From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> Subject: Re:
Charles, the phrase "inevitability of revolution," is rhetoric rather than core marxist analysis. (In some situations it's good rhetoric; in others it's more or less irrelevant.)
######
Comrade, I disagree. Consider that the central thesis of _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_ is that somehow, across different historical epochs, class struggle in a law like manner , generates revolutions that fundamentally change the mode of production. The inevitability of revolution is at the core of Marxist historical materialism.
@@@@@@
What marxism has established, and what is more or less evident in the empirical record to anyone not religiously tied to an individualist metaphysic, is the anarchy of capitalism, what Rosa Luxemburge sloganized as "socialism or barbarianism." Clearly, within this overall anarchy & mass destruction, various and endlessly recurrent acts (collective and individual) of resistance, rebellion, etc are highly likely. Those actions, of course, may well be reactionary rather than progressive. But I think when we speak of revolution we should mean a whole (successful) process of transforming the basic social relations of capitalism: and that is by no means inevitable, nor would Marx ever have seriously made that claim.
!!!!!!!!!
Yes, the term "inevitable" if taken sort of strictly in a philosophical sense is not strictly true, because , for example, a comet could hit the earth and exterminate the human race, in which case there would be no more revolutions of the type Marx is discussing. Or there could be a nuclear holocaust throwing the whole thing off, or the oil supply could run out. Or the U.S. might establish the Fourth Reich , with Star Wars like stormtroopers, human and drone, ruling the world by hightech blitzkriegs coordinated from death stars orbiting the earth, and it lasts for a thousand years.
But I think this "inevitable" might be more taken like the "law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall". There is a historical tendency to revolution, or a ruin of the two contending classes. We should think of "law" more in the original sense from which the natural scientists borrowed as metaphor from lawyers. I think Marx and Engels are correct rhetorically to take the high road and emphasize the most positive tendency in all this , which is a revolutionary result. If we don't talk it up , it won't happen. Did Mao know that ?
^^^^^^^^^
That effort is, given Marx's analysis of capitalism an _intelligible_ effort, to which millions have devoted and will devote their lives. But intelligibility is not inevitability.
If you don't hit it, it won't fall, Mao observed. He also observed that a correct policy does not guarantee victory. The enemy may simply be stronger. Carrol