Carrol Cox wrote:
> If you want a historical parallel to now it has to be prior to
> the formation
> of the second international. It is ridiculous to compare the
> present to the
> period of the crisis of the 2d international. (And the Second Congress
> of the RSDLP would be a ridiculous parallel also -- rather, consider the
> conditions before there was an RSDLP.)
>
> We don't have a party or an international. And it is misleading
> even to speak
> of "The Left" in any coherent sense. So your assertion that "The
> same thing
> is going on now" is utterly empty.
Carrol, you seem to operate with a historical image of the huge labour
battalions of the German social-democrats marching stolidly forward, and of
leaders celebrated amongst the masses. As a matter of fact there is much
truth in this, and people like Kautsky obviously derived their strength not
from ideological correctness but from big labour, big money and ultimately,
from German capital. The position of the Bolsheviks, certainly in 1902, was
obviously very different. But I think my analogy is not as far-fetched as
you say. At the root of your pessimism is the idea that the masses were more
switched on then than they are now. This is a half-truth. All historical
analogies break down when inspected close up but I'm not sure that average
German workers were any more receptive to Luxemburg/Lenin's ideas
than are their modern counterparts receptive to our ideas. Even on this
list, intellectuals who are supposed to know a thing or two, react with
horror and outrage at the very idea that anything serious and fundamental
might be wrong with the capitalist system. So my essential point is far
from being 'utterly empty': it is that, like Kautsky and Bernstein, many
people who think they are of the left are absolutely firm believers in the
permanence and immutable strength of capitalism. Perhaps you are too, since
you say you agree with Jim Devine's notion of a possible capitalist upswing.
Perhaps, like Doug Henwood, you think that actually Bernstein and Kautsky
were right all along, considering history's verdict on Bolsehvism and on
world capitalism. But I do not agree. Lenin was right in his time; he
foresaw war and crisis, and acted accordingly. And he would have reason to
see crisis, not immortality, as capitalism's future today, would he not?
Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
