A reading list for Anthony
lnp3 at SPAMpanix.com
Sat Nov 25 10:29:19 MST 2000
>Why do you think that there is an organic relation between Analytical
>Marxism and "stagist" Marxism? BTW, isn't "stagism" of the CP
>variety precisely what Trotsky opposed? What is the content of
>"stagist Marxism" -- ultimately rooted in Marx's own writings, you
>say -- under which you assert that we must subsume the CPs,
>Trotskyism, & Analytical Marxism?
>Also, what does it mean in the concrete to reject "stagism" in the
>current historical conjuncture? Say, with regard to Serbia, China,
>Argentina, the USA, etc.? Take your pick, and illustrate it for us.
Do I get extra credits for answering all questions?
Well, since I am not very ambitious when it comes to going to the head of
the class, I will only deal with one question which is the "stagist"
character of AM, focusing on G.A. Cohen. (Brenner, unlike Cohen, is much
more adept at hiding his intellectual autobiography so it is much more
difficult to unearth his ties to AM. However, I find the whole approach in
Brenner to be basically antithetical to the kind of dialectical
understanding found in something like Trotsky's History of the Russian
G.A. Cohen's Marxism is a curious business. He tries to restore Marxism to
its "orthodox" roots but his project ends up as a defense of a "stagist"
conception rather than of anything Marx had in mind. Once he establishes
this rather bogus "orthodoxy", he speculates on the political consequences.
His speculations have very little to do with the actual history and dynamic
of the revolutionary movement.
In "Karl Marx's Theory of History", Cohen singles out a paragraph from
Marx's Critique of Political Economy that serves a guide to the sort of
Marxism that Cohen endorses:
"In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations
that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of
production which correspond to a definite stage of their development of
their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of
production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real
foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to
which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of
production of their material life conditions the social, political and
intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men
that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that
determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of their development,
the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the
existing relations of production, or -- what is but a legal expression for
the same thing -- with the property relations within which they have been
at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these
relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social
revolution. With the change of the economic foundations the entire immense
superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed."
If one attempts to build a Marxism around this rather abstract set of
ideas, it is entirely possible to go off in the wrong direction, especially
on the question of how one stage of development supersedes another. Is it
the case that one stage replaces another when the previous one is a
"fetter" on the means of production?
If Marxists posit a capitalist class that becomes "decadent" in the way
that that the feudal aristocracy had became decadent and an impediment to
further productive growth, then one runs into a big problem when confronted
with the real capitalist world.
For instance, Lenin's "Imperialism--the Latest Stage of Capitalism" which
reflects this "fettering" notion is a poor guide to understanding the
explosive and *dynamic* growth of capitalism over the last 50 years or so.
China's embrace of capitalist property relations and its phenomenal
growth-rate over the last 10 years or so should tell you that the
"fettering" concept does not exactly describe the current stage of
capitalism. What is more is that the whole notion of stages -- feudalism,
capitalism and socialism -- might have to be seen in a more subtle manner.
The 3 stages might not only coexist in the same society, but there is no
ruling out the possibility of going backwards from socialism to capitalism,
or from capitalism to feudalism.
Cohen lacks this type of dialectical insight and goes whole hog into the
embrace of the crudest sort of stagism. This falls within the general
rubric of what he calls the "Development Thesis", namely that productive or
technological forces develop in history and revolutions occur when one mode
of production can not sustain the further growth of productive or
This amounts to a form of teleological progress that is a caricature of
what Marx had in mind. In "History, Labor and Freedom", Cohen defends this
thesis in the following manner:
"In the global presentation of the Development Thesis, there need be no
society which develops the forces from their initial rudiments to the
consummation of abundance. There may, instead, be what Ernest Gellner has
called a 'torch-relay' pattern of development: having brought the forces up
to a certain level, an erstwhile pioneering society retires in favour of
another one, which it has influenced..."
History is not a relay-race. In a relay-race there is a goal: to get to the
finish-line. One is always moving forward. In real history, capitalism can
not be analogized to a relay-race since this assumes that one can detect
the finish-line after a certain number of laps. Looking back in history,
you would be tempted to assign the mid-1700s as the last lap for feudalism,
even if this is arguable. Can one find such a last lap for capitalism?
By Cohen's own criteria, this would be very difficult indeed. Capitalism
was a very dynamic system in Marx's era and remains so. The problem with
capitalism has never been that it will run out of steam, but rather that it
will destroy the underlying productive forces including labor and nature
before it runs out of steam. Capitalism is not a "fetter" on the means of
production in China today. It is freeing up labor and land and natural
resources in a way that the socialist means of production never could have.
In the process China is turning into a formidable industrial power while
destroying rivers and forests and throwing the countryside population into
chaos and desperation while making some winners. In other words it is
functioning exactly the way it did in the 1800s in Manchester.
Once again when we turn to Marx's writings on the actual class struggle as
opposed to abstract constructions such as the kind that G.A. Cohen attaches
himself to there is little evidence of such crude "stagism". For example,
in the "Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League", Marx and
Engels point to the very likely event that feudalism will be replaced by
socialism in Germany, and not by the logical next stage of capitalism. They
have no interest in seeing Germany go through a prolonged stage of
"[The workers] must drive the proposals of the democrats, who in any case
will not act in a revolutionary manner but in a merely reformist manner, to
the extreme and transform them into direct attacks upon private property;
thus, for example, if the petty bourgeois propose purchase of the railways
and factories, the workers must demand that these railways and factories be
simply confiscated by the state without compensation as being the property
If the German workers are not able to attain power and achieve their own
class interests without going through a lengthy revolutionary development,
they at least know for a certainty this time that the first act of this
approaching revolutionary drama will coincide with the direct victory of
their own class in France and will be very much accelerated by it.
But they themselves must do the utmost for their final victory by
clarifying their minds as to what their class interests are, by taking up
their position as an independent party as soon as possible and by not
allowing themselves to be seduced by a single moment by the hypocritical
phrases of the democratic petty bourgeois into refraining from the
independent organization of the proletariat. Their battle cry must be: The
Revolution in Permanence."
There is little evidence of a "relay race" conception here. Marx and Engels
did not urge the workers to turn the baton over to the capitalist class
since it was their job to carry it for the next 500 yards or so. They
instead urged the workers to carry the baton themselves and overturn *both*
feudal and capitalist property relations at the same time.
Another example should drive the point home. In the article "On Social
Relations in Russia", Engels the "stagist" who everybody loves to hate
nowadays polemicizes against Pyotr Tkachov who thought that socialism was
precluded in Russia since "we have no urban proletariat" and "we also have
no bourgeoisie". Engels reply is to simply state that socialism might arise
out of *pre-capitalist* formations, the rural communal ownership of land.
He says, "It is clear that communal ownership in Russia is long past its
period of florescence and to all appearances is moving toward its
disintegration. Nevertheless, the possibility undeniably exists of raising
this form of society to a higher one, if it should last until circumstances
are ripe for that, and it if shows itself capable of development in such
manner that the peasants no longer cultivate the land separately, but
collectively; of raising it to this higher form without it being necessary
for the Russian peasants to go through the intermediate stage of bourgeois
The Russian peasants do not have to go through the intermediate stage just
as the German workers did not. There is little engagement in Cohen's
writings with actual history since he is preoccupied with a theory of
history rather than real societies placed in time. This accounts for his
inability to see the contradictory aspects not only of 19th century Germany
and Russia, but contemporary society as well. His work, like Elster's, is
preoccupied with theory rather than the messy details of real life.
In the twentieth century a "stagist" conception of Marxism drawn from the
same sources that so enchant G. A. Cohen became the common wisdom of the
2nd and 3rd International. Trotsky's conception of Permanent Revolution was
a departure from this and is influenced not only by the political ideas but
even the language of Marx and Engels in this particular article. Cohen's
desire to return Marxism to some sort of "orthodoxy" is a misbegotten
project. It is based first of all on a misunderstanding of Marx's ideas on
history and, worse, it is tied to a particularly odd, if not outright
bugged-out, notion of what it means to be a socialist revolutionary.
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
More information about the Marxism