You know, someone once said that a marxist publication has a theory about where the subject of history emerges - something about how it can't emerge in the u.s. because people in the u.s. are too spoiled by consumer goods, wages, etc. to every care abotu overthrowing capital. Thus, they occupy a subject position that makes them resistant to seeing themselves as harmed by capitalism. People in the third world, even people in non-industrialized countries (IIR this view correctly) may be more apt to see their interests as opposed to capitalism and so more likely to be revolutionary or a fertile ground where they might want to stir up revolution.
T: There are different barriers to progress in these different sorts of countries.
As someone who has lived my life in a 'third world' country and moreover one that went through an intense struggle for democracy, I can tell you that South Africa today is a zillion miles from any real anti-capitalist mentality. When I say 'real' I mean not just in rhetoric. We have communist party members in government but they are a joke. Now the question of whether you have to go through some sort of capitalist (democratic?) stage before 'socialism' or communism is a more open one than people here want to admit. We are far from understanding what sort of mentality and education a people must go through in order for them to be able to be communist in their inclinations and understanding. There are many of my compatriots who argue against 'capitalism' and for 'socialism' but when you analyse what they're saying ... well let me just say that I'm not sure I would want to live under their 'socialism'. THIS is why theory is important. Anti-capitalism without that means everything and nothing. Many members of Hitler's party also thought they were socialist anti-capitalists. Anarchists to me also suffer from this 'new dawn' mentality, where if you just wipe away all that is then somehow the bright shining future will emerge just like when you polish up an old tarnished piece of silver or something. One thing to consider: what is the experience for subjectivity of having lived under bourgeois law and capitalist forms of calculation? is this a precondition for being able to think communism? It may be, in some ways.
you get my point yet?
Doug says theory matters, that it can be used to shape how we act, what goals we pursue, where we protest, who were are interested in as possible allies in the struggle against capitalism, where we attack capitalism, if we can attack it, where to best spent our limited energies. Most people agree with him.
T: 'Attacking capitalism' is exactly the problem. How do you attack an abstraction? Like Don Quixote perhaps? Or do you do it by bringing this abstraction down to its concrete particulars. Call it theory, call it critique or what you will. Mindless 'activism' sucks.
So, in this debate does it matter. Does Graeber's view tend to push us in one direction or not? If it does, is this a "bad" direction and why?
T: The best position is always the one that is the best informed; everything else is mere pragmatism.
-------------- next part -------------- All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/emaildisclaimer