curt_b
08-23-2009, 08:10 AM
I don't know if people here are aware of or would care about the Reimagining Society Project at Znet: http://www.zcommunications.org/zparecon/rsessays.htm
It was stimulated by a Nation magazine's website forum:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090323/ehrenreich_fletcher
Over the last few months, Z invited about 350 Leftists to "to submit one or two essays about vision and strategy regarding economy, polity, gender/kinship, culture/race, ecology, international relations, or any part of any of these areas of life or any more focused aspect of life such as education, health, science, art, etc. - singly or in any combination."
So far, about 150 have responded. You'll recognize many of the writers, and it's heavy with "participatory democracy" essays (Kid, check your blood pressure before reading some of these.) A couple of good things about it though are that many of the writers offer clear explanations of their outlook, and are leading representatives of various Left tendencies. Next, the comments to some of the essays are quite good, and reveal some intellectual honesty. Third, many of the authors are frequently published on Leftist and liberal websites, and their work here gives a great deal of background into their other writings.
Paul Street's piece is a good example. His analysis of current affairs and past work on racism are among the best, regularly available on the web. I'm going to excerpt a couple paragraphs from and a couple comments to his essay. If you look at a few of the articles, some of the themes we've discussed here about "democracy", "worker's control, "hierarchy", etc. are repeated in the context of broad political projects. It's an impressive effort, and the responses surpass most of the drivel that appears on blogs and forums. What does it mean? I don't know.
Re-Imagining and Recovering Revolutionary Socialism
July 13, 2009 By Paul Street
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/21980
Why re-imagine socialism? I can think of five reasons.
"Socialism or Barbarism If We're Lucky"
First, because Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, and Rosa Luxembourg were right: humanity either transcends capitalist class rule by constructing a new genuinely social order based on democratic principles or it falls into permanent disaster, tyranny and decline. Failure to develop and implement a radical alternative to the profits system and its fake, corporate-managed "democracy" will bring us (in no short order) to what Arundhati Roy calls "the endgame of humanity."[1] The technical, organizational, and cultural forces of production, distribution, pollution destruction, and social/thought/ population- control that have emerged under the direction and command of capital and the capitalist state have turned that command into an ever-more imminent existential threat not just to meaningful democracy and (intimately related) to the very survival of the species. [2] The Hungarian Marxist Ivan Meszaros was right to update Luxembourg for an age of incipient ecological catastrophe: its "socialism or barbarism if we're lucky." Of course, the barbarism is well underway and has been for some time.
Midwife of Socialism or Undertaker of Humanity?
Second, because Marx and Engels were wrong: there are no fixed teleological laws of historical development determining the dialectical emergence of a revolutionary proletariat that - with proper guidance and assistance from a heroic, clear-eyed, and iron-willed revolutionary "vanguard" - will sweep the masters of capital into the dustbin of history. A "fully developed" capitalism is by no means the inherent progenitor of its own radical working class grave-diggers. It is by no historical law the "midwife of socialism." Possessed with means of destruction and hegemony that the historical Left's leading 19th century thinkers could hardly imagine, the "late capitalism" of the long multinational-corporate era seems more properly understood as the potential undertaker of humanity - as a plague or cancer threatening the continued viability of the human experiment (not to mention the lives of numerous other species). It is hardly a "utopian" flight of elite intellectual fancy for people from any and all classes to work to rigorously conceptualize and advance alternative democratic models of political and economic and development beyond the parasitic death-grip imposed by the business class and its many captive and indoctrinated servants. It is, rather, one's duty to humanity to undertake such intellectual and activist work.
"So, Goodbye to the Soul of Eugene Debts"
Fourth, because the historical models of really and recently existing "socialism" and in-power "Marxism [-Lennisim]" have not proved attractive or persuasive to most of the world's citizen-workers. Those models sadly identified the word "socialism" with the dungeon and with stultifying state bureaucracy. One can argue about the extent to which this unattractiveness and tragic misidentification is the result of (a) capitalist-imperialist power, propaganda, blockade, and intervention; (b) harsh historical circumstances (the legacy of feudalism and Tsarism/absolutism) and the related isolation of the Russian Revolution after 1919; and/or (c) inherent moral and ideological flaws within "socialist" movements and states since the mid-late 19th century. However one jumbles these and (perhaps) other factors, however, it is an uncontestable fact that the state policies and institutions that elites on both sides of the Cold War came (for their own different reasons) to identify as "socialism" had little to do with the liberating spirit of popular working class rebellion and popular revolution that the original socialist and left anarchist movements embodied. Coldly and quite immediately betraying Marx's egalitarian and anti-authoritarian leanings - reflected in his brilliant denunciation of the capitalist division of labor [6] and his embrace of the short-lived radical-democratic Paris Commune [7] and in his reference to the desirable future as among other things the reign of the self-determining "associated producers"[8] - the Soviet experiment (lacking the oxygenating effect of the European revolution Trotsky knew it required) "moved quickly to dismantle the incipient socialist institutions that had grown up during the popular revolution - the factory councils, the Soviets, in fact any organ of popular control - and to convert the workforce into what they called a ‘labor army' under the command of the leader"(Chomsky).
Comments:
Your account of why 'Marx and Engels were wrong'
By D'Arcy, Steve
First, let me say that I really, really like the article.
But I do have a couple of constructively critical points to make.
One very minor point is that I find it hard to accept the description of Rosa Luxemburg as a "libertarian socialist," for two reasons: she was a Marxist and it is conventional to use 'libertarian socialist' as a label for anarchism, or at least one strand of anarchism (which she was explicit in rejecting, for principled reasons); and, moreover, she was a collectivist, and if the word "libertarian" is to have any meaning, it ought to imply at least rejecting collectivism.
My more substantial concern relates to the claim that "Marx and Engels were wrong" because they (supposedly) believed that "a revolutionary proletariat...with guidance and assistance from a heroic, clear-eyed, and iron-willed revolutionary 'vanguard'...will sweep the masters of capital into the dustbin of history." This is just a baseless caricature.
Here's a an actual quotation from Marx and Engels: "we cannot ally ourselves with people who openly declare that the workers are too uneducated to free themselves and must first be liberated from above by philanthropic capitalists or middle class reformers." Instead, they insist, "the emancipation of the working classes must be the act of workers themselves." This is at the very centre of their thought. (I defy you to find a quotation in which they say anything about workers needing "guidance from a heroic, clear-eyed and iron-willed" group of any kind.)
Finally, Marx and Engels don't use the word, "vanguard," and if they did they would be among those (like Lenin by the way, not to mention Luxemburg or Pannekoek, who you cite) who use it interchangably with the term "advanced workers," i.e., militant workers influenced by radical politics, not a group of "iron-willed" professional revolutionaries, which is a doctrine promoted by people like Bakunin, and in one of Lenin's early works (1902), influenced as he was at that time by some of the elitist strands in 19th century Russian radicalism, but certainly not by Marx or Engels.
A serious engagement with the work of Marx and Engels, above all their idea of the "self-emancipation of the working class," is crucial for the project that you describe in this article. Deterring people from reading Marx and Engels by spreading myths and mischaracterizations of their writings or their politics can only get in the way. (This, of course, is an idea that Luxemburg and Pannekoek, not to mention Meszaros and Debs, would be only too quick to insist upon.)
Re: Your account of why 'Marx and Engels were wrong'
By Street, Paul
I accept the correction on Marx-Engels (though retain critique of notion of historical teleology/laws and revolutionary class) but don't actually quite call Rosa a libertarian socialist (don't have her confused with Rocker) in the essay....Elsewhere in the essay you can see me quoting Marx on liberation in connection with the self-determining rule of the "associated producers" ( this phrase is used quite well by Meszaros). See note 8, with the use of that key quote from Vol III of Capital. There is much that a libertarian socialist can find in Marx indeed in my opinion.
Re: Your account of why 'Marx and Engels were wrong'
By Davidson, Carl
Marx and Engels were far more right than wrong about most things. They were first of all, historical materialists, not historical teleologists. Apart from general trends, they tended to shy away from making predictions or proclaiming future certainites. But it's true that their 19th Century notions of science had some 'progress-ism' built in. Luckily, we have historical materialists like Stephen Jay Gould, in his book 'Full House,' to enlighten us on the matter.
But why do you want to discard the notion of revolutionary class? By this Marx wasn't talking about what a majority of workers might think about themselves at any given time--although many might be suprised at how progressive a cross-section of workers are on a variety of topics than a cross-section of any other class. No, Marx argued they were revolutionary because of what they were, a class 'bound by radical chains,' meaning that as they freed themselves, they freed all humankind. The converse is true as well--labor in the white skin can never be free as long as in the Black it's branded (Marx) and no nation can be free that oppresses another (Engels).
We need to get a better understanding of 'the Old Mole,' and read him more directly, rather than setting him aside in favor of POMO commentators who never quite got a handle on him in the first place. These days even more so.
Finally, we do well to take practical note of of differences among the population between advanced or progressive, middle and backward, and to encourage organization among the more advanced and militant fighters. That is sorely needed, even if our current supply of self-proclaimed 'vanguard parties' is mostly useless.
It was stimulated by a Nation magazine's website forum:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090323/ehrenreich_fletcher
Over the last few months, Z invited about 350 Leftists to "to submit one or two essays about vision and strategy regarding economy, polity, gender/kinship, culture/race, ecology, international relations, or any part of any of these areas of life or any more focused aspect of life such as education, health, science, art, etc. - singly or in any combination."
So far, about 150 have responded. You'll recognize many of the writers, and it's heavy with "participatory democracy" essays (Kid, check your blood pressure before reading some of these.) A couple of good things about it though are that many of the writers offer clear explanations of their outlook, and are leading representatives of various Left tendencies. Next, the comments to some of the essays are quite good, and reveal some intellectual honesty. Third, many of the authors are frequently published on Leftist and liberal websites, and their work here gives a great deal of background into their other writings.
Paul Street's piece is a good example. His analysis of current affairs and past work on racism are among the best, regularly available on the web. I'm going to excerpt a couple paragraphs from and a couple comments to his essay. If you look at a few of the articles, some of the themes we've discussed here about "democracy", "worker's control, "hierarchy", etc. are repeated in the context of broad political projects. It's an impressive effort, and the responses surpass most of the drivel that appears on blogs and forums. What does it mean? I don't know.
Re-Imagining and Recovering Revolutionary Socialism
July 13, 2009 By Paul Street
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/21980
Why re-imagine socialism? I can think of five reasons.
"Socialism or Barbarism If We're Lucky"
First, because Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, and Rosa Luxembourg were right: humanity either transcends capitalist class rule by constructing a new genuinely social order based on democratic principles or it falls into permanent disaster, tyranny and decline. Failure to develop and implement a radical alternative to the profits system and its fake, corporate-managed "democracy" will bring us (in no short order) to what Arundhati Roy calls "the endgame of humanity."[1] The technical, organizational, and cultural forces of production, distribution, pollution destruction, and social/thought/ population- control that have emerged under the direction and command of capital and the capitalist state have turned that command into an ever-more imminent existential threat not just to meaningful democracy and (intimately related) to the very survival of the species. [2] The Hungarian Marxist Ivan Meszaros was right to update Luxembourg for an age of incipient ecological catastrophe: its "socialism or barbarism if we're lucky." Of course, the barbarism is well underway and has been for some time.
Midwife of Socialism or Undertaker of Humanity?
Second, because Marx and Engels were wrong: there are no fixed teleological laws of historical development determining the dialectical emergence of a revolutionary proletariat that - with proper guidance and assistance from a heroic, clear-eyed, and iron-willed revolutionary "vanguard" - will sweep the masters of capital into the dustbin of history. A "fully developed" capitalism is by no means the inherent progenitor of its own radical working class grave-diggers. It is by no historical law the "midwife of socialism." Possessed with means of destruction and hegemony that the historical Left's leading 19th century thinkers could hardly imagine, the "late capitalism" of the long multinational-corporate era seems more properly understood as the potential undertaker of humanity - as a plague or cancer threatening the continued viability of the human experiment (not to mention the lives of numerous other species). It is hardly a "utopian" flight of elite intellectual fancy for people from any and all classes to work to rigorously conceptualize and advance alternative democratic models of political and economic and development beyond the parasitic death-grip imposed by the business class and its many captive and indoctrinated servants. It is, rather, one's duty to humanity to undertake such intellectual and activist work.
"So, Goodbye to the Soul of Eugene Debts"
Fourth, because the historical models of really and recently existing "socialism" and in-power "Marxism [-Lennisim]" have not proved attractive or persuasive to most of the world's citizen-workers. Those models sadly identified the word "socialism" with the dungeon and with stultifying state bureaucracy. One can argue about the extent to which this unattractiveness and tragic misidentification is the result of (a) capitalist-imperialist power, propaganda, blockade, and intervention; (b) harsh historical circumstances (the legacy of feudalism and Tsarism/absolutism) and the related isolation of the Russian Revolution after 1919; and/or (c) inherent moral and ideological flaws within "socialist" movements and states since the mid-late 19th century. However one jumbles these and (perhaps) other factors, however, it is an uncontestable fact that the state policies and institutions that elites on both sides of the Cold War came (for their own different reasons) to identify as "socialism" had little to do with the liberating spirit of popular working class rebellion and popular revolution that the original socialist and left anarchist movements embodied. Coldly and quite immediately betraying Marx's egalitarian and anti-authoritarian leanings - reflected in his brilliant denunciation of the capitalist division of labor [6] and his embrace of the short-lived radical-democratic Paris Commune [7] and in his reference to the desirable future as among other things the reign of the self-determining "associated producers"[8] - the Soviet experiment (lacking the oxygenating effect of the European revolution Trotsky knew it required) "moved quickly to dismantle the incipient socialist institutions that had grown up during the popular revolution - the factory councils, the Soviets, in fact any organ of popular control - and to convert the workforce into what they called a ‘labor army' under the command of the leader"(Chomsky).
Comments:
Your account of why 'Marx and Engels were wrong'
By D'Arcy, Steve
First, let me say that I really, really like the article.
But I do have a couple of constructively critical points to make.
One very minor point is that I find it hard to accept the description of Rosa Luxemburg as a "libertarian socialist," for two reasons: she was a Marxist and it is conventional to use 'libertarian socialist' as a label for anarchism, or at least one strand of anarchism (which she was explicit in rejecting, for principled reasons); and, moreover, she was a collectivist, and if the word "libertarian" is to have any meaning, it ought to imply at least rejecting collectivism.
My more substantial concern relates to the claim that "Marx and Engels were wrong" because they (supposedly) believed that "a revolutionary proletariat...with guidance and assistance from a heroic, clear-eyed, and iron-willed revolutionary 'vanguard'...will sweep the masters of capital into the dustbin of history." This is just a baseless caricature.
Here's a an actual quotation from Marx and Engels: "we cannot ally ourselves with people who openly declare that the workers are too uneducated to free themselves and must first be liberated from above by philanthropic capitalists or middle class reformers." Instead, they insist, "the emancipation of the working classes must be the act of workers themselves." This is at the very centre of their thought. (I defy you to find a quotation in which they say anything about workers needing "guidance from a heroic, clear-eyed and iron-willed" group of any kind.)
Finally, Marx and Engels don't use the word, "vanguard," and if they did they would be among those (like Lenin by the way, not to mention Luxemburg or Pannekoek, who you cite) who use it interchangably with the term "advanced workers," i.e., militant workers influenced by radical politics, not a group of "iron-willed" professional revolutionaries, which is a doctrine promoted by people like Bakunin, and in one of Lenin's early works (1902), influenced as he was at that time by some of the elitist strands in 19th century Russian radicalism, but certainly not by Marx or Engels.
A serious engagement with the work of Marx and Engels, above all their idea of the "self-emancipation of the working class," is crucial for the project that you describe in this article. Deterring people from reading Marx and Engels by spreading myths and mischaracterizations of their writings or their politics can only get in the way. (This, of course, is an idea that Luxemburg and Pannekoek, not to mention Meszaros and Debs, would be only too quick to insist upon.)
Re: Your account of why 'Marx and Engels were wrong'
By Street, Paul
I accept the correction on Marx-Engels (though retain critique of notion of historical teleology/laws and revolutionary class) but don't actually quite call Rosa a libertarian socialist (don't have her confused with Rocker) in the essay....Elsewhere in the essay you can see me quoting Marx on liberation in connection with the self-determining rule of the "associated producers" ( this phrase is used quite well by Meszaros). See note 8, with the use of that key quote from Vol III of Capital. There is much that a libertarian socialist can find in Marx indeed in my opinion.
Re: Your account of why 'Marx and Engels were wrong'
By Davidson, Carl
Marx and Engels were far more right than wrong about most things. They were first of all, historical materialists, not historical teleologists. Apart from general trends, they tended to shy away from making predictions or proclaiming future certainites. But it's true that their 19th Century notions of science had some 'progress-ism' built in. Luckily, we have historical materialists like Stephen Jay Gould, in his book 'Full House,' to enlighten us on the matter.
But why do you want to discard the notion of revolutionary class? By this Marx wasn't talking about what a majority of workers might think about themselves at any given time--although many might be suprised at how progressive a cross-section of workers are on a variety of topics than a cross-section of any other class. No, Marx argued they were revolutionary because of what they were, a class 'bound by radical chains,' meaning that as they freed themselves, they freed all humankind. The converse is true as well--labor in the white skin can never be free as long as in the Black it's branded (Marx) and no nation can be free that oppresses another (Engels).
We need to get a better understanding of 'the Old Mole,' and read him more directly, rather than setting him aside in favor of POMO commentators who never quite got a handle on him in the first place. These days even more so.
Finally, we do well to take practical note of of differences among the population between advanced or progressive, middle and backward, and to encourage organization among the more advanced and militant fighters. That is sorely needed, even if our current supply of self-proclaimed 'vanguard parties' is mostly useless.