Ross wrote:
> What I was trying to say, I think, was that power operates in far more
> subtle ways than Marx ever foresaw, as Foucault realised.
Foucault may have "realised" this. I don't know of any occasion on
which he said so, however.
I do know that he made a crucial distinction between Marx and "those
who call themselves Marxist," and who "play a game whose rules aren't
Marxist but communistological, in other words defined by communist
parties...." (P/K, p. 53). Keeping this distinction in mind,
Foucault distinguishes between "a sort of schematism that needs to be
avoided... -- and which incidentally is not to be found in Marx --
that consists of locating power in the State apparatus" (P/K 72).
Moreover, he refers to the "remarkable" and "very important material"
to be found in Marx, including "everything he wrote on the army and
its role in the development of political power, for instance" (P/K,
76-77). These remarks (and I could cite many more if you wanted me
to) suggest that Foucault attributed quite a bit of "subtlety" to Marx,
precisely in connection with the workings of power. Indeed, any one
who has read the "Eighteenth Brumaire" by Marx could hardly confuse
his views on power (whether one agrees with all of them or not) with
the "schematism" of Stalinized "Marxism."
> The idea of the class struggle, class consciousness, a class for itself, the
> revolution of the proletariat and all that is inadequate, far too simple and
> fails to provide a satisfactory explanation of current events. There are
> forces at work which Marx never thought of and which show why capitalism is
> unlikely to collapse.
First of all, Marx doesn't say that capitalism is likely to
collapse. He says that the trajectory of capitalist development is
such that it tends to produce a concentration and centralization of
capital, and that "with this also grows the revolt of the working
class," which tends to become better organized, and increasingly
capable of collective action, etc. (see second last ch. of CAP. I).
The first half of this analysis has proved to be unfailingly accurate.
Capital has become ever more concentrated and centralized. The second
half was certainly accurate until the early 1920's. Arguably it
continued to be accurate until the 1940's. Since the 1940's, the
"revolt of the working class" has (in the North Atlantic countries, in
particular) receded somewhat.
Marx indeed failed to anticipate this development. However, would
that have been a reasonable demand to make on a social theorist
writing in the 1860's? Do we think, for example, that no social
theory is credible today if it fails to tell us what things will be
like in the year 2,060? If Foucault's ideas need do be creatively
developed and expanded upon by the end of the next century, that is
not a reason to call those ideas "simplistic." And there is no
shortage of Marxist analysis being done today, including analysis of
the decline of working class militancy, etc. One would have to assess
that work to see whether or not Marxist analysis of current events was
plausible. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Most likely some is and some
isn't. Above all, I suspect that one would find a distinction between
the Stalinized "communistological" analyses, which would be
predictably cliched, and the creative and intellectually adventurous
attempts to use Marx's approach to understand the present. I
emphasize, though, that this is not a difference between "sterile
orthodoxy" which is too Marxist, and a "rethinking of Marxism" which
has a healthy distaste for classical Marxism. On the contrary, the
problem with Stalinism is not that it is too Marxist but that it is
not Marxist enough ("as Foucault realised").
> Human nature being what it is when it comes to the crunch, the working class
> will not stand united in championing its cause against the capitalist class
> if self-minded advantage can be gained.
I am, like Marx and Foucault both, highly suspicious of claims to have
_a priori_ knowledge about "human nature." But, in any case, the
whole point is that "self-minded advantage" CAN be gained through
working class solidarity, as any experienced trade unionist can tell
you.
> Thus we see that the Unions are
> often half-hearted in standing up for the rights of workers. Thus it was
> that in the Paris riots of May 1968, the mass movements of people and the
> events known as the 'Prague Spring' in Czechoslovakia have been located at
> the epicentre of a crisis within Marxism.
>
> These events revealed the true self-interest of the P.C.F. (Communist
> Party), which persuaded workers to end their protest and return to work.
> Once the back of the protest had been broken it was easy for the Gaullist
> Government to finish the job. Thus mass protest from Trade Unions and Left
> Parties collapsed when so-called 'radical socialists' felt their position
> threatened.
Both in the case of unions and in the case of political parties, one
has to distinguish the bureaucracies that develop to sustain the
organization, and which develop a distinct set of priorities
(long-term financial viability, maintaining legal status, career
paths, etc.), and the rank and file activists and members. No serious
Marxist has ever failed to make this distinction (at least since
Luxembourg and Lenin/Trotsky). It is not useful to talk about the
"unions" or the "socialist/communist parties." The role of union/CP
bureaucrats in 1968 was the same as the role of the bureaucrats in
almost every similar struggle either before or since. Compare, for
exammple, the German S.P.D. in the German revolution that followed
that in Russia. There is a REALLY good little book/pamphlet on the
issue of trade union bureaucracy sold by the British Socialist
Workers' Party, written by Alex Callinicos; see also Luxembour,
Trotsky and Lenin re. trade unions and social democratic parties.
(BTW, the PCF was a Stalinist social democratic party, not an
insurrectionary "combat organization" like the 1917 Bolsheviks).
Anyway, the "crisis" to which you refer is a crisis of Stalinism, not
Marxism. Many Marxists have been saying for many decades that the
USSR was not socialist, but state capitalist (or
bureaucratic-collectivist, etc.).
>
> This is why a libertarian philosophy so often gains the ascendency over a
> socialistic one. Simply because the so-called 'solidarity of the working
> class' is a figment of the imagination. This is why so often we find one
> dictatorship or repressive regime simply replaced with another tyranny.
The solidarity of the working class is something that Marxists
advocate, on strategic grounds. Since Marxists (with the exception of
some "Academic" Marxists) have always been involved in the workers'
movement, they have never had any shortage of opportunities to
witness failures of solidarity. But to say that there is never any
such thing is just false. I have witnessed and participated in
literally hundreds of occasions on which workers joined together to
collectively fight against employers and/or (usually "and") the state.
I live in Toronto, where in a couple of months there will be a mass
demonstration of an expected three thousand workers against the
"libertarian philosophy" to which you refer. You should come (October
25-26) and see if you still think that workers' solidarity is a
"figment of the imagination."
Steve
SoBlo
Toronto
_------
Some one asked what "SoBlo" is. It is the (unofficial) name for a
neighbourhood, "South-of-Bloor" (viz., s. of "the Annex"), North of
Kensington Market, east of the so-called "Mirvisch Village" (named
after a union-busting millionaire who owns a lot of property there),
and west of the St.George campus of U.of T.
Because of the new "libertarian" anti-rent-control law, I will
probably have to move out of SoBlo in September.
> What I was trying to say, I think, was that power operates in far more
> subtle ways than Marx ever foresaw, as Foucault realised.
Foucault may have "realised" this. I don't know of any occasion on
which he said so, however.
I do know that he made a crucial distinction between Marx and "those
who call themselves Marxist," and who "play a game whose rules aren't
Marxist but communistological, in other words defined by communist
parties...." (P/K, p. 53). Keeping this distinction in mind,
Foucault distinguishes between "a sort of schematism that needs to be
avoided... -- and which incidentally is not to be found in Marx --
that consists of locating power in the State apparatus" (P/K 72).
Moreover, he refers to the "remarkable" and "very important material"
to be found in Marx, including "everything he wrote on the army and
its role in the development of political power, for instance" (P/K,
76-77). These remarks (and I could cite many more if you wanted me
to) suggest that Foucault attributed quite a bit of "subtlety" to Marx,
precisely in connection with the workings of power. Indeed, any one
who has read the "Eighteenth Brumaire" by Marx could hardly confuse
his views on power (whether one agrees with all of them or not) with
the "schematism" of Stalinized "Marxism."
> The idea of the class struggle, class consciousness, a class for itself, the
> revolution of the proletariat and all that is inadequate, far too simple and
> fails to provide a satisfactory explanation of current events. There are
> forces at work which Marx never thought of and which show why capitalism is
> unlikely to collapse.
First of all, Marx doesn't say that capitalism is likely to
collapse. He says that the trajectory of capitalist development is
such that it tends to produce a concentration and centralization of
capital, and that "with this also grows the revolt of the working
class," which tends to become better organized, and increasingly
capable of collective action, etc. (see second last ch. of CAP. I).
The first half of this analysis has proved to be unfailingly accurate.
Capital has become ever more concentrated and centralized. The second
half was certainly accurate until the early 1920's. Arguably it
continued to be accurate until the 1940's. Since the 1940's, the
"revolt of the working class" has (in the North Atlantic countries, in
particular) receded somewhat.
Marx indeed failed to anticipate this development. However, would
that have been a reasonable demand to make on a social theorist
writing in the 1860's? Do we think, for example, that no social
theory is credible today if it fails to tell us what things will be
like in the year 2,060? If Foucault's ideas need do be creatively
developed and expanded upon by the end of the next century, that is
not a reason to call those ideas "simplistic." And there is no
shortage of Marxist analysis being done today, including analysis of
the decline of working class militancy, etc. One would have to assess
that work to see whether or not Marxist analysis of current events was
plausible. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Most likely some is and some
isn't. Above all, I suspect that one would find a distinction between
the Stalinized "communistological" analyses, which would be
predictably cliched, and the creative and intellectually adventurous
attempts to use Marx's approach to understand the present. I
emphasize, though, that this is not a difference between "sterile
orthodoxy" which is too Marxist, and a "rethinking of Marxism" which
has a healthy distaste for classical Marxism. On the contrary, the
problem with Stalinism is not that it is too Marxist but that it is
not Marxist enough ("as Foucault realised").
> Human nature being what it is when it comes to the crunch, the working class
> will not stand united in championing its cause against the capitalist class
> if self-minded advantage can be gained.
I am, like Marx and Foucault both, highly suspicious of claims to have
_a priori_ knowledge about "human nature." But, in any case, the
whole point is that "self-minded advantage" CAN be gained through
working class solidarity, as any experienced trade unionist can tell
you.
> Thus we see that the Unions are
> often half-hearted in standing up for the rights of workers. Thus it was
> that in the Paris riots of May 1968, the mass movements of people and the
> events known as the 'Prague Spring' in Czechoslovakia have been located at
> the epicentre of a crisis within Marxism.
>
> These events revealed the true self-interest of the P.C.F. (Communist
> Party), which persuaded workers to end their protest and return to work.
> Once the back of the protest had been broken it was easy for the Gaullist
> Government to finish the job. Thus mass protest from Trade Unions and Left
> Parties collapsed when so-called 'radical socialists' felt their position
> threatened.
Both in the case of unions and in the case of political parties, one
has to distinguish the bureaucracies that develop to sustain the
organization, and which develop a distinct set of priorities
(long-term financial viability, maintaining legal status, career
paths, etc.), and the rank and file activists and members. No serious
Marxist has ever failed to make this distinction (at least since
Luxembourg and Lenin/Trotsky). It is not useful to talk about the
"unions" or the "socialist/communist parties." The role of union/CP
bureaucrats in 1968 was the same as the role of the bureaucrats in
almost every similar struggle either before or since. Compare, for
exammple, the German S.P.D. in the German revolution that followed
that in Russia. There is a REALLY good little book/pamphlet on the
issue of trade union bureaucracy sold by the British Socialist
Workers' Party, written by Alex Callinicos; see also Luxembour,
Trotsky and Lenin re. trade unions and social democratic parties.
(BTW, the PCF was a Stalinist social democratic party, not an
insurrectionary "combat organization" like the 1917 Bolsheviks).
Anyway, the "crisis" to which you refer is a crisis of Stalinism, not
Marxism. Many Marxists have been saying for many decades that the
USSR was not socialist, but state capitalist (or
bureaucratic-collectivist, etc.).
>
> This is why a libertarian philosophy so often gains the ascendency over a
> socialistic one. Simply because the so-called 'solidarity of the working
> class' is a figment of the imagination. This is why so often we find one
> dictatorship or repressive regime simply replaced with another tyranny.
The solidarity of the working class is something that Marxists
advocate, on strategic grounds. Since Marxists (with the exception of
some "Academic" Marxists) have always been involved in the workers'
movement, they have never had any shortage of opportunities to
witness failures of solidarity. But to say that there is never any
such thing is just false. I have witnessed and participated in
literally hundreds of occasions on which workers joined together to
collectively fight against employers and/or (usually "and") the state.
I live in Toronto, where in a couple of months there will be a mass
demonstration of an expected three thousand workers against the
"libertarian philosophy" to which you refer. You should come (October
25-26) and see if you still think that workers' solidarity is a
"figment of the imagination."
Steve
SoBlo
Toronto
_------
Some one asked what "SoBlo" is. It is the (unofficial) name for a
neighbourhood, "South-of-Bloor" (viz., s. of "the Annex"), North of
Kensington Market, east of the so-called "Mirvisch Village" (named
after a union-busting millionaire who owns a lot of property there),
and west of the St.George campus of U.of T.
Because of the new "libertarian" anti-rent-control law, I will
probably have to move out of SoBlo in September.