< < <
Date Index > > > |
Re: the Communist Manifesto: critique by Trich Ganesh 24 March 2002 02:27 UTC |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |
Two comments (from my recollections as a student of Barrington Moore Jr.): (1) if you consider the frequency of proletarian or antisystemic revolutions in the world system, it is difficult not to be struck by their remarkable 'fewness'; and (2) if you consider the major "irritants" for their production, it is also difficult not to associate them with Gramsci's "Piedmontese function". In short, wars and proletarian revolutions are historically, a recurrent combination. Cuba - or for that matter 1917 Russia, or for that matter 1919 Germany, or for that matter 1949 China - is no exception. Underemployment and unemployment have always been part of the worldwide processes of capital accumulation - but they have not in themselves produced "revolution". The degradation and unevenly-produced destitution of the multitudes does not necessarily make the multititudes revolutionary. But wars accelerate the contradictions, they may even become the major "irritant" that provokes revolutionary transformation. TKGanesh. Date sent: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 10:15:55 -0500 To: <wsn@csf.colorado.edu> From: Louis Proyect <lnp3@panix.com> Subject: Re: the Communist Manifesto: critique At 01:16 PM 3/18/2002 +0200, Petros Haritatos wrote: >A simple 'thought experiment' might be to assume that "capitalism" has >disappeared and that goods and services are produced and allocated according >to enlightened methods. Would this mean that relationships of power and >subservience disappear? Would this avert a new depletion of 'the commons'? >Who would set limits, allocations, and rule on what is right or wrong? These questions remind me of the exchanges I had on Harry Cleaver's "autonomist" list a week ago. The objection to the Soviet model was based on a kind of misreading of V. 1 of Capital. If commodity production, wages and money could not be abolished through proletarian revolution, what was the point? No matter how many times I referred to Marx's dictum in "Critique of the Gotha Program" that: "What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges", they were unimpressed. Unless you did away with capitalism in TOTALITY, you were not making any kind of qualitative advance. In reality, revolutions are not made to get rid of commodity production and wage labor. They are made because capitalism has failed to live up to its own promise to guarantee people the right to be exploited. Underemployment and unemployment have been the irritants behind all major revolutions of the 20th century. Take Cuba for instance. The Cuban economy was based on export agriculture. The main crop was sugar, followed by tobacco, cattle and coffee. Agricultural resources were underutilized. For the hacienda owner, this was no problem. It might mean spending January through March in the US or Europe, shopping or attending the opera. For the farm worker, this meant unemployment and suffering. In 1954, for instance, Cuba's 424,000 agricultural wage earners averaged only 123 days of work; farm owners, tenants and sharecroppers also fared poorly, averaging only 135 days of employment. Unemployment led to all sorts of hardship. 43% of the rural population was illiterate. 60% lived in huts with earth floors and thatched roofs. 2/3 lived without running water and only 1 out of 14 families had electricity. Daily nutrition was terrible. Only 4% of rural families ate meat regularly. Most subsisted on rice, beans and root crops. Bad diet and housing caused bad health. 13% of the population had a history of typhoid, 14% tuberculosis and over 1/3 intestinal parasites. The main cause of backwardness in the countryside was the cartel nature of agriculture, particularly the sugar industry. A production quota was assigned to each cane grower, based on figures originating from 1937. The quota was divided into 2 export quotas, one for the US and one for the rest of the world, and 1 quota for special reserves. The reserve quota was a major problem since it caused over 1/5 of Cuban land to lay idle. So, when the July 26th movement promised to abolish these conditions and put people to work, an anarchist or a "libertarian communist" might have complained, using the words of Peggy Lee's signature song: "Is that all there is?" Yes, that is all there is. Every successful revolution establishes a beachhead from which further advances against capitalism can be made. To turn up our noses at these societies because they have not abolished money and commodity production is a sectarian and idealist mistake. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
< < <
Date Index > > > |
World Systems Network List Archives at CSF | Subscribe to World Systems Network |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |