Colin Danby: >I will fiercely resist smileys, but I'd point out that mockery >etc. are only evident as such if your underlying position is plain. >Pleased though I am to know that Plato is off the hook, I'd still be >grateful for clarification of your views on teleology and stages >theories, which are important in assessing Marx's views on >imperialism, no? > There are passages in Marx that give support to a "stagist" interpretation of history in some places and others that do not. The Communist Manifesto puts forward a rather schematic notion that the socialist revolution will follow the bourgeois revolution as it followed feudalism, etc. In his writings on the German revolution, Marx suggests that the workers might proceed directly to socialism after playing a central role in the anti-feudal struggle. The bourgeois and socialist revolution might be combined. Trotsky developed these ideas in his analysis of Czarist Russia. He put forward the idea that Russia might bypass the bourgeois-democratic revolution altogether because the bourgeoisie was not a powerful class. The notion of "stages" became fetishized in the Second International. Kautsky argued that capitalism had not exhausted its historical mission in places like Russia. This soon became a way to accomodate to capitalism ideologically. The question of teleology is a separate question altogether. I find very little evidence of "teleleology" in the strict sense in Marx. Marx thought that the class struggle was the locomotive of history. But this does not mean it is going forward toward some end, like a train on a track. He often wrote that terrible reversals were possible. Yes, the Communist Manifesto says that "What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." But the 18th Brumaire also says: "Bourgeois revolutions like those of the eighteenth century storm more swiftly from success to success, their dramatic effects outdo each other, men and things seem set in sparkling diamonds, ecstasy is the order of the day- but they are short-lived, soon they have reached their zenith, and a long Katzenjammer [crapulence] takes hold of society before it learns to assimilate the results of its storm-and-stress period soberly. On the other hand, proletarian revolutions like those of the nineteenth century constantly criticize themselves, constantly interrupt themselves in their own course, return to the apparently accomplished, in order to begin anew; they deride with cruel thoroughness the half-measures, weaknesses, and paltriness of their first attempts, seem to throw down their opponents only so the latter may draw new strength from the earth and rise before them again more gigantic than ever, recoil constantly from the indefinite colossalness of their own goals -- until a situation is created which makes all turning back impossible, and the conditions themselves call out: Hic Rhodus, hic salta! (Here is Rhodes, leap here! Here is the rose, dance here!)" I believe that the 18th Brumaire is one of the best guides to understanding 20th century politics, with all of its false starts, reversals and tragedies. There certainly is nothing "teleleogical" about this work, but it certainly captures the ebb and flow of the time we live in. Louis Proyect
