[Marxism] Re: Class struggle...

rrubinelli rrubinelli at earthlink.net
Tue Nov 29 20:05:00 MST 2005


Jeez, could you have picked a worse example?  I don't think so.
Solidarity?  How could a Marxist, supposedly so attuned to the
contradictions of a proletariat seizing power in an less developed
country, contradictions that require the organs of state power to
function in an analogous manner to that of the bourgeoisie during their
ascendancy-- and that's analogous-- similar in function, different in
orign, be so oblivious to the same contradictions in a declining
decrepit economy right inside the heart of  a workers' movement itself?
How can you attack "state capitalism" of the Bolshevik order, and not
see the manifest nascent capitalism erupting inside the  social movement
of Solidarity itself?

Was that the dominant trend of the struggle in Poland?  Not originally,
and it was only after the triumph of Jaruzelski, with the elimination of
the left wing of the workers struggle, that capitalist restoration could
proceed-- but nonetheless that recidivism existed, had to exist, as the
economic conflicts, the contradiction between city and countryside,
between decayed collectivism and international capitalism as compressed
into the one true measure of capitalist vitality, DEBT, brought the
conflict between revolution and restoration into every facet of the
Polish struggle.  And let's be clear, the property forms established by
the Russian proletariat, revolutionary they were, were deformed,
unstable at birth, were, at birth just that compressed conflict of
collectivism and capital,  USE and debt.

Does that compressed contradiction in the very property form negate the
revolution itself?  Of course not.  And this is where "state capitalist"
theorizing derails and becomes a posture, positing first  a capital
without a class, as the bourgeoisie in Russia, and in Cuba were clearly,
definitively, expropriated.  And then the theorizing establishes a new
class... but once again the fundamental criterium of Marxist analysis,
the relations of production, are ignored-- because we are presented a
new class, with supposedly a distinct relation to a new property form,
that is really the old private property of capital, but without such
private ownerships, and without, first and foremost, that need, that
conflicted need for private aggrandizement of socially realized values.
Marx wasn't kidding in beginning, basing his analysis on the nature of
commodity production.

So we have a state capital with no class, then we have a class, but if
we have a class, then that class is historically necessary, so state
capitalism with a state capitalist class that is historically necessary,
historically unique, and must historically usher into being a new
organization of production, a new product a "state commodity."

And that's the ultimate irony of state capitalist theorizing-- it does
away with the need, the historical necessity of permanent revolution,
where the workers seizure of power is essential to even mitigate the
incapabilities of advanced capitalism; state capitalist theorizing
ultimately reinforces the "divine" or historical right of a "state
bourgeoisie" to ownership as this state of capitalists actually can
ameliorate, on the basis of a bourgeois property form, the advanced
underdevelopment of a Russia, a Cuba.

Maybe I should have titled this  "Why I am Not a State Capitalist."

Still, I wish somebody would read this goddam book and comment on its
actual content.

rr

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Callum McCormick" <kingcal78 at hotmail.com>





More information about the Marxism mailing list