From: Jon Johanning <jjohanning at igc.org> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk]
On Sep 4, 2004, at 1:18 PM, Charles Brown wrote:
> CB: No you wouldn't find them because they don't exist. That is not a
> Leninist or ML position. What you are announcing is a typical
> anti-communist, suburban myth.
Actually, I am residing currently in the midst of a major East-coast metropolis, although I have also lived in suburbs. But how is my place of residence relevant to the argument?
^^^^ CB: This is a joke. There is a new common usage on the internet referring to "urban legends" for anything that it a tale, untrue, fibs going around. So, since I live in an urban area I switched it. You don't have to live in the suburbs. The idea that is where the myth you are pronouncing came from.
Joke.
^^^
> The quotes below have been elided and
> distorted slanderously often in the manner you do it here, so as to
> make out
> Communists as unthinking religiousioses.
What's elided and distorted? I think they're pretty representative of what people like Lenin wrote, and the web site I quoted is trying to present Marxism-Leninism to the public, so I would suppose that it would try to put its best foot forward.
^^^^^^ CB: Elided and distorted means that what you quoted didn't say that Communists consider themselves infallibale, but people "interpret" those words that way.
^^^^^
> Just like here. You are not being precise in your analysis of this
> language. I just pointed out to you that you drew an unwarranted
> inference
> about the quotes you adduced, that they don't say Communists say they
> are
> infallible. You reply there is such a quote. That's a superstitious
> belief
> you have about Communists. Not one based on actual quotes you have
> read, but
> on word of mouth or all the anti-Communist myths floating around in an
> America still full of hangover lies from the Cold War.
As Chris pointed out, Trotsky was pretty fond of the word. If I had more time, I'm sure I could find Lenin and others of his followers besides Trotsky using it.
^^^^
CB: No you won't find Lenin using it, and your "certainty" that you will is exactly what I am talking about. As I say , I don't include Trotsky in the classics. Nothing against Trotsky. Just Marx , Engels and Lenin don't use the concept of "infallible" . Anyway, Trotsky, according to Chris said "infallibility" of some event. That's not saying Communist people don't make mistakes. Nobody's that stupid to say they never make mistakes. It's an anti-Communist caricature.
^^^^^^
The main point, though, is this: for polemical purposes, primarily, I think, a lot of followers of Marx have often boasted that their theory enabled them to have definite knowledge of future developments. In particular, they have constantly insisted that the capitalist system contains the seeds of its own destruction, in that it would generate a serious of more and more serious crises for itself, while the working class grew ever stronger and more organized, leading to a final conflict in which the working class would seize power and establish a system in which each would contribute according to his/her means and receive according to his/her needs.
^^^^^^ CB: Now that's a bit closer. Especially the end.
The "definite knowledge of future events" is what you say above. That's somewhat general and your use of "definite" is a bit misleading. And of course "boasting" is a kind of loaded word.
Part of the reason for expressing significant confidence and certainty is that who is going to follow somebody who says, "Well I think maybe, I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure that perhaps , you know well, maybe there is going to be a revolution , but don't quote me on that, I have to maintain my Kantian critical attitude, and you know we can't be sure, I'm actually agnostic..." See what I mean.
^^^^^^^
If you want to claim that this is not the basic theory of Marxism and Leninism, then I can only stand with my mouth agape. If it isn't, what is?
^^^^ CB: Yea, like I said that's closer. But no "infallibility". That's not in there. Maybe the word you are looking for is "inevitable" ? I don't know. "Inevitable" is used in _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_. Either the fall of capitalism or the classes destroying each other is inevitable. That's the extent of the prediction of the future.
^^^^^^
So, if it is in fact the central claim of ML, then it has clearly been falsified by events. In the first place, Marx based this whole notion on the idea that the revolution would occur in the most advanced capitalist countries, when they developed the forces of production to the point that their further development was being hindered by capitalist anarchy and could only be carried further by a socialist form of ownership. But revolutions have not occurred in advanced capitalist systems, which have proven quite capable of containing ordinary labor movements, much less revolutionary ones. The only revolutions which have occurred have been in less advanced countries, beginning with early 20th-century Russia. ML theorists have tried their best to paper over this contradiction, but in fact, as far as I can tell, it blows the guts out of any scientific respectability Marxist "crisis theory" might have.
^^^^^^
CB: I don't understand. Are you saying that's it ? There can't be such a revolution in an advanced capitalist country in the future ? You are predicting that capitalism is now the permanent human mode of production ?
My point is Marx's time frame is not up yet. He never said there would be a revolution by the year 2004.
No mode of production has lasted forever. By that , I would guess that capitalism is not eternal either. So, since it is going to end some day, why wouldn't it be in the way Marx predicted , either socialism or barbarism ?
Not only that,we got a little sample of an other through of capitalism. True it wasn't in an advanced country, and that's probably a main part of why it failed. But it shows it can happen. Also, the Russian Revolution caused Marx's ideas to become more widely known ( including by the bourgeoisie ! Who were and are better to counter revolution by reading Marx !)So, there are lots of Marxists everywhere preparing for the next generation of revolutions.
Are you saying you never think there will be a revolution again ?
More Later
CB
^^^^^^