İs it a question of getting stuck on concepts, or a question of comprehending Marxism or not.
(Discussion subject was mostly related to the mix...ed use of all -“dominant”, “hegemonic- ruling” class and government, political party in power, military- together, without making any distinction. )
On the question of mixing the concepts of dominant class-state and government
Let's briefly study these concepts in a dialectic relations outline..
1 – Marxism, divorced from Leninism, Lenin's revolution and proletarian dictatorship theory, is a revisionist, reformist, bourgeois liberal “Marxism” which can not even be a caricature of it. Who ever divorces Marxism from Leninism, can not be revolutionary.
2 - Revolution is the entire (process) and the result of a struggle which requires a concrete assessment of the relations and contradictions among classes (the oppressor and the oppressed) and within class (Dominant class).
3 - The existence of multiple dominant class inevitably reveals the struggle for * hegemony * as an internal conflict and as the existence of contradictions. In such cases, sometimes a group of dominant class may have ‘hegemony” over the executive branch -government, other, in the military. These contradictions, when necessary, may create the possibility of tactical compromises or alliances for the benefit of revolution.
4-If there is only one of dominant class, the class that is dominant is already the * hegemonic * class. since there will not be a question of conflict over * hegemony *, there can not be a question of a tactical * compromise *. Depending on the structure of a country, in varying degrees, the dominant class would have already gained the control of government and the military.
5 - The government and the army are not entities outside of, and independent from the dominant class or classes. In some countries they may have certain autonomy, yet, independence and autonomy is not the same thing.
6 – The existence of an autonomous structure is an indication of the presence of professionalized bureaucracy.
7 - Bureaucracy is not “a kind” of dominant or ruling class, but a social class serves the dominant class. Bureaucracy itself does not create a "value", but controls the process of coordination, distribution and consumption of the created "value" -during and continuation of "production". Meaning that, they are responsible for the preparations and implementation of “laws” in relations of production. Ownership of means of production by the bureaucracy, the control of the relations of production and the “value” as a result of production, is within the framework of a dominant class interests.
8 – The race and competition among the professional bureaucracy in order to be effective and to take part in the system would be,
a) In case of existence of more than one dominant class-- each may be in a competition to protect the interest of the dominant class they represent or want to represent. This may create the opportunity to benefit from the contradictions,
b) If there is one dominant class and one hegemonic class, the race and conflict between the bureaucracies does not indicate a conflict within the ruling class. To portray this competition among the bureaucracy as a conflict within the dominant class, brings about the error of setting all the revolutionary strategy and tactics on a foundation of incorrect settings.. In some cases this anti-Marxist analysis would be used by the reformists as a justification of compromise .
If their importance is considered (as far as the revolution and revolutionary struggle is concerned), outline of these concepts, their content and dialectical links should reveal the importance of not mixing these concepts.
Question is not whether being * Stuck * on the concepts or not. Question is to be conscious of the vital importance of the Marxist content and comprehending the very content of these concepts.
Neither slogan-ization of concepts- isolated from its content, nor not taking Marxist content of the concepts seriously, can not be a Marxist-Leninist approach..
As far as the leadership concerns, it is a sign of irresponsibility
On the question of mixing the concepts of dominant class-state and government
Let's briefly study these concepts in a dialectic relations outline..
1 – Marxism, divorced from Leninism, Lenin's revolution and proletarian dictatorship theory, is a revisionist, reformist, bourgeois liberal “Marxism” which can not even be a caricature of it. Who ever divorces Marxism from Leninism, can not be revolutionary.
2 - Revolution is the entire (process) and the result of a struggle which requires a concrete assessment of the relations and contradictions among classes (the oppressor and the oppressed) and within class (Dominant class).
3 - The existence of multiple dominant class inevitably reveals the struggle for * hegemony * as an internal conflict and as the existence of contradictions. In such cases, sometimes a group of dominant class may have ‘hegemony” over the executive branch -government, other, in the military. These contradictions, when necessary, may create the possibility of tactical compromises or alliances for the benefit of revolution.
4-If there is only one of dominant class, the class that is dominant is already the * hegemonic * class. since there will not be a question of conflict over * hegemony *, there can not be a question of a tactical * compromise *. Depending on the structure of a country, in varying degrees, the dominant class would have already gained the control of government and the military.
5 - The government and the army are not entities outside of, and independent from the dominant class or classes. In some countries they may have certain autonomy, yet, independence and autonomy is not the same thing.
6 – The existence of an autonomous structure is an indication of the presence of professionalized bureaucracy.
7 - Bureaucracy is not “a kind” of dominant or ruling class, but a social class serves the dominant class. Bureaucracy itself does not create a "value", but controls the process of coordination, distribution and consumption of the created "value" -during and continuation of "production". Meaning that, they are responsible for the preparations and implementation of “laws” in relations of production. Ownership of means of production by the bureaucracy, the control of the relations of production and the “value” as a result of production, is within the framework of a dominant class interests.
8 – The race and competition among the professional bureaucracy in order to be effective and to take part in the system would be,
a) In case of existence of more than one dominant class-- each may be in a competition to protect the interest of the dominant class they represent or want to represent. This may create the opportunity to benefit from the contradictions,
b) If there is one dominant class and one hegemonic class, the race and conflict between the bureaucracies does not indicate a conflict within the ruling class. To portray this competition among the bureaucracy as a conflict within the dominant class, brings about the error of setting all the revolutionary strategy and tactics on a foundation of incorrect settings.. In some cases this anti-Marxist analysis would be used by the reformists as a justification of compromise .
If their importance is considered (as far as the revolution and revolutionary struggle is concerned), outline of these concepts, their content and dialectical links should reveal the importance of not mixing these concepts.
Question is not whether being * Stuck * on the concepts or not. Question is to be conscious of the vital importance of the Marxist content and comprehending the very content of these concepts.
Neither slogan-ization of concepts- isolated from its content, nor not taking Marxist content of the concepts seriously, can not be a Marxist-Leninist approach..
As far as the leadership concerns, it is a sign of irresponsibility
.jpg)
No comments