>Justin writes: > > Whatever. It's gone now. So long as we recognize that as a movement, >it's >[the Marxist movement is, in analogy with Zoroastrianism] over with, we can >blame the demise of Marxism on lots of things, curse fate for being unfair, >mourn our youth, and yearn for the days when we sang Pete Seeger songs >around the campfire, anything you like, just so long as we recognize that >the truth content of historical materialism doesn't mean that Marxism in >anything like the traditional sense is a viable identification. < > >this sort of reminds me of Monty Python: I paid for an argument but what I >got was world-weariness, ennui.
The argument is historical, and is available to anyone who has eyes in his head. In the era of 2nd International, Marxism was a powerful force among Western European workers. It bounced back, some, after WWII. Today in Western Europe, the PCI is gone, the PFC is a decaying rump, the KPD is many generations dead (and the PDS is a left- S-D formation largely confined to the East). Marxism never caught on in America or Canada, but it was a minor force to be reckoned with up through the start of the First Cold War. The 57 varieties of Trotskyism and Maoism never went anywhere. In the ex-Bloc countries, the Russian Revolution is in ruins, the ex-CPs are at best centrist (and the CPRF is an ugly red-brown Stalinofascist deformity); in the third world, Marxism in is in full rereat. China is "officially" Marxist but in fact pragmatically procapitalist and ruled by an authoritarian elite committed only to power. Vietnam is following China. N. Korea is a wierd backwater. Only Cuba retains a trace of traditional Marxist elan. Marxist-identified revolutionary movements are no longer vaguards by collections of narcothugs like the remnants of the Shining Path and FARC. There are no mass self-identified Marxist working class movements anywhere, Nor do any show any signs of emerging. > > > You can be a KathederMarxist like Jim, that [is] just a brand label like >"Keynesian," "neoclassical," etc. [is this meant to be an insult?] But >don't >expect millions of workers to unite around the red flag qgain. that doesn't >mean they won't unite around some flag in a progressive cause, but not the >old Marxist tradition.< > >I don't think you can predict future history that way. You are making >predictions exactly the way what Colletti called the "Marxism of the 2nd >[and 3rd] international" did, i.e., statements of historical inevitability. Au contraire. I have expressly disavowed that here and elsewhere. I don't believe in historical inevitability. I have plainly said that it is possible, just extremely unlikely, that the situation may reverse. >It's _inevitable_ that workers won't "unite around the red flag again." > By that I did not mean that workers will not organize and resist; they will, they do. But they will not do it as Marxists or under the leadership of parties that identify as Marxist, >Given the way that the world is imitating Marx's predictions (as it has >since 1980 or so), it's possible that the workers will unite "around some >flag in progressive cause" that is Marxian _in content_ even if it rejects >the Marxian name. That's exactly what I said was our best hope. Historical materialism is, as I have repeatedly said, mostly true. What is important is the content, the practice, not the >name (or "brand," as if everything were for sale). We don't disagree then. In that case, the Marxist identification is not important, and we should give it up as an obstacle. But of course, that's >just a _possibility_. I lack the deterministic vision that Justin seems to >embrace. You misunderstand me, and I do not think it is because I have been unclear. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
