The following post is letter from Gilles Dauvé of Troploin in response to our review of End Notes 1
October 12, 2009
Dear Internationalist Perspective:
Here are some remarks on the review of End Notes on your blog, July 26, 2009.
First, I’d like to say that you give a fair summary of our views and those of Théorie Communiste.
I’ll just go back to a few points.
You write that we do not explain “Why the proletariat allowed itself to be led by the left” in 1919, 1936, 1968, etc. This is indeed a major question. Some would say a riddle. Yet the problem is which question needs to be asked and answered exactly.
We can understand why the Russian Revolution failed, because it did happen and eventually failed, but understanding why no (or not much) revolution happened in Germany in 1919-21 is a different matter. In the first case, we’re explaining what took place; in the second, what did not take place, or only partly. In fact with Russia, we’re dealing with how; with Germany, we’d be looking for why. We cannot evade whys, they’re often inevitable, but we can’t expect the same result as when we’re searching for hows.
It certainly is frustrating to think that no German revolution occurred in 1919…because the vast majority of German workers did not want revolution. But there’s no way we can avoid this intellectual dissatisfaction. Trying to turn history into equations like physics or astronomy only provides us with the comforting appearance of a solution.
Surely the appeal of T.C.’s theories is that they come up with explain-it-all answers, but what do these answers actually answer?
Slicing up history into phases can be very useful, except when it becomes a quest for the “last” phase. Marxists ought to be a bit wary of this effort (or temptation). When 1914 broke out, and even more so after 1917, we said that mankind was entering the epoch of wars and revolutions. True, but we’ve seen a lot more wars than revolutions. You’re well aware of the traps of the “decadence” theory.
It’s interesting to note how new historical slices are discovered. Théorie Communiste tells us that communist revolution was impossible under 19th century capitalist formal domination. Then real domination comes in the 20th century, with lots of class struggle but hardly any communist attempt. So theory cuts real domination into two and delineates a second real domination phase, more real than the first, so this time the proletariat has no alternative but to try and communize the world. This time, at long-last, no dead ends, no side roads: reformism and radical democracy, we’re told become devoid of content, and unions and parties are bound to lose their grip. There’s no deep difference between this perspective and the “final crisis” theme: the ideas differ, the attitude is similar: both look for the ultimate stage when only revolution is the possible outcome. So logically, this perspective has to re-write the past and find the ultimate cause that explains both why there could not be a revolution before, and why there will be one now.
Such theories are very appealing because they can integrate any fact, even those that contradict them. In 20 years, if revolution has not come, the same theory will define a third phase within real domination.
By the way, I doubt we ever wrote that the workers had been “betrayed.” I’d say that they chose to follow the SPD in 1919, the French CP in 1936, etc. Worker bureaucracy only prevails because the rank-and-file supports it (not without contradictions and conflicts, of course).
This is not being finicky about words. Believing in treason is also believing in the existence of traitors that mislead the workers and have to be constantly exposed. The Trotskyists used to do it by calling the unions and parties’ bluff. The ICC does it by systematic denunciation.
One last word on the importance of the value-form. We fully agree. In fact, value is the undercurrent in all our analyses on the evolution and present state of capitalism.
This is just a short letter. We’ve dealt with these issues in
Whither the World? (2002)
In for a Storm. A Crisis on the Way(2007)
What’s it all About? (2007)
A Contribution to the Critique of Political Autonomism (2009)
(I mention only the texts that are available in English)
Thanks to the latest issue of I.P. I found about Controverses and wrote to them.
All the best to you…
Gilles Dauvé
