From: John Holloway (johnholloway@PRODIGY.NET.MX)
Date: Tue May 24 2005 - 18:14:55 EDT
> Dear Michael, > > But the whole point of the dictatorship of the proletariat is that it is > not a state. It is a form of organisation adequate to the articulation of > working class power, and therefore not a state (a form of organisation > adequate to the power of capital), but some sort of council organisation. It > was Leninıs dreadful and disastrous mistake that he did not (or would not) > understand this distinction. All this Pannekoek pointed out long ago. Do > remind me of where Marx talks of a ³workersı state², because I donıt remember. > > Diminishing returns perhaps, but possibly because you do not answer my > questions I am genuinely very interested if you find the time, especially in > the paragraph: > > Paul asks if there has to be a Kronstadt. I would have thought not, but > possibly a series of mini-Kronstadts. By that I mean that surely in any > revolutionary process there will be a clash between those forces that are > pushing (from outside and quite possibly from inside the state) for a radical > democratisation (such as that to which Jerry alludes and to which you reply > ³Sure²) and those who want to contain the process within the state forms of > organisation. Is this whatıs happening in Venezuela? What form does it take > (both intra-state conflicts and suppression or marginalisation of extra-state > movements)? You say something of the conflicts within the state, but what > about the push coming from outside the state? Elsewhere in Latin America there > are a lot of people in struggle who are saying ³we donıt want leaders, we > donıt want representatives, we want to assume responsibility for our own > lives². If this is also what is happening in Venezuela, what is the response > of the state? Quite apart from the demand for nationalisation under workersı > control (which you mention), are factories being taken over by workers on > their own initiative, and what is then the response of the state? (As I have > made clear all along, my questions arise out of ignorance). Would you agree > that the forces coming from outside the state are crucial in this whole > process? > > And yes, I shall come back to your point about the police, army and > seizing the state, probably tomorrow. > > If, on the other hand, you wish to postpone further discussion until we > meet in Venezuela, or after, as you suggest, then fair enough, Iım happy with > that. > > On the López Obrador point, I shall respond separately to Jerryıs post. > > Best, > > John > > > Dear John, > I think we are now recycling points-- ie., diminishing returns. My > point re 'contain multitudes' comes from Whitman's 'Song of Myself'-- the > line: 'Do I contradict myself? Very Well, I contradict myself. I contain > multitudes.' I think you contradict yourself, which is no problem for poets, > but for theorists and activists a bit more problematic. > On the Paris Commune, as I noted, I wrote about this in my book. The > precise words 'new kind of state' are mine but I would defy you to say that > I've misinterpreted Marx there: the Dictatorship of the Proletariat clearly > referred to state power, and the Paris Commune revealed to Marx and Engels the > form that state power must take to serve the proletariat. You want to use the > state as such and commune as in opposition--- as I noted in my critique, your > position is a rejection of Marx. Fine. But admit it. > As I've stressed, the problem between us is not the goal but how you > get there--- your position in the book is unequivocal: no party, no power, no > state. Mine is similarly unequivocal; a point from my comments to which you > have not responded: > >> But, there is no alternative (in Venezuela and, I suggest, in general): (a) >> to seizing the state from capital--- so capital can not use the power of its >> state to defeat us and (b) to transforming that 'ready-made state machinery' >> into the 'self-government of the producers' (to use Marx's words) in order to >> create that space for the development of new people. So, no guarantees--- >> except the guarantee of struggle. But, for me, as I indicate in my critique >> for Historical Materialism, the idea of changing the world without taking >> power is a pipe-dream--- the opiate of the defeated and demoralised. > > I raised the point in my Historical Materialism piece--- what are you > going to do about capitalist power-- police, army, courts, etc if you renounce > the idea of taking power (which means taking power away from them)? And I > proposed that you did it in a Hegelian manner--- by mentally dissolving it. > What's left to say? If there are matters of theory which separate us, let's > battle them out in HM where there's the opportunity to develop arguments > rather than soundbytes. > With respect to concrete matters, Jerry has noted the apparent > contradiction between your statement that you might possibly vote for Lopez > Obrador next year (a statement which I saw as distancing yourself from the > position of your book) and your later statement that if all politicians had > been excluded, you would have been delighted. (Um, leaving what, John?) The > latter is the position that I reject but I think you will be convinced only by > concrete developments; so, I hope we can explore some of these matters after > you study Venezuela more. > best wishes, > michael > ps. thanks for your nice comments about my babbling about Venezuela. > > > At 11:50 23/05/2005, you wrote: >> Dear Michael, >> >> Thank you very much for you latest postings (just to check: Iıve received >> three your response to my original questions, your comments on my responses >> 3 and 5. I assume thatıs all there are.) >> >> In particular I acknowledge your last sentence: Indeed, I do accept the >> possibility that you can be consistent with your book and yet not be an >> opponent of the revolution--- after all, you are large, you 'contain >> multitudes'. That not only gives us an answer to Paulıs initial question, but >> also gives a different basis for talking. >> >> A number of points. Firstly, I do not support López Obrador. I said I >> opposed his exclusion (desafuero), a very different matter if alll >> politicians had been excluded, I would have been delighted, but obviously >> that was not the case. >> >> More important, on the Paris Commune: you quote chapter X of your book: >> >> Indeed, once established, it might face violent attempts by capital to >> reverse the process: >> the catastrophes it might still have to undergo would be sporadic >> slaveholdersı insurrections, which, while for a moment interrupting the >> work of peaceful progress, would only accelerate the movement, by putting the >> sword into the hand of the Social Revolution (Marx, 1871a: 156-7). > Thus, the workersı state would be an essential part of the process > of revolutionary practice, the process whereby workers change themselves in > the course of struggles and become fitted to found society anewı. Yet, as > Marx and Engels learned from the actions of workers in the Paris Commune, this > process required a special kind of state. The working class,ı Marx (1871b: > 68) commented, cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and > wield it for its own purposes.ı Although Marx and Engels argued in their 1872 > Preface to the Manifesto that its general principles were, on the whole, as > correct today as ever,ı the Commune had provedı something not in the > programme--- the need for a new kind of state for workers (Marx and Engels, > 1971: 270). The Commune was the political form at last discovered under which > to work out the economical emancipation of Labourı (Marx, 1871b: 75). At last > discovered! > > Isnıt there a sleight of hand here? When you say a new kind of state for > workers (two lines from the bottom), this is you, isnıt it, rather than Marx > and Engels, or am I wrong? For me, you cannot talk of the Commune as a state, > it is a different form of organisation. Similarly, it is nonsense to talk of a > Soviet State. Does it matter, or is it just an empty question of words? I > think it matters a lot, because the term Soviet State obscures a conflict > between two different forms of organisation, obscures that the State > suppressed the soviets. What gets lost is the crucial a-symmetry between > capitalist forms of organisation and anti-capitalist forms. The crucial point > in any revolutionary process is surely the development of anti-capitalist, and > therefore anti-state, forms of organisation, forms of organisation that do not > exclude people but articulate their struggle. You say you want a ³state of the > commune-type². I say that this glosses over the real issue: do you want a > commune or a state? The two are incompatible. > > On to what is, for me, the central point. You say: > > You ask: > > 'Is it possible for a state to dissolve itself into a radically different form > of organisation, or will the established practices both of state functionaries > and of the people themselves, and the integration of the state into the global > multiplicity of states and above all the global movement of capital, not make > that impossible?' > > I don't know, John. > > First, thank you for I don't know. That surely, has to be the starting point > for discussion. We donıt know. You make a reasoned bet on one form of > organisation, I make a reasoned bet on a different form of organisation, but > we donıt know. If we can accept that, then we can avoid the ³demarcations² > that Paul Z. expected to see and the silly dogmatic posturing that makes > discussion impossible. > > Yet the question is crucial. If the state cannot dissolve itself into a > different form of organisation, then a state-centred revolution cannot lead us > to a self-determining society (other perhaps than through a revolution against > this revolution). I agree completely with Jerryıs post: the precedents are not > encouraging. > > You say: > > What determines the speed of this process (ideally) is the development of the > consciousness of the masses. And, like it or not, key in the development of > that consciousness is leadership--- leadership which is coming from Chavez and > which is in struggle with the old society, the old state, the old order. > > Yet, wonıt a consciousness promoted by the leadership always be a > consciousness that is favourable to that leadership? And why is it that in > other countries of Latin America (Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador) there is plenty > of conscious struggle that is not coming from a leadership? And doesnıt your > own example of the patrols suggest that the problem is not consciousness but > the withdrawal of state control? > > Paul asks if there has to be a Kronstadt. I would have thought not, but > possibly a series of mini-Kronstadts. By that I mean that surely in any > revolutionary process there will be a clash between those forces that are > pushing (from outside and quite possibly from inside the state) for a radical > democratisation (such as that to which Jerry alludes and to which you reply > ³Sure²) and those who want to contain the process within the state forms of > organisation. Is this whatıs happening in Venezuela? What form does it take > (both intra-state conflicts and suppression or marginalisation of extra-state > movements)? You say something of the conflicts within the state, but what > about the push coming from outside the state? Elsewhere in Latin America there > are a lot of people in struggle who are saying ³we donıt want leaders, we > donıt want representatives, we want to assume responsibility for our own > lives². If this is also what is happening in Venezuela, what is the response > of the state? Quite apart from the demand for nationalisation under workersı > control (which you mention), are factories being taken over by workers on > their own initiative, and what is then the response of the state? (As I have > made clear all along, my questions arise out of ignorance). Would you agree > that the forces coming from outside the state are crucial in this whole > process > > This is as far as my thoughts are prepared to go early on a Monday morning. > Iıd be very interested to hear what you think. > > Best wishes, > > John > > Michael A. Lebowitz > Professor Emeritus > Economics Department > Simon Fraser University > Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 > > Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at > Residencias Anauco Suites > Departamento 601 > Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1 > Caracas, Venezuela > (58-212) 573-4111 > fax: (58-212) 573-7724 >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 25 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT