On 9/17/2011 10:17 AM, Jim Devine wrote: Mike Ballard wrote: To imply that there was no post-wage labour vision embedded in the writings of Marx and Engels is probably one of the main stumbling blocks to revolutionary praxis today and for the continuance of radical liberalism posing as socialism. Writing receipts for the Sardis of the future is another matter entirely.<
Marx saw capitalism's abolition as an inherent tendency, not only because of its crises and the like but because of its creation of the proletariat. But, as noted, he didn't tell the workers what they should replace capitalism with (the "receipts"). That's because he believed in the collective self-liberation of the working class. It's up to the workers to collectively decide what they want. Even though Marx and Engels rejected utopian socialism, according to Draper they saw reading and discussing utopian literature as part of the collective self-education of the working class. I agree with this. Let's divide the topic. On the one hand there is the problem of the final goal of revolutionary thought and action. As Rosa Luxemburg noted, that cannot be some vague concept of socialism (and only vague concepts of it are possible), but a final goal is needed to make sense, to make intelligible the ongoing struggles -- which in themselves are never revolutionary. (I would also agree with Tom that the most important of those struggles probably is for a shorter working day.) Luxemburg argued that the final goal was state power, a concept which unlike some pseudo-precise socialism does not require empirical prophecy. But she presupposed a single hegemonic Party, and thought (wrongly) that she had one. Now one of the "lessons' of the '60s is or ought tobe that such a Party is in fact a utopian fantasy. But there is an equivalent to Luxemburg's "state power" - or another way of _expressing_ the concept of state power that does not have ahegemonic party as its precondition: A Call for a Constituent Assembly. Moreover, it is quite possible to have "practice" Constituent Assemblies. That is, at a high point of struggle any of the parties or organizations involved can simply call for one, it can be held, and it can send the delegates back home with renewed energy for the struggle ahead. (The Panthers called for one in 1970 andit was held; but at that time we were on the verge of the ebbing of the struggle, so it formed a sort of Memorial of what might have been.) On the othr hand, though it is worng for Parties or other political groupings to put forth a blue print for socialism, simply as a matter of observed fact, within such movements endless discussions of utopia will of course occur. That is neither undesirable nor for tha matter forbiddable. But as Marx, Jim, & I argue, it is really undemocratic, even authoritarian in tendency to try to write a revolutionary program with instructins on what socialism is. Socialism is and must remain a pig in the poke. (Luxemburg also recognized, of course, that History knew no favorites, that "Progress" was not inscribed in the structure of human history, and that Barbarism might very well be our future. (Mao noted that Marxists have no crystal ball.) Sure, talk about socialism endlessly, but do not try to make specifics of it part of a formal revolutionary program. And Mike of course is seriously wrong when he thinks revolution comes merely from propagandizing its necessity. Revolution emerges, always unexpectedly, out of other struggles. Carrol This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
