Tuesday, July 26, 2005
"Their world destroys us, let us build ours."
I found a great statement over at Flint’s space. This statement came from the anarcho-syndicalist union, the CNT, in response to the bombing in Madrid on March 11, 2004. I think it is a very sweet message, and it is very effective in saying some of the things that I have been trying to say in response to the London bombings, as well as in response to the responses, etc. (The English is a little shaky in places, but I didn’t want to do any editing, because I think the piece deserves to stand exactly as it is.) So, here it is, the Statement of the Permanent Secretariat of the CNT National Committee on the attacks of the 11th...(13-03-04):
In Madrid, we have been killed again this 11th March. We, workers, simple people, are the victims once again, this time tore to pieces and in the wildest way. We, workers, simple people, are always the victims of all sort of terrorism, the so called and the disguised one; we are victims of precariousness, of unemployment, of poverty, of manipulation, of the unapropriatedly called work casualties..., we are hostages and cannon fodder in all wars, in all confrontation of interests, of all fanatisms, of all powers. We are victims of the decisions, the interests and aims of minorities alien to us and who use us as a shield and exchange currency.
In Madrid, in Iraq, in Palestine, in Israel, in Afghanistan, in New York, in Chicago, in Vitoria, in Russia, in Chechenia... they kill us everywhere, and we have been killed for causes which are not ours.
The people behind this particular atrocity is irrelevant, they have hit the weak, the ones who are not able to negotiate, the ones who have no power of decision. They show their disdain to the working class, the simple people.
If we had any hope that such a brutality was not used, the facts have removed it. We want to say clearly that only workers, simple people, those who have no escort nor armoured car, those who do not decide on others' lives and futures, are able to mourn our dead ones; we can say, loudly and with real pain, that we are with the victims and their families, because so we are.
A hug, no words, with the heart, to all those directly affected.
Their world destroys us, let us build ours.
In Madrid, we have been killed again this 11th March. We, workers, simple people, are the victims once again, this time tore to pieces and in the wildest way. We, workers, simple people, are always the victims of all sort of terrorism, the so called and the disguised one; we are victims of precariousness, of unemployment, of poverty, of manipulation, of the unapropriatedly called work casualties..., we are hostages and cannon fodder in all wars, in all confrontation of interests, of all fanatisms, of all powers. We are victims of the decisions, the interests and aims of minorities alien to us and who use us as a shield and exchange currency.
In Madrid, in Iraq, in Palestine, in Israel, in Afghanistan, in New York, in Chicago, in Vitoria, in Russia, in Chechenia... they kill us everywhere, and we have been killed for causes which are not ours.
The people behind this particular atrocity is irrelevant, they have hit the weak, the ones who are not able to negotiate, the ones who have no power of decision. They show their disdain to the working class, the simple people.
If we had any hope that such a brutality was not used, the facts have removed it. We want to say clearly that only workers, simple people, those who have no escort nor armoured car, those who do not decide on others' lives and futures, are able to mourn our dead ones; we can say, loudly and with real pain, that we are with the victims and their families, because so we are.
A hug, no words, with the heart, to all those directly affected.
Their world destroys us, let us build ours.
The AFL-CIO Is Breaking Up…but How Much Does This Really Matter to Most Working People?
Working Life contains a good daily report from the AFL-CIO convention, as does Monthly Review Webzine. So, both these sites are basically giving us a chronicle of the bureaucratic disassembly of the AFL-CIO. But what does this really mean for working people, especially in the immediate future? Considering that the dissenting unions aren’t really proposing anything very daring (no suggestion of any strategy for real class struggle, as far as I can tell), and considering that trade unions in general represent only 7.9% of the U.S. private sector work force, I would say that this big drama isn’t as important as some people are making it out to be.
I like this comment from Bill Van Auken at the World Socialist Web Site:
These bureaucrats have no intention of leading a struggle against the assault on workers' jobs, living standards and democratic rights. Such a movement can only come from below and in opposition to all factions of the ossified labor officialdom.
And, I think these comments, from the International Communist Current, are very interesting:
...SEIU and its allies are not threatening to break away from the AFL-CIO in line with any plan to radicalize the unions. Rather, their posturing has more in character with a selfish power move to improve their own union's standing. In other words, they are considering jumping ship and going their own way. As the largest union in the country, the SEIU leadership probably think they can do better on their own than have to deal with the dead weight of the AFL-CIO and its regulations.
This tendency for "every man for himself" is reflective of the entire period of capitalist decomposition where the discipline of the state over the various factions of the bourgeoisie is beginning to break down. This is the exact process that is at work today within the AFL-CIO and workers should have no illusions about it.
And, finally, there were these comments from ChuckO, which certainly made me smile:
Next I'd like to see the AFL-CIO sell its headquarters building in Washington and spend that money on organizing and disruption of U.S. capitalism. Fat chance.
Time for a new Monkeywrench Gang!
I like this comment from Bill Van Auken at the World Socialist Web Site:
These bureaucrats have no intention of leading a struggle against the assault on workers' jobs, living standards and democratic rights. Such a movement can only come from below and in opposition to all factions of the ossified labor officialdom.
And, I think these comments, from the International Communist Current, are very interesting:
...SEIU and its allies are not threatening to break away from the AFL-CIO in line with any plan to radicalize the unions. Rather, their posturing has more in character with a selfish power move to improve their own union's standing. In other words, they are considering jumping ship and going their own way. As the largest union in the country, the SEIU leadership probably think they can do better on their own than have to deal with the dead weight of the AFL-CIO and its regulations.
This tendency for "every man for himself" is reflective of the entire period of capitalist decomposition where the discipline of the state over the various factions of the bourgeoisie is beginning to break down. This is the exact process that is at work today within the AFL-CIO and workers should have no illusions about it.
And, finally, there were these comments from ChuckO, which certainly made me smile:
Next I'd like to see the AFL-CIO sell its headquarters building in Washington and spend that money on organizing and disruption of U.S. capitalism. Fat chance.
Time for a new Monkeywrench Gang!
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Those Who Would Give Up Essential Liberty to Purchase a Little Temporary Safety...
The New York subway stations and ferry terminals were invaded on Friday by police who were instructed to randomly search passengers, often (judging by what I saw during my travels) from makeshift checkpoints near the entrances. A lot of passengers seemed to think that, in light of the recent bombings in London, this was OK. But personally, I think it was definitely not OK.
I'm not saying this because of any revolutionary Marxist or anarchist philosophy; I'm saying this because this new policy violates even one of the basic liberties recognized by the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment clearly states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
And to those who would say, let's overlook that because the extra police presence makes us feel more secure, etc. (which, unfortunately, a lot of people seem to be saying), I suggest that you contemplate this short quote from one of our "Founding Fathers," Ben Franklin:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Well said, Ben!
I'm not saying this because of any revolutionary Marxist or anarchist philosophy; I'm saying this because this new policy violates even one of the basic liberties recognized by the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment clearly states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
And to those who would say, let's overlook that because the extra police presence makes us feel more secure, etc. (which, unfortunately, a lot of people seem to be saying), I suggest that you contemplate this short quote from one of our "Founding Fathers," Ben Franklin:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Well said, Ben!
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
(An Article on Why) Marx is the Man
I like the article in Common Dreams, reprinted from the July 17 edition of the Observer/UK, explaining why Marx is the Man of the Moment. The author, Frances Wheen, speculates (so to speak) about why a poll by the BBC named Karl Marx as the “greatest philosopher ever,” much to the dismay of right wingers who want to continue believing the myth that Marx’s ideas are obsolete and that Marxism died with the fall of Stalinism.
Wheen sums it up really nicely when he states:
The bourgeoisie has not died. But nor has Marx: his errors or unfulfilled prophecies about capitalism are eclipsed and transcended by the piercing accuracy with which he revealed the nature of the beast. "Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones," he wrote in The Communist Manifesto.
Until quite recently most people in this country seemed to stay in the same job or institution throughout their working lives - but who does so now? As Marx put it: "All that is solid melts into air."
In his other great masterpiece, Das Kapital, he showed how all that is truly human becomes congealed into inanimate objects - commodities - which then acquire tremendous power and vigor, tyrannizing the people who produce them.
The result of this week's BBC poll suggests that Marx's portrayal of the forces that govern our lives - and of the instability, alienation and exploitation they produce - still resonates, and can still bring the world into focus. Far from being buried under the rubble of the Berlin Wall, he may only now be emerging in his true significance.
Personally, I couldn’t agree more. But one odd thing about this article, before the very good summary above, is that Wheen keeps quoting journalists from the pro-capitalist business press. Wheen emphasizes the supposed unlikeliness of these defenders of Marxism with lines like, “Even the Economist journalists John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, eager cheerleaders for turbo-capitalism, acknowledge the debt [to Marx],” but all the people quoted in this article (other than Marx, that is) are either business journalists or big, big businessmen such as George Soros.
Reading this article, I wondered why that was the case. Is it that Wheen thinks "great" businessmen and business journalists can lend the most legitimacy to Marxism in the eyes of the readers (because these are the people who supposedly know the most about "economics"), or is it because the business press is the only corporate, mass-circulation press in which you can actually find honest acknowledgments of the class struggle? (I believe Noam Chomsky once said something to that effect – because the business class (who own all the papers) are most honest about what they really do when they’re talking among themselves.) In any case, I don’t find it too encouraging when the only defenders of Marx who are quoted are the rich and the journalists for the rich. When this happens, the term “even” (as in “even the pro-capitalist economic journalists...") loses its meaning and might as well be replaced with “only.” I think it would be more encouraging if we heard a few acknowledgments of the increasing relevance of Marx’s ideas from people within a cross-section of the working class. Maybe some day...
___________________
P.S. When I wrote the title to this post, I started thinking about a song or two from the greatly underappreciated early 90s Irish and British rap group, Marxman. I think I still have my tape of their album 33 Revolutions Per Minute somewhere; I played that a lot over the years.
Wheen sums it up really nicely when he states:
The bourgeoisie has not died. But nor has Marx: his errors or unfulfilled prophecies about capitalism are eclipsed and transcended by the piercing accuracy with which he revealed the nature of the beast. "Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones," he wrote in The Communist Manifesto.
Until quite recently most people in this country seemed to stay in the same job or institution throughout their working lives - but who does so now? As Marx put it: "All that is solid melts into air."
In his other great masterpiece, Das Kapital, he showed how all that is truly human becomes congealed into inanimate objects - commodities - which then acquire tremendous power and vigor, tyrannizing the people who produce them.
The result of this week's BBC poll suggests that Marx's portrayal of the forces that govern our lives - and of the instability, alienation and exploitation they produce - still resonates, and can still bring the world into focus. Far from being buried under the rubble of the Berlin Wall, he may only now be emerging in his true significance.
Personally, I couldn’t agree more. But one odd thing about this article, before the very good summary above, is that Wheen keeps quoting journalists from the pro-capitalist business press. Wheen emphasizes the supposed unlikeliness of these defenders of Marxism with lines like, “Even the Economist journalists John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, eager cheerleaders for turbo-capitalism, acknowledge the debt [to Marx],” but all the people quoted in this article (other than Marx, that is) are either business journalists or big, big businessmen such as George Soros.
Reading this article, I wondered why that was the case. Is it that Wheen thinks "great" businessmen and business journalists can lend the most legitimacy to Marxism in the eyes of the readers (because these are the people who supposedly know the most about "economics"), or is it because the business press is the only corporate, mass-circulation press in which you can actually find honest acknowledgments of the class struggle? (I believe Noam Chomsky once said something to that effect – because the business class (who own all the papers) are most honest about what they really do when they’re talking among themselves.) In any case, I don’t find it too encouraging when the only defenders of Marx who are quoted are the rich and the journalists for the rich. When this happens, the term “even” (as in “even the pro-capitalist economic journalists...") loses its meaning and might as well be replaced with “only.” I think it would be more encouraging if we heard a few acknowledgments of the increasing relevance of Marx’s ideas from people within a cross-section of the working class. Maybe some day...
___________________
P.S. When I wrote the title to this post, I started thinking about a song or two from the greatly underappreciated early 90s Irish and British rap group, Marxman. I think I still have my tape of their album 33 Revolutions Per Minute somewhere; I played that a lot over the years.
Friday, July 15, 2005
I Stood There Asking, Is This Land Made for You and Me?
Another one of my slightly belated happy birthdays... Woody Guthrie was born July 14, 1912.
Here's a description of Woody's early life from Woody Guthrie: Dust Bowl Balladeer, found through a link on Wood's Lot:
Woody Guthrie (1912- 1967) was born Woodrow Wilson Guthrie in Okemah, OK. His father was a land speculator whose fortunes fluctuated with the oil booms. Guthrie's family experienced a series of hardships that tied Woody's sympathies with the poor and downtrodden. His family lost several homes and fortunes to fires; his older sister Clara died in a fire, and his father was severely injured and put out of work by another one. Woody's mother suffered a number of breakdowns before the family was forced to send her to an asylum where she would spend the rest of her life. Woody always claimed that his family was responsible for all the traits that he [had] for which he became legendary. His father was fighter, who never stopped working, dreaming, or fighting despite all his setbacks, and his mother taught him the songs that he would sing, adapt, or borrow.
Around 1923 when his mother was sent away, Woody's father left for west Texas and another oil boom. Woody remained in Oklahoma with his brother but soon set off on his own...
And later, quoting Woody from his autobiography, Bound for Glory:
"And there on the Texas plains right in the dead center of the dust bowl, with the oil boom over and the wheat blowed out and the hard-working people just stumbling about, bothered with mortgages, debts, bills, sickness, worries of every blowing kind, I seen there was plenty to make up songs about. . . . I never did make up any songs about the cow trails or the moon skipping through the sky, but at first it was funny songs or songs about what all's wrong, and how it turned out good or bad. Then I got a little braver and made up songs telling what I thought was wrong and how to make it right, songs that said what everybody in the country was thinking. And this has held me ever since."
And here are some of my favorite Woody Guthrie Lyrics, found through the Official Woody Guthrie Website:
From Pretty Boy Floyd:
Well, you say that I'm an outlaw,
You say that I'm a thief.
Here's a Christmas dinner
For the families on relief.
Yes, as through this world I've wandered
I've seen lots of funny men;
Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with a fountain pen.
And as through your life you travel,
Yes, as through your life you roam,
You won't never see an outlaw
Drive a family from their home.
The Unwelcome Guest:
Yes, they´ll catch me napping one day
and they´ll kill me
And then I´ll be gone but that won´t be my end
For my guns and my saddle will always be filled
By unwelcome travellers and other brave men
And they´ll take the money and spread it out equal
Just like the Bible and the prophets suggest
But the man that go riding to help these poor workers
The rich will cut down like an unwelcome guest
Vigilante Man:
Oh, why does a vigilante man,
Why does a vigilante man
Carry that sawed-off shot-gun in his hand?
Would he shoot his brother and sister down?
I rambled 'round from town to town,
I rambled 'round from town to town,
And they herded us around like a wild herd of cattle.
Was that the vigilante men?
Jesus Christ:
When Jesus come to town, all the working folks around
Believed what he did say
But the bankers and the preachers, they nailed Him on the cross,
And they laid Jesus Christ in his grave.
And the people held their breath when they heard about his death
Everybody wondered why
It was the big landlord and the soldiers that they hired
To nail Jesus Christ in the sky
This song was written in New York City
Of rich man, preacher, and slave
If Jesus was to preach what He preached in Galilee,
They would lay poor Jesus in His grave.
This Land Is Your Land:
As I went walking I saw a sign there
And on the sign it said "No Trespassing."
But on the other side it didn't say nothing,
That side was made for you and me.
In the shadow of the steeple I saw my people,
By the relief office I seen my people;
As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking
Is this land made for you and me?
Nobody living can ever stop me,
As I go walking that freedom highway;
Nobody living can ever make me turn back
This land was made for you and me.
_______________________________
P.S. And also, by the way, a slightly belated happy anniversary of the storming of the Bastille.
Here's a description of Woody's early life from Woody Guthrie: Dust Bowl Balladeer, found through a link on Wood's Lot:
Woody Guthrie (1912- 1967) was born Woodrow Wilson Guthrie in Okemah, OK. His father was a land speculator whose fortunes fluctuated with the oil booms. Guthrie's family experienced a series of hardships that tied Woody's sympathies with the poor and downtrodden. His family lost several homes and fortunes to fires; his older sister Clara died in a fire, and his father was severely injured and put out of work by another one. Woody's mother suffered a number of breakdowns before the family was forced to send her to an asylum where she would spend the rest of her life. Woody always claimed that his family was responsible for all the traits that he [had] for which he became legendary. His father was fighter, who never stopped working, dreaming, or fighting despite all his setbacks, and his mother taught him the songs that he would sing, adapt, or borrow.
Around 1923 when his mother was sent away, Woody's father left for west Texas and another oil boom. Woody remained in Oklahoma with his brother but soon set off on his own...
And later, quoting Woody from his autobiography, Bound for Glory:
"And there on the Texas plains right in the dead center of the dust bowl, with the oil boom over and the wheat blowed out and the hard-working people just stumbling about, bothered with mortgages, debts, bills, sickness, worries of every blowing kind, I seen there was plenty to make up songs about. . . . I never did make up any songs about the cow trails or the moon skipping through the sky, but at first it was funny songs or songs about what all's wrong, and how it turned out good or bad. Then I got a little braver and made up songs telling what I thought was wrong and how to make it right, songs that said what everybody in the country was thinking. And this has held me ever since."
And here are some of my favorite Woody Guthrie Lyrics, found through the Official Woody Guthrie Website:
From Pretty Boy Floyd:
Well, you say that I'm an outlaw,
You say that I'm a thief.
Here's a Christmas dinner
For the families on relief.
Yes, as through this world I've wandered
I've seen lots of funny men;
Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with a fountain pen.
And as through your life you travel,
Yes, as through your life you roam,
You won't never see an outlaw
Drive a family from their home.
The Unwelcome Guest:
Yes, they´ll catch me napping one day
and they´ll kill me
And then I´ll be gone but that won´t be my end
For my guns and my saddle will always be filled
By unwelcome travellers and other brave men
And they´ll take the money and spread it out equal
Just like the Bible and the prophets suggest
But the man that go riding to help these poor workers
The rich will cut down like an unwelcome guest
Vigilante Man:
Oh, why does a vigilante man,
Why does a vigilante man
Carry that sawed-off shot-gun in his hand?
Would he shoot his brother and sister down?
I rambled 'round from town to town,
I rambled 'round from town to town,
And they herded us around like a wild herd of cattle.
Was that the vigilante men?
Jesus Christ:
When Jesus come to town, all the working folks around
Believed what he did say
But the bankers and the preachers, they nailed Him on the cross,
And they laid Jesus Christ in his grave.
And the people held their breath when they heard about his death
Everybody wondered why
It was the big landlord and the soldiers that they hired
To nail Jesus Christ in the sky
This song was written in New York City
Of rich man, preacher, and slave
If Jesus was to preach what He preached in Galilee,
They would lay poor Jesus in His grave.
This Land Is Your Land:
As I went walking I saw a sign there
And on the sign it said "No Trespassing."
But on the other side it didn't say nothing,
That side was made for you and me.
In the shadow of the steeple I saw my people,
By the relief office I seen my people;
As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking
Is this land made for you and me?
Nobody living can ever stop me,
As I go walking that freedom highway;
Nobody living can ever make me turn back
This land was made for you and me.
_______________________________
P.S. And also, by the way, a slightly belated happy anniversary of the storming of the Bastille.
Monday, July 11, 2005
John Spritzler’s Very Accurate Words on “Hysterical Liberalism”
Soon, I’m going to amend my regular blog list with a blog by John Spritzler, Turn the World Upside Down. Here I’ve found a few posts that say things I’ve been trying to articulate for a while, but in a simpler and better (I think) manner. One post that definitely does this appeared on May 23; it’s called The 9-11 Litmus Test for American Radicals. I find this blog post to be very pertinent right now not only because of the London bombings, but also because of a couple of debates – live debates – that I had lately with people who claimed that they were more radical than many of us (i.e., than “traditional” leftists, Marxists or anarchists), but who espoused the kinds of views that Spritzler so accurately labels “hysterical liberalism.”
And to clarify what that is, I'll "let Spritzler do the talking" from here (hoping he doesn't mind my copying so much of his post). I think the following passages make a lot of very good observations:
But there are some, who call themselves radical or anti-imperialist or anti-colonialist, who believe the 9/11 attack was morally justifiable.[1] I'll call them "pro-9/11ers." Those with this view argue (privately, of course) that the crimes of the U.S. government make ordinary Americans legitimate targets for reprisals by the victims of U.S. imperialism around the world. They defend this view with comments like, "How many millions did the U.S. kill in Vietnam alone? How can you compare that to the mere 3,000 killed on 9/11?" Or, "North Americans of European descent are the guilty inheritors of a genocidal project against native Americans." Or, "North Americans are colonial settlers who have no right to live on stolen land." Or, "Working class, shmorking class, most Americans benefit from U.S. imperialism and fight to maintain it. They deserved 9/11."
It is liberalism because it is based on the same capitalist view of society that the most mainstream liberal politicians advocate, namely the idea that society consists of competing interest groups based on race, gender, ethnicity, nation or individual against individual. This is the premise of capitalism. Liberal politicians implicitly push this view every time they call for making our society "a level playing field" to make the competition "fair." Liberalism denies the truth, that ordinary people, no matter what their race or gender or nationality or religion or ethnicity, have far more in common with each other than with their own elites; they share a working class culture that values equality and solidarity and democracy in contrast to the elite culture that values competition and inequality to pit people against each other so elites can rule undemocratically....
But the pro-9/11ers don't believe there is a class conflict over the values that should shape society. They believe that ordinary Americans share the same values of racism, inequality and dog-eat-dog competition as the American ruling class. They see the great divide in the world as being between those who are not descended from Europeans versus those who are. They prefer to use non-class, even racial terms, to describe conflict in the world: "people of color" versus "whites" or indigenous versus settler. In this absolutely liberal view, the working class Britons who in the 1600s and 1700s were forcibly brought to North America against their will in chains (typically, a man who got drunk in an English pub would be "spirited away" to wake up the next morning in the hold of a ship bound for the New World), sold as virtual slaves and even prohibited from marrying (we're talking about a number probably greater than the number of Africans brought to the Colonies as slaves, by the way) were all a bunch of racist "European colonizers." In this distorted view, working class Britons in the Colonies had "interests" aligned with the wealthy Britons who virtually owned them, and their "interests" conflicted with enslaved Africans and native Americans being driven off of their land....
The pro-9/11ers' contemptuous understanding of working class Americans of European descent is wrong because the racial categories, like "European colonists," which they use to understand history cannot make sense of it. Let's look at some examples of this.
When white working class Americans rose up in rebellions against the new American ruling class soon after the American revolution (for example the famous Shay's rebellion, a six month long armed uprising of 2000 small farmers in western Massachusetts in 1786-7 and the Whiskey rebellion of farmers in western Pennsylvania in 1794 which forced George Washington to mobilize an army of 13,000 troops to suppress) they were fighting for equality versus privilege, and for real democracy versus the fake kind. But according to the pro-9/11ers, the right way to characterize these rebels is simply as "European colonizers" who were "carrying out a genocidal project."
Despite the fact that descendants of these white and supposedly racist-to-the-core European working class "colonizers" joined with blacks to create the Southern Tenant Farmers Union in Arkansas in 1934, despite the fact that they refused to yield to Klan pressure to keep their union separate from black tenant farmers, and despite the fact that they joined with blacks to stage mass strikes against the big landowners all across the Jim Crow south for better wages and working conditions, despite all of this the pro-9/11 reasoning says, "So what, they were still just a bunch of racist European colonizers."...
The pro-9/11ers' outlook, in which ordinary Americans are legitimate targets of terrorist violence because they are no different than their truly criminal rulers, is thus nothing but regurgitated capitalist, elitist, racist liberalism....
The pro-9/11 outlook is an albatross hanging around the necks of genuine radicals. We need to discard this poisonous ideology and, when possible, persuade its misguided adherents to reject it because it is morally repugnant and, for that very reason, politically counter-productive in the extreme -- in fact suicidal.
And to clarify what that is, I'll "let Spritzler do the talking" from here (hoping he doesn't mind my copying so much of his post). I think the following passages make a lot of very good observations:
But there are some, who call themselves radical or anti-imperialist or anti-colonialist, who believe the 9/11 attack was morally justifiable.[1] I'll call them "pro-9/11ers." Those with this view argue (privately, of course) that the crimes of the U.S. government make ordinary Americans legitimate targets for reprisals by the victims of U.S. imperialism around the world. They defend this view with comments like, "How many millions did the U.S. kill in Vietnam alone? How can you compare that to the mere 3,000 killed on 9/11?" Or, "North Americans of European descent are the guilty inheritors of a genocidal project against native Americans." Or, "North Americans are colonial settlers who have no right to live on stolen land." Or, "Working class, shmorking class, most Americans benefit from U.S. imperialism and fight to maintain it. They deserved 9/11."
It is liberalism because it is based on the same capitalist view of society that the most mainstream liberal politicians advocate, namely the idea that society consists of competing interest groups based on race, gender, ethnicity, nation or individual against individual. This is the premise of capitalism. Liberal politicians implicitly push this view every time they call for making our society "a level playing field" to make the competition "fair." Liberalism denies the truth, that ordinary people, no matter what their race or gender or nationality or religion or ethnicity, have far more in common with each other than with their own elites; they share a working class culture that values equality and solidarity and democracy in contrast to the elite culture that values competition and inequality to pit people against each other so elites can rule undemocratically....
But the pro-9/11ers don't believe there is a class conflict over the values that should shape society. They believe that ordinary Americans share the same values of racism, inequality and dog-eat-dog competition as the American ruling class. They see the great divide in the world as being between those who are not descended from Europeans versus those who are. They prefer to use non-class, even racial terms, to describe conflict in the world: "people of color" versus "whites" or indigenous versus settler. In this absolutely liberal view, the working class Britons who in the 1600s and 1700s were forcibly brought to North America against their will in chains (typically, a man who got drunk in an English pub would be "spirited away" to wake up the next morning in the hold of a ship bound for the New World), sold as virtual slaves and even prohibited from marrying (we're talking about a number probably greater than the number of Africans brought to the Colonies as slaves, by the way) were all a bunch of racist "European colonizers." In this distorted view, working class Britons in the Colonies had "interests" aligned with the wealthy Britons who virtually owned them, and their "interests" conflicted with enslaved Africans and native Americans being driven off of their land....
The pro-9/11ers' contemptuous understanding of working class Americans of European descent is wrong because the racial categories, like "European colonists," which they use to understand history cannot make sense of it. Let's look at some examples of this.
When white working class Americans rose up in rebellions against the new American ruling class soon after the American revolution (for example the famous Shay's rebellion, a six month long armed uprising of 2000 small farmers in western Massachusetts in 1786-7 and the Whiskey rebellion of farmers in western Pennsylvania in 1794 which forced George Washington to mobilize an army of 13,000 troops to suppress) they were fighting for equality versus privilege, and for real democracy versus the fake kind. But according to the pro-9/11ers, the right way to characterize these rebels is simply as "European colonizers" who were "carrying out a genocidal project."
Despite the fact that descendants of these white and supposedly racist-to-the-core European working class "colonizers" joined with blacks to create the Southern Tenant Farmers Union in Arkansas in 1934, despite the fact that they refused to yield to Klan pressure to keep their union separate from black tenant farmers, and despite the fact that they joined with blacks to stage mass strikes against the big landowners all across the Jim Crow south for better wages and working conditions, despite all of this the pro-9/11 reasoning says, "So what, they were still just a bunch of racist European colonizers."...
The pro-9/11ers' outlook, in which ordinary Americans are legitimate targets of terrorist violence because they are no different than their truly criminal rulers, is thus nothing but regurgitated capitalist, elitist, racist liberalism....
The pro-9/11 outlook is an albatross hanging around the necks of genuine radicals. We need to discard this poisonous ideology and, when possible, persuade its misguided adherents to reject it because it is morally repugnant and, for that very reason, politically counter-productive in the extreme -- in fact suicidal.
Friday, July 08, 2005
Thoughts about the Past Couple of Days in the U.K.
Thursday was a truly depressing and disgusting day in UK. It was disgusting enough to so see so many people killed and injured indiscriminately, ostensibly for the crimes of government leaders and a ruling class whose policies most of these victims could not have noticeably influenced and more likely than not had opposed (remember the overwhelming opposition in London to the UK government’s participation in the war on Iraq). And, it was disgusting to see people being slaughtered by a group, most likely consisting of reactionary Islamic fundamentalists, whose actions, if they have any political effect at all, will simply result in more intense wielding of imperialist state power, more crushing of civil liberties (not that reactionary fundamentalists would care about such a thing), and a boost for barbarism on all sides. (In other words, look for more barbarism on the part of both the terrorists and those who claim to be fighting terrorism when they’re only taking terrorism to a higher level through the powers of the military and the state.) But the icing on this poisonous cake was seeing the world leaders using this sad event for their own hypocritical propaganda without even waiting a moment.
The speeches by George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice were transparent and absurd. Who is it, exactly, who perpetrates violence with no regard for the lives of civilians? Not just the terrorists who planted the London bombs. And Tony Blair’s words were also a sickening crock. Was this really a day on which the G8 leaders had nothing in their hearts but to do whatever they possibly could to help the people of Africa out of their terrible poverty (a poverty that the G8 nations had no part in creating, of course)?
The only heartening events to occur in the U.K. during the past couple of days were the blockades and direct actions committed by the militant protesters, mostly the anarchists. It was good to see that there were enough protesters who were neither cowed by the usual intense police overkill nor co-opted by the dreary pro-establishment “Live 8” pop events. The anti-authoritarians might have actually gotten out a good message had they not been eclipsed by the London bombings. And while the goal of direct action should not ultimately be to impress the media or communicate to the public with symbols, message bringing was probably the most important thing that they could do at this point. Their message being, that there is still an egalitarian movement in the Global North actively opposing corporate globalization and capitalism, itself.
I might have my own quibbles with these anarchist groups (especially since I was in a few, myself, not too long ago). From what I know and have seen, their supposed opposition to hierarchy needs a lot of work and their collective theoretical knowledge is often kind of thin. Moreover, particularly in the Global North, their demographics are kind of lopsided, as this movement is based too much on youthful rebellion and not enough on genuine class struggle (though there is evidence of a deeper awareness and knowledge of class struggle in the U.K. and Europe than in the U.S.). And many arguments could be made for new tactics outside of the usual disruptive protests, which arguments were an essential part of the dialogue here in the U.S. right before the whole anti-glob movement imploded on 9-11-01. But because of all that’s happened in the past few years, at this point in time, it is simply very heartening to see this movement reassert itself at a global summit, especially in the Global North, especially considering the odds stacked against it.
Seeing some of that protest news, I was even feeling pangs of nostalgia for my own experiences at A19-20 (2001) in Quebec City and, especially, A16 (2000) in Washington, D.C. However, that moment of nostalgic enjoyment didn’t last very long for me, for obvious reasons.
People are talking about how conveniently the bombings were timed, just at a point when there was growing public displeasure even in the U.S. with regard to the war on Iraq and the human rights violations committed in the “War on Terror.” Hopefully, the bombings won’t prove to be nearly as much of a boon for the right wing as the 9-11 attacks. But people are saying that the timing is interesting enough to once again consider the idea of a government conspiracy to commit an “inside job.” Unfortunately, though, I don’t have much patience for such conspiracy theories. They usually are far too simple and convenient and, in my mind, simply serve to discourage a deeper understanding of, and opposition to, the system itself. Because, it’s much more comforting to imagine a group of corrupt people deviously planning an inside job (which people can ultimately be found out and kicked out) than to imagine that the whole system functions in such a way that the ruling powers and ruling class can easily benefit from acts of destruction meant to oppose them. (And, to make it all even more complicated, let's keep in mind the class-based qualities that this opposition actually shares with our western leaders: Incidents such as 9-11, and probably the London bombings, mainly result in the sacrifice of working class people for an agenda designed by rich and powerful men, just like many other acts of war in the capitalist world.)
Another fact worth considering is that the people in al Qaeda and groups like it really couldn’t care less about the interests of anti-authoritarian anti-capitalists who seek to overthrow the system; if anything, communists and anarchists are as hateful to them as any western imperialists. (That's assuming they would go so far as to consider our political beliefs as individuals. In my case, they would probably be more inclined to slaughter me for being an American and, ethnically, a Jew.) And, in turn, they should be just as hateful to us. Despite state propaganda and sloppy talk by “anarchists” such as Ward Churchill, it should be clear that there is nothing in these terrorists' actions that we should condone and no feature in their way of thinking or doing things that we would want to emulate. Or to put it another way, the enemies of our enemies are not our friends; they’re just other enemies to us, and to humanity in general, in a very screwed up time.
The speeches by George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice were transparent and absurd. Who is it, exactly, who perpetrates violence with no regard for the lives of civilians? Not just the terrorists who planted the London bombs. And Tony Blair’s words were also a sickening crock. Was this really a day on which the G8 leaders had nothing in their hearts but to do whatever they possibly could to help the people of Africa out of their terrible poverty (a poverty that the G8 nations had no part in creating, of course)?
The only heartening events to occur in the U.K. during the past couple of days were the blockades and direct actions committed by the militant protesters, mostly the anarchists. It was good to see that there were enough protesters who were neither cowed by the usual intense police overkill nor co-opted by the dreary pro-establishment “Live 8” pop events. The anti-authoritarians might have actually gotten out a good message had they not been eclipsed by the London bombings. And while the goal of direct action should not ultimately be to impress the media or communicate to the public with symbols, message bringing was probably the most important thing that they could do at this point. Their message being, that there is still an egalitarian movement in the Global North actively opposing corporate globalization and capitalism, itself.
I might have my own quibbles with these anarchist groups (especially since I was in a few, myself, not too long ago). From what I know and have seen, their supposed opposition to hierarchy needs a lot of work and their collective theoretical knowledge is often kind of thin. Moreover, particularly in the Global North, their demographics are kind of lopsided, as this movement is based too much on youthful rebellion and not enough on genuine class struggle (though there is evidence of a deeper awareness and knowledge of class struggle in the U.K. and Europe than in the U.S.). And many arguments could be made for new tactics outside of the usual disruptive protests, which arguments were an essential part of the dialogue here in the U.S. right before the whole anti-glob movement imploded on 9-11-01. But because of all that’s happened in the past few years, at this point in time, it is simply very heartening to see this movement reassert itself at a global summit, especially in the Global North, especially considering the odds stacked against it.
Seeing some of that protest news, I was even feeling pangs of nostalgia for my own experiences at A19-20 (2001) in Quebec City and, especially, A16 (2000) in Washington, D.C. However, that moment of nostalgic enjoyment didn’t last very long for me, for obvious reasons.
People are talking about how conveniently the bombings were timed, just at a point when there was growing public displeasure even in the U.S. with regard to the war on Iraq and the human rights violations committed in the “War on Terror.” Hopefully, the bombings won’t prove to be nearly as much of a boon for the right wing as the 9-11 attacks. But people are saying that the timing is interesting enough to once again consider the idea of a government conspiracy to commit an “inside job.” Unfortunately, though, I don’t have much patience for such conspiracy theories. They usually are far too simple and convenient and, in my mind, simply serve to discourage a deeper understanding of, and opposition to, the system itself. Because, it’s much more comforting to imagine a group of corrupt people deviously planning an inside job (which people can ultimately be found out and kicked out) than to imagine that the whole system functions in such a way that the ruling powers and ruling class can easily benefit from acts of destruction meant to oppose them. (And, to make it all even more complicated, let's keep in mind the class-based qualities that this opposition actually shares with our western leaders: Incidents such as 9-11, and probably the London bombings, mainly result in the sacrifice of working class people for an agenda designed by rich and powerful men, just like many other acts of war in the capitalist world.)
Another fact worth considering is that the people in al Qaeda and groups like it really couldn’t care less about the interests of anti-authoritarian anti-capitalists who seek to overthrow the system; if anything, communists and anarchists are as hateful to them as any western imperialists. (That's assuming they would go so far as to consider our political beliefs as individuals. In my case, they would probably be more inclined to slaughter me for being an American and, ethnically, a Jew.) And, in turn, they should be just as hateful to us. Despite state propaganda and sloppy talk by “anarchists” such as Ward Churchill, it should be clear that there is nothing in these terrorists' actions that we should condone and no feature in their way of thinking or doing things that we would want to emulate. Or to put it another way, the enemies of our enemies are not our friends; they’re just other enemies to us, and to humanity in general, in a very screwed up time.
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Happy Birthday, Franz Kafka (b. July 3, 1883)
As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic insect. He was lying on his hard, as it were armor-plated, back and when he lifted his head a little he could see his domelike brown belly divided into stiff arched segments on top of which the bed quilt could hardly stay in place and was about to slide off completely. His numerous legs, which were pitifully thin compared to the rest of his bulk, waved helplessly before his eyes.
What has happened to me? he thought. It was no dream. His room, a regular human bedroom, only rather too small, lay quiet within its four familiar walls. Above the table on which a collection of cloth samples was unpacked and spread out—Samsa was a traveling salesman—hung the picture which he had recently cut out of an illustrated magazine and put into a pretty gilt frame. It showed a lady, with a fur hat on and a fur stole, sitting upright and holding out to the spectator a huge fur muff into which the whole of her forearm had vanished!
Gregor's eyes turned next to the window, and the overcast sky — one could hear raindrops beating on the window gutter — made him quite melancholy. What about sleeping a little longer and forgetting all this nonsense, he thought, but it could not be done, for he was accustomed to sleep on his right side and in his present condition he could not turn himself over. However violently he forced himself toward his right side he always rolled onto his back again. He tried it at least a hundred times, shutting his eyes to keep from seeing his struggling legs, and only desisted when he began to feel in his side a faint dull ache he had never felt before...
The rest of this copy of Kafka's The Metamorphosis, translated into English by Ian Johnston of Malaspina University-College, Nanaimo, BC, Canada, is part of a fantastic site, The Kafka Project.
There is also a very good Kafka page at Bohemian Ink, where I found this nice slice from The Trial:
...Once more the odious courtesies began, the first handed the knife across K. to the second, who handed it across K. back again to the first. K. now perceived clearly that he was supposed to seize the knife himself, as it traveled from hand to hand above him, and plunge it into his own breast. But he did not do so, he merely turned his head, which was still free to move, and gazed around him. He could not completely rise to the occasion, he could not relieve the officials of all their tasks; the responsibility for this last failure of his lay with him who had not left him the remnant of strength necessary for the deed....
I've always found that there was a lot of truth in Kakfa's writing, much more so than I can discern in many "realistic" novels that I've always been told were great works but which never did much for me. A couple of decades ago, when I studied literature in college and then wrote a whole lot of fiction, Kafka's stories were often in the back of my mind. I don't know if I ever tried (or dared) to emulate him in writing, but his writing had made a strong impression on me. And in the present day, when I can hardly bring myself to read most fiction, it's still always a great and profound pleasure to (re)read Kafka.
Incidentally, I found out that today was Kafka's birthday from Wood's Lot.
What has happened to me? he thought. It was no dream. His room, a regular human bedroom, only rather too small, lay quiet within its four familiar walls. Above the table on which a collection of cloth samples was unpacked and spread out—Samsa was a traveling salesman—hung the picture which he had recently cut out of an illustrated magazine and put into a pretty gilt frame. It showed a lady, with a fur hat on and a fur stole, sitting upright and holding out to the spectator a huge fur muff into which the whole of her forearm had vanished!
Gregor's eyes turned next to the window, and the overcast sky — one could hear raindrops beating on the window gutter — made him quite melancholy. What about sleeping a little longer and forgetting all this nonsense, he thought, but it could not be done, for he was accustomed to sleep on his right side and in his present condition he could not turn himself over. However violently he forced himself toward his right side he always rolled onto his back again. He tried it at least a hundred times, shutting his eyes to keep from seeing his struggling legs, and only desisted when he began to feel in his side a faint dull ache he had never felt before...
The rest of this copy of Kafka's The Metamorphosis, translated into English by Ian Johnston of Malaspina University-College, Nanaimo, BC, Canada, is part of a fantastic site, The Kafka Project.
There is also a very good Kafka page at Bohemian Ink, where I found this nice slice from The Trial:
...Once more the odious courtesies began, the first handed the knife across K. to the second, who handed it across K. back again to the first. K. now perceived clearly that he was supposed to seize the knife himself, as it traveled from hand to hand above him, and plunge it into his own breast. But he did not do so, he merely turned his head, which was still free to move, and gazed around him. He could not completely rise to the occasion, he could not relieve the officials of all their tasks; the responsibility for this last failure of his lay with him who had not left him the remnant of strength necessary for the deed....
I've always found that there was a lot of truth in Kakfa's writing, much more so than I can discern in many "realistic" novels that I've always been told were great works but which never did much for me. A couple of decades ago, when I studied literature in college and then wrote a whole lot of fiction, Kafka's stories were often in the back of my mind. I don't know if I ever tried (or dared) to emulate him in writing, but his writing had made a strong impression on me. And in the present day, when I can hardly bring myself to read most fiction, it's still always a great and profound pleasure to (re)read Kafka.
Incidentally, I found out that today was Kafka's birthday from Wood's Lot.
Saturday, July 02, 2005
Declining ("Decadent") Capitalism and Accelerating or Retarding History
During exchanges of comments on the previous two posts, I got to deal with one of my favorite subjects, the idea that capitalism may be declining, or decaying. As I’ve said before, it’s an idea that I find very interesting, and pretty believable in many ways. It’s not an idea that I can advocate with total certainty, but every time this subject comes up (as it did two months ago in an extensive debate on the Aut-Op-Sy list), I find myself defending it. I suppose part of the reason is that I do feel a lot of affinity these days for the left communist/council communist groups that advocate it, and I also like the original passages from Marx on which the idea is based (see my June 9 post for the quote from Marx’s Grundrisse). Also, I see around me a lot of evidence that capitalism is regressing economically (something I’ve dealt with in other posts and probably will deal with more in future ones), and that society in general seems to be regressing in the extreme, with many people being taken over by desperate irrationality, superstition (including the rise of so many dangerous “fundamentalisms”), complete hopelessness and increasingly absurd, pointless wars. I suppose that I’m not alone in the belief that the entire world is going to hell; the difference, I guess, is that I’m gravitating toward the Marxist ideas that explain this phenomenon and point to the possibility of a revolutionary answer.
In his comment to me on the last post, Piers suggested:
Here's a link for a pamphlet called "Why capitalism will not collapse": http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/wcwnc.pdf
You might find it interesting regarding the idea of capitalism in decline.
And I did look at this pamphlet, which is interesting, but I don’t think I particularly agree with one of its main points. That point is that the belief in the decline of capitalism somehow leads potential revolutionaries to a kind of a laziness as they end up doing less than they should because they’re simply waiting for the end to come. It's true that there may have been people and groups that fell into this lethargy in the past century, but it's wrong to say that the belief in declining/decadent capitalism is a belief that socialism will come along all by itself - as the pamphlet implies when it says, “Socialism cannot come by stealth. It can only come by the deliberate act of workers who understand Socialism..."
From what I've seen, the best advocates of the idea of decadent capitalism also say that socialism will never arrive until the working class actively carries out a socialist revolution. When capitalism decays, it doesn’t have to be replaced by socialism. It can continue to decay, along with all of civilization, until everything is lost. (Actually, maybe this idea of decline is a little different from the type that might come to mind when people talk about an impending "collapse." "Collapse" implies a single event, not stretched out over many years, which would be a more merciful route to our demise.)
As I’ve said before (and as might be apparent at this point), I really like the explanations of this idea that are written by the International Communist Current. I like them not because I necessarily think the ICC’s analysis of political economy is the most accurate in comparison to everyone else's (in fact, there are still many debates between this group and others in this general niche of Marxism that I don't really understand – and I imagine I’m not alone in that regard), but simply because the writing is clear and makes a lot of sense to me. For instance, in an article describing the present, most advanced stage of capitalist decay (Understanding the decomposition of capitalism: Marxism at the roots of the concept of capitalism's decomposition), the ICC states:
The phase of decomposition reveals that, of the two factors which direct historical evolution - the economic mechanism and the class struggle - the first is more than mature and contains the danger of the destruction of humanity. As a result the second factor becomes decisive. More than ever, the class struggle of the proletariat is the motor of history. Consciousness, unity, confidence, solidarity, will and heroism, qualities that the proletariat is capable of raising through its class struggle to a completely different and superior level to other classes in history, are the forces which, developed to the highest degree, will allow it to overcome the dangers contained in Decomposition and to open the way to the Communist liberation of humanity.
And, I don’t think any statement could more clearly emphasize the fact that the revolution cannot simply happen by itself.
The ICC often likes to remind us of the choice starkly put before us by Rosa Luxemburg, in her Junius Pamphlet, which was originally put forth by Engels (and which I’ve already pointed out a few times here): Socialism or barbarism. I think that it was here, in that pamphlet, where Rosa Luxemburg most vividly explained how the possibility of revolution can be socially determined but at the same time must be actively created:
Scientific socialism has taught us to comprehend the objective laws of historical development. Men do not make history according to their own free will. But they make history nonetheless. Proletarian action is dependent upon the degree of maturity in social development. However, social development is not independent of the proletariat but is equally its driving force and cause, its effect and consequence. Proletarian action participates in history. And while we can as little skip a stage of historical development as escape our shadow, we can certainly accelerate or retard history.
I would also say, given the last point above, that history today is definitely retarded, although maybe the race to barbarism is accelerated, too. And as another article from the ICC shows us, we probably should change direction soon:
We have not yet reached the point of no return; but capitalism certainly doesn't have a whole millennium in front of it, and it's far more probable that the fate of humanity will be decided well inside the 21st century. The decomposition of society bears with it the growing threat of the destruction of all social ties, the liquidation of rational thought, the irreparable poisoning of the natural environment, the devastation of war.
----------------------
P.S. Regarding the WSM, William Morris, Commonweal
I like the World Socialist Movement site recommended by Piers. I like the tributes that that this groups pays to William Morris, a good 19th Century socialist thinker who wrote a classic utopian science fiction novel called News from Nowhere, who also helped to create a significant journal of socialist and anarchist thought (which I read about a few years ago) called Commonweal.
Skimming through the WSM site, I particularly enjoyed a list of principles that the WSM wrote to describe How the WSM is different from other groups. I like Item number 1, "claims that socialism will, and must, be a wageless, moneyless, worldwide society of common (not state) ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production and distribution." However, I’m not as sure about a couple of other items, such as Number 3: "promotes a peaceful democratic revolution, achieved through force of numbers and understanding." Personally, while I do not believe that a real socialist revolution can be based on violence, I think that any transition such as this will contain some violence and upheaval in many places, just as violence and upheaval already exist in many places even when the people take to the streets to demand relatively minor changes. I also think that even spreading “understanding” can carry with it a lot of risk of violence, as the capitalist powers already find many ways to forcibly prevent the peaceful spread of a radical idea. And, I’m a little unclear, from a quick perusal of the site, how, exactly, certain conditions will come into being and certain changes will be made. (I don't believe in depending on the growth of "numbers"; I'd like to hear more about specific types of groups or organizations, means of struggle, tactics, strategies. And I'm unclear about what this group means when it talks about taking over the "machinery of government." I hope that it doesn't count too much on building the strength of socialism through parliamentary elections or trade unions.) But maybe I need to read more of this site, and, in any event, as I said, there are a lot of points raised by this group that I do agree with.
In his comment to me on the last post, Piers suggested:
Here's a link for a pamphlet called "Why capitalism will not collapse": http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/wcwnc.pdf
You might find it interesting regarding the idea of capitalism in decline.
And I did look at this pamphlet, which is interesting, but I don’t think I particularly agree with one of its main points. That point is that the belief in the decline of capitalism somehow leads potential revolutionaries to a kind of a laziness as they end up doing less than they should because they’re simply waiting for the end to come. It's true that there may have been people and groups that fell into this lethargy in the past century, but it's wrong to say that the belief in declining/decadent capitalism is a belief that socialism will come along all by itself - as the pamphlet implies when it says, “Socialism cannot come by stealth. It can only come by the deliberate act of workers who understand Socialism..."
From what I've seen, the best advocates of the idea of decadent capitalism also say that socialism will never arrive until the working class actively carries out a socialist revolution. When capitalism decays, it doesn’t have to be replaced by socialism. It can continue to decay, along with all of civilization, until everything is lost. (Actually, maybe this idea of decline is a little different from the type that might come to mind when people talk about an impending "collapse." "Collapse" implies a single event, not stretched out over many years, which would be a more merciful route to our demise.)
As I’ve said before (and as might be apparent at this point), I really like the explanations of this idea that are written by the International Communist Current. I like them not because I necessarily think the ICC’s analysis of political economy is the most accurate in comparison to everyone else's (in fact, there are still many debates between this group and others in this general niche of Marxism that I don't really understand – and I imagine I’m not alone in that regard), but simply because the writing is clear and makes a lot of sense to me. For instance, in an article describing the present, most advanced stage of capitalist decay (Understanding the decomposition of capitalism: Marxism at the roots of the concept of capitalism's decomposition), the ICC states:
The phase of decomposition reveals that, of the two factors which direct historical evolution - the economic mechanism and the class struggle - the first is more than mature and contains the danger of the destruction of humanity. As a result the second factor becomes decisive. More than ever, the class struggle of the proletariat is the motor of history. Consciousness, unity, confidence, solidarity, will and heroism, qualities that the proletariat is capable of raising through its class struggle to a completely different and superior level to other classes in history, are the forces which, developed to the highest degree, will allow it to overcome the dangers contained in Decomposition and to open the way to the Communist liberation of humanity.
And, I don’t think any statement could more clearly emphasize the fact that the revolution cannot simply happen by itself.
The ICC often likes to remind us of the choice starkly put before us by Rosa Luxemburg, in her Junius Pamphlet, which was originally put forth by Engels (and which I’ve already pointed out a few times here): Socialism or barbarism. I think that it was here, in that pamphlet, where Rosa Luxemburg most vividly explained how the possibility of revolution can be socially determined but at the same time must be actively created:
Scientific socialism has taught us to comprehend the objective laws of historical development. Men do not make history according to their own free will. But they make history nonetheless. Proletarian action is dependent upon the degree of maturity in social development. However, social development is not independent of the proletariat but is equally its driving force and cause, its effect and consequence. Proletarian action participates in history. And while we can as little skip a stage of historical development as escape our shadow, we can certainly accelerate or retard history.
I would also say, given the last point above, that history today is definitely retarded, although maybe the race to barbarism is accelerated, too. And as another article from the ICC shows us, we probably should change direction soon:
We have not yet reached the point of no return; but capitalism certainly doesn't have a whole millennium in front of it, and it's far more probable that the fate of humanity will be decided well inside the 21st century. The decomposition of society bears with it the growing threat of the destruction of all social ties, the liquidation of rational thought, the irreparable poisoning of the natural environment, the devastation of war.
----------------------
P.S. Regarding the WSM, William Morris, Commonweal
I like the World Socialist Movement site recommended by Piers. I like the tributes that that this groups pays to William Morris, a good 19th Century socialist thinker who wrote a classic utopian science fiction novel called News from Nowhere, who also helped to create a significant journal of socialist and anarchist thought (which I read about a few years ago) called Commonweal.
Skimming through the WSM site, I particularly enjoyed a list of principles that the WSM wrote to describe How the WSM is different from other groups. I like Item number 1, "claims that socialism will, and must, be a wageless, moneyless, worldwide society of common (not state) ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production and distribution." However, I’m not as sure about a couple of other items, such as Number 3: "promotes a peaceful democratic revolution, achieved through force of numbers and understanding." Personally, while I do not believe that a real socialist revolution can be based on violence, I think that any transition such as this will contain some violence and upheaval in many places, just as violence and upheaval already exist in many places even when the people take to the streets to demand relatively minor changes. I also think that even spreading “understanding” can carry with it a lot of risk of violence, as the capitalist powers already find many ways to forcibly prevent the peaceful spread of a radical idea. And, I’m a little unclear, from a quick perusal of the site, how, exactly, certain conditions will come into being and certain changes will be made. (I don't believe in depending on the growth of "numbers"; I'd like to hear more about specific types of groups or organizations, means of struggle, tactics, strategies. And I'm unclear about what this group means when it talks about taking over the "machinery of government." I hope that it doesn't count too much on building the strength of socialism through parliamentary elections or trade unions.) But maybe I need to read more of this site, and, in any event, as I said, there are a lot of points raised by this group that I do agree with.
