>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/12/01 05:03PM >>>
-In fact, if anything, it is classical Marxist doctrine- Marx was quite
clear
-in calling for socialists to support the greatest centralization of the
-state possible, erasing localism as much as possible.
(((((((((((
CB: Isn't Marx supporting centralization of a _socialist_, NOT bourgeois
state ? He's not saying the workers' movement should support reforms to
centralize a bourgeois state, but revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie
state to be replaced by a socialist state that is centralized, no ?
Centralizing the bourgeois state would be a step thwarting the workers from
overthrowing and replacing it.
---
No, Marx in 1850 looking at Germany was comparing it to expectations of the
French Revolution - ie. the triumph of a bourgeois revolution. The idea was
that a more centralized bourgois state would be riper for later proletarian
revolution because workers would not be divided into myriad localistic
struggles but would combine together.
Marx was moderately favorable towards Bismarck, at least in the sense of
preferring his success over the local states Bismarck forced into his
Prussian-led central state. Engels would later note that Social Democrats
would organize tremendously successfully in that more centralized political
environment.
In a sense, Marx's analysis like Chase-Dunn's reflects the logic that Daniel
Singer laid out in his THE END OF SOCIALISM where he noted that the power of
capital strike and flight made localistic socialist parties unlikely to
succeed in radical transformation but would instead cave to the threats of
capitalism- essentially the fear of a race to the bottom in competition for
capital. There is a strong logic to global centralization where working
class movements can push for global socialist reforms without becoming
entangled into the national politics of "competitiveness."
-- Nathan Newman
