On 12/1/06, Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> Stan quoted Joaquin:
>
> <blockquote>My friend goes on to say:
>
> "Building a socialist movement for the 21st Century means starting
> from the premise, and very palpable reality, that the socialist
> movement of the second half of 20th Century, viewed as a whole,
> largely DID NOT WORK. And it especially did not work in the places
> where Marxist theory says it was SUPPOSED to work, in the advanced
> capitalist countries with a fully-developed working class that is the
> big majority of the population."</blockquote>
>
> It is about time to think about why Marxism "did not work in the
> places where Marxist theory says it was SUPPOSED to work."
Marx himself seems to have held this _opinion_ about the probabilities
of revolution. I do not think, however, that one can derive from
fundamental marxist theory that it "was SUPPOSED to work" in this way.
I agree with you. But, I'd say that the idea of the probability of
revolution was held at the level of an enduring world view, not that
of a passing opinion, the probability transformed into inevitability
when Marx wrote in his most stirring manifesto mode: most famously,
"All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and
man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions
of life, and his relations with his kind." That just ain't true,
though I love the beauty of the expression
think that one can derive from marxist theory the _necessity_ of
revolution but NOT the possibility or desirability of revolution. Both
of the latter depend on innumerable contingencies, and whether
revolution was possible or desirable can only be determined after the
fact, looking backwards.
But uncertainty about the possibility or desirability of revolution are
not grounds to cease revolutonary work, since no other activity can make
sense of capitalist reality.
We need a world view that allows us to have faith in the work we do in
the face of adversity, knowing full well that it may amount to
nothing. Samuel Beckett's is one attempt, but it is not exactly
stirring, is it, and it is -- understandably -- often mistaken for an
expression of despair.
The more I think about it, the more I mourn the untimely loss of
Stephen Jay Gould. The man had the right idea about a philosophy of
history that is not an ideology of progress, and he put it in a way
that lifted the spirits of everyone who read what he said.
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
