge me to "put up or shut-up." Believe it or not you have been "called" and raised. You are playing a losing hand. 


Melvin P