From: Jon Johanning <jjohanning at igc.org>
On Sep 6, 2004, at 8:54 PM, Charles Brown wrote:
> Joke.
Somehow my sense of humor and yours don't quite match up. I treat everything you write as serious. Perhaps you might try putting in some ":-)"s.
^^^^ CB: Sometimes I pujt :>)'s , but if I did it for every joke, my posts would be too full of them. You've heard of straight-faced humor, haven't you ?
^^^^^^-
Jon: That's exactly my point. Marx, Engels, Lenin, and all the other luminaries of the movement were prone to claim that they could tell "scientifically" where history was going when they were speaking to the masses because they thought that would make them appear to be leaders that the masses should follow.
^^^^^ CB: Well, no that's not the way I would say it. Marx, Engels and Lenin did have a remarkably more scientific way of looking at history - believe me speaking as a scientific anthropologist, theirs was a scientific leap forward in looking at history. And it was appropriate that they should lend this authority to their speeches to masses.
But all of this what they were saying was not some obscure formula like a physicist or chemist. What Marxists were saying to the masses substantially corresponded with the masses direct experience. They dug deeper, but these social and economic and historical issues and facts were substantially part of the direct experience of the working class and poor. Marxists just connect the dots for most people.
^^^^^^ Jon: I suppose this worked with some of said masses, though others, I am sure, were rather skeptical. In any case, it was bunk, because neither "scientists" nor astrologers can look at a social system and see that it is going to destroy itself through "inevitable contradictions, etc."
^^^^ CB: You are begging the question. What we are disputing is whether social science can do exactly that. Have you looked at the history of social systems from the past ? You know, the rise and fall of swivilizations ? Mayas, Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, European middle ages. There doesn't seem to be any that last forever. Are you saying they are destroyed from the outside by non-contradictions.
^^^^^
Jon: In his more lucid moments, even Marx realized that the tendencies to declining profit rate, etc., were balanced by contrary tendencies, making prediction of the ultimate outcome impossible. And his notions about where the working class was going were completely off, as subsequent history has shown.
CB: Yea he does discuss countervailing tendencies right there in the same lucid moment he discusses the profit fall. There he also discusses the organic composition of capital, which would predict more and more machines and fewer and fewer human workers, which is exactly what is happening. So, there's prediction from Marx of the future that has come true. I forgot that one.
He's notions about the working class are remarkably right on . What are you talking about ?! Did you notice that we had a little thing called the Russian Revolution ? Not only that the German workers were close to making exactly a Marxist revolution, but the bourgeoisie pulled out fascism. There was a red revolution in Spain. France had the Commune and a gigantic workers' movement. Italy had the largest Communist Party of all. You don't seem to be too familiar with the how much the workers have fulfilled Marx's "predictions." The working class is rising in Venezuela as we speak. You need to do a little historical working class fact checking.
^^^^^
Lenin, when he came to try to apply Marx to the Russian situation, had to throw them out completely, in favor of various combinations of workers and peasants, or one or the other by itself, which he cooked up from year to year, as conditions changed -- eventually decreeing, in fact, a return to capitalism, the NEP, which he again veered away from.
^^^^^^
CB: Somehow Lenin seemed to think that he was completely leaving Marx in in all these things you mention. Sounds like you are buying into those suburban legends about Marxism as dogma. No Marxism is a guide to action, which is the way Lenin took it. That means Marx's words are not like holy writ for Marxists, contra what anti-Marxists love to lie about. So, low and behold Lenin doesn't follow Marx like holy writ (like Marx Marxists don't follow me like holy writ) and you jump on it and say , aha, Lenin isn't following Marx. My gosh, Lenin wasn't a Marxist
^^^
He did this, of course, because he was trying to maintain the survival a revolutionary government which was faced with very difficult choices. But (in my estimation) he swerved so often, while, as he admitted, keeping the old Tsarist secret police apparatus going to support his government, that in the end a dictatorial regime was practically inevitable. His tragedy was that he started in his youth as a sincere believer that a new kind of society and a new humanity was possible, and ended up at his death having gone in just the opposite direction. And none of this was foreseen by Marx.
^^^^ CB: Well, Marx did foresee that socialism would have to maintain a state apparatus, and "state apparatus" is a euphemism for things like "police". Marx also foresaw the "revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat" as part of this socialist state. So, Marx kinda foresaw a bit more of the Russian Rev than you are allowing.
Marx also, knew that there had to be a rev in an advanced capitalist country for socialism to survive. So, Marx sort of foresaw a little more than you give him credit for on that too. In other words, there is a general sense that we might even say that Marx's theory would *predict* that the Soviet Union couldn't last forever on its own without a revolution in an advanced country to accompany and protect it.
> 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 ?
No, I'm not predicting anything. I'm saying that I don't see any way in which capitalism can "perish from its own contradictions" in the classic Marxist way. No one has persuaded me yet that such contradictions exist in the system. So if it is going to be replaced by another system, it looks as though it will have to happen by a majority (or at least a very sizable minority) coming to hold the view that this new system is preferable. In other words, it will have to be voted democratically (as Marx himself, by the way, allowed was possible in a country like the U.S.)
^^^^^^ CB: Marx's idea is that the majority, the working masses, will decide to change the system.
I don't know what to say about you "don't see anyway that capitalism can perish from its own contradictions in the classic Marxist way. I guess I can say "I do see a way that it could".
As to evidence of the contradictions, you might want to read up on world labor history in the 19th and 20th Centuries. There was quite a bit of evidence of classic Marxist class contradictions and struggle, i.e. class struggle. In fact there was overwhelming evidence of it. Like beyond a reasonable doubt.
^^^^
> My point is Marx's time frame is not up yet. He never said there would
> be a
> revolution by the year 2004.
No, but judging by most of what he wrote, I think he would have been very surprised that it would have taken this long. And, I would further claim, there is no evidence of a workers' movement being organized at this point that would lead to such a revolution *ever.*
^^^^ CB: You might want to take a look at the Russian Revolution again, which took place 34 years after Marx died. Then there's a few other Marxist revs after that.
^^^^^^
There just ain't no revolutionary workers' movement in this country, despite the various little grouplets that call themselves "revolutionary parties," and I haven't found any believable accounts by any of them that explain how such a movement is going to arise.
They're all going on faith, which is why us "anti-communists" say they are actually preaching a religion. Their position is precisely analogous to the Christians who say, "Jesus' time frame is not up yet.
^^^^^^ CB: Except , of course, there _have_ been Marxist revolutions in the world, 70 years after the Communist Manifesto, AND slight numerical difference between Christians and Communists of oh 150 years vs 2000 years. That's not very "precise" on your part to ignore that enormous difference. Did you think I wasn't going to notice that you are equating 2000 years with 150 years ? That would suggest that you have more religious, Jesus style thinking and logic in your anti-Communist faith than that Communists are thinking religiously. That's a pretty irrational identification: 2000 = 150. There have been historically recent Communist revolutions.
I'd say that there is no immediately foreseeable in the U.S. , especially since the Russian Rev and SU caused the bourgeoisie in the U.S. to assemble a super-duper anti-Communist apparatus and system, specifically designed to counter Communist influence on the only class that can make the rev, the working class. But capitalism can't exist without workers, so in the long run , the anti-Communist brainwashing of U.S. workers may fade, especially with no Soviet Union.
^^^^^^
The Bible never said that Christ would return by the year 2004." (You see -- all one has to do is substitute "Marx" for "Jesus" and "Christ's return" for "revolution" in what you wrote.)
^^^^ CB: Sure, you can do all kinds of ridiculous contortions to try to make out that Communists are religious in their thinking, or acting on "faith" alone. But in doing so, you expose yourself as not speaking based on what has actually happened in the world. There _have_ been Marxist revolutions very soon after his theory was expounded. There has not been a second coming of Jesus yet and it's been 2000 years. That's the facts, and your statement ignores the facts, which is an indication that you are speaking based on anti-communist faith, not that Communists are acting on faith and ignoring what has actually happened in the world.
> So, there
> are lots of Marxists everywhere preparing for the next generation of
> revolutions.
Not many in the U.S.
> Are you saying you never think there will be a revolution again ?
I'm saying, at the risk of becoming repetitious, that any revolution that I can foresee is going to be legislative -- enacting laws that will change the ownership system of the country from capitalist to socialist. And I don't see that happening in my lifetime, for sure. Possibly in my grandchildren's, at the earliest (actually I don't have grandchildren yet, but I have a couple of sons who may produce some before long). If the earth survives that long.
^^^^^^^ CB: I can agree with this more. I am not anticipating a U.S. rev in my lifetime, though I would not completely foreclose the possibility of change much more rapid than seems possible now ( in our lifetime, i.e. 15 to 30 years or so)
On the U.S., CP and others have always given priority to a peacful, "legislative" transition to socialism. Smith Act convictions were based on big lie that the CP's goal was overthrow U.S. government by force and violence. CP program and plan was to work within the U.S. system of elections. Socialism is more rule of,by and for the overwhelming majority more than capitalism, so we should be able to have a Constitutional Convention and socialize the Constitution. I have a draft Amendment Constitutional Amendment for a Right to a Job or income, for example, anticipating _legal_ radical reform, and then legal revolution. CPUSA touts "Bill of Rights Socialism".
In general, the expectation is , though, that the counterrevolution likely will be violent and require force to defeat. That's what happened in Russia and other places. Violence comes from the counterrevolution, not much we can do to stop that but fight back.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________