i on thomas paine reviews: origins of crisis in ussr - Common Sense

Page 40 Common Sense - Issue 15
the fragility fo capitalism. It is an attempt to understand capitalism from the
perspective of its contradictions. The theories which seem to convert Marxism into
a theory of capitalist reproduction (regulation theory, neo-Grarnscianism etc) lose
sight of the very core of Marxism.
The second thesis which I wish to advance, then, is that Marxism is not a theory
of cqitalist oppression but of the contradictions of that oppression. This gives
Marxism a special relevance for any person or movement interested in a radical
transformation of society.
How can we understand the fragility (or contradictions) of capitalism? The third
thesis that I want to suggest is that the fragility of capitalism is the expression of
the power of labour.
Since this thesis goes against much of the Marxist tradition, it is necessary to
explain it.
In the so-called 'orthodox' tradition, a clear separation is made between the
contradictions of capitalism, on the one hand, and class struggle, on the other. In
this perspective, the contradictions of capitalism exist independently of class
struggle: they are objective laws of capitalist development. The development of
these contradictions define the objective framework within which class struggle
develops. The specific contribution of Marxism to class struggle is understood in
terms of the analysis of the objective conditions of struggle. Marxism, from being
a theory of struggle, becomes transformed into a theory of the objective conditions
of struggle.
In this separation of contradiction and struggle can be found the core of the so-called
'crisis of Marxism'. Certainly, it is has been argued that the idea that objective
conditions are on our side played, perhaps, a positive role in stimulating and
strengthening the struggle against capitalism, but the more the d6nouement of
history has been postponed, the more obvious the problems of this approach have
become.
The basic problem is that this approach implies a theoretical and often practical
subordination of struggle to the objective conditions, and therefore an undermining
of the power of labour in its struggle against capital. This subordination of struggle
has taken very concrete forms in recent years in the discussions around the concept
of 'post-Fordism'. Often it has been argued that the class struggle has to submit to
the inevitable tendency towards the creation of a new 'post-Fordist' mode of
regulation. A notorious example is provided by the argument made by Stuart Hall
during the miners' strike in Great Britain in 1984-1985: according to Hall, it was
necessary for the miners to recognise the inevitability of submitting to the
'inescapable lines of historical tendency and direction' - an elegant, post-structuralist
expression of pure determinism.
If Marxism is identified with this approach, it is easy to see why people talk of a
crisis of Marxism. On the one hand, it is difficult to reconcile many of the
unforeseen changes in the world with this idea of 'inescapable lines of historical
tendency and direction'; and, on the other, it is clear that this type of Marxism has
little attraction as a theory of struggle.