From: Francisco Paulo Cipolla (cipolla@UFPR.BR)
Date: Tue Mar 14 2006 - 08:55:40 EST
Countdown just posted an artilcle by Loren Gouldner on Bordiga which presents some reflections on "how communists understood decadence" not in the 1930s, I think, but immediately after WWII. Paulo Jerry Levy wrote: > Hi Jurriaan, > > Just briefly -- a couple of points. > > > An indication of how communists understood decadence in the 1930s can be > > gleaned from Christopher Caudwell's "Studies in a Dying Culture" (some > > bits of it here http://www.marxists.org/archive/caudwell/). Gyorgy Lukacs > > also refers to it in several writings (e.g. > <http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/destruction-reason/ch03.htm ). > > It was a kind of "conception of the epoch" people had - not entirely > > unreasonably, given two world wars, numerous smaller-scale wars, and great > > social havoc. Maybe difficult to understand in retrospect, but at the time > > it seemed very real. > > I agree with you completely here: the belief by Trotsky that capitalism > was in the throes of its "death agony" also has to be contextualized > historically. Yes, I think that was a not unreasonable belief in 1938. > But, _our_ perspective has to take into account what has happened > historically since that time. We can not allow the rhetoric of decadence > to get in the way of analysis simply because we like its prose. > > > In reality, possibly the biggest crisis of our time is the growth of a > > rheumy conservatism and diminished expectations of life, whereas the task > > of > > a revolutionary or a radical thinker is to make "the impossible possible", > > to expand or widen the realm of human possibilities, to inspire confidence > > in the ability of self-acting individuals to change their world. If people > > are too afraid or overloaded to dare to do anything, speak out, be > > adventurous, join together etc. they cannot change society for the better, > > can they. You might laugh at me, with my humdrum petty existence, for > > saying this, but at least I'm not afraid to moot the idea. > > I'm not laughing. Indeed, I think your comments speak to an issue at hand. > > Let us return to what we referred to as "the ideology of capitalist decline > and decadence." One such narrative (which I am embellishing for dramatic > effect) might go something like the following: > > In the epoch of capitalist decay, economic crises will become more frequent > and intense. Then, comes the economic collapse. What happens after the > collapse, after the economic breakdown? Why, the "revolutionary moment", > of course. The working class and the wretched of the Earth will rise up in > revolt: like a scene from the film "Network", everyone will put their heads > out the window and scream "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it > anymore!" Then they will rush to the streets, shout "Karl Marx was > right!", and burst into song -- "The Internationale", of course. The > expropriators will be expropriated!, Red Butterflies will Flap their Wings, > and (after a brief transitional period) everyone will live happily ever > after. The End. > > There are, of course, many problems with such a narrative. One problem > is the lack of any conception of how workers' consciousness changes. You > are right, Jurriaan: the self-confidence of the working class is vitally > important to any prospect for revolution. As anyone who is an activist > should know, workers gain self-confidence as a consequence of victories, > not defeats. Victories -- even small ones -- tell them that they can win > and therefore encourage them onward to greater challenges. It is therefore > not some kind of automatic response to economic crisis which creates > revolutionary action. Revolutions are made by those who know that they > _do_ have something which can be lost -- contrary to the assertion in > _The Communist Manifesto_ (another example of excellent prose but > inadequate analysis). They know that their lives and the lives of loved > ones and communities can be lost. They have everything to lose and > everything to gain. They will risk all only when they believe they can win. > > It's hard to say what is the basis for the mythology that has developed > about revolutions. Revolutionaries -- perhaps Marxists most of all, but > including anarchists -- tend to be hopeless romantics! Hence, our > narratives about Crisis & Revolution tend also to be Romantic. Like > others I'm a romantic in some senses as well, but I think what is needed > for both theory and praxis is clarity and alertness and patience and > resoluteness and determination, and *humility*. There's a lot that we > don't know and we shouldn't be afraid to say that. Instead of thinking > that we have all of the answers, we have to realize that a lot of the > answers will only emerge in the course of class (and other) struggles. > > In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 15 2006 - 00:00:01 EST