[Marxism] Callinicos reacts to the NPA

Waistline2 at aol.com Waistline2 at aol.com
Mon Apr 13 16:37:18 MDT 2009


In a message dated 4/13/2009 5:45:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
lnp3 at panix.com writes:
Mike Calvert wrote:

> What disappoints me is that the Lambertist group has been around  10,000 
for several years but nobody pays any attention

Maybe that's  because they remain an irrelevant sect despite their numbers.
 
 
Comment
 
:-) 
 
 
The Catholic Church remains a sect and it has million of members. 
 
Desiring to remain Trotskyite or "ist" while not being one is nonsense.  
Desiring to remain within the Stalin polarity or Stalinists while not being 
one  is nonsense.  Desiring to end the ideological struggle between Stalinism  
and Trotskyism while continuing the same ideological struggle "under new  
conditions" is nonsense. 
 
Having an epiphany, that amounts to the need to figure out ones own form  
and path to social revolution and political insurrection is a good thing,  
but damn . . . how is it possible to figure out that, which is new, while  
clinging to the same old outdated ideological dispositions?  

In my opinion history has proven conclusively that everyone on the  
so-called Marxist polarity in America was fundamentally wrong in their approach  to 
the social revolution in America and all the advance capitalist/industrial  
countries. 
 
Not because we are silly or stupid, but because we inherited "someone else" 
 form of Marxism. One does not have to have or condemn the parent to grow 
up  into their own person. 
 
We could not recognize the limitation of our quantitative  boundaries of 
history as one boundary sublated into another. No one  can perform such a feat 
until the old boundary has passed and the new boundary  stands on its feet. 
Absolutely no revolutionary group has successfully morphed  itself from one 
quantitative boundary of history to the next, on the curve of  industrial 
history and development. It is easy to look at the actions and  activity 
CPUSA or the SWP in America today and throw ideological and theoretical  alley 
apples (bricks) at them. This is not to say that the right wing  
anti-communists formulations of the CPUSA are noting less that disgusting. 
 
It is much harder to outline and pinpoint the dialectic of our own history  
and development. 
 
Even the bourgeoisie cannot locate itself as a class on the changing  
quantitative boundaries of its system, before a new boundary has more than less  
emerged. If the bourgeoisie could do such, sections of industry would not 
enter  antagonism with the evolving system of production, on the basis old its 
 old corporate form. New corporations emerge like Microsoft, Intel, etc.  
because old IBM profit locations prevented it from magically leaping into a 
new  boundary relations. 
 
What? 
 
Somehow we are immune to the advance of history? 
 
Read: the advance of industry. We apply the Communist Manifesto to  
everything in society except ourselves. And then accept ourselves. 
 
The bourgeoisie as a class does better than us at change. Not because they  
hold state power, but because they have the value relation and material  
profits as a moment to moment real time gage and measure; their products have 
a  self life in the market. The CPUSA and the SWP did not adjust in 1946 - 
1955 and  history ran them over. Sure they still existed but as antiquated 
sects.  hopelessly running after the new social explosions. 
 
Our product has a shelf life that is bounded by a quantitative juncture -  
boundary, of history. Applying Lenin today is a proposition that says I can  
apply a doctrine from a no longer existing boundary of history, that 
evolved at  the back of the curve of its historical boundary and be successful. 
 
Then the Russian form of Marxism - Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, The Third  
International, etc. played its historical trick on everyone. 
 
The Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, in all their brilliance and  greatness were 
located at the back of the curve of industrial development  and produced a 
form of Marxism that accurately conformed to their location in  the curve of 
history. 
 
If we proceed from a vision of our location on the curve of history it is  
impossible to get it wrong and be condemned by history again. The problem of 
 course is locating ones moment in history and at the exact point of 
histories  curve. 
 
What does one do? 
 
Start fresh, which does not require anyone to ignore history. 
 
 
WL 
**************Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the 
web. Get the Radio Toolbar! 
(http://toolbar.aol.com/aolradio/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000002)




More information about the Marxism mailing list