Mark Jones wrote:
> 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.
I'll accept this. It's even abstractly possible that large parts of the working
class today might be *more* receptive than were the German workers of
1914. My main point is that regardless of the receptivity of the workers
there *was* a machinery in 1914 through which the Kautskys could
speak to the workers -- and for that very reason Kautsky's renegacy
made a difference. Our task *at this time* is the creation of such
machinery.
> 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.
This is misleading. And I think selection of the right historical analogy (if
one exists) is important. Looking at 1916 or even 1902 leads to a simplistic
application of the demand, "Which side are you on?" Now intermittently
that question (in simple either/or form: "You either are a union man or a
thug for J.H. Blair") becomes *the* question -- and under such conditions
he/she who hesitates or mumbles or sees complexities is not a lukewarm
friend but the enemy within. But .. and I think I'll shout
THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE PERIODS!
You and Lou are trying to turn a period of great confusion and complexity into
a simple two-line struggle -- and it won't do. That's why Lou's image of a
line with Brad at one end and you and Lou at the other is simply ridiculous.
If you want a geometrical image, try a mobius strip or something like that.
And even the simple divisions (or litmus tests) that do exist are not very
good predictors of future positions. It is possible that some supporters of
the death penalty or opponents of abortion rights may still be our side
tomorrow.
> 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.
Yes -- but neither they nor we know who those people are right now.
The future will tell of course -- but we have to build political forces
in the presence, and crystal-ball guesses on who will be with us
in 2010 are not a good basis for current politics.
> Perhaps you are too, since
> you say you agree with Jim Devine's notion of a possible capitalist upswing.
Look again at Jim's description of what such an "upswing" would look like.
Capitalism isn inherently self-destructive -- but capable of generating almost
endless horrors to reconstruct itself on new grounds. We do have to know
our enemy -- and noting this vicious resiliency in capitalism is part of knowing
our enemy. You yourself intermittently note the truth of Jim's subject line
"capitalist collapse --> socialism?" Even under the conditions you and Lou
paint the eco-fascism Jim mentions remains a real possibility -- and seeing
that it part of seeing the enemy truthfully today.
>
> 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?
Agreed. And incidentally, I think he was not just right in his time -- I think
he
is still right and "ultra-imperialism" is as incorrect now as when Kautsky
argued for it. The younger people on this list might well live to see
the EU and the US lobbing nuclear missiles at each other.
As Mao said, "If you don't hit it it won't fall." And one does not hit it
by merely putting on one's skates and getting intense.
Carrol
>
>
> Mark Jones
> http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
