Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am not a communist” denounces communism
because of the way it is formed and the way that it is bred. I do agree with him that the loss of democracy and letting a secret police,
decide what is right and what is wrong, is disastrous. I completely agree. I do believe thought that Agnostics, fail to accept the truth, that their is a
higher power out their. And it is all to obvious. Whether it is God and Jesus
(In which I personally believe in) or something else.
I agree on the whole. But his reading of Marx is skewed, the real problem for Marx and Marxists was not Soviet Russia, it has been the gradual amelioration of the business cycle over the last fifty years or so.
What this means is that Marx is no longer writing a practical analysis of how things work but a work of prophecy.
That’s not a good thing.
But it fits. I’ve never believed that dialectical materialism was a metaphysical force (a term he never used if I remember correctly). Unfortunately, once the Communist Party called its scientific study of history unassailable, we were left with little more than a technologically advance version of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages.
And that wasn’t a good thing either.
Brad,
You may want to look up the writings of Rosa Lichtenstein, a Marxist/Post-Marxist that detrop (ILP’s former resident anarcho-communist) was always praising, and someone who I’ve found to be a productive and inspiring read, particularly her demand that Marxists give up on dialectical materialism if they are to make any political headway.
I’ve read Rosa. I found her analysis of trade unions to be particularly useful. Are you talking about her problems with the second unpublished volume of Capital?
Very important.
And yet, none of that, as far as I can tell, changes the fact that Russell is essentially correct here.
Ah crap, I was in the shower and it just occurred to me. You were talking about Rosa Luxumborg, right? If not, I screwed up.
sorry.