>1. Only where the direct, head-on struggle against capitalism is >possible
>can the end to class society (and by implication imperialism) >be achieved.
Could you be a little more specific about this, please? What form will this/these struggle(s) take?
>2. It IS necessary to point out that this is not possible in all >its
>facets and in all places and times. In some contexts the working >class and
>the revolutionary people need instead to fight for bourgeois >democratic
>freedoms, better working conditions and the strengthening >of civil
>organisations that are beneficial to the people. This >situation is typical
>of countries that are backward in those >particular respects. The point of
>this is not reform but strengthening >of the conditions that are necessary
>for socialism. It means creating >the social conditions, and especially
>expanding the cognitive and >affective resources, that will be required in
>the head to head with >capital, i.e. in becoming more human rather than
>more like a machine.
This is a fine idea, in and of itself. I take it this would mean allowing or even encouraging capitalist relations in the country, right? Given the context of today's realities, don't you think the government would be "swamped" by the bigger TNCs, seeking a place for cheap investment, and a goverment desperated enough to accede to their demands for a "favourable climate" in which to do business? Or do you think they should go the route of the Asian "Tigers" and hold them off while developing one's own bourgeois instead?
>3. What else is advocated here? Complete unity of those fighting >against
>capitalism across all national boundaries. There is absolutely >no marxist
>basis for uniting with one's 'own' bourgeoisie against the >foreigner in
>the name of anti-imperialism (But that is exactly what >happens in national
>struggles - 'our' bourgeoisie somehow becomes >benign in relation to
>'theirs').
Very true. Straight out of M & E's Manifesto.
What do you mean by "complete unity"? What happens if there are Marxists who disagree with the tactics used to "fight capitalism" in this or that country, such as allowing the country's own bourgeois to develop and so improve conditions for socialism?
>4. The domain where direct anti-capitalist struggle is impossible >is
>shrinking all the time. This is because of globalisation. The third >world
>is moving into the US and the US is moving into the third world. >Let's not
>get too attached to our stereotyped categories here.
Are you alluding to events like Seattle? Is that what you mean by "direct anti-capitalist struggle"?
>5. A very specific myth needs to be put aside in relation to the >above
>point: this is that autarchic quasi-marxist movements are more >effective
>in developing capitalism and that this constitutes an >additional
>justification for their existence (i.e. beyond the fact >that they will
>somehow 'lead to' socialism at some point in the >future). But there are
>and have always been other models of >authoritarian capitalism. South Korea
>is a recent one. But Franco's >Spain is an earlier one. Who says that the
>Stalinists would have done >a better job of capitalist modernisation?
"Would have done"? I thought much typing was done not too long ago here, arguing (fairly successfully, I thought), that Stalin et al. did work towards modernisation.
> As Bordiga says: Capitalism >is the agrarian revolution. It doesn't
> >require bourgeois democracy at >all. It can be >done by authoritarian
> >rightists just as well as by >authoritarian 'leftists'. Each one of
> >these also sets back the >socialist cause as much as the other (but >only
>one discredits marxism).
Yes, this makes good sense. Anything else?
Todd
_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com