Althusser, Artemio, the State and the Theory
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Hair Salon Blueprint Sample
In a discussion that started here and continued here, Artemio Lopez tried to define in a post, from a quotation from Althusser, who was "THE" problem of post-revolutionary states which were introduced in at least one third of the planet for more than half of the twentieth century, after the triumph of the Russian Revolution and other revolutions of whom were born post-capitalist social formations, ie workers' states of different types or popularly known as "state socialism."
the absence of a theory to defend "state Kirchner" (we understand it, is a complex task) took a "maximum" very Clausewitzian and low level, ie, a common and said "no best defense is a good offense."
Let's see if we explain, AL can not defend a state that says "not repress social protest" and you have loaded on your or your allies, with more deaths than Duhalde and repression where "fellow Peronist" send students and teachers drag s down the street, where people disappear and Jorge Julio Lopez, Silvia Suppo murders, police in the "buddy Scioli" kill and go away to kids as Luciano Wrinkle etc. etc.
Artemio L. simply "unsubscribe" in consultant numbers "Equis" and continues to support the popular government (capable than those of Soldati, nor was counted, so less work).
But we said, as no arguments to defend it "their" state so ... "contradictory" to attack the proposed draft statement for which we fight the Marxists, the same Lenin and even Marx.
But when he thought he was pulling heavy ammunition in fact launched a pif with another cliché, this time from the hand of an 'authority', Louis Althusser, who will recognize some theoretical stature, but not just as Artemio fetched L. to demonstrate the "key" to the post-revolutionary workers' states. It is seen that many surveys and numbers that do not close, stunted thinking.
The truism that Artemio L. cut and pasted from Althusser says about this "the problem they had is that socialist states had not Marx and Lenin theory of the future proletarian state or whatever that they will stand when the working class taking power ". Or, to put it another way "Neither Marx nor Lenin, Gramsci had a theory or" positive "about the state, there was only one" critical "(ie" negative ") of the bourgeois state and the future proletarian state or socialist had many "loopholes." Then, quite simply there was the crux of the matter, that says nothing more and nothing less than Stalin, the purges, the gulag, the persecutions, the bureaucracy, the betrayals and finally the collapse of these states (with Cuba resisting in the last ditch).
When I question the "authority" of Althusser to take it as a reference for discussing this issue, was at least questionable, Artemio L. responded with a post recounting the "road map" of Althusser, who finally broke with Marxism.
But we do not want to discuss the whole trajectory of Althusser (L. Artemio who seems quite fanatic, as I say Riquelme, leading us to defend the indefensible of these characters, but in football this is the essence, not in politics and least in theory) , but what is asserted in the event that attempts to explain the phenomenon of Stalinism and its aftermath.
We responded and Artemio L. not acknowledged receipt of the essence. Let's expand a bit, from another angle, if only to clarify the debate.
Regarding the alleged failure in Marx a "transition state theory" that even some extend (as Bobbi) to a "lack of political theory in general, not is a new challenge and only referred to this "area." Others have questioned whether there is in Marx a finished theory on, say the dialectic, nor wrote something like a "treaty of historical materialism 'or philosophy in general. There is more consensus, however, that Marx worked deeper economic theory, after all there is to prove the Capital. But ... The Capital (book "negative" or "positive" if any, as is subtitled "Critique of Political Economy"), was incomplete and only published in Marx's lifetime, the first volume and was so meticulous until reviewed all re-translation French, because I was not satisfied. So I doubt that would support the hundreds or thousands of translations out there and shoot safe to send Wenseslao Roces. Finally, now we have no "Marxist economic theory." Conclusion, gaps everywhere.
So the duet Artemio Althusser might say that Stalinism is a product that no treaty of dialectics. Then the bureaucracy did not realize the amount break as happened and that the state ruling party worker, was being transformed into its opposite, bureaucracy restorationist and agent of the bourgeoisie and imperialism. (All this if not despised Althusser dialectics).
Or, perhaps, was the fault of Marx or Lenin that made it very detailed as it should be applied historical materialism to prevent bureaucracy edit manuals and DAY HIS-MAT-MAT, the underlying a and thousand lameness. This was part of the Ten Commandments the premise Stalinist countries "not ripe" for socialism and "each accounted for a super structure" , with which he dedicated to delivering speed everywhere and even do things like Democratic Union.
Or maybe, nor is "complete" economic theory and Marx made clear the relationship of a country isolated by the world market, it was restoring capitalism and bureaucracy became new capitalist class because they had no theory to remain "pure", as is happening now in Cuba (then edit to Althusser heavily in Cuba, could save the Cuban revolution before the next Congress votes new measures for settlement !!!).
academic demands just do not understand Marxism is not an academic theory, but a weapon for revolutionary political struggle. The itinerary of Marx and his attempts to build an international workers' parties and, as shown. Although both Marx and Lenin, Trotsky, Gramsci considered very important theoretical elaboration.
In addition, Marxism, by successive approximations, which seeks total bourgeois science (and at the time of decay) divided and biased. Words can not separate the economy and this policy of ideology or sociology, ie the class struggle and all of this philosophy. While taking into account that at the analytical and study, can separate these "camps" (not necessarily separates the bourgeois academy.) The method Marx political economy of a lecture on, just his method of study of reality (Artemio, could be incorporated into courses Equis training, especially that part that says "the population is an abstraction, but takes into account ...".:)).
This only want to show the absurdity of the premise that Artemio start-Althusser, the bureaucracy and Stalinism were not the product of class struggle, revolution and counterrevolution, but of "gaps" in the theory of Marx and Lenin on the other hand had left a solid base and the problem of bureaucracy is not just that "did not understand."
Even the class struggle, which like all class struggle is a political struggle, moved naturally to the theory, where one of the key battles was: "theory of socialism in one country or theory of Permanent Revolution" (and Althusser was not the right side in this battle that began in the early bureaucratization of Soviet Russia and did not stop even in the concentration camps from which came the most lucid theoretical elaborations). Althusser did not understand the bureaucracy and when it was believed a Marxist, nor when it will be more interested. On our reading of the problem itself answered here and add here. and other colleagues contributed to the debate. Here only propose a different angle.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment