The whole point, repeated by Marx, is that the "despotism" is "caused" by the "superstition" and "prejudice". Given that to be "enlightened" is "to think for oneself", it can't be developed by despotic means.
^^^^^^^ CB: I know you say Marx "repeats" this , but it goes against some the most well known other principles that Marx repeats. "Despotism" , ie. political superstructure , would be caused by the economic infrastructure, not the structure of the individual personalities of the working masses. This would be a reductionist theory of politics that is significantly the anti-thesis of Marx's other well known pronouncements on this issue. Also, evidently , "enlightenment can be developed by despotic means. Witness the facts of the eradication of superstition and prejudice in the Soviet Union. ^^^^^^^^ Once individuals become "enlightened", "despotism" becomes impossible. ^^^^^^ CB: But are you saying there has never arisen a mass of enlightened individuals anywhere ? ^^^^^^ The idea that the "superstition" and "prejudice" of peasants was "responsible" for Stalinist "despotism", in the sense Marx claimed they were "responsible" for, the "cause" of, "the Bonaparte dynasty" in 19th century France, is consistent with the claim made by Kara- Murza in the passage from Soviet Civilization: From 1917 to the Great Victory translated by Chris Doss and posted to LBO. Even in the passage quoted by Doss, the claim was supported with historical evidence. ^^^^^^ CB: Yes, but the masses of the Soviet people became non-superstitious and non-prejudice under Stalinist despotism, in fact. I'm sure Chris Doss will tell you that. So, your version of Marx's theory is not supported by the facts there. ^^^^^ A very important feature of the "Stalinist repressions" consists in that the actions of the government were met with mass support, which it would have been impossible to either organize or imitate. ^^^^^ CB: That's seems an important admission in the context of this discussion. So, evidently, these masses themselves were not repressed. ^^^^^^ It would also have been impossible to carry out such repressions if the personnel of the enforcement agencies and the victims themselves had not accepted them as legitimate (although each victim likely considered his particular case to be a mistake). This is obvious not only because there were hardly no attempts made by people to protect themselves from repressions, even by those who had the means. In the repressions against the high military command death sentences were given to victims by their colleagues, who at the next stage would become victims themselves. ^^^^^ CB: But the overwhelming majority of the masses were not so repressed or sentenced. ^^^^^ When we talk about the repressions, we avoid looking at one obvious, but unpleasant, fact. The repressions of 1937-38 to a great extent were created not by state totalitarianism, but by a profound _democracy_. But not a democracy of civil society of rational individuals, but the archaic one of the peasant commune. ^^^^ CB: So, the SU was a sort of democratic despotism. I can go with that. kind of a dictatorship of the peasants and proletariat. It is this characteristic of the SU that allowed it to eradicate superstition and prejudice. ^^^^^^ This is an enormous dark force, ^^^^^ CB: It was both a dark and enlightened force at the same time. There was enormous advance and good that came out the SU as well as repression and bad. It was contradictory, but not all bad or backward by a long shot. ^^^^^^ and when it is allowed to carry out its will, innocent heads roll. For it is easy for the peasant commune to believe in plots and the secret power of aliens, of "enemies of the people." ^^^^^ CB: Given the actual historical context of the Civil War with the White ( i.e. light) forces, imperialist forces, ensuing imperialist blockade, and eventually the Nazi invasion, these peasants were a lot more materialist in there beliefs than you give them credit for. ^^^^^^ When such hatred, possessing the power of an epidemic, rules the peasant commune, every witch will burn. And the Russian peasant commune is not crueler in this, than, for example, that of Western Europe -- it simply occured there earlier than it did among us. ^^^^^^ CB: Given the superstitious fear of Communist in the West during the Cold War, this occurred _later_ than it did among the Russian peasants. Not to mention the irrational prejudice and hatred of Jim Crow racism, anti-Asian racism and hatred in the Korean, Viet Nam wars in the US right on into the 1960's. Then what of the superstition and prejudice of Reaganism and evangelicals, etc. ^^^^^^ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2006/2006-October/020858.html That much "individuality" in the US is still characterized by significant "superstition" and "prejudice" indicates that Marx was mistaken about the ability of the capitalist labour process to develop the degree of "integral development of every individual producer", i.e. of "enlightenment", that would "emancipate" individuals from "superstition" and "prejudice". Without such development, "socialism" in his sense remains impracticable. ^^^^^^ CB; However, there was significant if only partial development of socialism, as well as eradication of superstition and prejudice among the masses of the people in the Soviet Union/Russia, where Marx also predicted that the peasant communes could be basis for the same. So, it hasn't been impracticable in fact and actual history. Marx's thinking on these issues is as widely purveyed around the world as it is,because the Soviet Union existed ^^^^^^^ Ted _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
