Log in

View Full Version : Harrington - the trotskyist



peaccenicked
28th February 2002, 15:09
"A New Civilization
But when the moment comes, when that pilgrimage of women and men toward the realization of their own humanity begins again, as it will, we will be there. DSA itself may well be transformed at that moment, its cadres and energy and ideas being absorbed into new organizational forms that we cannot now even imagine. And yet it will be there.

Those who lose heart on the very eve of a new generation of change should remember the profound truth Antonio Gramsci articulated from an Italian jail cell in a decade that saw the triumph of fascism- and, with an exception or two, the spectacular failure of socialism and the destruction of the Russian Revolution by Stalinism. Socialism, Gramsci said, was not a matter of a political victory on this or that day, or even this or that decade. It was not an economic program, a recipe. It was a "moral and intellectual reformation,'' a fight to transform the very culture and will of those who had, since time immemorial, been made subordinate, the epochal work of the creation of a new civilization.

We live today in the most radical of times; humanity is fighting at this very moment over the content of that new civilization- of a new planet, if you will - and that struggle will go on beyond the lifetime of every one of us. There is no guarantee that the vision of a democratic and communitarian socialization will prevail over the bureaucrats and the technocrats who abound in this period. All socialism is- "all"- is the theory and practice which seeks to empower the people of the North, South, East and West to take control of their destiny for the first time.

Those who join the movement for the immediate rewards of power are advised to apply elsewhere. Those who are willing to wager their lives on the possibility of freedom and justice and solidarity should pay their dues.

This article first appeared in the February 24 - March 8, 1988 issue of In These Times. "

Harrington formed his ideas in the Trotskyist movement.
A movement that claims to be the true heir of Leninism
http://www.bolshevik.org/mb/8trotskyism.htm

Supermodel
28th February 2002, 18:47
What kinda hallucongens is this guy on?

he quotes the Italian guy as saying:

Socialism, Gramsci said, was not a matter of a political victory on this or that day, or even this or that decade. It was not an economic program, a recipe. It was a "moral and intellectual reformation,'' a fight to transform the very culture and will of those who had, since time immemorial, been made subordinate, the epochal work of the creation of a new civilization.

I like the first part of that sentence, about socialism not being an event, a program or a recipe. But then he goes off and says that it is the underdog's fight against oppression. That is not an accurate assessment of socialism to me, and it comes back to class distinctions in defining socialism. Socialism to me is the state the economy finds itself in when accumulating capital is not the goal or not permitted and all in society are equal. Any definiution of socialism that perpetuates the them-versus-us dogma of revolution is addressing only the event and not the end state.

I'll crawl back into my foxhole now.....

peaccenicked
28th February 2002, 20:06
Marxists believe that class society is the source of the underdogs fight against oppression. In the case of women, patriarchy can be traced back to early inheritance laws that require the subjugation of woman.
Racism provided a rationalisation for Slavery. Homophobia finds its origins in the religious mystification
of sexual relations.
Thus class liberation from the yoke of the capitalists, provides the lasting conditions for the freedom of
all, the end of the mystification of alll social relations,
the abolition of inheritance laws for private rather than personal property, the ending of the modern rationalisation of racism, imperialism.
This centralisation of class contradiction is recognised because it permeates all aspects of social life in some form or other.

Supermodel
28th February 2002, 20:33
OK let me ask a simpler question: I am bothered by the them-versus-us rhetoric. Come the revolution, is there a harmonious life for the former oppressed AND the former oppressors?

In my version of Utopia, everyone wakes up to the ideal way of doing stuff, and everyone has a fair shot at happiness. I'm not criticising Che's or anybody's executions of their former foes after a revolution, but thinking of the state you move into thereafter.

Or do you simply turn around and oppress or eliminate everyone who used to be in the "class" you identified as your enemy?

peaccenicked
28th February 2002, 21:23
The aim is to abolish classes not people.
In China the emperor became a gardener.
According to the film, he was quite happy with this.
I dont know, however the principle is correct.
If there is violent resistance, I think it should be met with due force and (not just for the sake of posterity) not a concession to brutalised retribution.ie We should be bigger than that, if possible.
retribution for past misdeeds.

vox
3rd March 2002, 07:24
"...I disagree with The Revolution Betrayed..."
--The Twilight of Capitalism, Harrington, p 349

It is true that, at least in the early years, Trotsky was a much more brilliant thinker than Stalin. However, by the end, and possibly in part due to having to deny charges that he hadn't been a Leninist, he declined into the clockwork Marx favored by so many.

Trotsky wrote, "Hegel was fond of saying: what is rational is real. This means: every idea that corresponds to objective meeds of development attains triumph and victory."

Harrington points out that Hegel not only said, What is rational is real," but immediately added, "And what is real is rational." Harrington calls what Trotsky wrote following those first sentences "Trotsky's fantasy." That the "correctness of the Fourth International's program guaranteed its triumph," which, of course, was untrue.

It's this determinism that I fight against, and will continue to fight against.

Looking at your quote from Harrington, I don't see that kind of determinism. If it's there, please point it out to me.

vox

vox
3rd March 2002, 07:31
"OK let me ask a simpler question: I am bothered by the them-versus-us rhetoric. Come the revolution, is there a harmonious life for the former oppressed AND the former oppressors?"

They goddamn well better be.

One aspect of Marxism is that the oppressor is oppressed, too, in that class prohibits the free expression of the individual. Granted, the oppressor is not oppressed in the economic sense, but is certainly restrained by the social relations of our epoch, just like everyone is.

SM, you may be interested in writings of Raya Dunayevskaya, a Marxist-Humanist. You can find many things by her here:

http://www.newsandletters.org/

Like the quote says, Human power is its own end.

vox

vox
14th March 2002, 13:28
Hmmm, even the critic doesn't respond?

Too bad.

It's a shame, really.

vox