>The franchise is something that was fought for across various cultures and
'races'. Yes it has been unevenly achieved and black people and women came
to it later, but only a little later historically than white males. Here in
South Africa black people have only recently achieved it. But SA provides
one of the clearest cases of how this franchise is precisely NOT a stage on
the road to anything. Nor is it in the US or anywhere else for that matter.
For capital it is an essential good in itself and that's where it stays.
The idea that it is an essential 'stage' on the road to communism or
something is a Leninist dogma, not a proven fact (or even a particularly
strong theory in my opinion). It has never been proven in practice.
>
No one said anything about "stages." You're putting words in my mouth.
What "stages" might be appropriate in what places at what times depends on
a host of variables. The question is what mobilizes masses in a
progressive direction. Are you seriously arguing that the overthrow of
codified apartheid was not progress, even with all the difficulties not yet
overcome?
>Thank you - although you did not have the good grace to sign your message,
at least you identify yourself as standing on the far right of the
'communist' movement with this ritual denunciation.
>
Wow! You really got me there. I referred to my own personal experience
with other activists here. But thank goodness, I have been categorized at
last. I was having an identity crisis. Please...
>who
>for all their vocalizations against religionists themselves go for the
>easy, bipolar, moral "solutions" that are, after all, dissociated from real
>conditions. It's pure idealism, all goal and no strategy, utopian at its
>very core. The question remains, as we continually ask our friends in the
>DE community, HOW does this transformation take place, and WHO effects it?
>What are the stages of struggle that get us from HERE to THERE?
>
>You don't have a monopoly on this question. And I would think that the
political tendency that you obviously belong to has more answering to do
than most of us - what exactly is the THERE that you want to lead us to?
>
Well, we don't know, do we. And anyone who claims they know what socialism
will look like, provided we are wise enough to get THERE at all, is a fool
or a liar. Now you've put me in a category, then you tell me I have a lot
to answer for. This is all fallacy at its best.
Marx gives us a toolbox, not a blueprint.
>Effective revolutionary activity has never begun with the fight for the
>socialist transformation of society.
>
>More's the pity. But the Leninist deadend is becoming more and more
exposed for what it is.
>
Leninist-schmeninist! Instead of decrying how people's struggles haven't
moved in a direction you approve of, wouldn't it be more productive to
figure out why they moved in the directions they did? And to do that with
real research, not only emphasizing the "facts" that support our
theoretical preconceptions?
>It has begun as a struggle against
>specific conditions--misery and repression. Masses have never been
>mobilized by a theory. They are mobilized concretely around specific
>grievances. To get "there", we have to begin "here."
>
>Sorry, my mistake. This isn't even Leninism - this is just populist mumbo
jumbo.
Ad hominemism, the refuge. Can you give examples of revolutions that
didn't begin with misery and repression--not one, but both? Can you give
examples of mass mobilizations around a comprehensive theory? Pretend I'm
not here to be assaulted with terms like "mumbo-jumbo," and address the
merits or weaknesses of the argument.
>Don't forget how hypocritical the Declaration of the Rights of Man was.
>Nonetheless, it was the spark that eventually lit the flame for the Haitian
>Revolution and the abolition of slavery there, as well as independence.
>L'Overture's tenure as leader of that struggle was always motivated by the
>desire to be merely equal members of the French community. It had to
>advance under that banner for a time to progress to Dessaline's eventual
>demand for independence. Changing strategies and alliances demanded no
>less for effective struggle. Dessalines could never have forged the
>initial alliances--which were necessary--and L'Overture would never have
>had the will or inclination to massacre the French, which Dessalines
>did--no less necessary given the conditions.
>
>The struggle against slavery was a struggle for modern democratic
capitalist society and a struggle against pre-capitalist forms of coercion.
What is the analogy that you're making between that and the present
conjuncture, which is what I was talking about?
>
One should never go into a gunfight without ammunition. And one should
never engage in a debate with theory and no facts. The struggle against
slavery in Haiti was anything but a struggle for capitalism. You obviously
have no idea what you are talking about. Haiti adopted a feudal economic
form, which still holds sway over many sectors today--a fact directly
responsible for its backward development. The situation--as I pointed out
earlier--was and is far more complicated than someones pre-ordained social
teleology.
The point I was making is that a hypocritical document/idea, like the UDRM
or the franchise today, can become something its framers do not intend.
>In the US, IMHO, racism as institution and ideology, is so entrenched and
>intractible that it can never be solved.
>
> That's why I have given up on
>trying to convert white people and "fighting against racism," per se. The
>fight here, in my opinion, is not anti-racist--that's a tactical issue.
>It's for Black liberation--which is similar in many respects to national
>liberation, which is likely the only struggle in this country with
>genuinely revolutionary potential.
>
>Gosh this is real old style CP dogmatism at its finest.
Actually, it's a big departure from the CP line, as I explained in an
earlier post.
>Could you please supply just a little substantiation? Is all this more
'revolutionary' than the anti-capitalist riots that are erupting with
growing frequency in different parts of the world?
Why is this presented as if these are somehow mutually exclusive directions?
>Or does one not question the patron saint of 'national liberation' who
says that communists are 'infantile' but rightwing nationalists and
preachers are 'revolutionary'?
Putting words in my mouth again. Generalizing. Logical fallacies, all.
>The fact that Marxism somehow got tangled up in this counter-revolutionary
rubbish is one of the great tragedies of the century that we're leaving
behind.
>
My, I feel so chastised. I didn't realize I was such a
counter-revolutionary. Now that you've defined me, I feel much better.
Identity crisis resolved.
My failure to sign a post earlier was a mere oversight. I figured most
people knew who I was, or at least my name. Who I am is far more
complicated than we can cover here, if anyone even had such an inclination.
Stan Goff
Counter-revolutionary
"I am not a Marxist."
-Karl Marx
"Mask no difficulties."
-Amilcar Cabral
"Am I to be cursed forever with becoming
somebody else on the way to myself?
-Audre Lorde
_______________________________________________
Crashlist website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
