My report on the Report.
I finished the Report recently. I'm into it. I'd like to post question to you lot: what does Mao mean by the distinction between economic and political? My hunch is that this touches on Tzuchien's question about where capital (and, perhaps, Capital?) is in all this. I'm not entirely sure how to proceed.
These are among the things that Mao listed under "hitting the landlords politically":
"Checking the accounts. Imposing fines. Levying contributions."
Each is about as economic as the things listed under "hitting the landlords economically".
Judging from this, from "hitting the landlords politically",
"Once the peasants have their organization, the first thing they do is (...) to pull down landlord authority and build up peasant authority in rural society. This is a most serious and vital struggle. It is the pivotal struggle in the second period, the period of revolutionary action. Without victory in this struggle, no victory is possible in the economic struggle to reduce rent and interest, to secure land and other means of production, and so on."
It seems to me that the distinction is in large part one of degree, a matter of the scope and consolidation/maintainability of gains. It's also striking that the political struggle is the precondition for the economic struggle. Read in one way, it can be taken to say that the economic is political (against any objectivist marxism). Taken in another way, it does pose a certain type of struggle as having priority over another. My sense is that the political vs economic is an old debate within marxism, and one I'd like to know more about. It may be in part due to my own sort of syndicalist proclivities that I want to call Mao's 'political' at least in part 'economic', but I do simply wonder at the use and nature of the distinction.
One way I thought to try and sort through this is via Schmitt. He's been on my mind, as I'm trying to read get to know his work better. (All quotes are from The Concept Of The Political, 1996 edition.) He writes that "[t]he political is the most intense and extreme antagonism, and every concrete antagonism becomes that much more political the closer it approaches the most extreme point, that of the friend-enemy grouping." (29) In this sense, then, political might be read, minimally, as 'antagonistic'. The economic, then, growing out of the political, would be another instantiation of antagonism. I don't think Mao means (or means only) what Schmitt means, though. I'm not sure.
Also, "a class in the Marxian sense ceases to be someting purely economic and becomes a political factor" when it forges a friend/enemy grouping. (37) This seems at odds with Mao - for Schmitt the progression goes economic grouping then political grouping. But for Mao the political grouping emerges out of economic groupings (rich, middle, poor peasants, with internal divisions in the poor as well). So, the economic grouping become a political grouping and takes (or, perhaps better, in the taking) of political action, which in turn lays the ground for economic action.
Schmitt continues "the real battle is then" - that is, after the forging of a friend/enemy grouping - "no longer fought according to economic laws but has - next to the fighting methods in the narrowest technical sense - its political necessities and orientations, coalitions and compromises, and so on." (37) What it would mean to fight according to economic laws is a bit beyond me (the economic is, to my mind, also political and this includes so-called economic laws).
Perhaps one way to resolve the economic/political distinction would be to say that the political is the decision or the event, only in realtime: that is, it's not instantaneous. The organizing of the peasant associations takes time to get to the point of forging the grouping, and also that forging has a duration. The economic then might be activity after the event/decision is passed. I'm not sure, and again I suspect I'm just reading Schmitt into Mao and that this doesn't explain how Mao meant the terms.
That's what I've got so far. I enjoyed this piece a lot. Let's read more. I'd be particularly keen to read any other investigations of this sort, and anything that may exist on the methodology of investigation. I know Badiou talks about Lazarus making investigations of this sort, but none of those are in English as far as I know (and would be off topic anyway).
These are among the things that Mao listed under "hitting the landlords politically":
"Checking the accounts. Imposing fines. Levying contributions."
Each is about as economic as the things listed under "hitting the landlords economically".
Judging from this, from "hitting the landlords politically",
"Once the peasants have their organization, the first thing they do is (...) to pull down landlord authority and build up peasant authority in rural society. This is a most serious and vital struggle. It is the pivotal struggle in the second period, the period of revolutionary action. Without victory in this struggle, no victory is possible in the economic struggle to reduce rent and interest, to secure land and other means of production, and so on."
It seems to me that the distinction is in large part one of degree, a matter of the scope and consolidation/maintainability of gains. It's also striking that the political struggle is the precondition for the economic struggle. Read in one way, it can be taken to say that the economic is political (against any objectivist marxism). Taken in another way, it does pose a certain type of struggle as having priority over another. My sense is that the political vs economic is an old debate within marxism, and one I'd like to know more about. It may be in part due to my own sort of syndicalist proclivities that I want to call Mao's 'political' at least in part 'economic', but I do simply wonder at the use and nature of the distinction.
One way I thought to try and sort through this is via Schmitt. He's been on my mind, as I'm trying to read get to know his work better. (All quotes are from The Concept Of The Political, 1996 edition.) He writes that "[t]he political is the most intense and extreme antagonism, and every concrete antagonism becomes that much more political the closer it approaches the most extreme point, that of the friend-enemy grouping." (29) In this sense, then, political might be read, minimally, as 'antagonistic'. The economic, then, growing out of the political, would be another instantiation of antagonism. I don't think Mao means (or means only) what Schmitt means, though. I'm not sure.
Also, "a class in the Marxian sense ceases to be someting purely economic and becomes a political factor" when it forges a friend/enemy grouping. (37) This seems at odds with Mao - for Schmitt the progression goes economic grouping then political grouping. But for Mao the political grouping emerges out of economic groupings (rich, middle, poor peasants, with internal divisions in the poor as well). So, the economic grouping become a political grouping and takes (or, perhaps better, in the taking) of political action, which in turn lays the ground for economic action.
Schmitt continues "the real battle is then" - that is, after the forging of a friend/enemy grouping - "no longer fought according to economic laws but has - next to the fighting methods in the narrowest technical sense - its political necessities and orientations, coalitions and compromises, and so on." (37) What it would mean to fight according to economic laws is a bit beyond me (the economic is, to my mind, also political and this includes so-called economic laws).
Perhaps one way to resolve the economic/political distinction would be to say that the political is the decision or the event, only in realtime: that is, it's not instantaneous. The organizing of the peasant associations takes time to get to the point of forging the grouping, and also that forging has a duration. The economic then might be activity after the event/decision is passed. I'm not sure, and again I suspect I'm just reading Schmitt into Mao and that this doesn't explain how Mao meant the terms.
That's what I've got so far. I enjoyed this piece a lot. Let's read more. I'd be particularly keen to read any other investigations of this sort, and anything that may exist on the methodology of investigation. I know Badiou talks about Lazarus making investigations of this sort, but none of those are in English as far as I know (and would be off topic anyway).
posted by Nate @ 9:44 PM
2 Comments:
At 10:48 PM,
readingmao said…
i think you make a wonderful point, but for me the question is sometimes IF economic antagonism is a species of the underlying political antagonism, then, is the focus on economics on the part of Marx a little overblown?
Not that i'm saying that this isn't a fundamental instance of the means of political antagonism.
This question is in a way spurred by the shift of Hardt and Negri from "Empire" to "Multitude" and indeed, the turn to Spinoza on the part of Marxists of a certain stripe. The shift focuses on the question of organization which pays attention to the question of "difference" which serves a discursive function. I have to admit that my thought is not well articulated at this point.
To restate: What I am calling the turn away from the economic is the turn away from a focus on the positivistic elements of the science of marxism, rather, Mao turns toward a more discursive formulation of antagonism, of politics which relies more and more to on this "friend-enemy" problem.
Perhaps we can see more of what happens and how it develops in the next few readings.
At 1:04 AM,
Nate said…
I'm not sure I understand the question (it's late). Insofar as I do, I think it's certainly fair to charge much of Marxism, and probably Marx (I'm a little protective of Uncle Karl, but willing to admit he can be kind of mad now and again), with a bad take on economics. That said, the mistake is not overemphasis, as far as I'm concerned, as it is a wrong type of emphasis. I'm happy to say that capitalism is the chief problem, abolishing waged labor (or, if you prefer, the commodification of waged labor) is the chief goal. That's not because of a causal priority of economy in history and society, but because it's probably the most pervasive mode of power in the world today, or simply because we don't want to have to work anymore.
Post a Comment
<< Home