|
Problems with Red Menace method
By Greg Renault
Red Menace:
I have just finished your third issue (Spring 1978) and am fully
sympathetic with your attempts to formulate a non-authoritarian
socialist theory and practice. I offer the following comments as
constructive criticism.
It strikes me that your attempts to develop a positive alternative
to DiaMat Marxism and Marxist-Leninist sects suffers from a polemical
method which reproduces the very problem you want to get away from.
That is, your last issue seem to consist mainly of a series of one-sided
abstract debates whose intention is libertarian but whose execution
is partisan at best, and often mystifying or even unfair. Such an
approach is clearly self-defeating for a libertarian project. Here
are two examples, chosen from Ulli Diemer's three articles.
(1) The article on leftist jargon ("Words,
words, words...") raises an issue crucial to socialist
practice. Clarity of terms (concepts) and of expression (syntax)
is necessary for the left's communication and education, as well
as far precision of social analysis. Jargon such as Ulli points
out badly needs to be pruned. The verbal baggage of the left, heritage
of infighting and persecution, needs to be critically re-examined,
and cleansed of unnecessarily ambiguous, mystifying, or authoritarian
terms. While such is clearly the intent of the article on language,
it is executed in a manner which sees to encourage, not critical
reappraisal, but abstract dismissal.
For example, while the term "concrete" criticized in
the first third of the article is surely abused often enough, it
is one component of the dialectical pair (antimony), 'abstract-concrete".
The use of such antinomies as analytical tools is part of the valuable
Hegelian heritage preserved in Marxian analysis, and the use of
the term "concrete" implicitly acknowledges this, attempting
to relate empirical (concrete) examples to general (abstract) theoretical
frameworks. Instead of indicating how the term could be constructively
used in leftist analysis, Diemer presents the abuses alone in a
negative light, implying that the term's use should be stopped altogether.
(2) The polemic against anarchism in the following two articles
("Anarchism
vs. Marxism" and "Bakunin
vs. Marx") is even less constructive. First of all, Diemer
is concerned to present a more "faithful" reading of Marx
to counter the vulgar generalizations he claims anarchists use in
their denunciation of Marxism. I question the relevance of this
method of rationalization through dual exegesis: Marx did not use
the term "capitalism" (following the form of Ulli's critique
of "dialectical materialism"), but that certainly does
not limit the effectiveness of the term's descriptive power, or
mean that it cannot be used by "Marxists".
In other words, the issue is whether or not mere Marxology is sufficient
(or sometimes even necessary at all) to deal with problems or controversies
in socialist theory and practice. Somehow, the analytical, explanatory
powder of a theory seems more important.
Secondly. Diemer argues for a plurality of Marxes ("...his
writings and actions span some 40 years...") to counter the
monolithic generalized theory criticized by anarchists. Fine, I
say, this is a first step towards a critical appraisal of Marx's
complex and sometimes contradictory work. However, in his polemic
against "anarchism", Ulli committs the same sin he accuses
them of - that of ignoring differences and contradictions, lumping
everything under one grossly over-generalized label whose essential
characteristics are not even clearly defined. Further, if he argues
a plurality of interpretations of Marx against simplistic over-systematization
of one "Marxism", how can he consistently argue for a
"correct" reading at the same time?
Finally, the manner with which the argument is conducted has the
function of reducing the issue to an either-or choice between two
hypostatized alternatives abstracted from both their historical
development, and from the relation of theory to the development
of capitalist society. The issue is presented as a case of incorrect
with the correct answer presumably determined by accurate quotes
rather than relevance in explaining contemporary capitalism. While
I prefer the "libertarian" reading of Marx myself, I have
no delusions about its being anything but an interpretation, that
is, a specific emphasis on certain parts of the text to the exclusion
of others. Ulli's interpretation, is in part conditioned by the
abuse of Marxism as ideology by the Soviet Union and by Western
Marxist-Leninists, a historical burden that must be critically dealt
with by any socialist movement today - yet no reference is made
to this important context conditioning his choice of interpretation.
Most importantly, the issue of the controversy, "abstract term
vs. abstract term", is presented as though it could be decided
without any reference to the society the theory is supposed to explain
and help change.
I submit that the task facing socialists sincere about working
towards human liberation is not one of repeating old formalist debates
concerning the "right" interpretation of Marx or the a
priori "correct" theoretical solution, but one of (a)
the theoretical interrogation of social reality via a critical appropriation
of our radical heritage and a continual testing of new concepts
in concrete analyses, and (b) practical attempts to develop tactics
and strategy for human liberation on all levels of experience. From
this standpoint, I found the article about office
work, despite its limitations, more relevant than the question
of Bakunin's unethical scholarly or political practices.
It strikes me that might be slightly problematic attempting to achieve
human liberation via repressive means. By the same token, the aims
of contributors to this newsletter must in good faith be reproduced
in the journalistic methods they use in writing. I have taken Ulli
to task (the loudest but by no means only offender) in the hope
that my criticism will be of assistance in your ongoing self-constitution.
Yours,
Greg Renault
Published in Volume 3, Number 1 of The
Red Menace, Winter 1979.
Red Menace
home page
|