February 15, 2006: From Capital to Democracy
Another way into Classical Marxism: Marx was a revolutionary democrat and he realized that democracy was not democratic if it did not address the reality of economic inequality. The discovery of the working class and capitalism, was Marx's way of completing the democratic revolution. The compelling manner in which he explained 'modern' capitalism overwhelmed everything else and, in fact, these concepts are more relevent than ever. However, this the analysis of Capital tends to overwhelm his conception of socialism as popular power. That is where we must begin.
Comments
IMO, this is why Draper and Althusser are such a helpful pair of starting points. Where Althusser reconstructs and reformulates Marx's method, Draper disentangles his politics from the years of obfuscation they've received, arriving at a conclusion very similar to yours: self-emancipation is the only way to get to socialism.
But -- "all of my friends have big buts", Pee Wee Herman -- I'm not sold that Marx equated Socialism with popular power in the sense that the definition of "socialism" is "popular power". We need to go back and re-study Marx on this one, perhaps with Draper's help. How much "statization" is there in Marx's view of socialism as the transitional stage between capitalism and communism? (Is that actually Marx's own view, or a later enhancement by somebody else?) There's a difficulty in equating "socialism" simply with "popular power": Bernstein beat us to it. How are we different than him? Especially, how are those of you who want to rescue the r-word different than him?
Posted by: Mark Phillips | June 13, 2006 11:00 AM
Is it in Marx? In a certain way who cares. In fact, it is in Marx in every era, especially when he writes about politics. Partially it is one of those, "you had to be there" kind of things: context matters. There is nothing in Marx to justify anything like 'actually no longer existing Socialism'. Marx also specifically rejected substitutionism and statism. What is absent in Marx is the concept, but it is not so absent because his greatest followers (Lenin, Trotsky and Luxemburg in the first instance, followed by Lukacs and Gransci) did get it. The point is to organize it as a strategy.
Posted by: Wayne Rothschild | June 13, 2006 11:01 AM
The revolution may not be inevitable, but the word is unavoidable. Bebel, wasn't as bad as his babel, he did not support the war and I think he meant to reform things completely. However, Social Democracy has long since given up the goal and adapted itself to Capitalism, the bureaucratic state and Imperialism. The goal, is connected to the vision of social equality; I think, giving up the goal, leads in a certain direction.
With Bebel, I think he advocated a more legalistic and top down approach, although I would actually have to look back at it. Socialism is a strategy of mass and class mobilization. It is a strategic orientation to mass collective action that is key.
Posted by: Wayne Rothschild | June 13, 2006 11:02 AM
Keep up the great work on your blog. Best wishes WaltDe
Posted by: WaltDe | August 31, 2006 11:38 PM