[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 
new  dimensions. 
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  system. 
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? 
Identity Movement? 
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 mailing list