[Marxism] Crisis. What Crisis? Profits Soar!
Waistline2 at aol.com
Waistline2 at aol.com
Tue Aug 17 13:09:07 MDT 2010
>> "This is just a wordier version of Carrol Cox's weekly reminder of what
Mao said, "If you don't hit it, it won't fall".
No it isn't.
Imperialism and capital cannot fall without being "hit" by a series of
political revolts, revolutions and insurrections. We have "hit it,"
repeatedly in America and it has fallen. What is "it" and what is the process of
this "it" falling? In a few words "hitting it" reformed the system as the
system passed through all its quantitative boundaries of development. Under
conditions of a revolution in the means of production "hitting it" takes on
The struggles of our proletariat and indeed all layers of any society
always begin as spontaneous. This spontaneous struggle is the material fights
and strivings of a class over expanding political liberty and for a greater
share of the social product. Spontaneous struggle does not mean such
struggle lack a consciousness, because people are conscious by definition.
Spontaneous means - here, generated on the basis of a certain stage of development
of means of production and the property relations, without consciously
seeking the total political reorganization of society.
Even when political groups aspire for and seek political reorganization of
society everyone is limited by the boundary of development of the division
of labor; its political consciousness and corresponding form of social
organization. In context, Marx called this limitation "bourgeois right" or
inheritance of an existing division of labor and its social intercourse.
When proletarians are laid off and sectors of the middle classes ruined
under the jackboot of capital, they resist and fight back demanding
restoration of economic stability and greater dimensions of political liberty giving
voice to their striving. They - various layers of society, "hit it."
Spontaneous striving which we are experiencing as the living moment initially
drifts to the "right." This is so because seeking restoration of a dead
relationship overrun by changes in the means of production is the general
definition of reactionary or "right wing."
We "hit it" - (who amongst us does not love "hitting it?") within a context
of the spontaneous movement as we sought to imbue this movement with a
political consciousness during every boundary of development of the system.
Petras article was not meant to unravel the changing form of our
proletarian movement. I reject the proposition that we - American communists, are
bumbling idiots, have not fought hard enough or failed to "hit it."
The idea what we are simply bribed tools of imperialism or men and women
without theoretical acumen is inaccurate. Rather, we are folks bounded by and
bonded to a historical form of struggle at a certain stage in the
development of our system. It is true that the loudest voice within our historical
Marxist movement has been that of legal Marxism, but this has been the case
for many a decades in all countries.
We American communists have been "hitting it" - (non-mutherfucking stop),
since the initial formation of an organized communist movement in the
1870's. It is our "hitting" that has provided the gist for the winds of reform of
The story of the reform of the system of bourgeois commodity production as
the industrial system, through all its quantitative boundaries of
development is our story. This story contains its own purity. We have no social
democratic history as a political current and the various political trappings
of old Europe.
When the American story is forced to ride "shot gun" - next to the driver,
or worse, into the back seat of history as a hapless passenger of history,
we are all the poorer and less educated. Here is the new narrative or new
theory of the dialectic of reform and revolution in a system as it passes
through all its quantitative boundaries of development. We American
communist are uniquely prepared to tell this story.
In the last period we fought for the overthrow of capital to no avail. We -
meaning all the scattered individuals and group fragments, did preserve
the revolutionary cutting edge of Marxism and against all odds and preserve
Marxism as revolutionary insurgency. The "last period" is defined or
bookmarked as running from December 4, 1955 to April 29, 1992. The former was the
outbreak of Montgomery Alabama, the latter Los Angeles Rebellion or the
Rodney King Incident. Los Angeles 1992 marked shift in the form of the class
struggle although this was not clear to those smitten with racial concepts
and ideology. December 4, 1955 broke out on the basis of destruction of
legal segregation, as was the case with Birmingham 1963, Watts 1965, Detroit
and Newark 1967/8 and the subsequent rebellion marking our history leading
to Tampa Florida 1989. Clearly Los Angeles 1992 had nothing whatsoever to
do with desegregation and was directed against state terror or as it is
called in America, police violence. Montgomery, Watts and Detroit were
resolvable by reforming the system and defeating the colonial like form of rule of
the black masses.
Los Angeles 1992 remains resolvable on the basis defeat of the bourgeois
power and reconstruction of American society.
One can "hit it" and reform the system. Here is the story. Here is the
I would prefer telling this story from the standpoint of the industrial
working class at the heart of our industrial system in Detroit, but this
experience is not uniform in a huge country such as ours. Germany can fit into
Texas and the development of America embraces all facets of development of
capital and the industrial system.
This list- Marxism, (which frightfully or rather rightfully should be
called the Trotskyism variant within Marxism according to the founder and
moderator), picks up events around 1999 and I joined the list in 2000.
At the time we mourned what was then called the "identity movement." I was
part of this brooding. Only later - much later, did I consider that what we
had passed through might - just might, be a phase of the proletarian
movement without precedence. What if as historical curve various layers and
sections of the proletarian movement were compelled to fight and dump
quantitative distinctions that made them unequal with one another? Of course I
refer to "Gay Liberation" which was morphing in front of our eyes. There was
nothing in Lenin or Marx about this. Did not Gay Liberation "hit it" and
reform the system - in varying degrees, on the basis of the mandates of the
Civil Rights Movement? Have not these issue of sexual disposition been taken
to the Supreme Court and fought out bitterly in all states?
When one is in the middle of a process it is difficult if not impossible to
sum up the entire phases of the fight within a boundary. After one passes
into a new boundary the new theater of combat slowly comes into view. This
brief outline of the meaning of a phase of struggle will surely be
inadequate but no one else - in ten years, has ever suggested such an approach is
In America we have always "hit it" during a specific phase and boundary of
the social struggle. And yes, it did in fact fall. What fell was a distinct
form of the social organization of labor and its expression in the
political superstructure. I reject the proposition that American communists have
sat on their laurels and/or prostituted themselves to the bourgeois power
for an entire historical epoch. Equally rejected is though an inability to
overthrow idea that domination of our communist movement by the Soviets led
an inability to carry out successful insurrection due to bad tactics.
What does not change is the "line of march."
More information about the Marxism