Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 18:54:51 -0500 From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> Subject: Re: War and revolution
joanna bujes wrote:
>
> Overall, I don't see what can be gained by throwing Yoshie, Charles,
> Carrol, et al. in a Stalinist camp and then claiming that they therefore
> have nothing to say.
I _think_ the premise Tahir and others are operating from, more or less self-consciously, is that capitalism is so overwheliming, so strong not only in productive capacity, in political and military strength, in its domination of cultural and intellectual life but in its permeation of every aspect, every minute of daily life that there can be no build-up to insurrection but that the whole must be overthrown at once. In the conventional metaphor here, capitalism is like pregnancy: one cannot be a little bit capitalist.
Tahir: It's your call Carrol - you tell me what it means to be a little bit capitalist, just so I can understand you see. But you have not answered any of the key points that I made. The most important of these concered the question of "radical social change" and that this can result from the left organising OTHERS at a time of crisis. This involves organising people as if they were things. I believe that the only role for the communist party in a revolution is to engage with the masses who are already in revolt not to try to co-opt people into a revolution that is not of their own making. You are welcome to disagree with that. I say again that radical social change cannot come about through organising the masses as if they were members of an army that one hoped to direct. And I once again challenge the view that this has EVER led to what I called an irreversible change in consciousness and in custom. If that were true then the present regime in Russia would not even be able!
t! o rule. This is not purism but a fundamental truth that members of the opportunist left (yes that was the root word that I drew attention to) prefer to ignore.
Now I suppose that put like that Tahir would deny that this is his principle, but his attacks on "Leninism" (someday I will take up what I mean by those scare quotes)
Tahir: Why someday Carol? Life is short. But hey I'm prepared to accept that Leninism is a misnomer, and that we are really talking about Kautsky (mentor of Lenin) and other such luminaries of the second international. That is what you were referring to, surely?
do seem to place him in that tradition which sees friends as enemies (in contrast to the tradition, represented most vividly by Nathan on this list, which sees enemies as friends.) Everyone falls into one or the other of those extremes all the time, and often both simultaneously, but a few, like Tahir, at least seem to grasp one of the poles with great enthusiasm.
Tahir: Yep, sectarian heavyweight champion of the world. Now Carrol why don't we talk about the word 'infantile', its various meanings and its political history of use within the communist movement? Let's hear your views on the "infantile disorder".
While I cling tenaciously to various maillists, I do feel that it has yet to be established that they do not contribute more to disunity than unity among leftists.
Tahir: Is Tony Balir a leftist? Was Stalin? What about Pol Pot? Bill Clinton? Tell me who the leftists are Carrol that you so casually refer to here and I'll tell you which ones I'm prepared to unite with.
Traditionally, unity flows from practice: that is, people with sharply different principles can unite around a given practice under given conditions, and in terms of that practice explore that (partial) unity of principle which the shared practice implies.
Tahir: This is so much of the verbiage so beloved of those who were reared on Lawrence and Wishart and other Soviet textbooks. Now tell me about unity of practice in the Soviet Union - please don't forget to mention how almost all the original bolshevik leadership was eliminated, no doubt because they were 'promoting disunity'. Then let's look at the Spanish Civil War and how the 'revolution' was conducted from Moscow, also plenty of killing of people who didn't want 'unity' with Stalin and Churchill. Next flip to Paris '68 and the heroic role of the CP in resoring unity between potential revolutionaries and their parliamentary comrades. You tell me where you stand in this history and I'll tell you if I can unite with you. If you don't want to commit yourself in that way then fuck all your talk about unity.
But on a maillist we become the ideal abstract individuals posited by a capitalist world, and we have only abstract principle to unite (or disunite) us. Any difference whatever in opinion then can become absolute.
Could be.
Carrol
Tahir: Could be what? What is the principle to unite us? The United Front? Let's talk also about this concept and its adventures through the history of the communist movement. What have all the United Fronts achieved in terms of progress towards communism? How many dead bodies have piled up in order to secure the future for more and more struggles between (neo)liberal democracy and nationalism?
If you take part in an anti-war rally or protest against the right to life brigade, or against racism, or whatever, you can just do that, because it is a worthwhile thing in itself, not because you are recruiting for the communist party. But, conversely - and here's the real point - if you want to recruit me to fight in a war that has nothing to do with communism at all, no thanks, then I really WILL stay at home and do something useful like read a book. The 'do everythingers' can go and repeat history as a farce if they want. Now Carrol unless you are prepared to say where you stand in some of this history of the movement, don't waste my time with pontificating about questions of opinion and styles of debate. It's a waste of time. And that's all you've done in your numerous contributions to this thread.