Hi there Mark and David,
First, thanks to both of you for taking the time to comment.
-- 1 --
Mark wrote:
> The paper is well-written and easy to read
Thanks. I ask a lot of my readers--so the least I can do--is to write in a way
that is clear and easy to understand.
> It could serve as a general primer
> on Marxism and Leninism
The essay started as a response to Hari--when he posted an article with an
intro which described the need for serious discussion about the eventual
creation of a "Leninist Party".
I have long noted that many (if not most) of us have a history of building
bubbles of various kinds rather than confronting the difficult challenges of
our time. What is a "bubble"? It is an ideology (kind of a mini-religion)
which offers us comfort. We can call these bubbles "marxism" or "leninism" or
whatever--but that does not change their nature.
I have given quite a bit of thought to the needs of our time and concluded that
there are specific things we can do (beyond what is being done now) to move
things forward. In particular, we cannot continue to (essentially) ignore the
potential of the (still emerging) revolution in digital communications. We
need to look at this in a sober way.
But many do not want to think about my proposals. New thoughts can be
uncomfortable. Many prefer the comfort of their bubbles. And (of course)
everyone has the right to remain in their bubbles, if that is what they want,
and I respect this right.
However--when I read most "ism" or "ist" words--what I actually see--is
bullshit from well-meaning people who don't know any better. So, I viewed
Hari's post as calling for serious discussion about building a "bullshitist
party".
So I challenged Hari to rewrite his post in plain english rather than relying
on bubblespeak which has no actual meaning. And I contrasted my proposal (for
simple steps towards a public information platform) to his empty words.
In response, Hari suggested that he might reply if I laid out my proposal in a
lengthier and more formal way. Hari had actually put quite a bit of work into
the article that was included in his post--and I respected this. For this
reason, I accepted his challenge.
The result is "Spartabase", which is a proposal for modest steps in the present
towards an eventual public database that will make it possible for activists
and workers to learn from one another and better coordinate their activity--and
eventually create class-wide organization based on class politics.
The main theme of my essay involves looking at the forces which have driven the
evolution of working class organization, on a large and small scale. My
conclusion is that independent and militant mass organization, in this century,
will be inseparable from digital communications in the public domain.
For those who are satisfied with existing types of organization--this is not an
issue, of course. But those who recognize the total inadequacy of what we have
now--the domination of the resistance to the ruling class offensive by the
Democratic Party (which brought us Trump--and collaborates with him in
countless ways large and small) -- and the domination of the radical left by
cargo cults -- understand that we need independent mass organization based on
class politics. My essay is for those people.
My essay begins with the French Revolution--because it is impossible to
understand where we are without knowing how we got here. And it is essential
to understand the distinction between a bourgeois and proletarian revolution
because most activists do not understand this distinction. Being engaged in
revolutionary politics without understanding this distinction--is like going
mountaineering--without understanding the distinction between "up" and
"sideways".
I also needed to give a quick summary of the theoretical and organizational
work of Marx and Lenin--as well as the context of their times.
However--this does not mean that my essay should be viewed as primer on
"Marxism and Leninism" because (as noted) this would end up being a primer on
"bullshitism". Marx was not a marxist. Lenin was not a Leninist. And the
people who talk the loudest about the ism/ist religions generally have the
least to contribute.
Mark continues (his references to "you" refer to me):
> In describing the Russian Revolution,
> you write that the "... working class
> never actually ruled the country
> (except in name). Instead, a new kind
> of state capitalist regime emerged
> (run by a new ruling class)." You don't
> define state capitalism or defend this
> characterization of the RSFSR or USSR;
> you don't even offer a reference to
> more developed analysis.
Mark's observation is correct. I do not define state capitalism, defend my
characterization, or offer a reference to more info on this topic.
Mark implies (but does not actually say) that I should have done these things.
Why should I have done these things? Mark cannot be bothered to spell this
out--which means that his implication hangs in the air like a fart.
But there are a lot of things my essay does not do. For example, my essay does
not discuss the theory that our entire world is resting on the back of a giant
tortoise.
As noted, I ask a lot of my readers. In my essay, I ask my readers to step
into a time machine with me and travel back 250 years--and then travel forward
50 years into the future. If my readers are willing to do all this--it is
because they know I will not waste their time with nonsense.
The giant tortoise theory (and--Stephen Hawking tells those of us who were
wondering on what the tortoise stands--it is "tortoises all the way down") is
more useful than cult theories of "actually existing bullshitism" or
"degenerated workers' states".
However, my essay does not confine itself entirely to the analysis that Russia
became state capitalist. My essay includes a mention (without naming him) of
the views of Razlatzki--a Russian theorist who held that the economic and
political system in the Soviet Union was actually a form of feudalism. The
feudal features of these kinds of states were especially pronounced and visible
during the great famine in China in 1959-61.
Mark's comment about the lack of a "reference to a more developed analysis" is
ironic--inasmuch as he has not noticed that my entire essay is about the need
to create an information platform that would make it easy to index and find the
debate and discussion we need--as well as organize the new debate that is
obviously required. The "more developed analysis" of state capitalism that
Mark expects me to provide or link to--has likely been presented multiple times
here on MarxMail--but has never been indexed in a way that it can be easily
found.
-- 2 --
Mark is not comfortable with my asserting the Bolshevik government
industrialized and modernized Russia ten times faster than the Provisional
government could or would have done. How (for example) do I know it was 10X
and not 9X?
David also shares Mark's discomfort.
But I am simply using a well-established convention. 10X means "a lot more".
I hardly invented this practice. It goes back to the days before written
language existed in Ionia. In the Illiad and Odessey we learn that the war of
the Achaeans against Illium lasted ten years, and when Odysseus sailed for home
he did so with ten ships. In neither case, according to people who study these
stories--did ten mean exactly ten.
And my readers understand my meaning from the way I write--because (frankly) it
is not that hard to figure out.
David also adds:
> it is simply a ridiculous comparison.
> There was simply no[t] one "Provisional Gov't"
> but several over it's less than a year in existence
> ... and, it lasted only 9 months or during
> the height of the world war.
So--first--I need to ask both Mark and David--if they dispute the fact that the
Bolshevik government did far more (and far more quickly) to modernize and
industrialize Russia than the provisional government could or would have done.
Because if they don't dispute this--then they are actually in agreement with
me--and their problem is only that I am using a narrative method that has been
popular since the Bronze age. Their problem is not with me--but with Homer and
the wine-dark sea.
Second--David's comments, by the way, appear to ask which provisional
government I am referring to. If David had actually read what I wrote (instead
of relying on Mark's description of what caught his eye) he would know that I
am referring to the government which the Bolshviks overthrew. David also
appears to be making excuses for the provisional government. How could this
provisional government be expected to industrialize Russia--when they were busy
prosecuting an unpopular imperialist war for the benefit of French and British
bankers? Maybe you can industrialize more quickly when industrialization is
your priority--rather than your imperialist alliances?
-- 3 --
Finally--we get to the section in my Appendix ("Productive forces want to be
free"). Mark is quite puzzled by what I write and claims that my essay gives
productive forces "independent agency".
My essay, however, does not do this. Rather, my essay explores the mystery of
why productive forces *appear* to have agency when they do not.
Part of the answer to this mystery is simply how language is used. We might
say that fentanyl kills or guns kill. But right-wingers may protest that "guns
don't kill people, people kill people". It remains true, however, that
fentanyl and guns kill. It doesn't means they have agency. Rather this is how
language works to effectively communicate ideas: everyone needs to know not to
fuck around with fentanyl or play with guns.
The other part of the answer is that some people are unable to see or recognize
the agency of humans--and therefore are confronted with things that are hard to
explain.
"Information wants to be free" is a popular slogan because it reflects
something real about the world. Information always eventually slips of the
control of those who attempt to confine it. As my dad used to tell me: "the
truth will out". The reason is that humans want and need information to be
free. This collective human need represents a powerful force, invisible to
some--but real all the same. This powerful force impacts everything
else--which is why eventually insiders will leak information--either to enhance
their personal status or just to do the right thing.
-- 4 --
Mark continues:
> We need to change social relations in order to
> eliminate many capitalist productive forces
> rather than to unleash them.
Productive forces are things like factories and electricity. We need to use
things like factories and electricity to serve humanity rather than enslave
humanity. This means that the working class needs to rule society rather than
capital.
Incidently, "changing social relations" is a nebulous term. It could mean all
sorts of things. For example, it could mean being kinder to one another.
Maybe we can solve our problems if we are all just kinder to one another? More
to the point, watered-down phrases such as this are acceptable to gatekeepers
in academia and elsewhere, who must be careful not to ruffle feathers.
The problem is that when we water down class politics in order to find
acceptability--we lose more than we gain. Political pressure (whether to
please the respectible guardians of our ruling class, or the caudillo who might
run a cult) acts as the enemy of clear language. If we don't stand up to this
pressure--we get run over, and what we write will be pablum that offends no one
because it says nothing.
Orwell wrote, in "Politics and the English Language":
> A man may take to drink because he feels himself
> to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely
> because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is
> happening to the English language. It becomes ugly
> and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish,
> but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier
> to have foolish thoughts.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Language
When you use phrases such as "capitalist productive forces" this may confuse
some readers, or you may be confusing yourself. I suppose we could talk of
"capitalist electricity". But wouldn't it be simpler and easier to just say
"electricity"? I have often observed that some people habitually twist words
around--until all that is left is a confusing salad of ideas. We save
ourselves a lot of time when we are determined to write with clarity.
-- 5 --
I have two points for David:
(1) First a question: As someone associated with the Marxist Internet
Archive--would my essay be qualified to be included in your archive?
Currently, it only exists as a PDF. Are there requirements (html markup, etc)
that I would need to observe? Would the graphics represent a problem?
Currently, the whole essay (including graphics) is in a single file of about 5
MB.
(2) Second a comment: I would like to encourage you to take a look at my essay.
I worked hard to cover what needed to be covered--without any kind of
bullshit, jargon or wasted words. His objections aside, Mark appears to have
largely liked it, and so did Stephen, a MarxMail subscriber. It is possible
that Hari might eventually reply. When I wrote it--I was wondering what the
responses would be of three people on MarxMail who I noted made posts that
appeared to be consistently intelligent. You were one of those people.
However, you do not appear to have looked at it. I do hope that you might find
the time to take a look.
It is posted here: http://communism.org/node/4056/4056.pdf
Respectfully,
Ben Seattle
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#41070): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/41070
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/118269485/21656
-=-=-
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
#4 Do not exceed five posts a day.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
