Message received, Louis

Jukka Laari jlaari at
Mon Oct 30 14:15:07 MST 1995

On Sun, 29 Oct 1995, Louis N Proyect wrote:

> (...)  The split we are talking about is between the Marxism of Marx,
> Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and Luxemberg, etc. and the Marxism of Lukacs,
> the Frankfurt school, Althusser, Poulantzas, etc., what Perry Anderson
> called "Western Marxism".

Odd.  Why Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg? (Where, for example, is Kautsky?)
They're all political figures, and important in a sense of political
history. I respect Rosa Luxemburg, but when it comes those bloodsuckers
Lenin & Trotsky - I leave them for historians... And I will never place
them on same 'level' with KM. The real split is between KM and the

For me odd thing is the idea that we should consider some particular
sides and phases of the history of marxism as more 'fundamental' (or
whatever). Teachings of early 20th century marxists aren't valid today.
Last 20-30 years should prove that to everyone.

> When I burst into the Marxism list a year ago, all the discussion
> going on was of the "Western Marxism" kind. There was absolutely NO
> reference to the outside world.

Yes, I remember last autumn. Us who are not living in USA are obviously
(?) minority on this list. Our reality might be a bit different than
yours. But why should we disturb your revolutionary dreams with our
problems?  (For example, here in Finland is perhaps highest unemployment
rate of the whole Europe, 18-20%, and the present f***ng 'depression'
just continues and continues, because that's what the biz-boys need.)
There seem to be problems enough in USA. And I don't imagine that I
can help you to make fundamental changes in your society.

I'm just wondering how you think you could do a revolution in a society
where most of the people seem to get sick when confronted with politics
(as contrary to that television driven imaginary politics of image
making and manipulation) - hope I'm wrong about that. That same tendency
is getting more powerful everywhere in developed capitalistic world. If
you can't produce relevant theory to explain and help you to get to 'the
hearts and minds of people' then you won't manage any kind of
revolution. How you could affect people so that they'll be ready not
only to vote but to die for you? Give them rational arguments and
they'll laugh you out.

I think that fascism reading/learning list is least to do in order to
grasp some of modern social dynamic.

>  I don't question the value of other people's intellectual
> pursuits, I just question whether it is what is most crucial in
> effecting revolutionary change.

Firts of all, it's not just intellectual pursuits. Marx wrote about
philosophers that they'd been explaining the world but the point is to
change it. 100 years marxists have been repeating that. In worst cases
world has moved to other directions when our revolutionaries have been
babbling about changing it. Sad.

Well, considering 20th century and its revolutions, I'm afraid that it's
pure luck that those revolutionaries have been so out-of-touch with the
rest of reality...

How to effect a revolutionary change in 21st century, in 'new world
order'? That should be the burning question, I believe. And to answer
that question takes some 'intellectual' work to produce relevant
concepts and theories to analyze, explain, understand & predict (if
possible) social dynamics of coming decades. In that particular sense, I
believe, these intellectual pursuits are quite crucial... And in that
sense I try to understand those 'western marxists' as people trying to
explore the nature of dynamics of socio-cultural phenomena. Lenin and
especially Trotsky didn't understood that at all because they didn't have
to. It's different to us.

Yours, Jukka Laari

     --- from list marxism at ---


More information about the Marxism mailing list