Doug Henwood wrote:
> But capitalism made possible the wealth and scientific knowledge that
> people struggled over, and the partial socialization of production
> that made socialism possible. This ambivalent attitude towards
> capitalism seems to me one of the distinctive features of Marxism -
> as opposed to romantic, moralizing, or utopian critiques of the sort
> that Marx savaged.
I disagree with this reading of Marx. His ambivalent attitude towards
capitalism was only in relation to feudalism and capitalism's ability to
overcome feudal social relations, laying the foundation for collective
ownership of the economy. As Louis P. has pointed out, Marx's views
changed when he considered Russia (and the U.S.) after reading
Chernevskii and corresponding with the People's Will. Marx came to view
capitalism as a sufficient and not a necessary condition for socialism.
Capitalism is only progressive in the sense that it lays the foundations
for collective ownership but the collective ownership of socialism
doesn't necessarily have to be built on capitalism. See the volume *Late
Marx and the Russian Road* ed. Shanin.
If you're going to embrace a romantic, moralizing,
> or utopian critique, you might as well say so, instead of doing it in
> the name of a purer Marxism - purer than Marx himself.
If you are going to have a critique of a social system it has to have a
basis.
That basis can be a moral or ethical basis e.g. socialism will maximize
human happiness or lead to more egalitarian distribution of resources or
allow the free development of each person. It can be economic -a
socialist economy will be more stable and grow faster with minimal
negative externalities.If you are a socialist and you
don't want to criticize capitalism then you have to rely on
Cohen-Pleknakov arguments that socialism is inevitable and that is just
the
way it is. Marx himself is often criticized for being romantic and
utopian. Being romantic and utopian is ok by me , but then I'm young and
foolish.
Sam Pawlett
