Re: [OPE-L] The Paris Commune, the State, and Venezuela

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Thu May 19 2005 - 15:48:42 EDT

--On Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:32 AM -0400 glevy@PRATT.EDU wrote:

> _You_ offered the examples of Spain and Germany.  I discussed those
> examples.

I was only proffering examples to illustrate a point, Jerry.  But you made
a very strong statement, giving the weight of history to anarchism:
  "*A lesson of history for Marxists is not that Marxists should fear
anarchists but that we should fear and distrust many individuals and groups
who call themselves "Marxist"*."

Meanwhile, you neglected to say that anarchists have something to learn
from Marxists.

> I should point out that re the example that you gave about anarchists
> that the _overwhelming_ majority of anarchists today oppose the
> tactic of assasinating individual representatives of capital and the
> state.  Indeed, there are undoubtably more people today who claim to be
> Marxists who favor that tactic.

If you have read the 2004 *Murdered by Capitalism" you might have another
feeling about the history of anarchism here.

> Have you read John's post today?  Wouldn't you agree that he
> answered the questions that you asked at the beginning of that thread?

His post is too long for the time I have available just now, particularly
since it is embedded within considerable dialogue with Michael.

>> I sense you feel anarchism
>> is ipso facto on the workers side of the barricades, little discussion
>> needed.
> Well ... when have anarchists supported capital and the state against
> the workers' movement?  I can't think of any examples.  Can you?

One could say the same about Jesus and Buddha supporting workers I suppose.
But one could also say that anarchism was responsible for the Haymarket
bomb  and that it greatly harmed the labor movement.  If so, objectively,
such action supported capital and the state.  This is why I've making the
point that "which side are you on" is not simple.  Put another way, you
don't have to be a Leninist to argue that _what_ politics is engaged can
help _or_ harm workers (even when all claim support of workers).

> I think, though, that given John's latest clarifications there should
> be _no_ question about whether he is supportive of the revolutionary
> process in Venezuela or what side of the barricades he is on.

Aren't we getting a bit too personal about John as an individual.  Aren't
we trying to discuss a larger issue?


RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY,  Paul Zarembka, editor, Elsevier Science

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 20 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT