Comments on: Marx, Yesterday and Today (2) http://leggiamotronti.blogsome.com/2006/01/13/marx-yesterday-and-today-2/ Notes on Mario Tronti Sat, 27 Sep 2008 02:15:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: Nate http://leggiamotronti.blogsome.com/2006/01/13/marx-yesterday-and-today-2/#comment-17 Tue, 17 Jan 2006 04:27:51 +0000 http://leggiamotronti.blogsome.com/2006/01/13/marx-yesterday-and-today-2/#comment-17 hi Alex, That's much clearer, and I like that. Workers think, struggles are evidenc of that, despite what vanguardists might say or act like. I think you're right about Tronti and the true revolutionary party. That's a fine way to think if it's only retroactively applied, where we can say that this and that case in history were revolutionary instances of activitiy, but as a prescription this seems really problematic. How does one know one's in tune with the working class? Absolute certainty that one is might be a result from being in tune. It also might be part of a colossal (and anti-worker) mistake. take care, Nate hi Alex,
That’s much clearer, and I like that. Workers think, struggles are evidenc of that, despite what vanguardists might say or act like. I think you’re right about Tronti and the true revolutionary party. That’s a fine way to think if it’s only retroactively applied, where we can say that this and that case in history were revolutionary instances of activitiy, but as a prescription this seems really problematic. How does one know one’s in tune with the working class? Absolute certainty that one is might be a result from being in tune. It also might be part of a colossal (and anti-worker) mistake.
take care,
Nate

]]> by: Alex http://leggiamotronti.blogsome.com/2006/01/13/marx-yesterday-and-today-2/#comment-15 Tue, 17 Jan 2006 03:43:24 +0000 http://leggiamotronti.blogsome.com/2006/01/13/marx-yesterday-and-today-2/#comment-15 Hi Nate, I like the way you put this: "still replays the tendency to legislate in advance where the most important of revolts can break out. In a sense, this seems like a failure to fully start from the working class." On ideology and theory, it seems to me Tronti is saying implicitly that what the "truly revolutionary" party says is not ideological because it, being "truly revolutionary" accurately reads and acts in tune with the constantly changing desires of the working class. Yes, this is definetly fishy or rather I think unrealistic. Its easy to make the argument that in this case party ideology would quickly emerge and seek to dominate alternative viewpoints. Regarding theory, I read it as theory is necessary but not sufficient...the whole can't have a revolutionary movement wihtout theory and vice versa bit. "Lending a hand" was not the best choice of words there. What I had in mind by that was theory emerging from practical struggle, from the movements itself which is different from "lending a hand" which implies a separation from the movement(s). Hi Nate,

I like the way you put this: “still replays the tendency to legislate in advance where the most important of revolts can break out. In a sense, this seems like a failure to fully start from the working class.”

On ideology and theory, it seems to me Tronti is saying implicitly that what the “truly revolutionary” party says is not ideological because it, being “truly revolutionary” accurately reads and acts in tune with the constantly changing desires of the working class. Yes, this is definetly fishy or rather I think unrealistic. Its easy to make the argument that in this case party ideology would quickly emerge and seek to dominate alternative viewpoints.

Regarding theory, I read it as theory is necessary but not sufficient…the whole can’t have a revolutionary movement wihtout theory and vice versa bit. “Lending a hand” was not the best choice of words there. What I had in mind by that was theory emerging from practical struggle, from the movements itself which is different from “lending a hand” which implies a separation from the movement(s).

]]> by: Nate http://leggiamotronti.blogsome.com/2006/01/13/marx-yesterday-and-today-2/#comment-13 Sun, 15 Jan 2006 05:46:45 +0000 http://leggiamotronti.blogsome.com/2006/01/13/marx-yesterday-and-today-2/#comment-13 hi Alex, That's a great question re: the highest developed capitalism and all that. I like it differing from the Leninist 'weak link' idea, but in some ways it just flips it on its head, still replays the tendency to legislate in advance where the most important of revolts can break out. In a sense, this seems like a failure to fully start from the working class. What do you make of the "no need for ideology" stuff? Ideology's not needed, but the party is? And therefore the party and what it says are not ideological? Kinda fishy if you ask me. I wonder about what the role and importance of theory is here - is it "theory can lend a hand" or is theory more of a necessary (but not sufficient) condition? I assume that theory is one of the functions of the party, but I'm not sure. take care, Nate hi Alex,
That’s a great question re: the highest developed capitalism and all that. I like it differing from the Leninist ‘weak link’ idea, but in some ways it just flips it on its head, still replays the tendency to legislate in advance where the most important of revolts can break out. In a sense, this seems like a failure to fully start from the working class.
What do you make of the “no need for ideology” stuff? Ideology’s not needed, but the party is? And therefore the party and what it says are not ideological? Kinda fishy if you ask me. I wonder about what the role and importance of theory is here - is it “theory can lend a hand” or is theory more of a necessary (but not sufficient) condition? I assume that theory is one of the functions of the party, but I’m not sure.
take care,
Nate

]]>