[Marxism] reply to radical notes
new.wave.nw at gmail.com
Thu Apr 9 08:16:33 MDT 2009
In our comment to Dipankar's article, we had only made a humble attempt to
set right the incorrect projection of the perspectives and trends which had
come to clash with each other in Russian revolution. We are unable to
appreciate 'sectarianism' in that, as is pointed out by Radical Notes, in
their mail to you, which you redirected to us for our comments.
let me reproduce the relevant portion here, for conveneinece of reference:
there can be no (re)concilliation between these sectists - whether
specialise in finding the "bogus"-es) or otherwise. However, the
beauty of Marx(ist) praxis lies in its foundation and refoundation in
the day/night struggles of the working class - in learning in and with
it - in its successes and failures, in all its contradictions, not in
"The development of the system of Socialist sects and that of the real workers'
movement always stand in inverse ratio to each other. So long
as the sects are (historically) justified, the working class is not
yet ripe for an independent historic movement. As soon as it has
attained this maturity all sects are essentially reactionary.
Nevertheless what history has shown everywhere [is time-and-again]
repeated. The antiquated makes an attempt to re-establish and maintain
itself within the newly achieved form."
Whether 'genuine' or 'bogus', bombard all headquarters
However, the short comment by Radical Notes, brings to the forth a question
in ideology for those who are not only spectators, but active participants
in the revolutionary movement of their times. Radical Notes says that the
presence of 'sects' is the beauty of the movement and their existence is the
sign of immaturity of the working class movement
- So radical notes has presented the issue in a manner which not only
segregates the 'political sects' from working class movement in general, but
puts them as anethema to working class movement. It says that the very
presence of 'sects' is demonstrative of immaturity of the working class
movement. How this has to be understood? With the march of history, the
'sects' ripe and contradictions among them get deepened and sharpened and
finally attain their maturity in their endorsement, in positive or negative,
by the historic events itself. For example, the Leninist-Trotskyist
'sect' found endorsement for its perspectives in positive in success of the
Russian Revolution, and in the negative in failure of the Chinese
Revolution. But 'sects' were after all sects, and the development of Russian
Revolution is inseparable from the disputes and clashes of these 'sects'.
Contrary to understanding of 'radical notes', the conflicts between
these 'sects' only become more and more sharp with maturity of the working
class movement, and the 'sects' do not subside with advance of revolution,
rather they get more mature and perfected. They present the real ledger
of development of working class movement. In any case they are not anethema
to the movement of working class, as 'radical notes' thinks.
Radical Notes says that the "*beauty of Marx(ist) praxis lies in its
foundation and refoundation in the day/night struggles of the working class
- in learning in and with it - in its successes and failures, in all its
contradictions, not in one-sided purities".*
The difficulty is that Radical Notes cites this 'beauty in contradictions'
to propose to put the eggs in all baskets at a time. Beauty lies in all
contradictions, thus don't take sides, don't make or join the sects.
Bolshevism and Menshevism, both represent that beauty, Leninism, Trotskyism
and Stalinism all are embodiments of that great beauty, thus it is owrthless
to take sides. This is what 'radical notes' suggests. Damn with history,
damn with historical disputes, bombard all headquarters- shouts the
Laughs the revolutionary activist, saying, the whole matter is of these
'sects', which represent the tangible 'beauty in contradiction' and in which
all real and practical activists take their sides, get to trenches, to
bombard the headquarters of others, 'not all headquarters'.
>From the post-modernist standpoint of radical notes, one must enjoy the
beauty of contradictions of the movement, 'without taking sides', because
sects are after all 'sectarian' while the workers movement is non-sectarian.
The call is not only to dissociate oneself from the historical disputes, but
to segregate oneself from the debates of his own times. 'let the hundred
flowers bloom' and let us only wander on the flower bed.
Radical Notes must understand that the entire battle between different
trends and shades, manifested through the 'sects', is impelled by the notion
of 'one sided purity' and could not be otherwise. The dififculty with
post-modernists, in contrast to the revolutionary marxists is that
they intermingle the 'objective' with 'subjective'. The corollary of their
arguments comes this way: 'Why to take sides in the debate if the earth
is round or square, it is sectarian, boambard all sects. After all the
growth of science itself would resolve this debate'.
Confused 'radical notes' wants to sell its confusion to revolutionary
activists, especially the new ones, the youth and students, which it thinks
may be the takers for its 'ideas'.
The contradictions inside the revolutionary movement, reflect themselves
first and foremost in the embodiment of 'sects' in which the advanced and
conscious layers of working class stand divided and clash with each other
more and more sharply with advance of the revolution.
Those who keep themselves at bay from these disputes, which
provide life-blood to the revolutionary movement, in fact want to keep their
hands free, and remain non-committal, in the name of
'non-sectarian'. This cannot be the path for those who really want to
'participate' in the revolution, instead of enjoying its beauty, while
sitting on the shores.
-- New Wave
More information about the Marxism