death of liberalism ________________________________________ . From: Jim Devine < me: According to Draper (and I agree), Marx's theory of revolution can be summed up by the notion that the liberation of the working class can only be truly won by the working class itself. It's the principle of "collective self-liberation" and it has "a certain stability over fairly long periods of time." It likely applies under all class modes of production and all other types of domination. It is not just a normative principle.
^^^^^ CB: We all want to occupy the political normative high ground of advocating democracy defined as "the working class as a whole as the ruling class". Yet so far in history, no prior mode of production has been overthrown by collective self-liberation. The working classes of slavery and feudalism, with all due respect to them, didn't fully demonstrate this high level principle. ^^^^^ Jim D.right. But the point is that Marxists should promote this principle. It's more likely to actually liberate the working class if the revolution is of, for, and by the working class. ^^^^ CB: Yes, that Marxists _should_ promote this principle is the "normative" aspect that you refer to above. Again, I'm not happy about it, and with due respect to past working peoples ( and as you say objective conditions limited things), but I'm just trying to be honest about history, in that I'm not sure that it is much more than a normative principle in looking back at history. In other words, is it true, as you say above, that it applied under all modes of production in history ? In fact, past working classes were not able to mount mass, democratic revolutions "from below". I'm not knocking them, I'm just saying that we can't honestly say that democratic revolution "applied under all modes of production in history." In other words, in promoting democratic revolution in the current period, we can't really look at history and say "look, the revolutions in the past were democratic." We have to say that the current revolution will be of a new type in its democracy. ^^^^^^^^ Jim D: When the working class didn't engage in collective self-liberation in the late 18th and early 19th centuries (and this is not a matter of them being at fault, but rather the limitations of the objective conditions), it wasn't the peasants and plebeians who took power, but the capitalists. Later, at the beginning of the 20th century (and again this is not a matter of them being at fault, but rather the limitations of the objective conditions), it wasn't the peasants and the proletarians that took power (except temporarily) but the new bureaucratic ruling class. Working-class collective liberation can't be won by "condescending saviors," by benevolent dictators of the proletariat. CB: It might involve leadership , though. Leadership from "within", leadership from the ranks. ^^^^^^^ Jim D: yes, leadership is important. The leadership might come from without, but it has to be accepted democratically rather than imposed. And no leader can truly claim to speak "for the proletariat" unless the proletarian can veto that claim. ^^^^^ CB; Sure, but the proletariat does not speak with one voice, so as a practical matter it is not so easy to establish a veto process that represents "the" proletariat authentically. Democratic Marxist historians like to look back and say "such and such a dictator" did not allow the working class to veto what the dictator said and did. But in fact it may have been that the "dictator" _was_ already accurately representing the proletariat majority opinion, and so the proletariat wouldn't veto the action or words. For example, it is not so absolutely clear that some of the historic Communist Party leaderships did not in some ways authentically represent the proletariats of their countries, including the Soviet CP even in the 30's. "The" proletariat ( and the peasantry) in various times and places may not have had such "pretty" or non-repressive attitudes as some retrospective Marxist historians may think or want. The attitudes of the masses can be punishing, harsh, cruel, repressive even ( see current thread on LBO on this ; actual, working class peasants actually calling for unjust executions of biological scientists who accidently poisoned cows , and the like). The democratic and authentic representation of the working masses can result in very repressive measures. In other words, repressive measures in some of the historic socialisms may have been authentically and democratically representative of masses of people's opinions, not the misrepresentation of the masses by "condescending saviors" or individual dictators. ^^^^^^ It is not at all clear that _Marx_ didn't think that there would be leadership in the revolutionary process he advocates. Jim D.:Nothing I wrote denied the importance of leadership. I don't think Marx wrote anything of that sort, either. The key question is the _role_ of leadership, not its _existence_. A leader is not the same thing as a dictator. ^^^ CB: Some of the Communist "dictators" in history may not have been dictating, but rather accurately representing the opinions of masses of workers and peasants that repressive measures should be taken. Let me repeat that : the masses of workers and peasants in a number of historic situations may have been "dictating" to the leaders that repressive measures should be undertaken, not vica versa. The leaders may not have been dictators, but authentic _representatives_, reflecting repressive attitudes in masses . like the Russian peasants discussed on the LBO-talk thread who said , "shoot the bastards "( middle class scientists who had accidently killed their cow). There is a tendency to underestimate how much peasants and poor working class people are hostile to the middle strata who constituted the government, bureaucracy, political class, educated people, professionals, etc. ^^^^^^ CB: Of course, Marx is not God ( as Lou Pro says), but this theory of Draper's seems to claim to be the same as Marx's, so for purposes of this discussion referring to or pinning down Marx's opinion is not to treat him like God ( God forbid !). ^^^^^ Jim D.:Draper's book is nothing but a collection of quotes from Marx, strung together (convincingly, I think) to prove that Marx agreed with Draper. Sure, Marx was no God. But he was one smart dude. ^^^^ CB: In Draper's discussion of Marx's discussion of the dictatorship of the proletariat, recently posted here, Draper seemed to be straining to get Marx to mean what Draper meant, when Marx's own words (quoted there for all to see and compare with Draper's analysis) seemed to contradict Draper's interpretation. Draper seemed not to want Marx to use the word "dictatorship" when obviously Marx had used it. Draper seemed to think that Weydemeyer, a personal friend, almost literal comrade in arms with Marx in the Germany revolutionary struggle, extensive correspondent with Marx, didn't understand Marx's meaning in "the dictatorship of the proletariat"; Draper seemed to think that Draper did understand Marx, and better than Weydemeyer. That Marx meant what Draper thought , not what Weydemeyer thought Marx meant. That's not very convincing. I think Weydemeyer probably understood what Marx meant. But even more, at certain points, Draper didn't seem to like Marx's own formulations , because they didn't jive well with what Draper thought Marx meant. Draper ends up using some Spanish liberal's terminology " from below", as Draper's favorite , now famous terminology, instead of Marx's famous terminology. That's kind of telling, I think. In other words, Draper has to substitute somebody else's formulation ( "from below" for Marx's because Draper isn't satisfied with Marx's own terminology ! Hey, Draper might be correct and Marx wrong ( Marx is not God). But still, Draper shouldn't represent that his ideas of these issues are the best representation of Marx's ideas on these issues. ^^^^^^^ In any event, Carrol was talking about Marxian theory. I was simply proposing that we can add content to that theory beyond the two points that he mentioned. Marx was not an anarchist. really? I didn't know that. ;-) Draper is quite clear about that, by the way. He was quite opposed to anarchism. His major point is that anarchism is anti-democratic. ^^^^^^^ CB: What all might want to consider is that Marx considered democracy the working class as the ruling class, and that in that capacity the working class majority may in fact be of the opinion that repressive measures are necessary at certain time. Democratic in that regard would not be equivalent to non-repressive. In fact, Engels and Lenin emphasize that democracy is still a state, which by definition means that it has a repressive apparatus, which means repressive measures are taken under democracy , including socialist or proletarian democracy. That's the main error in what I pick up from the Draperites. They don't recognize that proletarian democracy may very well be very repressive. Why there's the tyranny of the majority, which is democratic repression. In some circumstances it may be that the repressive measures are not imposed by an individual dictator in derogation of mass opinion , but rather as accurately reflective of mass opinion. In other words, there is a certain romanticizing of the working masses as absolutely anti-repressive by some Marxists/Draperites. Consider the French Revolution , for example. Will post some of the discussion from LBO-talk
