| |
|
Herr Marx,
Do you believe that your immensley plausible philosophy would have had
more success if it had spread from Western Europe to Russia rather than
the other way around? Or if Trotsky and Bhukarin had beat out Stalin?
Josh Kardos
Mister Kardos,
Thank you for your letter. I will take that you mean by "philosophy" my
global approach to history and political economy, and proceed to answer
as if the notion of "success" was to be interpreted as the fact of
being taken as a point of reference for political action, as well as
for the understanding of the unfolding of the decline of capitalism.
From what I now know of 20th century, the movement consisting in
reshaping my thought under the form of a vulgate guiding revolutionary
action was the first to kick in. That Russian revolution Engels and
myself had already foreseen by the end of our century took a "marxist"
form. One must first mention that that "marxist" dimension of the
bolchevik revolution is sharply overestimated. I must strongly
emphasise that the two revolutions that occured in the Russian Empire
in 1905 and 1917 were the objective result of the unfolding of the
inner contradictions of the tsarist regime under the sudden emergence
of agricultural and industrial capitalism. Thus, to that effect, they
are the last major anti-monarchic revolutions of Europe, and thus, to
that effect, they have the same importance as the English revolution of
1645-1650, the French revolution of 1789-1793, and the Germano-European
revolution of 1848-1849. Marx or not Marx, these movements were to
happen. A good proof of that is the fact that the two revolutionary
movements in Russia broke out during a period where the tsarist regime
was engaged in an imperialist war. War against Japan in 1905-1906, war
against Germany, what you call World War One, in 1917. The working and
peasant classes, armed by their class oppressor, were the best
structure imagineable to produce the revolution, and actually they did
it. Against their commanding officers first. Then, against feodality
and the tsar. Then against the bourgeois Douma. But the military factor
in the Russian revolution gave to that specific movement one of its
specific features: its important relation to a military structure.
Somewhat like Cromwell's Ironsides, and Bonaparte's Grande Armée, the
Russian Red Army was the main support for the structure of the new
order, and eventually lead it to its doom, in the wake of the
militaro-industrial take over. It is in such a context that the
character of Stalin takes his importance. Trotsky and Bukharin would
have inherited from the revolution and the western orchestrated civil
war of the 1920 the same type of militarist, neo-capitalist and
nationalist context, and would have generated about the same results.
So called great men are nothing other than emanations of their
objective conditions of existence. Now, to remain restricted to my
"success", one has to observe that the Russian state, the "Sovietic"
state as it called itself, became the most explicit and proactive
promoter of my works. Consequently, from that point of view, 20th
century is the century of Russia seeding Western Europe with "marxism".
The perception of my thought by western philistines was unavoidably
alterated by that phenomenon; and its penetration, specially in the
anglo-american world, was slowed down by the phenomenon. On the other
hand, if my thought would not have been bounced forward by 20th century
thinkers tighly associated to the revolutionary movement, among which
Vladimir Illich OULIANOV, Rosa LUXEMBURG, and that unavoidable chinese
leader Mao ZEDONG are to be quoted first and foremost, my influence
would never have reached the depth it has today. At the beginning of
21th century, the revolutionary dust is falling a bit, and I am
becoming a sort of SPINOZA or DIDEROT of modern times. A "major"
progressive thinker of the past, who gave you the 19th-20th century
version of the materialist vision of the world: history, political
economy and dialectics... If so should it be, so should it be...
All yours,
Karl Marx
M. Marx,
Merci de votre réponse. C'est clair que vous avez tourné et retourné ces événements dans votre tête des centaines de fois.
Vous voyez, ma grand-mère était Russe. Et même si on habite aux É-U, je
pense toujours à l'URSS comme chez moi, et que c'était une terre
magique où l'argent n'existait pas et tous les besoins étaient soignés.
À cause de ça, je suis marxiste depuis quinze ans (et j'ai seulement
19!). Je crois que vos idées avaient le pouvoir de changer le monde
pour du bien. Maintenant? J'espère bien que ce ne soit pas trop tard.
On verra, je suppose. Mais pour sûr, vous n'êtes pas un Spinoza de nos
jours!
Josh KARDOS
(Aussi, pour un allemand qui "habite" maintenant en France, votre anglais est presque parfait!)
Dear Josh,
Thank you for that generous acknowledgement. We, I mean Karl, Mister
Engels, my daughters Jennychen, Laura, Eleanor, and myself, are writing
to you from the middle of the second half of 19th century, and we are
currently living in London, England. That possibly contributes to the
"quasi-perfection" of our English. Karl is deeply touched by the fact
that you, a youth who could be his remote descendant, still believe so
intensely in his thought. He is currently resting, recuperating from a
very nasty pain to the liver. He asked me to convey to you the
following note: "Thank you for your respect for my doctrine. Just
remember that no genius, neither a Hegel nor a Shakespeare, can change
the world only with ideas. Ideas take their meaning and their density
when they relate to the material conditions from which they emanate and
to which they return. The masses make history, not the so called
"great" thinker." Quote/Unquote. Now, please Josh, feel free to ask us
any other question you may think of, and rest assured that Karl Marx
will address every of your interventions in priority.
Friendship and solidarity,
Jenny Marx, born Baroness von Westphalen
|
