[was: Re: [PEN-L:13751] Re: Re: Angel of History (was Re: Geras vs Laclau)]
Justin writes:
>You don't have to call yourself a Marxist, wave red flags, talk the
>language of early 20th century Russian political organizing, to be a
>socialist. In fact, it's probably best not to do so. It just turns off the
>people you want to organize, as you know. Mainly it's a religious thing
>for people who have developed that identity over time...
Actually, it's a good thing if Marxism drops the red flags and worship of
the early 20th century Russian model. The red flags weren't invented by
Marxists. Instead, they represented one of the traditions of the Western
European labor movements. They were then transformed into specifically
communist symbols, partly in conflict with the social democrats. In many
cases, they were used by "dictators of the proletariat" such as Stalin as
symbolic dressing for anti-communist acts (such as the actual killing of a
bunch of good communists). The red flag was fetishized more as the original
ideals were forgotten, just as Marxism itself was reduced to a bunch of
sterile formulas (histomat, diamat, etc.)
Instead of red flags and the like, it's important to those socialists who
want to replace capitalism with socialism -- or a labor republic, in
Charlie Andrews' terms, or whatever -- to link up with the
_actually-existing_ anti-systemic movements of our day. Maybe if we not
only try to convince them to accept our perspectives but also to _learn
from_ them & to treat them with respect, they may be willing to accept our
use of some of their symbols.
Aping early 20th century revolutionaries makes less sense than ever these
days, since the 1917 revolution doesn't look very successful in the light
of history. I know it doesn't wash to quote him (in terms of the previous
sentence), but we do have to respect Lenin's call for "concrete analysis of
concrete conditions" rather than the imposition of some abstract model that
allegedly fits all situations. One of the problems with capitalism is that
its development involves the imposition of homogeneity on the world, so we
don't want to emulate that.
>... Practically speaking, we are all reformists or sectarians.
I'd say most people on the left are reformists and/or sectarians, since
some of the worst sectarians I've met (the Schactmanites of the Social
Democrats-USA) were also reformists. Some of the leftist academics I've met
-- who are quite reformist -- embrace the worst type of academic
sectarianism. (As I've noted before, academics and sectarians often share a
lot.)
More importantly, I don't see why people can't be neither reformist nor
sectarian, even in practice. A sectarian applies abstract formulas -- the
correct line, the correct program, etc. -- and refuses to listen to or
respect others. A reformist doesn't simply push for reforms. Instead, he or
she sees reforms as sufficient -- instead of seeing them as merely
defensive (and thus necessary) or as part of a way forward to transcend
reforms (as in non-reformist reforms, transitional reforms, etc.) The
non-reformist pursuit of reforms among other things helps us choose _which_
reforms are best to push for (and such choices must be made). The
non-reformist pursuit of reforms looks not just as immediate results but
also at long-term implications. The non-reformist pursuit of reforms tries
to look at the big picture rather than responding to the scatter-shot of
current events all the time.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine "Segui il
tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.)
-- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
