Javad Eskandarpour wrote:
Comrade Klo,
Certainly, I do not want to "to engage in the ideological
equivalent of hit and run" in relation to the points you have made
regarding
the collapse of the USSR, predictions of Marx and Engels, etc. One reason
for not providing a detailed disagreement was to focus on one topic at a
time if it is possible. But I will make some relatively detailed remarks on
your "Two Key Overlooked Considerations".
Your first "Overlooked Consideration" goes as follows (If I am
mistaken, please correct me): Marx and Engels just predicted that the
ultimate overthrow of capitalism will be accomplished by the revolutionary
proletariat, but this prediction does not imply that there will not be
other
revolutions by other revolutionary classes prior to the ultimate revolution
by the revolutionary proletariat against capitalism. If this is what you
claim, then I will proceed with the following points. First, if there are
some other revolutionary classes against this contemporary capitalism,
could you identify them.
My reply,
Javad. I’d be glad to. What class did more to overthrow the Czar and the
Provisional government than any other? What class fought the capitalists
during the Intervention and the Whites during the Civil War more than any other
by far? What class fought American capitalism in Vietnam and what class fought
the armies of that American stooge, Chiang kai Shek, in China? What class
expelled the Nazis from Albania? On and on the list goes?
Hopefully you are not going to claim the central thrust came from the
proletariat when it was quite small in Vietnam and China and of lesser
importance in the Soviet Union. The class that carried the battle to the
enemies was, of course, the peasantry, a class whose importance and critical
role in history some people claiming to be Marxists have never seemed to
grasp. And no one was more representative of this tremendous misjudgment and
oversight than Trotsky who was thoroughly convinced the Russian Revolution
could never succeed unless assistance came from additional revolutions in
Europe led by the proletariat. He all but discounted the peasantry as a
revolutionary force for the establishment of socialism. The clash between him
and Lenin/Stalin on this issue went to the very crux of the Revolution’s
viabiity. In conjunction with what I said earlier, he definitely appears to be
one of those operating under the mistaken impression that Marx and Engels were
claiming that the next revolutions could only be executed by the proletariat if
they were to be successful and no intermediate revolutions by another class
were viable.
And more importantly, if there are some other
revolutionary classes, what are the necessary objective conditions of their
emergence as a force against capitalism? In other words, why must these
supposedly revolutionary classes other that the proletariat revolt against
capitalism?
My reply,
First, I am referring to one class in particular, not “other revolutionary
classes.” Second, the peasantry is not “supposedly revolutionary.” It IS
revolutionary, unless you want to assume that all their fighting and dying
which led to the institution of socialism was for mere appearances sake.
Third, Why do they revolt against capitalism? Why does any class revolt?
Because they are at the bottom rung of the economic ladder and their condition
is not only not improving but becoming worse. The proletariat participated in
all of the revolutions I have mentioned. Indeed, the leadership came from the
proletariat and the intelligensia. But the proletariat did not contribute the
main fighting forces by any means. In all of these countries the proletariat
was a relatively nascent class.
In addition, according to you Marx and Engels "never said the next revolutions
would have to be by the proletariat or that the proletariat was the only
revolutionary class at all times". Before proceeding with some brief remarks on
your above claim, is there any textual reference for your claim?.
My reply,
To be sure! Several classes have been revolutionary at one time or another.
In fact, at one time the bourgeoisie itself was one of the most revolutionary,
most progressive forces on the world scene. No less a source than the
Communist Manifesto states:
“Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a
corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the
sway of the feudal nobility, it became an armed and self-governing association
in the medieval commune.... THE BOURGEOISIE HAS PLAYED A MOST REVOLUTIONARY
ROLE IN HISTORY. The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put
an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn
asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors,’....
The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of
vigor in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting
complement in the most slothful indolence. It has accomplished wonders far
surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has
conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former migrations of nations
and crusades.”
Also in the Manifesto we find, “The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to
the rule of the towns...and has thus rescued a considerable part of the
population from the idiocy of rural life.
In the Preface to the Italian Edition of 1893 Engels states, “The Manifesto
does full justice to the revolutionary part played by capitalism in the past.”
A glance at your above claim makes the following point inevitable:
if it is not the case that "the proletariat was the only revolutionary
class
at all times", then the proletariat, at some certain time contemporaneous
with capitalism, must not be revolutionary in relation to capitalism, or
less revolutionary in contrast to other revolutionary classes in relation
to
capitalism.
My reply,
No, that is not the case. You are mistaken on both counts. It was a
revolutionary class in the Soviet Union and in China but its inadequacy lay in
numbers and power, not in ideology or commitment. Because it could not wield
the kind of force and influence it would have loved to project does not mean
the strong will to do so did not exist or was not present. In short, if it
could have, it would have.
If this is the case, then could you inform us of this certain
period in which the proletariat played or will play the above inevitable
role in relation to capitalism.
My reply,
It was not the case but it most assuredly will be in the future. The trend on
the world scene is unmistakable and undeniable. No economic class, and I
repeat, no economic class is growing faster in the world today than the
proletariat. As the peasantry, petty bourgeois, and semi-proletarians shrink
and millions flock to the world’s cities and wage-labor, the proletariat grows
by leaps and bounds. The numbers of people and nations caught up in this
maelstrom today dwarfs anything existing in the past. Again to quote that
masterpiece the Manifesto,
“Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive
feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more
and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes
directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.”
How right can one be. The perspicacity of this assessement is vividly shown
by present world conditions and the fact that the real battle, the climactic
struggle, is yet to come. As I said in the prior post. All of the revolutions
so far have been mere prologue, the preface, a foretaste of that which is to
come.
Your second "Overlooked Consideration" goes as follows: There has
never been any proletarian revolution yet because, despite the leadership
of the proletariat, "those doing the vast bulk of the fighting and dying were
peasants, not proletarians". In other words,for example, the Great October
Revolution was not a proletarian revolution because, despite having the
proletariat in leading the revolution, peasants made the revolution
possible, who did "the vast bulk of the fighting and dying". If the Great
October Revolution was not a proletarian revolution, then what was it?
My reply,
Fair question! It was a revolution of the oppressed of the Soviet Union, the
overwhelming majority of whom were peasants, and was led by the proletarian
vanguard subsequently known as the Communist Party. Proletarians
unquestionably provided fighting units and members of the leadership,
especially in the cities, but their role was of much less importance than that
of the peasants. In shear numbers the peasantry comprised over 80% of the
entire population so their role had to be decisive for success.
For the cause,
Klo
_______________________________________________
Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
