[lbo-talk] Bruce Bartlett: " I think it is only a matter of time before the Tea Party morphs into unapologetic fascism"

Wojtek S wsoko52 at gmail.com
Wed Nov 13 04:14:56 PST 2013


Marv: "The Marxist theory of the state or military - or any theory - has to be vindicated on its own terms. But where Marxist organizers were successful at organizing the military, you would expect some relationship between theory and practice. Even where revolutions did not succeed, more often than not, I still find Marxist explanations pointing to the decisive failure of the military to split along class lines very persuasive."

[WS:] I do not think that many scholars outside this list would agree.

AFAIK, even Marxist historians like Rueschemeyer or Brenner moved away from reductionist perspective of class analysis and focused on institutions instead. This of course is not to say that class does not matter - it certainly does, - but is not sufficient to explain historical outcomes. If you look at the debates between neo-Marxists and neo-Weberians during the past 30 or so years you see that those two positions became virtually indistinguishable - they all accept the importance of class as well as that state - or rather its different parts - are social actors in their own right, pursuing their interests that may or may not align with particular class interests. You really need to look into specific historical circumstances to look how these different interests are configured and played out, instead of applying the straitjacket of the lower/upper class struggle. To my mind this is a no-nonsense position that is open to any possibility without apriori rejecting one explanation in favor of another.

We are basically looking at the same facts and see two different things.

You see only class cutting through all institutions, I see class and institutions intersecting with each other but remaining separate. A bottle that is half-full or half-empty. I also understand that any position that puts the state in a favorable light is a tough sell on this side of the pond, as well as the rhetorical appeal of certain concepts, as CB aptly observed. The "us versus them" class analysis is certainly one of them.

However, I also understand the difference between rhetoric and empirical science. While I am certainly sympathetic to class-based rhetoric, I do not think that such rhetoric makes good empirical science. Grand theories of everything is simply not my cup of tea - I prefer a multipolar view of the world and middle range empirical generalizations. That is all that there is to it.

Cheers.

-- Wojtek

"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list