in his blog, Louis Proyect wrote:
[Mike Lebowitz's] insights are shaped by his general approach to the problem of how to create alternatives to capitalism as explored in his "Beyond Capital: Marx's Political Economy of the Working Class," ... Although I have not read this book, it supposedly explains, in the words of reviewer Jim Devine [yours truly], that "one-dimensional and automatic Marxisms were able to develop a textual basis because Marx never wrote his planned book on wage labor." Although I find this approach intriguing, my own analysis of the problem of how "one-dimensionality" in Marxism tends to focus on institutional inertia associated with the emergence of a bureaucracy in the USSR, as well as the left-sectarian dialectical opposites embodied in the Trotskyist and Maoist movements.<
FWIW, I think both theories make sense. My assertion about the textual basis of one-dimensional Marxisms was a matter of the history of ideas. Louis's statement about bureaucracy applies at the level of practice. The interpretation of Marx's writings depends crucially on this latter level, i.e., the historical context of the interpreters. The fact is that bureaucrats and their defenders are more likely to be attracted to one-dimensional Marxisms (which leave out Marx's bit about the working class being the only force that liberate the working class). Those bureaucrats or defenders who do bring in the principle of the collective self-liberation of the working class are unlikely to stay in their position of power for long. Sectarians of various stripes who think that they know better than workers do will also be attracted to one-dimensional Marxisms. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
