I do not want to violate the mission of the list by sidetracking the
discussion back into what some folks seem to disparage as ideology. The
fact is, however, whatever potential solutions there may be to this problem
we are examining--if they are to be efficacious--must conform to a complex
and changing set of realities. And while we might call the "crash" an
environmental phenomenon, its solution inevitably is about power, ergo, a
political one.
I've never minded being challenged about my adherence to historical
materialist dialectics as a philosophical point of departure (call it
Marxism if you like), if that's what's being challenged. Unfortunately, it
is straw marxism we reds most frequently encounter. Not by design, but by
virtue of the fact that many "critics" of scientific socialism are basing
their understanding of this body of thought on superficial exposure to it,
and-or to secondary sources that have consistently misrepresented it.
Rather than begin a whole new thread, however, I would encourage
non-marxists and even some self-professed ones to go back to the basic
formulations of that "ideology" and give them a bit more attention--in
particular the aspects of it that differentiate materialism from idealism
and metaphysics from dialectics.
That said, I want to clarify what I said about "despotic inroads," and to
defend my contempt for the term "totalitarian." I work quite a lot with a
political formation in Haiti. If anyone here wants to get a peek at our
future, drop by Haiti for a visit. And I'm sure most of you are familiar
with the catastrophe (almost completely concealed by the captialist press)
that is now Russia. There are within the realm of possibility solutions to
reverse these horror stories, but none of them exist within the carefully
circumscribed, legalistic, (yes, bourgeois) "democratic" arena. In both
places, one absolute prerequisite will be the merciless liquidation (by
whatever means necessary) of a powerful criminal element, as just the first
step, followed by massive expropriations and strict control for quite some
time of the economy. Any other direction is an infantile refusal to accept
the hard reality of today.
(snip)
"Definition?
Adjective: totalitarian
1. Characterized by a government in which the political authority exercises
absolute and centralized control
2. Of or relating to the principles of totalitarianism according to which
the state
regulates every realm of life
Synonyms: totalistic
Derived: totalitarianism
Similar: undemocratic
Point?
Avoiding things like Ukraine, Russian civil war and Catalogna, Spanish
civil war."
(end snip)
Totalitarian became fashionable during a period when the Soviet Union had
to be demonized, and the method of choice was to conflate it somehow with
Nazism. The first definition is flawed in that absolute control is
impossible, one, and (if one even accepts an approximation) in that this
could apply to 99 percent of the governments in history--while the term
istself has been reserved for Nazis and Communists. The second definition
is equally over-generalized, and in its application ignores key differences
in historical development between various states, and the actual fact that
its two subjects--the USSR and Nazi Germany--regulated aspects of public
life, but had to begin with the existing conditions over which they had no
possibility of absolute control. Moreover, motives and objectives still
matter, and these were distinctly different. Scientifically, totalitarian
is a useless term. It is a caricature and an epithet--a perfect example of
the kind of short-cut thinking that can not delve into determinate
mechanisms, examine their relations to one another, and develop real
solutions.
As for the Ukraine, I hope you are not basing your comment here on what
everyone else seems to, which is the totally discredited "scholarship" of
Robert Conquest, whose primary sources turned out to be pre-War Ukrainian
fascist propagandists. Avoiding??? the civil wars? I don't quite
understand. Thes wars were not created by some single unitary phenomenon.
They can not be "avoided" by some simple act of will. There is
philosophical idealism lurking in this ideation.
It also lurks in "pragmatism." Credible solutions require at a minimum
that we understand two things: What are the major trends and their
mechanisms that we want to change, and how--and who consititutes the social
forces that can be realistically mobilised to effect that change. To talk
about combining this sector with that sector--because of what each can
bring to a conceptualized solution--ignores the fact that many of these
sectors exist in irreconcilably antagonistic relations to one another.
Living in the American South, I can attest to the complexity and sometimes
intractability of these relations.
No one is advocating a return to Bolshevism, since that was a movement (one
that had more sucesses than failures, in my view) that was conditioned by
specific geographical and historical circumstances. I am saying that much
of what Lenin, Mao, and others articualted with regard to principles of
revolution (and it is important to differentiate what was tactical from
what was theoretical) is still relevant. It's far easier to understand
Haiti, for instance, when one sees Aristide as the Sun Yat-sen figure he
really is--in a semi-feudal nation (similar in key respects to
pre-revolutionary China).
Obviously, we are at a whole different set of historical conjunctures. But
to cavalierly dismiss past actions as failures is at least twice in error:
once, in adopting a bipolar, judgemental pose instead of a concrete,
analytical frame of mind, and twice, in failing to separate the wheat from
the chaff. How can we analyze Cuba, for example, without assessing what
were and are the real and possible choices that could have been exercised
by leadership at a specific time and place and context?
When we use terms like capitalism and socialism, it seems sometimes we are
not in prior agreement as to what these terms mean, and we are arguing past
one another. If we are talking about avoiding the coming crash, and we
have collectively concluded that currently existing structures have
something to do with the runaway train we seem to be on, then we need to
understand how those structures actually work. Marxists have a very good
understanding of capitalism--in fact that's one of Marx's great
contributions--as an evolved method of production that essentially employs
high levels of organization in individually owned enterprises within a
larger context in which rational coordination between those enterprises is
non-existent (except by profit-taking, which is an inherently short-sighted
activity). The he and the she of socialism--at least for we reds--is the
replacement of private ownership with public ownership, and the
implementation of some kind of rational coordination between those
enterprises for the common good. So when we say that there is no chance in
hell of stopping the crash in a capitalist epoch, we are specifically
referring to the lack of that coordination and the implicit control
required to correct it. The current system is mediated and enforced by a
specific ruling class through political structures. We are naive and
ultimately ineffective if we begin to convince ourselves that this class
will voluntarily give up anything. We will get exactly what we have the
power to take.
I did not become someone who wanted to see a deep social transformation
because I was a communist. I became a communist because I am someone who
sees the need for a deep social transformation, and I understand that this
implies a direct struggle for power.
The reality is that we may see this transformation grow out of a terrible
ruination, but--contrary to the popular misconception--we marxists do not
believe socialism is inevitable. We believe that there is a choice between
socialism and ruination. Present day understanding of the sort exhibited
on this list of the nature of our planet and our ecosystems only makes that
choice more urgent.
Will we work with others who do not share our world view? It's imperative!
Every Leninist knows the value of united fronts.
Best to all,
Stan
"If insurrection is an art, its main content is to know how to give the
struggle the form appropriate to the political situation."
-Vo Nguyen Giap
"Rather than seeking comparabilities in statistical terms among what are
all too often superficial features of different situations, comparabilities
must be sought at the level of determinate mechanisms, at the level of
processes that are generally hidden from easy view."
-Eleanor Burke Leacock
"Every day one has to struggle that this love to a living humanity
transform itself into concrete acts, in acts that serve as examples, as
motivation."
-Ernesto "Che" Guevara
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
