If you think the October Revolution was not violent then I suggest it is you
that does not draw the right lessons from history and should reinvestigate
matters. The October Revolution encompassed a variety of strategies but it was
also extremely violent.
My so-called flippant attitude towards Marxist humanism is based on the basis
or foundation of this theory which is that of trotskyism. This theory as
espoused by Leszek Kolakowski and Raya Dunayevskaya who was a secretary to
Trotsky have made every attempt to vilify Stalin and the Soviet Union as a
dictatorship of the proletariat.
Here is what Kolakowski, the Marxist humanist, has to say about Marxism:
"As far as the history of Marxism is concerned, there are additional and more
pertinent reasons that make it worthy of Study. Philosophical doctrines that
for a long time enjoyed considerable popularity (and what was called Marxist
philosophical economics was not really economics in today's meaning of the word
but a philosophical dream) never die out entirely. They change their
vocabulary but they survive in the underground of culture; and though they are
often poorly visible, they are still able to attract people or to terrify
them. Marxism belongs to the intellectual tradition and the political history
of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; as such it is obviously interesting,
together with its endlessly repeated, often grotesque, pretensions to being a
scientific theory. However, this philosophy entailed some practical
consequences which would bring indescribable misery and suffering to mankind:
private property and the market were to be
abolished and replaced by universal and all-embracing - an utterly impossible
project. It was noticed towards the end of the nineteenth century, mainly by
anarchists, that so conceived, the Marxist doctrine was a good blueprint for
converting human society into a giant concentration camp; to be sure, this was
not Marx's intention, but it was an inevitable effect of the glorious and final
benevolent utopia he devised.
"Theoretical dogmatic Marxism drags on its poor existence in the corridors of
some academic institutions; while its carrying capacity is very poor, it is not
unimaginable that it will gain in strength, supported by certain intellectually
miserable but loud movements which have in fact lost contact with Marxism as a
theoretical body, but look for issues that can, however vaguely, be presented
as issues of capitalism or anticapitalism (these concepts are never defined,
but they are employed in such a way that they seem to derive from Marxist
tradition).
"The communist ideology seems to be in a state of rigor mortis, and the regimes
that still use it are so repulsive that its ressurrection may seem to be
impossible. But let us not rush into such a prophecy (or anti-prophecy). The
social conditions that nourished and made use of this ideology can still
revive; perhaps - who knows? - the virus is dormant, waiting for the next
opportunity. Dreams about the perfect society belong to the enduring stock of
our civilization."
Underlying Kolakowski's Marxist Humanism is the blatant support of capitalism
wherein he discusses China producing a near truth but also distortions in his
conclusion:
"Let us not forget, however, that the most populous country on earth, China,
now experiencing a flamboyant, dazzling expansion of the market (accompanied
both by gigantic corruption and by an extremely rate of growth), is in some
important respects continuing its insane Marxist past - a past which, unlike
the post-Stalinist Soviet Union, it never repudiated."
Here we have finally Kolakowski's repudiation of Stalin! This trotskyist
criticizes China for having a Marxist history under Mao but further criticizes
it for not repudiating its past. But he is not yet finished:
"This is not a Communist state in any recognisable sense but a tyranny that
grew out of a Communist system. Numerous academics and intellectuals extolled
its glory when it was at it most savage, destructive, and foolish."
So, according to this trotskyist, China, when it was a socialist state under
Mao was nothing but a "savage, destructive, and foolish" system from which
tyranny evolved. Never does he mention that the class struggle and the
establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat was overthrown in large
part by non-violent means by capitalist counterrevolutionaries who did employ
violence!
Then this trotskyist returns his attention to the Soviet Union beginning with
the dictatorship of the proletariat under Stalin:
"Will Russian imperialism return, after the demise of the Soviet regime? It is
not inconceivable - we can observe a certain amount of nostalgia for the lost
empire - but if it does, Marxism will have nothing to contribute to this
rebirth.
"Whatever the proper definition of capitalism, the market, combined with the
rule of law and civil liberties, seems to have obvious advantages in assuring a
tolerable level of material well-being and security. And yet, despite these
social and economic benefits, 'capitalism' is continually attacked, from every
side. These attacks have no coherent ideological content; they often use
revolutionary slogans even though no one can explain what the revolution in
this context is supposed to mean."
First he considers the Soviet dictatorship of the proletariat under Stalin as
"Russian imperialism" and negates the possibility of its return because
capitalism will bestow on the Russian working-class the "rule of law and civil
liberties" which he poses was denied them under Stalin. He further espouses
his Marxist humanist theory that capitalism will in fact be responsible "in
assuring a tolerable level of material well-being and security" for the Russian
working-class. Then he begins to snivel about how the benevolence of
capitalism is so misunderstood and attacked and yet, that, those of us who as
Marxists attack his benevolent capitalism only use slogans and don't really
know what revolution means!
To prop up his repugnant Marxist humanist theory Kolakowski then states:
"There is some remote relationship between this vague ideology and communist
tradition, but if traces of Marxism can be discovered in anti-capitalist
rhetoric, it is a grotestquely distorted kind of Marxism: Marx championed
technical progress and his attitude was strongly Eurocentric, including a lack
of interest in the problems of underdeveloped countries. The anti-capitalist
slogans we hear today contain a poorly articulated fear of rapidly growing
technology, with its possibly sinister side effects"
So...Marxist humanism repudiates Stalin and the Soviet dictatorship of the
proletariat, it repudiates Mao and the Chinese dictatorship of the proletariat
equating both to tyrannies. Marxist humanism then attempts to paint Marx as
the perpetrator of technology - capitalism and goes on to extoll the benevolent
virtues of capitalism reducing scientific Marxism to a fantasy wherein he
states:
"Marxism has been the greatest fantasy of our century."
>From this revisionist pile of horseshit further theories of Marxs' "humanism"
>is developed! And you serious have to question why I have a flippant attitude
>towards Marxist humanism? Inspite of Melvins revisionist nonesence and this
>dung heap of a theory I am a staunch defender of scientific Marxism and this
>rubbish has no place on this list.
Why do I have a flippant attitude towards Marxist humanism? That is really not
an intelligent question!
Marxist humanism is based on trotskyism which is a complete repudiation of
Marxism in general and of Lenin and Stalin in particular. This repudiation of
Stalin and the dictatorship of the proletariat during his lifetime is clearly
espoused by the trotskyist Dunayevskaya and her repugnant ilk. Kolakowski
repudiates it in a more round-about way which is amazing. Both claim to
embrace just "the early writings" of Marx all the while rejecting the rest I
guess yet Kolakowski emphatically considers Marxism, although apologetically, a
"giant concentration camp" and a "benevolent utopia"! Yet both still want to
say they embrace Marxism! How laughable! Yes, I guess I do have a flippant
attitude towards such distorted stupidity and know wonder you question me on
the reality of class struggle.
I care not to debate this issue as I have no regard for trotskyists or their
traitorous and revisionist putrefactions of Marxism and history.
I have no illusions about violence and do not see it as glamorous or romantic
having fought in war and seeing first-hand its brutality and ugliness. I
discuss the necessity of armed struggle because it is an inevitable reality as
a part of the class struggle that must be realized and prepared for as stated
by Lenin in one of the quotes I used that you seem to think is "out of
context". I further it discuss seeing the rise of US style fascism growing in
the US and because others are afraid to broach the subject. Armed struggle is
an inevitable reality of the class struggle just as much as other non-violent
struggles have been that I in fact do recognize and have not only participated
in but have organized. You know nothing of what you talk about because like
Melvin you see only abstractions from a mechanistic approach to everything.
War is an ugly thing and only those who have not been a part of warfare would
think it romantic so you really have no idea what you are talking about when it
comes to understanding me or my position. It is because of this trotskyist
theory you seem to subscribe to of Marxist humanism that distorts and twists
the truth about history that you want to distort and twist the truth regarding
the essence of the class struggle.
Perhaps Melvin would be more entertaining to discuss it with.
Mark Scott
_______________________________________________
Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
