From: Carrol Cox
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.) ^^^^^^^ CB: My position on Luxemburg's idea is that it was fulfilled already by Nazism coming to power in Germany i.e. that was barbarism ; and it was instead of socialism. However, now the aphorism recovers some validity with the existence of so many nuclear weapons. ^^^^^^^ 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. ^^^^^ CB: I've been saying the same thing as Albritton for a while. In fact, I think it is Marx and Engels' position too. Historical materialism is a theory of the history of class exploitative and oppressive society. If and when classes are abolished, the motion of society will then take on a different "motor" , be based in different contradictions; the struggles will be different. Marx and Engels discuss this in terms of leaving the kingdom of necessity for the kingdom of freedom, freedom being the mastery of necessity and all that. By the way, historical materialism was not applicable to pre-class society either, most of the time of human existence. Marx and Engels were not clear on this at first, as in _The German Ideology_. With ethnographic study, they started to become aware of it. Engels added a footnote to the first sentence of the _Manifesto_ - the _written_ history of hitherto existing society. Writing is invented at about the same time as private property. ^^^^^ 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. ^^^^^ CB: Yes, I think this is pretty much true, although I think this thread has been more specifically about Marxists having blueprints or plans for socialism. As to "World View Marxism" , I think materialist dialectics is a revolution in philosophy or "ending philosophy", so Marxism is also a Critique of Philosophy. It is one of the first robust philosophical underpinnings for the modern natural sciences, i.e. it is materialism. It also has importance for law. Notice Political Economy concerns both economics and politics. Marxism says important things about the state. In _The Origin_ , Engels demonstrates some of its significance for what is now anthropology.Historical materialism is a theory of history. Notice the above is not "everything". So, no Marxism is not the truth of everything. However, it is important for more than political economy. It has importance for parts or aspects of what is called now the "social sciences" or "human sciences". That is, it provides minor/partial critiques or modifications of areas other than political economy, such as linguistics or literature. Marx and Engels explicitly said that Darwin's was their method in natural history, not meaning that Darwin was a Marxist. So, Marxism recognizes the validity of methods not discovered by Marx and Engels in other disciplines, particularly natural history or the natural sciences. In the Soviet academic system, the main division was between history and natural history. > 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. ^^^^^^^ CB: Just as most were not aware that so many White voters would vote for a Black person for President last year , a major step in abating White supremacy. ^^^^^ 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. ^^^^^ CB: Agree ^^^^ 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 should be. ^^^^^ Carrol CB: Yeah, probably nobody should take the time to write a detailed description of the same until we are well into the process. However, a plan proposed as a hypothesis with an attitude that it will be modified by practice is very important. As Marx said, it is distinctly human to plan what we build, but besides that it would be a bad idea to fly by the seat of our pants on such an important project. Spontaneity is, of course, overrated by bourgeois idealists of certain philosophical tendencies. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
