marxism-digest V1 #4467
miyachi9 at gctv.ne.jp
Mon Feb 25 14:00:37 MST 2002
Critique of Marxist critique of abti-globalizaition
KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL
miyachi9 at gctv.ne.jp
you mention current anti-globalizaition is partial, or marginalized. and
instead Maxist practice is needed. From where that silly answer comes?
In the past, according dogma of Marxist practice, it was common knowledge
to begin with partial and superface demand to ascend to anti-capitalist
claim and filally to takeover political power. But this type of " processed
ascending activity" is now not going. Marx himself did not adopt this type
of self- transformative action. See "manifest". Where " partial" or "
marginalized" claim is wroted?
Probably this type of thought began with interpretation of Lenin's " what
is to be done"
In this work Lenin emphasized struggle against unionism".and "struggle
But today, by grace of reformist movement, we gain equal political& social
In public sphere we can become to face capitalist as same person( as legal
terms), although in firms we remain oppressed. But in grace of gaining
equal political right, we can proceed to mature political conciousness. In
other word, we became to mature classs consisousness. Borrowed from Lenin's
word, we from start, act with "Maximum platform" such as
anti-globalizaition. Emerging Anti-globalization movemet means that we
clearly recognize global capital movement and its destructive effect on
earth and people. Now it ibecame to be clear that even kids easily
recognize capitalist culture is
in collapse. In the contrary of your recognition, we think international
mass conscousness mature and are already ready to radical destruction of
And your incorrectness is the dogma that political revolution precede
But in reality, social revolution already began within capitalist society.
See LETS movemnet, see Zapatista monement, see worldwide worker's and
consumer's cooperatives, see Mondragon, ...etc, old marxist dogma is not
As for "Social revolution" I cite Marx's article in 1844
A "social" revolution with a political soul is either a composite piece of
nonsense, if by "social" revolution the "Prussian" understands a "social"
revolution as opposed to a political one, while at the same time he endows
the social revolution with a political, rather than a social soul. Or else a
"social revolution with a political soul" is nothing but a paraphrase of
what is usually called a "political revolution" or a "revolution pure and
simple". Every revolution dissolves the old order of society; to that extent
it is social. Every revolution brings down the old ruling power; to that
extent it is political.
The "Prussian" must choose between this paraphrase and nonsense. But whether
the idea of a social revolution with a political soul is paraphrase or
nonsense there is no doubt about the rationality of a political revolution
with a social soul. All revolution -- the overthrow of the existing ruling
power and the dissolution of the old order -- is a political act. But
without revolution, socialism cannot be made possible. It stands in need of
this political act just as it stands in need of destruction and dissolution.
But as soon as its organizing functions begin and its goal, its soul
emerges, socialism throws its political mask aside.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism