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

[Wojtek S]

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."