c b wrote:
> 
> CB: Leaving this task entirely to our descendents makes Marxism for us
> objectively the same as Christian doctrines which promise
> pie-in-the-sky-in-the-bye-and-bye.   Marxists struggle for Onward to
> Socialism in their lifetime until the day they die.
>

At the heart of Marx's work is a critique of political economy, which
(following Postone) I have elsewhere argued is NOT the same as a
Critical Political Economy. It is that critique that makes available to
us a perspective on capitalism which makes the overcoming of capitalism
a _necessity_ (a necessity_ independetntly of either the possiblity of
success in that struggle _or_ the desirability of any alternative to
capitalism. We must destroy capitalism as a drowning woman must reach
the surface of the water. (Luxemburg: Socialism or Barbarism," not a
mere moral exhortation but a grim perception of the possibilites open to
humanity.)

I do not ascribe the same centrality to other features of Marx's work,
though I quite frequently agree wtih his arguments. Robert Albritton
argues, incidentally, that once capitalism is overcome historical
materialism will no longer retain its present importance. Whether that
is  true or not, it seems to me a reasonable position. Human thought did
not cease with Marx.

The point about scripture is that it is a merit to believe it. I have
often argued with you  in the pasdt that it is NOT a primary concern of
Marxists to persuade others of the truth of Marxism. The Movement we are
in is not a Marxist movement, it is a socialist movement, and even the
leadership of a successful revolution will not consist wholly of
Marxists. If one recognizes the validity of his Critiqu4e of Political
Economy, that does give you, as Marx & Engels argued, a powerful point
of departure for perceiving the interest of the whole in the struggles
of the few. (My paraphrase.) That _can_ give to Marxists an advantage in
the overall discussion of strategy and tactics in various struggles, but
many in the past, in the present, and no doubt in the future who are not
Marxists will certainly achieve the same advantage from other starting
points. Marxists who assume what might be called "World View Marxism,"
that Marxism is the truth of everything, tend to disable themselves as
particpants in the struggle. But that is another question.

> Contingency and uncertainty mean that we may be closer to the
> revolution than it seems, and that it is not possible to pronounce
> socialism as "in the future not in the present." The Russian
> Revolution was a surprise to most of the world.

What this would mean in practice is that we are closer to the rising of
a mass movement, made up both of revolutionaries and
non-revolutionaries, marxists and non-marxists, socialists and
non-socialists, than we are aware of. That is possible. That's why I'm
still working in the local anti-war group, why I contine to join in
discussions on pen-l and lbo. This discussion, for all I know, might be
contributing to the rise of such a movement. And if such a movementdoes
arise, it will be plagued with those who will accept only a perfect
movment, one that guarantees its results. They will notice flaws in the
immediate goals of some local or even natioanal compponent of the
movement, and will attack the activity in the name of some allegtedly
more correct version of what that movement will do if it comes into
power. You can see analogues of this happening all the time. Most
recently those who attacked the only possible slogan of the anti-war
movemetn, Bring the Troops Home Now, in the name of a more nuanced
program which could be entered into Congressional  Legislation. But such
a nuanced demand belongs in the seminar room, not in the process of
getting people together, since any movement worth a damn will includ
people with sharply different ideas and perspectives on the future. A
complex program is by its nature sectarian and limits the growth of any
movmement.

And of course no two people will _ever_ (in the abstract and
independently of mutual involvement in immediate struggle) agree on any
detailed description of what socialism shoujld be.

Carrol

_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to