...from the standpoint of the proletariat. Full text.

Vladimir Bilenkin "achekhov at unity.ncsu.edu" at ncsu.edu
Sun Sep 22 12:32:54 MDT 1996

>>The way ruins can be inspiring for a graveyard architect!

>But then the ruins of Rome and Greece were the inspiration of the
>Renassaisance, Vladimir, were they not?  And of the French revolutionaries
>too the ancient figures of history were too even at the distance of
>centuries inspiration of Liberty and democracy, even if the class content of
>the struggles were different.  You are still immersed in this civilization
>and your attitude is that of the intellectual, not the worker.

Well, let us see whose attitude in this question is that of the worker.

Were those inspired by the heritage of antiquity European peasants and
early proletariat? No. The ruins of the ancient class society could serve
only as inspiration for a new one. For marxists, of course, this development
was of immensely "progressive" nature, in the specifically marxist sense of
this word when applied to the origin and development of capitalist mode of
production: as at once the "best and the worst" that could happen to human kind.

The early bourgeoisie and the revolutionary democrats of the Enlightenment
were inspired by the ruins of Rome and Greece only because this
cultural and political heritage was entirely a product of class society.
Significantly, then, that even at the hight of their historical
optimism, ruins also stood for them as a melancholy reminder that
no class society lasts forever.  Their own gravedigger was just around
the corner.

What could serve as historical inspiration for this new class? What
positive "content" of the past could the proletariat make its own?
"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of
class struggle." Which is to say: the unbroken record of the defeats
of the oppressed and the triumphs of their oppressors.  This is why:

<<The social revolution of the nineteenth century cannot
draw its poetry from the past, but only from the future.
It cannot begin with itself before it has stripped off all
superstitions in regard to the past>>

So on this point I in a good company with another intellectual.
On whose side is Adolfo here? That of the German peasants and Manchester

<<Earlier revolutions required recollections of past world
history in order to drug themselves concerning their own content.
In order to arrive at its own content the revolution of the
nineteenth century must let the dead bury their dead.  There
the phrase went beyond the content; here the content goes
beyond the phrase>>

Marx was absolutely right in this prediction. The Paris Commune and
and the Russian Soviet of 1905 became the content beyond the phrase,
beyond recollections of the past. The Soviet form of power became the
first POSITIVE content in the history of class society from which
the oppressed of the world could now draw their inspiration, the
CONTENT and the FORM for their struggle for emancipation.  The
Chairman of the Petersburg Soviet was Trotsky.  He was ELECTED
to this post by the the workers at the hight of their revolutionary

>From this perspective, the meaning of Stalin's historical activity
was the destruction of the Soviet Power as the only positive
historical content that was created by the oppressed and
transcended the limits of all hitherto existing society.

It was on the ruins of the Soviet that Stalin erected a new
class society and its STATE which now has been easily INHERITED by
the restorationists and needed ONLY SLIGHT COSMETIC CHANGES before it
could be used by the protofascist clique now in power.

You claim to be a Marxist-Lenininst-Stalinist-Maoist, Adolfo. Could you
explain to us how could it happen in from the standpoint of Marx' and
Lenin's theory of the state? And should you try to avoid this question
by arguiing that it was not Stalin's state by 1985 could you
give us some concrete analysis of the difference between the two?


     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list