Marv wrote:
I think you meant to say the "divorce from working class practice" rather than the book itself was "one of the most sterile components of Western Leftism". :)
I meant to say that Western *Marxism* -- as is -- is one of the most sterile components of Western *Leftism*. In fact, there are non-Marxist Western *Leftists* in the West who may have a bit more grip on reality. A few of those who have rushed to appropriate trademarks and web domain names with the word Marx or Marxism somewhere in the label seem to live in lalaland.
If anything, Anderson's essay is even more pertinent now than when it was published 30 years ago.
I agree. Having been a Western Marxist himself, Anderson knew what he was talking about. But his insights didn't result from mere introspection. The guy did conduct a thorough research of Marxist thinkers in the West after the Russian revolution. Personally, I tend to think that this divorce between Western Marxism and Western working-class action -- prolonged as it's been -- is temporary. In the U.S. in particular, where the divorce has been extreme, the greater intrusion of the "developing" world into this society and vice versa (via trade, immigration, communication, etc.) is creating conditions for a true multi-color and enlightened working-class movement. One of the most curious optical illusions that result from the practical irrelevance of Western Marxism is that these Marxists don't recognize how what they've anticipated for so long *is happening already* right under their very noses. It is perceptive leftists tired of this "Marxism," with roots in real movements (anti-war, anti-racism, radical feminism, etc.) -- e.g. Stan Goff, Bill Fletcher -- who get it. It is happening. It is momentous. And it has all the limitations and potential of a newborn baby. Meanwhile, Marxists will sentence that it's not real because it is emerging through the integument of the Democratic Party. Julio
