From m-14970@mailbox.swipnet.se  Sat Apr  5 14:11:36 1997
From: m-14970@mailbox.swipnet.se (Hugh Rodwell)
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 16:11:36 +0200
Subject: M-TH: New York perspectives & the Buffalo Boys
Message-ID: <l03020903af683dcd2113@[130.244.122.73]>

Louis >< P writes in his usual vein:

>In this post I am initiating a discussion that I expect to last for a
>month or longer in which I hope to clarify the dimensions of a new
>moderated Marxism list to be hosted at Spoons. I have made no secret over
>the past couple of years about my political identification with Monthly
>Review magazine. It would therefore be appropriate to start with the
>"Notes from the Editor" from the June 1996 issue. It captures the spirit
>of what I believe needs to be incorporated in a new list:

Ho Hum ...

What was it Peter "I don't want no peace -- I need equal rights, and
justice" Tosh sang? "You're running and you're running and you're running
away -- but you can't run away from yourself!". The grass is always greener
somewhere else, and especially it seems, for Louis P -- perhaps he should
ask himself if it's not his own political emissions that transform
everything green in his vicinity into washed-out winter-grey straw.

So let's have a look at the Monthly Review stuff. (I wonder by the way if
they would care to publicly identify themselves politically with Louis the
way he identifies himself with them?)


>"When we first became aware of and interested in the socialist movement
>more than half a century ago,...

ie during or just after WWII -- a strange historical starting point for
reflections on socialist history, given the pivotal events of the fifty
years preceding this for the currents about to be mentioned. WWI, October,
revolution and counterrevolution in China, Germany and Spain, fascism in
Italy, Germany and Spain, WWII ...


>...it consisted of two major branches and a
>variety of smaller groups and individuals on the margins. The two main
>components, generally called Social Democratic and Communist after the
>respective largest parties (the German Social Democratic Party and the
>Communist Party of the Soviet Union) had similar historical origins and
>shared a belief in the necessity of replacing capitalist society by what
>they called socialism, a society based on the common ownership of the
>means of production and production for use rather than profit.

Now "similar historical origins" is really quite a claim given the actual
historical origins of the Second and the Third Internationals. The Paris
Commune/Marx/Engels lay behind the Second International after the
destruction of the First International by the Anarchists, and the October
Revolution/Lenin/Trotsky lay behind the Third International after the
destruction of the Second International by the chauvinist Social-Democrat
leaders treacherously backing the imperialist war policies of their own
bourgeoisies instead of the internationalist class interests of the
proletariat.


>This belief is what bound them together in one movement.

It beggars belief that Social-Democracy "believed" in the "necessity of
replacing capitalist society by ...  a society based on the common
ownership of the means of production and production for use rather than
profit". The "belief" of Stalinists in this necessity must also be heavily
qualified by their actual actions and policies *against* it.

If Social-Democracy and Stalinism are to be seen as part of one movement,
it has to be as part of the Labour Movement in its most inclusive
definition, with room even for openly bourgeois parties and movements such
as Peronism in Argentina. This, however, is not what MR says.

>What divided them
>at that time was equally clear. The Social Democrats thought that the way
>to achieve socialism was through using the electoral and parliamentary
>institutions of bourgeois democracy. Countries lacking these movements
>would have first to acquire them, as indeed had been happening through
>popular struggles in the advanced capitalist countries since the late
>nineteenth century. The Communists, broadly defined, agreed that this
>would be the desirable way to go but were convinced that capitalist ruling
>classes would abandon democratic institutions rather than allow them to be
>used to bring about systemic changes. It followed that the attainment of
>socialism would inevitably involve a violent confrontation whether
>initiated by the right or the left. Hence the division of the movement
>into its two major branches--reformist or gradualism on the one hand and
>revolutionary on the other.

This is incoherent. "At that time" must be referring to just after WWII. MR
doesn't mention national liberation or decolonization or the positions of
Social-Democracy or Stalinism (for example the French CP in relation to
Algeria) on this. The record of Social-Democracy in power after WWII gives
the lie to their will to attain socialism by means of bourgeois democracy
-- they had the power (in Britain, overwhelmingly so) and gave the working
class the sop of welfare state institutions and some important
nationalizations (with huge compensation for former owners and
pro-capitalist management), but no socialism. As for the "Communist" will
to revolution, this is given the lie by the counter-revolutionary deals of
Yalta and Potsdam, the disarmament of radical French and Italian workers,
the crushing of armed socialist rebellion in Greece and Moscow's complete
lack of support for the Maoist Red Army in China.


>So much for the situation as it existed after the Second World War. Since
>then, and largely as the result of the war and its aftermath, the
>situation has radically changed. While there are masses of people all over
>the world who are deeply alienated from the status quo--almost everywhere
>capitalism in one or another state of development--the socialist movements
>that once sought to replace capitalism have largely ceased to exist.

The "radical change" is predicated on the existence after WWII of
"socialist movements that ... sought to replace capitalism". This is not
the case. The reasons behind the indisputable fact of the decline in the
authority of both Social-Democrat and Stalinist leaderships must be sought
elsewhere. There has been no radical change since WWII in the treachery of
either Social-Democracy or Stalinism in relation to the goal of replacing
capitalism.


>Faced with the reality of unchallenged global capitalist power, the Social
>Democrats have little by little abandoned their erstwhile long-range goal
>of socialism and adjusted their policies to the requirements of
>capitalism. In the process as well they have jettisoned their socialist
>beliefs and assumed the role of competitor for the privilege (and
>emoluments) of managing capitalist society. So far capitalists have shown
>few signs of welcoming their would-be helpers, but that may change as the
>overall crisis of capitalism deepens.

This is strange. "Unchallenged global capitalist power" is nothing new. In
fact to read Doug H and Louis P etc in other contexts you'd think that this
was and always has been the case. But even if you help the MR analysis
along by spelling out the conditions for *challenged* global capitalist
power (surface level: the workers' states in Russia and Eastern Europe, and
in China; deep level: the international working class during a
revolutionary upsurge), their argument comes unstuck. There is no way that
Social-Democracy has abandoned its long-range socialist goals "little by
little" *after* WWII -- the British Labour Party did this quite totally and
unequivocally in relation to the General Strike of 1926 (how "challenged"
does the MR consider "global capitalist power" to have been then? In
reality? By the exhausted NEP-torn Stalinizing Soviet Union? Or by
revolutionary working class upsurge around the world?). MR's
characterization of Social-Democracy as would-be co-managers of capitalism
applies with full force as of 1914.


>The postwar evolution of the Communist branch of the old socialist
>movement is much more complicated, and no attempt to generalize about it
>will be made here.

This is just a cop-out, as an editorial statement of position is just the
place for a summary generalization indicating major lines of development.
Any potential difficulties would be cleared up in detailed arguments in
supporting texts.


>Suffice it to say that while some of its adherents,
>especially in the advanced capitalist countries, have gone along with the
>Social Democrats in giving up their socialist goal, many more have not.
>Today, all over the world, there are large numbers of individuals, on
>their own or affiliated with small groups or parties, whose commitment to
>socialism remains unshaken and in many cases has been strengthened by the
>events of the past few years. Given the checkered history of the postwar
>period, however, it would be misleading to continue using the Communist
>label in this connection, even though there are many who continue to
>identify themselves as such.

No mention of leadership. The class struggle (for this is what the MR gives
back-handed acknowledgment to here) is reduced to a matter for individuals
or affiliates to small groups or parties. Interestingly enough, this is an
echo of the first paragraph, with its "variety of smaller groups and
individuals on the margins". If these individuals and groups are
interesting *now*, why were they not interesting *then*? Obviously because
the political roots of the MR analysis are *within Stalinism*, and the
currents contemptuously dismissed in the first paragraph constitute the
revolutionary Left Opposition to Stalinism that in fact analysed Stalinism
in power and foretold its demise as a mass leadership of the working class.
The newly "interesting" groups are nothing but the marginalized remnants of
the Stalinist movement.


>What then is the most appropriate term for describing the present-day
>inheritors of and the continuators of the old Communist branch of the
>socialist movement?

Is this the most important question? "Appropriate terms?" For MR, yes.

>The answer, it seems to us, is "revolutionary
>socialist" or just plain "revolutionary" with socialist clearly implied.
>But this doesn't man that in our part of the world those who describe
>ourselves this way believe that in this stage of history our efforts
>should be concentrated on organizing a revolution (which doesn't imply a
>denial that it may be the main task in other parts of the world).

This is monstrously vague. What does "organizing a revolution" involve? No
answer is given or even implied. What is the point of being a
"revolutionary" whose main task is *not* to organize revolution? The only
answer must be the "Feel-Good Factor". And look at the classic cop-out
formulation in:

	(which doesn't imply a
	denial that it may be the main task in other parts of the world)

Well, of course, we're so modest that we wouldn't presume to speak for
anyone anywhere else, now would we? Or see what social tensions there are
there or what political problems they're facing!!! If organizing a
revolution "may be" (just *may be*, of course, nothing like hedging your
bets where historical action is concerned -- I mean, we'd rather do nothing
than be wrong, wouldn't we?) the *main task* in other parts (plural!!!) of
the world, then surely we would be concentrating all our efforts to
promoting this or these developments? How spineless can you get? If
revolution is on the agenda anywhere in the world, it is imperative to
spread the word and get stuck in to make the outcome right. But MR sits in
New York and shakes its hoary old head in weary agnosticism -- Maybe yes,
maybe no, maybe Baby I don't know!!


>What we
>do believe is that capitalism is the enemy of humankind (and other forms
>of life as well) and that as long as it lasts the condition of the world's
>people will continue to deteriorate.

Well, at last a statement that makes a point. Only, since when has
capitalism been opposed to "people" in general rather than the working
class and the oppressed? Capitalists and their parasites are people, and
their situation is hardly deteriorating. And if MR meant something else it
should have said it.

>This means for a decent livable future, the replacement of capitalism by
>socialism is an absolute necessity. It does not mean that struggles in the
>here and now to force capital to make concessions to the needs of the
>people are unimportant; on the contrary, it is only through such struggles
>that people will learn to need and make the revolution.

On the surface this sounds like crypto-Trotskyism -- transitional demands
at work! Only the future of humanity under socialism will be a damn sight
more than just "decent" and "livable"! What tired old war-horses we have
between the shafts of the MR's metropolitan left would-be juggernaut!! I
think what they're trying to say here, is that in the current state of
affairs with imperialism rampant and all the contradictions of world
capitalism piling up more and more uncontrollably and explosively, not even
the labour aristocracy and the intermediate strata in the imperialist
metropolises can expect a "decent" or "livable" present any more. No more
crumbs from the table. In other words, the horrors that have permanently
afflicted the majority of the world's workers and poor people under
capitalism are now even reaching formerly privileged groups. Notably
fellow-travelling Stalinists. Giving rise to the subjective, inarticulate
and unhistorical squealing we witness here.


>Why has the erstwhile two-branch socialist movement become a single
>revolutionary movement?

This is the grand finale. Social-Democracy and Stalinism are labelled a
socialist movement -- not a word of treachery or counter-revolution
anywhere!! And then the atomized individuals and grouplets of their own
earlier paragraphs are *abracadabra* magicked into a "single revolutionary
movement"!! Single in what sense? Lonely, isolated, heart-broken, looking
for a mate??

>Here we must be content with a couple of
>suggestions.

Why? A general historical programmatic overview of this kind generates
greater expectations than this!

>(1) The world-wide success of capital in imposing its rule

So what's new? Oh, the collapse of Stalinism in the Soviet Union and
Eastern Europe as the collapse of Socialism ... Yes... So capital had no
worldwide success during the existence of the SU? Evidently not, for MR.
But Doug H was incredibly insistent in previous threads on the overwhelming
strength and success of US imperialism in imposing its rule even in cases
like Vietnam where it lost the war but imposed its rule anyway! In fact the
constant and permanent omnipotence of the imperialists has been one of the
main clubs used by the centrists and neo-Stalinists to beat Trotskyists and
revolutionaries on the lists around the head with.


>has rendered reformist gradualism irrelevant.

Not in the working class in general, yet. For any serious leadership,
perhaps it has -- but the MR doesn't discuss in these real terms of
leadership and masses.


>Its adherents have therefore
>tended either to give up their socialism or, in a few cases, their
>reformism.

Wouldn't just a single example be worth giving? Especially of those who
have given up their reformism!

>(2) The world-wide failure of capitalism to check, let alone
>reverse, the deterioration of mass living conditions has strengthened
>revolutionaries in their conviction that capitalism must go.

Again the confusion between mass consciousness and leadership. What
revolutionary leadership deserving the name ever thought capitalism was
ever capable of doing anything but worsen mass living conditions? Checking
and reversing this deterioration is the task of the labour movement. This
sentence ought to have read:

	The worldwide failure of Social-Democracy or Stalinism to check, let
	alone reverse, the deterioration of mass living conditions has
	strengthened revolutionaries in their conviction that these
leaderships
	must go if capitalism is to be overthrown.


>These
>developments should set the stage for a new upsurge in the socialist
>movement in which old quarrels can be transcended and new methods of
>organization and struggle be realized."

In other words, "we have empirically perceived a new upsurge in the world
revolutionary movement, and wish to get on the bandwagon. Our past
positions are an embarrassment in this, so let's drop them and pretend we
never held them. And let's hope that somehow the bandwagon we can sense
coming turns up somewhere close so we can jump on in time and have a safe
and prosperous ride". The fellow-traveller's prayer in a nutshell.



>Louis Proyect

Who else? The fellow-traveller's fellow-traveller. The performing monkey
riding on the shoulder of the MR bandwagon riders.


Or as Ralph D so elegantly put it:

>Of course, you could join the the proprietary left and
>become an "activist" like Uncle Lou.  Just practice being seedy and raggedy
>and repulsive and unaccountable and stupid and talking to yourself and then
>you will be ready for New York.

Whereupon Doug H felt obliged to defend his lunch-mate:

>>Lou is neither seedy, raggedy, repulsive, stupid, nor a self-talker. And he
>>isn't morbidly obese, either.

And Ralph, the out-of-towner from Buffalo, rejoined:

>Welcome to New York, where socialism is who you know.


And in the midst of all this, fresh blood turns up, the Buffalo Boys (must
be something about upstate New York!) hit the lists. A new log splashes
into the water, and the swamp at last finds a real Frog King of an issue to
unite on -- style!

Also it seems, the paying back of a lot of old grudges -- even the apostle
of bourgeois-democratic we're-all-equal-before-the-law even-handed-ness,
Justin S, put on his cleats to join in stomping the guys from the wrong
side of the tracks. The previous heading of the thread said it all: "Old
quarrels can be transcended" -- with the emphasis on *can*, but not here,
not now, not on my turf, Bub! In other words, fake unity -- pious hopes
that burst like soap-bubbles at the slightest contact with reality.

What hope does all this hold out for Louis P's dreams of an exclusive
Marxist paradise where he gets to hog the mike and occasionally thrust it
before some trusty's lips? No content, no history, no tolerance, no Marx,
no perspective ...
Nichevo!

What we've already got is a thousand times better than that.

Marx was convinced that the truth is on the side of the revolutionary
proletariat. Those who don't want to fight for the truth in an open forum
are charlatans. We've already seen the charlatan Adolf-O Olaechea take
himself off into an exclusive hole of his own, and perhaps it'll soon be
time for Louis P to lock himself away with a circle of admirers and
metropolitan lunch-buddies.

Then of course there is the bigger problem of how to combat the forces
oppressing the truth in the real world of imperialism, and how to embody
the revolutionary aspirations of humanity in an organization with the clout
to remove capitalist domination in our respective countries and in the
world as a whole.

This struggle for an internationalist revolutionary party bearing the
banner of the best revolutionary traditions of the past is the main task
facing revolutionaries today. At their best, discussions taking place in
forums like this can make our task easier by hammering out a clearer view
of what's really essential and valuable in the world of Marxist ideas and
activities, what principles have already been clarified and retain their
validity, and what tactics or positions need to be dumped, rethought or
worked out from scratch.

Stuff like the perspectives offered us by Louis P and the MR editorial
notes needs to be dumped.

Cheers,

Hugh







     --- from list marxism-thaxis@lists.village.virginia.edu ---