Re: Re:What is Lüko looking for?

dmschanoes dmschanoes at
Sun Sep 28 10:28:23 MDT 2003

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nestor Gorojovsky"
All in all Nestor, a thoughtful and interesting response, which before
parsing, I would say:

The problem for me with your formulations are two-fold:

First, if capital functions as a totality, a world system, and I think we
all agree with that especially those of us who would like to criticize
Brenner for a lack of "globality," then the failure or success of a working
class in any area is part of the historical conditions of global capitalism
as refracted internally.  A major part of those global conditions was the
role of the former Soviet Union, not just in the pressure applied to it by
the world markets, but also in the pressure it applied to workers' movements
all over the globe.  There is nothing more useless than blaming the Soviet
Union for the failure of the international revolution, for that reproduces
the lack of historical analysis "from the left."  But there is nothing more
important than assessing the role of the Soviet Union in the stabilization
of international capitalism after WWI and assessing those forces at work
internal to the fSU that led to its disintegration-- contradictions that
forced their way onto the world stage with the struggle in Poland in the
1980s, and that are currently at work in China, Vietnam, etc.

Secondly, the notion that any person by accident of birth, residence, etc.
should refrain from Marxist analysis of any conditions outside that accident
is particularly anti-Marxist, and indeed, parochial.  It leads to suggesting
that no communist from an advanced country can make a class analysis of
capitalism in whole as he or she is disqualified from making one in part,
that part being the less developed areas of capitalism.

Now onward:

NG:  I would be trying to answer what  follows, as an inevitable coda to the
statement by you above: How was  it that the October Revolution, which must
admittedly be understood  as a part of a _global_ revolution, was left alone
to grapple with  such odds such as were involved in the material base of the
 Tsarist Empire? That is, once and again: what is the burden of
responsibility falling on the Left and the working class in  imperialist

dms:  I don't think the October Revolutin was "left alone."  I think
workers' struggles in both advanced and less advanced areas were crushed,

NG: Then, Martov was  right? Was the October revolution a terrible mistake
to do?  Were  Lenin and Trotsky putschists?
dms: No and No and No again.  Necessity however is not the same as
inevitability (something that the 2nd Intl, Kautsky et al didn't quite
grasp-- they should have spent a little more effort on Hegel).  By
necessity, the Russian Revolution had to become a proletarian.  The
inevitability of the transformation of the seizure of power by that
revolution by that class into a communist society is something else
altogether.  So the revolution, even at birth, especially at birth, is
"deformed."  The revolution  at its best, especially at its best, is "middle
of the road."  But the revolution was not the bureaucracy, and there was
nowhere for the bureaucracy to go but down, as it required for its continued
existence, not as a CLASS, but as administrators, the defeat of the
international revolution-- the same thing that gave the bureaucracy its
origin. Again the material conditions of its existence require that we
analyze the role of the Soviet Union itself in the "interruption" of
revolution, in the stabilization of the bourgeois order.
NG:But why not comparing with _what their own governments established  the
colonial world over_? Isn't there a great burden of  responsibility on the
leadership here, and a burden of selfishness in  the class?
dms: Nobody I know has let national capitalisms or international capitalism
off the hook for the conditions of existence anywhere, including those
conditions within the fSU, and current CIS.  Nor have I ever personally
encountered a revolutionist buying into the argument that US capitalism was
more progressive than the fSU society based on a higher GDP, GDP/capita.


PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list