Yoshie,
Look, nobody made a "state= bad, civil society= good" argument here. I agree that the difference between the state and civil society is methodological (practical/epistemological) because the only way we can make sense of reality is through constructed categories, an elaborate system of classifications. In that sense "mode of production," "the state," "civil society" or any other concept is constructed hence only methodologically distinguishable from the rest of totality. However, since you are so upset about the notion of micropolitics, and assuming that this is a "real" concern on your part, I gather you are already accepting the fact that there is an identifiable sphere called civil society where micropolitics, as opposed to a revolutionary working class politics, can be practiced. If that is the case, I have no idea why are you so upset by the notion of extending radical politics to that sphere.
Look, the sphere of micropolitics is all too important to leave it to the non-socialist identity movements. If you are really serious about building a sustainable socialism, I don't see how you can do that without creating a socialist constituency from below. Capturing state power, and we may very well have disagreements about the strategies of doing so, is only one piece of the puzzle. Both strategically and ethically (by the way, I don't think a binary opposition between ethics and politics is defensible either, ethics and politics constitute each other... politics is ethical, as ethics is unavoidably historically-political constructed) the task is to carry out a radical transformation of civil society, a sphere that is neither totally separable from nor absolutely collapsible to the state. Micropolitics is not a dangerous territory that needs to be abandoned, but a promising frontier that needs to be claimed by, and reconciled with socialist politics. The point is not to reinforce a false macro/micro politics dichotomy, but to create a dialectically coordinated socialist politics.
You raised some practical points, and I believe you were well meaning in that, about too may evenings being spent, the activists being exhausted and so forth because of micropolitical activities. But if the task of constructing a sustainable socialism is taken seriously, socialists better master the energy and person power to fight in multiplicity of frontlines. No body said doing revolution is easy. To me, that seems to be a more urgent task than writing ten hair-splitting cyber-posts a day.
Manjur Karim
But then you seem correcthe state and civil society I have no idea why you insist on focusing on the state-civil society binary opposition. Look, if you are really serious about constructing socialism on a sustainable basis (and I am assuming there are better ways of doing that without writing ten long cyber-messages a day) it has to be from the below. Capturing state power ----- Original Message ----- From: Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 3:59 AM Subject: Gramsci on Theoretical Syndicalism
> Gramsci didn't think, "the State = bad, civil society = good." In fact,
> according to his theory (and the same goes for all Marxists), the
> distinction between the State and civil society is "merely
methodological,"
> since in reality "civil society and State are one and the same." I think
> our contemporary appropriations of Gramsci tend to forget this point &
> become arguments for what Gramsci called theoretical syndicalism, which
has
> a liberal and economistic understanding of the State. Micropolitics that
> people often call for (as if we didn't have too much of it already) is an
> obverse of the social democratic state; without the latter, the former
> can't exist. This principled religious leftists know very well -- for
> instance, when neoliberal politicos tried to enlist religious charities
> into the project of Welfare Reform, good religious leftists correctly
> pointed out that without money from the government, many "NGOs" &
> "non-profits" couldn't function, voluntary efforts couldn't substitute for
> government programs, etc.
>
> ***** Economism -- theoretical movement for Free trade -- theoretical
> syndicalism. It should be considered to what degree theoretical
> syndicalism derives originally from the philosophy of praxis, and to what
> degree from the economic doctrines of Free Trade -- i.e. in the last
> analysis from liberalism....
>
> The nexus between free-trade ideology and theoretical syndicalism is
> particularly evident in Italy, where the admiration of syndicalists like
> Lanzillo & Co. for Pareto is well known. The former belongs to a dominant
> and directive social group; the latter to a group which is still
subaltern,
> which has not yet gained consciousness of its strength, its possibilities,
> of how it is to develop, and which therefore does not know how to escape
> from the primitivist phase....
>
> The ideas of the Free Trade movement are based on a theoretical error
whose
> practical origin is not hard to identify; they are based on a distinction
> between political society and civil society, which is made into and
> presented as an organic one, whereas in fact it is merely methodological.
> Thus it is asserted that economic activity belongs to civil society, and
> that the State must not intervene to regulate it. But since in actual
> reality civil society and State are one and the same, it must be made
clear
> that _laissez-faire_ too is a form of State "regulation", introduced and
> maintained by legislative and coercive means. It is a deliberate policy,
> conscious of its own ends, and not the spontaneous, automatic expression
of
> economic facts. Consequently, _laissez-faire_ liberalism is a political
> programme, designed to change -- in so far as it is victorious -- a
State's
> leading personnel, and to change the economic programme of the State
itself
> -- in other words the distribution of the national income.
>
> The case of theoretical syndicalism is different. Here we are dealing
with
> a subaltern group, which is prevented by this theory from ever becoming
> dominant, or from developing beyond the economic-corporate stage and
rising
> to the phase of ethico-political hegemony in civil society, and of
> domination in the State....It is undeniable that in it, the independence
> and autonomy of the subaltern group which it claims to represent are in
> fact sacrificed to the intellectual hegemony of the ruling class, since
> precisely theoretical syndicalism is merely an aspect of _laissez-faire_
> liberalism -- justified with a few mutilated (and therefore banalized)
> theses from the philosophy of praxis. Why and how does this "sacrifice"
> come about? The transformation of the subordinate group into a dominant
> one is excluded, either because of the problem is not even considered
> (Fabianism, De Man, an important part of the Labour Party), or because it
> is posed in an inappropriate and ineffective form (social democratic
> tendencies in general), or because of a belief in the possibility of
> leaping from class society directly into a society of perfect equality
with
> a syndical economy....
>
> A few characteristics of historical economism: ...in the search for
> historical connections it makes no distinction between what is "relatively
> permanent" and what is a passing fluctuation, and by an economic fact it
> means the self-interest of an individual or small group....In other words,
> it does not take economic class formations into account, with all its
> inherent relations, but is content to assume motives of
> mean...self-interest....
>
> (Antonio Gramsci, "The Modern Prince,"_Prison Notebooks_, pp. 158-63)
*****
>
> Yoshie
>
>