Need for optimism ( Rob Schaap on Foucault)

[Justin Schwartz]

This is an important question. I agree with Charles that without some sort 
of optimism of the will we have no chance. The question is, what sort? I 
read the historical record differently than Charles does. I also don't 
thinbk we can take what would have been Marx's attitudes towards the 
situation in his day as guide to the appropriate attitude in ours. In his 
day, it seemed that working people were on the move. The initial attempts at 
organization in which he participated or that he observed--1848, the 1st 
Internat'l, 1871 (excuse the typo, Charles)--failed or were crushed. But it 
looked like forward movement overall. Moreover, within a few years of his 
death, Marxist parties became the dominant form of workers' organization in 
Western Europe; labor militancy in the US and the UK was high, capitalism 
itself looked unstable after a series of terrible depressions.

Today, workers in the richer nations are very far from showing any interest 
whatsoever in radical change, or even organizing for social democratic 
reforms; Marxism as a practical organizing principle is dead, the 
"successful" revolutions Charles mentions have come a cropper, except in a 
few embattled outposts (unless you think that China is still socialist, and 
it's not exactly an inspiration to anyone anyway), and capitalism has 
survived crises that one would have thought would have wrecked it, notably 
the Great Depression. This is not a particularly cheerful situation.

Of course, all is not dark. There is resistance. Antiglobalization movements 
are encouraging. Single issue movements are linking up somewhat. We do not 
face Brecht's nightmare of injustice only, and no rebellion. But it is 
unfocused, dispersed, "postmodern" rebellion, micropolitical. I do not say 
we are trapped in the Iron Cage with no outlet ever. But is there an outlet 
for us? Aren't we in Kafka's situation, "There is an infinite amount of 
hope--but not for us."

--jks


>
> >>> jkschw at hotmail.com 06/13/01 11:51AM >>>
>Well, during much of Marx's life, workers were organizing the First
>International;
>
>(((((((
>
>CB: Which flopped
>
>(((((
>
>  his political career started with a revolution (1848)
>
>((((((
>
>CB: Which failed
>
>(((((((
>
>
>and
>more or less ended with another (1875).
>
>((((((
>
>CB: Which one is this ?  I thought the Paris Commune ( which he said would 
>be a folly of dispair, but supported) was earlier.
>
>((((((
>
>He went throughta  period of
>retrenchment and resignation in the 1850s.
>
>(((((
>
>CB: Don't think he made this public. My point being that he knew that 
>pessimism would tend to be self-fullfilling.
>
>((((
>
>
>  And besides, Marx hadn't been
>through what we have.
>
>(((((
>
>CB: We have been through more successful revs than he went through
>
>(((((
>
>
>  Even if it would not have been irrational for Marx to
>expect revolution immanently, that does not reflect one way or another on
>what it is rational for us to expect today. --jks
>
>
>((((((((
>
>CB: My point is that for Marxists to be optimistic today makes no less 
>sense than for the original Marxists to be optimistic. In fact, we have the 
>historical experience of more successful Marxist revolutions - in Russia, 
>China, Cuba, Viet Nam, Korea, Yugoslavia - than Marx did. The fact that 
>there have been reversals is reason for upset, but the initial 
>actualization of revolution gives reason to think we can reverse the 
>reversals.
>
>The importance of optimism is that successful revolution is not automatic 
>based on objective factors, but requires conscious striving. People with  
>optimistic subjectivity are more likely to sustain the effort necessary to 
>succeed. Optimism is a necessary ( but not sufficient) condition of 
>successful revolutionary struggle. I think this is consistent with the 
>Gramscian aphorism on this. What is it ?
>
>
>
> >From: "Charles Brown" <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us>
>
> >
> > >>> jkschw at hotmail.com 06/12/01 11:04AM >>>
> >As for
> >Foucauldian pessimism, any Marxist who is optimistic in this day and age 
>is
> >blind or fanatical. --jks
> >
> >(((((((((
> >
> >CB: Wouldn't an optimistic Marxist in Marx's day and age have to be the
> >same way , a blind seer and a fan of revolution ?
> >
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com