From: Jon Johanning
Jon: I think he has a very good point (Carrol's comments from the archives on learning from past mistakes as a "mistaken" notion) What, precisely, could we learn from previous revolutions? Let's do it nicer this time? Let's make sure to be more "democratic"? Set up a new system that really works, and does what we promise it will, this time?
^^^^ CB: Well, you pose an interesting question and issues, and I hope I don't get all windbag Marxist in trying to respond. Just to respond to your first quote and deductions from what the Old Guy says, the idea of the socialist revolution being the first conscious one also comes from the Old Guy,so... That consciousness is brought to us by Marx and Engels based upon learning from prior revs, and observing the trend of history. In other words, I think you have to take the quote regarding man (sic) making his own history not as he pleases as applying to all past epochs. The Communist-Marxist revolution is a revolution in revolutions in that it is based on fuller consciousness. It is the beginning of the new epoch in which people do make their history as they please. You can relate this to a planned economy. In other words, the idea of historical materialism is overthrown by the communist revolution, because society is no longer the unconscious slave of economic forces, class conflict. The struggle is with natural forces, not social forces. To put it in other famous terms, by mastering economic necessity (abolishing the unfulfilled needs of class society), we become free to make "history" as we please.
So, a key "mistake" from past revolutions ( but really societies in ongoing history) that Marx and Engels generalize the correction of is failure to cognize that revolutions have to end class exploitation,not replace one ruling class with a new one.
^^^^^^^^
As the Old Guy himself said: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given, and transmitted from the past." So if the "next revolution" is going to be the one to "transform out of capitalism,"as you say, that would presuppose, it seems to me, that the circumstances in which it was made would be such as to allow this transformation. And if it is to "end all class exploitative society," that would also presuppose that the " transforming out of capitalism" would indeed end all class society and exploitation.
This, however, is one of the big sticking points (perhaps the biggest) I have encountered in my 40 years or so of reading Marx: I don't think he (or his epigones)
^^^^^ CB: "Followers" will do.
^^^^^
have every actually completely proved, although they constantly assert, that capitalism is the sole cause of class divisions and exploitation, so that ending it would end those things.
^^^^^^ CB: Well, yea , it couldn't actually be completely proved, unless we have a world communist system and then there were no exploiting classes in it as a test of the theory. Practice is the test of theory in Marxism. The reasoning is that since the working class is the overwhelming majority of the population, if that class became the ruling class, it couldn't exploit a minority as the basis for its existence.
By the way, one of the things learned from the Russian Revolution and the socialist revolutions following it is that the socialist revolution must be worldwide. Also, a sort of confirmation of a famous Marx-Engels idea is that there has to be an initial rev in advanced capitalist countries. This seems to be confirmed by the common sense reasoning that, as with the Soviet Union, when socialism in a poor country has to compete with wealthy capitalist countries, the latter can cause the socialist revolution to fail through use of superior force of arms. I wouldn't call the Russian Revolution a mistake in this regard ( in the sense that "they should have let Germany have a rev first"), but this is something confirmed by the first historical experience with socialist revolution.
^^^^^^^
Jon: I have this teeny-weeny, sneaking little fear that, even after capitalism were completely eradicated, people would still come up with some way of exploiting each other.
And it would seem to me, at least, that if the circumstances in which the "next revolution"is going to be carried out are going to be such as to allow capitalism to be completely eradicated, the folks doing the revolution should have some fairly clear idea of the nature of the social structure that is going to replace it. I also have a tiny little fear rattling around in the back of my mind that this wonderful new society, call it "socialism" or "communism" or whatever you like, is not just going to blossom forth on its own; it's going to take some sort of conscious work to construct. But orthodox Marxists seem very reluctant to describe it in any clear way (that would be "utopian," of course).
^^^^^ CB: The first little fear gets into the whole ongoing thread on "human nature", selfishnes ,etc. It really is true that Marxism has a very high regard and optimism for human nature and human potential. It says, "We can do it. " Now this is backed up by science in the sense that a lot of anthropology indicates that for most of human history we have lived in non-exploitative societies. If there are no exploitative institutions and children are raised to be not exploitative, and if we remember the giant mistake of past history of exploitative structures ( we will have museums and education to remind future generations), then we can do it.
It definitely will take conscious work to construct. That's one of the main points I am making here. The socialist revolution is uniquely consciously constructed. You know its like the bee and the spider and the human in the famous Marx quote. The bee and spider have splendid constructions, but the difference between those and humans' constructions is that the latter "imagines" or plans the construction in advance. Up until the communist revolution, people have acted like bees and spiders, and not "imagined" ahead of time how they made history; they made it, but not just as they pleased. Marxism says, _now_ lets start making history that pleases us all.
I wouldn't make too much of the famous Marxist reticence about the details of socialism and communism. For one thing, you can find lots of places where Marx, Engels et al. speculate about these. But also, they are being democratic, in the sense that the masses of people themselves will work out the details, not follow a dogma of two people. Marx and Engels expect if basic socialist consciousness can grip the masses, and labor is substantially emancipated, people will learn and know what to do in carrying out the details in the long run.
^^^^^^^^
Jon: Perhaps the increased "class and revolutionary consciousness" you mentioned will take care of all this, and perhaps social science has some role to play in all of it, too. But, slow learner as I am, I just haven't been able to figure these puzzles out in these 40 years. This is all old, boring stuff, of course. Probably I should go back and browse in the LBO archives some more; I'm sure, somewhere there, someone has explained it all in terms even I can grasp. :-)
^^^^^^^ CB: Well, ok , I give you credit for polite modesty, but I doubt the problem is that you are a slow learner.
I'd say that, sure, Marxism has not proven all its claims. But, some of the questions you pose do have answers ( formulated by classical Marxism) that satisfy reason, such that it really makes sense for all of us to get together and give Marxist socialism a try.
The other element is The Alternative Is Not Too Happy (TAINTHappy). Assume we are creepy little exploiters and oppressors by nature or whatever. Does that damn us thinkers to misanthropy ?