====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
1. It is not accurate to say the parties of, or the Second International itself abandoned socialism. They didn't think they were abandoning socialism. On the contrary, they were taking a practical step on the practical road to socialism. You yourself state: " To do this you have sometimes to support 'progressive' elements/sections of bourgeois party..." Bernstein's position was not the dominant position in the Second International. Lenin, the Bolsheviks, Rosa Luxumburg were all members of the Second International. At the start of WW1, Lenin was astounded by the "betrayal" of internationalism by the parties of the International [Luxumburg was not so astounded]. The Second International supported colonialism? Did the Second International endorse the colonialism of the British, the French, Belgium, the Netherlands? I do not recall any explicit endorsement of colonialism by the parties of the International, but that might just be a problem with my memory, so if there is evidence of such explicit endorsement-- rather than tacit assent through silence-- I would welcome the reference. I do recall however, from readings as I was not there, at the close of WW2, the official Communist parties of Indochina suppressing the workers attempt at a seizure of power against the return of French rule, and suppressing this by force of arms. Doesn't that count as endorsing colonialism? But the issue really isn't the analogy between the parties of the 2nd Intl and the CPUSA. The issue is your argument that because members of the CPUSA were members of the CPUSA, then the party could not have been, or wished to be, an appendage of "enlightened" bourgeois rule. Whatever they think they were doing, and why they think they did it, the CPUSA actually practiced subordination of the workers movement to a section of the bourgeoisie. Supporters of the CPUSA, the Comintern [and others] are fond of characterizing the actions of other Marxists as "objectively" aiding the... right wing, the fascists, the militarists, etc. These supporters know what objective means. So aiding a section of the bourgeoisie? So subordinating the workers movement to the program of a kindler gentler capitalism, what is that...objectively, I mean? And what is the objective of the CPUSA in this subordination? Is it to be able to distribute copies of the PWW while working the phone banks for Obama? Or is the "objective" content of that objective that subordination of the working class to the bourgeoisie the prevention of the development of a working class consciousness that is specifically different, and opposed, to the domination of capitalism? You state that if the CP uncritically supported Obama, if it endorsed imperialism, if they didn't have a conception of revolutionary change, then you'd be with me. Well, of course they "critically" support Obama, and of course they don't endorse imperialism, and of course they claim to have a conception of revolutionary change--- all of that is, well it's on paper. But wait a minute, doesn't that proclamation of principles, of a "grand future" sound just like the Second International's endorsement of socialism, it's critical support of the bourgeoisie during and after WW1-- it's tactic and strategy of reaching a socialist future? Nothing could be easier than proclaiming your critical support of Obama and then never withdrawing that support no matter what Obama does in his role as an executive agent for the bourgeoisie. Nothing could be easier than proclaiming your opposition to imperialism and then supporting the election to power of a party committed to imperialism. 2. Your argument is basically that none of the failures, or retreats, or whatever we call them, are really the "fault" of the CPUSA but rather are the result of the CPUSA's recognizing [correctly, you believe] the practical broader reality of the "left-wing parties, " that there is no revolutionary situation. Again, on a "theoretical" basis, I might say, "so what?" I am not arguing that the CPUSA organize a military revolutionary committee for the seizure of power. I am arguing that the CPUSA is chronically, and congenitally, incapable of a) recognizing a revolutionary situation anywhere one might actually exist and b) consistently acts in a fashion to obstruct the actual development of revolutionary situations. On a practical basis, I could say, until and unless the working class has organized itself in opposition to any support whatsoever to the bourgeoisie, until the working class has established practical forms of expressing its needs separate from the forms that the bourgeoisie have established to suppress that expression-- i.e.separate from the parliaments, trade union bureaucracies, congresses, presidents, political parties of capitalism-- then a revolutionary opportunity, when it does arise, cannot and will not be recognized nor acted upon. So the question is, does anything in the CPUSA's past practice provide any method of transition, any mediation between its consistent historical practice of supporting the bourgeoisie and its stated goals of socialism? Does anything in the CPUSA's past practice provide that critical mediation, that concrete form, for the workers to recognize their needs in opposition to the bourgeoisie's needs for its parliaments, trade union bureaucracies, presidents, political parties? The answer is painfully clear to even the most casual observer. You state that revolutionary parties should never be in government to run the state in capitalism. I take it that means you oppose popular front governments. But the popular front is exactly what the CPUSA aims at in its "practical" tactics of a supra-class alliance. That is exactly what the CPs have done in other countries at other times. What distinguishes the CPUSA from those parties that makes you think the CPUSA wouldn't jump out of its shorts at the chance to participate in a popular front government? And where, since revolution is the act of a class, and not its leadership or vanguard, [Waistline and various atrophied sects claiming Trotskyist lineage to the contrary not withstanding], is there the mechanism, the mediation, for the class to itself make the transition from "critical support" for the bourgeoisie, to more critical opposition-- to the class acting as a class for itself? I can answer that one, NOWHERE. Nowhere, no way, no how. 3. I have read the Phenomenology more times than I care to recall, and the Logic, and the Science of Logic [which brought me to tears, several times]. Your statement that the section on lordship and bondage means there is no "direct way/road to socialism" is an historical abstraction. There is no direct way to socialism from abstract positions; from ideological adherence to "programs" that lack mechanisms for execution. There is not way to socialism without the appropriation of reality-- that is the meaning of the Master and slave dialectic-- transformation requires appropriation. For Hegel that means of appropriation, that appropriation itself, is "independent consciousness." He states "The truth of the independent consciousness is accordingly the consciousness of the bondsman." So if we want to take a lesson from Hegel, let's take Marx's lesson from Hegel, let's stand him right side up-- and development the concrete means for the emancipation of labor, and that concrete mediation cannot exist in adherence to the bourgeoisie's, the "Master's," forms of political expropriation. Independent "consciousness," independent class-based activity in critical opposition, not critical support, to the totality of capital, to the bourgeoisie as a class, is the bondsmen's and bondwomen's only road to socialism. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dogan Gocmen" <dgn.g...@googlemail.com> To: "David Schanoes" <sartes...@earthlink.net> Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 7:28 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism] The CP is still ga-ga > ====================================================================== > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > ====================================================================== > > > There were some five replies to my last posts. Let me reply to them > collectively by replying to S. Artisan. > My replies are in red below: > > > 2009/12/19 S. Artesian <sartes...@earthlink.net> > > Talk about superficial analysis this by Dogan takes some kind of cake: > "If > the people gathered in CPUSA were agents of capital they would have not > established the communist party. They would have gone into the parties > they > think fit best to their political interests and aims. But they have not > done > so. They insist on their independent being as a political party despite > they > have supported ruling class parties." > > Dogan: > I did not mean that you are superficial. If that came accross in this > sense, > then, I appologise. However that was not intended at all. All I wanted to > say is that you did not take the time to consider what I sent. > > 2009/12/19 S. Artesian <sartes...@earthlink.net> > Let's plug Kautsky, and 2nd International in place of CPUSA and see how > that > sounds: "If Kautsky and the people gathered in the 2nd Intl were agents > of > capital, they would not have established socialist parties. They would > have > gone into parties they think fit best to their political interests and > aims........." > > > Now does that sound like a materialist analysis of Kautsky and the 2nd > Intl's shift at the onset of WW 1[a shift long in the making]? Of > course, > there's little to be learned from the people who remained "gathered " in > the > parties of the 2nd International, and there's so much more to be learned > from the people who left the 2nd Intl-- identified the 2nd Intl for what > it > was, based on its actions, and gathered in opposition to the 2nd Intl. > > So put the CPUSA back in the paragraph immediately above, adjust the time > frames, and how does that sound? Sounds better to me. > > Dogan > your comparision does not fit at all. Because of two reasons: 1st, the > rightwing social democrats in the 2nd international called for abundoning > the long term strategic aims (socialism). Remember what Bernstein said: > movement is everything goal is nothing. R. Luxemburg attacked him for this > quite forcefully. 2nd, they supported colonialism, that is to say that > they > supported the occupation of other nations' countries and their > subordinations. Nothing of that is true of CPUSA. It has clear > strategic/programatic aim to socialism. It does not support imperialist > ambitions of US imperialism. It calls for further social, political and > economic reforms that indicates toward bettering the life conditions of > working class. If the CPUSA supported Obama unconditially, if it supported > imperialist ambitions of US imperialism, if they did not have a concept of > revolutıinary change and strategic aim to socialist society I would be > with > you. > > 2009/12/19 S. Artesian <sartes...@earthlink.net> > I don't know what Dogan's understanding of the US class structure is, and > the prospects for a class conscious movement. Pehaps it's better than > mine, > but I doubt that. What he offers in defense of the CP is exactly what the > CP offers-- "programmatic" assertions about one thing-- socialism, and > not > just any socialism but the socialism of Marx and Lenin [can you imagine in > your worst nightmare Marx or Lenin endorsing Democrats?], and then > "pragmatic" "adjustments" based on "tactical exigencies" where the > tactics > actually NEGATE the supposed content of the "progam." > > Dogan: > as I said earlier the problem lies not with the CPUSA. Rather, the problem > lies with the general situation of broader leftwing movement in the USA or > more generaly with the situation of the broader leftwing movement in > imperialist centres. There are revolutionary parties but the their > situation > is not revolutionary. Antonio Gransci described this situation as > 'revolutionary parties in non-revolutinary times. What to do in this > situation? I do not know exactly how to translate Gramsci's phrase. But he > suggests to fight for small steps forward. (in my view > Republicans and Democrats present one bourgeois party with different aims > how the system can be kept to alive) and sometimes if you are strong > enough > to build coalitions. I am with you if you say revolutionary parties should > never be in government to run society and the state in capitalism. > > 2009/12/19 S. Artesian <sartes...@earthlink.net> > And then as if that isn't bad enough, a bit of faux-intellectualism is > added > so that tactical negation of the program can be called a "dialectic," and > we're tell us to read Hegel. You cannot make this up. > > Dogan: > If I were you I would take my reference to Hegel's Phenomenology not as > easy > as you do. It is about how revolutions take place. Many of Lenin's theory > of > revolutions are already formulated there. The particular reason why I > refered to Master-Slave chapter in Hegel's Phenomenology is that you learn > that there no direct way/road to socialism. There one instance in Marx's > political acticity that illustriates, I believe, how Phenomenology may be > used to act politically in certain situations. In the middle of the 19th > century there was a debate among bourgeois forces about free-trade and > protectionism. In this situation Marx supported the free-trade "party". > Not > because he liked it or found it the best way how to run society but > because > it better prepared the the toward social revolution. > > -------------- > Dogan Göcmen > (http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/) > Author of The Adam Smith Problem: > Reconciling Human Nature and Society in > The Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, I. B. Tauris, > London&New York 2007 > ________________________________________________ > Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/sartesian%40earthlink.net > ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
