From: Barry Stoller 
To: left-transparency@L...; rad-green@lists.econ.utah.edu 
Subject: [R-G] Re: anti-war agitation and (1) the labor aristocracy, (2) socialism
Date: Monday, October 08, 2001 6:38 PM


Ben Seattle: Finally, we see similar logic expressed here by Barry
Stoller.

I strenuously object to the comparison. My position is far from a
reformist one. Rather, it goes in the opposite direction.

First, a recap...

Stoller [prior]: And thus the problem with living behind enemy lines. We
cannot -- practically -- work for revolution in our nations, we are far
too privileged for revolution; we must tend to the far more frustrating
task of moving our labor aristocracies as far to the left as possible in
the hopes that that, alone, will give the revolutions in the 3rd World
the breathing room they require. To defeat us.

> US imperialism will be overthrown by the
_i_n_t_e_r_n_a_l__f_a_c_t_o_r_  --by the actions of its working
class--in alliance with the struggles of the working class and peoples
of the rest of the world.

Yes, this is all chapter and verse...

> The labor aristocracy will move to the left at precisely that moment
when large sections of serious activists conclude that the labor
aristocracy is part of the enemy camp.

I fail to grasp the above. If the 'labor aristocracy is part of the
enemy camp' -- and I certainly wouldn't refute that -- then I hesitate
to see how they 'will move to the left at precisely that moment when
large sections of serious activists' discern, er, that they are 'part of
the enemy camp.' I would say that 'serious activists' have already known
that the 'labor aristocracy is part of the enemy camp' for about 100
years without the observation alone bringing anything to bear on the
problem.

> Barry's comment reveals an ideological similarity between a section of
the progressive movement in a country like the US--and the fanatical
Arab nationalist reactionaries who murdered thousands of people last
month in New York.

Yo, Ben, easy with that shit.

> Barry himself is a sincere activist and I respect him.

Hmmm.

> If we cannot see that the overthrow of US imperialism is a task for
the working class in the US--we will never be able to tell the workers
in the US the bitter truth that they need to hear.

I think I see your problem here.

When I said give 'the revolutions in the 3rd World the breathing room
they require. To defeat us,' I wasn't talking about military operations
per se -- certainly not the sort of individual terrorist operations that
Marxists traditionally reject on the grounds that they exclude the
masses -- as much as: a general sense that revolutions will perforce
confront, withstand, repel, and so on, the US (and, with it, its
enormous labor aristocracy). They will work AGAINST our (material)
interests. If, for nothing else, simply reducing the scope of absolute
labor exploitation in which to sustain the 1st World (capitalist as well
as worker).

Here we come to the core of our debate...

> For example, after everything that happened in the Soviet Union, I do
not believe that it is possible to raise the issue of workers' rule in
an intelligent way unless we can, at the same time, address the question
of what democratic rights that workers will have.

> And yet this concept (ie: that an alternative to bourgeois rule is
possible) is the most powerful idea that we can give to serious
activists and to the working class.

Some objections.

First. As far as I'm concerned, your position condemning the Soviet
Union is a grave error. To repudiate the Soviet experience (and, most
likely, you repudiate other socialist experiences) in favor of some
ideal projection of socialism is utopian nihilism. You discount what
must be defended -- or else you reduce socialism to the 19th century
blueprints of literary supermen.

Speaking for myself, when we consider all-day day care centers, 9 months
maternity leaves, pensions at age 55, 50% of all doctors and engineers
in the SU being female, and so on (refer to William Mandel's Soviet
Women, Anchor 1975), the Soviet experience is WELL worth defending --
warts and all. I would go so far as to say that Brezhnev probably did
more for women's rights in the 20th century than any other single
figurehead.

Second, you projection of 'what democratic rights ... workers will
have.' Another 'programmatic norm,' I suppose). The Bolsheviks never
tired talking about these 'rights.' Talk is talk, however. Here's
another way of looking at the problem: since we painfully know that
bourgeois democracy is no democracy at all, what experience prepares you
to speak so confidently OF 'democratic rights'? How do you come to know
so much ABOUT 'democratic rights'? Again, utopianism.

Third. 'The most powerful idea that we can give to serious activists and
to the working class' sounds suspiciously Promethean. Can 'serious
activists' 'give' the working class ideas that operate outside of
praxis? This question returns us, unhappily, to the core issue of the
labor aristocracy. The working class will not want any 'powerful ideas'
from anyone until they are MATERIALLY compelled by corresponding
objective factors. The latter must come first. And, as I see it, the
level of material comfort predicated upon the surplus labor of the 3rd
World and the level of collusion with the 1st World bourgeoisie required
to receive that surplus pretty well makes the working class of the 1st
World immune to socialism.

Yes, that is not a pretty idea...

Let us remember our Marx, however. His observation was a capitalism at
the breaking point between capital's need to produce more and more
commodities for more and more consumers (most of whom, remembering his
proportions between departments one and two, were other capitalists; the
ratio has reversed [in the US] since then and department two is
predominant) and the need to keep labor costs to the extreme minimum. As
Luxemburg pointed out (Accumulation of Capital), the problem with Marx's
projections owed to a presumption that ALL nations would -- at least
eventually -- proceed into capitalism as he understood it (recall Marx
on India). As Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution so crisply
demonstrated, capital can do itself a big favor by NOT developing most
of the countries. And that dilemma is still in front of the world.

Where this takes us is straight to the heart of the historic call of
socialism improving the lives of workers. Not only in material goods and
services, of course ... but we must admit that that is a central idea. I
maintain that the ecological movement has done us (Marxists) the service
of disabusing this notion of infinite production, however. I submit that
many workers of the 1st World have no where to go ... but down.
Especially if the workers of the 3rd World are to receive the basic
amenities the workers of the 1st World take for granted.

Let us not kid ourselves when we toss around the term 'labor
aristocracy.'

What is the labor aristocracy? There are several compelling definitions,
all of which lead to a certain predisposition toward the status quo.
There is (1) direct receipt of 3rd World surplus -- shares and 401(k)s;
(2) indirect receipt of 3rd World surplus -- lower costs for basic goods
(produced under absolute exploitation); (3) production sphere vs
circulation sphere (which, producing no value, acts parasitically upon
the former); and (4) privileged position within the circuit of capital
-- i.e. skilled (educated) work.

In short: anyone with computer access is probably 'labor aristocracy' --
however perfidious some members might be (or think they are).

Which brings us again to the unpleasant topic of utopian nihilism.
Utopian nihilism always basks in the glow of unobtainable expectations
-- 'infallibly favorable chances' as Marx chided Kuglemann -- all the
better to reject socialist praxis (say, the FARC or the CPN(M)) in favor
of settling for ... capitalism.

> Reactionary Arab nationalism is a form of anti-imperialism.  But it is
the anti-imperialism of fools in a similar way as the nazi movement was
the socialism of fools.

Whatever.

As citizens of the US, we need to acknowledge that our country -- led by
Ronald Reagan (with ample support by its workers) -- succeeded where
Nazi Germany led by Adolph Hitler failed: in crushing the USSR, the only
tenable socialism that ever existed.

Yet.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Barry Stoller
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ProletarianNews
with continuing coverage of WWIII


_______________________________________________
Rad-Green mailing list
Rad-Green@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green