[Marxism] The Prophet Misarmed: Trotsky, Ecology and Sustainability
Waistline2 at aol.com
Waistline2 at aol.com
Fri Mar 13 14:48:05 MDT 2009
In a message dated 3/13/2009 11:52:02 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
lnp3 at panix.com writes:
> Fortunately for all concerned...it was just that, a once sentence
> 'musing'. In 1933 Trotsky thought that maybe American Blacks spoke their
> own language. A perfect example of too little knowledge being worse than
> no knowledge.
Oddly enough, this idea made a fresh appearance through Ebonics, didn't it?
Actually, I believe this 1933 observation was accurate. If I remember the
context correctly what was being discussed was the characteristic of the Negro
peoples in 1933 and Trotsky stated to the effect that amongst themselves the
blacks probably speak a different language. Different language in that
context meant a different form of English than say, standard American English of
the Northern states, which is a different language than standard England
English, or Southern standard American English.
Trotsky was quite correct in scolding his comrades for not being detailed in
their analysis, and merely reacting to ************..
There is something profoundly dishonest in an author comparing something
written in 1933 with a reality that exists today, 76 years later, rather than
comparing all the literature of 1933, dealing with Southern English and
Northern English and then English spoken by blacks amongst themselves in 1933.
This particular attack through Trotsky is an attempt to discredit and
Sandy Irvine writes:
"His ecological blind spot was not some personal failing but the product of
a whole political tradition that, in this respect at least, was gravely
flawed. Unless corrected, this ecological blinkeredness will make it as irrelevant
as more conventional politics, no matter what sensible things socialist
activists might say about specific matters such as the better funding of public
services, job security, protection of citizen rights, militarism and the
closing of the wealth-poverty gap."
Further . . .
"Actually, back in the 19th century, Karl Marx had spotted some danger signs
of human abuse of the environment. He particularly highlighted the threat
from soil erosion. Marx also criticised the Gotha Programme of the German Social
Democrats for treating human labour as the only source of wealth. Marx was
not alone. Trotsky’s contemporary the Polish-born revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg
was a keen student of botany and ornithology. She spotlighted the utterly
ruinous effects of imperialism in particular. The German Marxist Karl Kautsky
had noted the destructive impacts of agrochemical-intensive farming in his
Agrarian Question (1899). Leaders of the British Socialist League (1885-1901)
were particularly vocal in condemning not just human exploitation but also the
environmental costs of the Industrial Revolution.
Yet these were exceptions to the dominant socialist tradition. Most alarm
about the effects of environmental abuse as well as understanding of its causes
has come from outside the ranks of socialism, reformist or revolutionary."
The above is not only stupid but dishonest.
The dominant tradition of the entire Marxists movement is to fight along a
path that is victory to the workers in their current struggle. That is the
dominant tradition. In 1933 the dominant feature of the social struggle was over
the industrial form of unionism. Damn, communists cannot be everywhere all
the time doing everything on every single front of struggle. That is why our
tactic is to recruit the leaders in say, the ecology movement to the cause of
Communists do not combine as anything other than communists, whose desire is
the formation of the proletariat into a political party or combat force, at
whatever stage the social movement will sustain such organization. One may as
well criticize communists - Marxists, for not inventing the steam engine or
the next advance in biology. The question is always "what was the relationship
of the communists - Marxists to the social movement, in all its aspects in
say 1848, 1890, 1917, 1930, 1950, 1980 and year 2009."
What a disappointing article.
**************Need a job? Find employment help in your area.
More information about the Marxism