The theory of Marxism: does it need a changement?

[SacRedMan]

People told me that the theories of Marx are irrelevant and old for these days, and can't fit well in the society that we know today. Should we change the theory and give a modern look, a new "jacket"?

Or should we keep in our heads that we never saw a pure marxist/communist society on this planet, but only the interpretation, the ideals and the take-over of leaders that many people like to call "mass-murderers" ?

If we want a communist society where everyone accept the theory, we need to let them realize at any costs that we, communists, aren't heartless *****es or something, or that our leaders wanted to cause "millions of deaths".

[Imposter Marxist]

I voted no, but it depends what you mean. I don't think our theories need revising, I think we just need to watch that we don't make past mistakes. I don't think modern society has somehow defeated materialism or class struggle or anything like that.

[Zanthorus]

The history of the Marxist left, of radical Marxism, or more precisely, of Marxism, consists of a series of battles against each of the revisionist “waves” which have attacked various aspects of its doctrine and method, setting out from the organic monolithic formation which roughly corresponds with the 1848 Manifesto. Elsewhere we have covered the history of these struggles inside the three historic Internationals: fought against utopians, workerists, libertarians, reformist and gradualist social-democrats, syndicalists of the left and right, social-patriots, and today against national-communists and populist-communists. This struggle, in all its phases spanning four generations, is the heritage not of a few big names, but of a well-defined, compact school, and in the historical sense, of a well-defined party.

This long and difficult struggle would loses its connection with the recovery to come if, rather than drawing the lesson of “invariance” from it, we accepted the banal idea that Marxism is a theory in “continuous historical elaboration” which needs to adapt and draw lessons from changing circumstances. Invariably such is the justification used to excuse all the betrayals, of which there has been such abundant evidence, and every revolutionary defeat.

[...]

Marxism itself isn’t a doctrine which can be moulded and remoulded each day by adding and changing “bits” of it (patching it up more like) because it is still counted amongst those doctrines (even if the final one) which function as a weapon of a dominated and exploited class which needs to overturn social relations; in the process of which it is subjected, in a thousand and one ways, to the conservative influences of the traditional forms and ideologies of the enemy classes.

[...]

One illusory way out of a current difficulty is to allow that the basic theory should remain subject to changes, and that today is actually the very day to write a new chapter of said theory; such an act of thought being thought capable of turning the unfavourable situation around. And it really is an aberration when such a task is taken on by small groups of laughable strength, or worse still, when the ‘new thinking’ emerges from some free discussion which, Lilliput like, mimics bourgeois parliamentarism and its famous clash of individual opinions, which isn’t the latest, most up-to-date resource but just ancient foolishness.- Il Programma Comunista, The Historical Invariance of Marxism

[Thirsty Crow]

If we understand Marxism as a theory of revolutionary organization (of the class), or rather if we concentrate on this specific aspect of Marxism, then I think that theory should match concrete historical changes in the conditions of class struggle. Certain methodological principles are indispensable, but they should always be tested against the backdrop of concrete practice.
Does that make sense?

[RED DAVE]

The history of the Marxist left, of radical Marxism, or more precisely, of Marxism, consists of a series of battles against each of the revisionist “waves” which have attacked various aspects of its doctrine and method, setting out from the organic monolithic formation which roughly corresponds with the 1848 Manifesto. Elsewhere we have covered the history of these struggles inside the three historic Internationals: fought against utopians, workerists, libertarians, reformist and gradualist social-democrats, syndicalists of the left and right, social-patriots, and today against national-communists and populist-communists. This struggle, in all its phases spanning four generations, is the heritage not of a few big names, but of a well-defined, compact school, and in the historical sense, of a well-defined party. How many bullshit statements can you find in this piece of stalinist crap?

From the above (follow the link)


Doubt, and examination of individual consciousness, are expressions of the bourgeois reformation of the compact tradition and authority of the Christian Church. Once transformed into the most hypocritical Puritanism, and under the banner of bourgeois conformity to religious morality or to individual rights, they would launch and protect the new class domination and the new form of subjection of the masses. The proletarian revolution takes the opposite path: individual consciousness is nothing and concordant direction of collective action is everything.http://signalfire.org/?p=9813

On the other hand, we have Marx's favorite quotes:


Nihil humani a me alienum puto
[Nothing human is alien to me] – Terence

De omnibus dubitandum
[doubt everything] – Descarteshttp://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/04/01.htm

RED DAVE

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Marxism is a science, it should be constantly evolving. This does not mean that Marx's analysis of the laws of motion of capitalism are wrong. His analysis and the tools he gave us are-his description of capitalist value,the recognition of value as being rooted in labour power, the working class as a class for itself and of itself, and other insights, are more important than ever.

I didn't answer the poll because the way the questions are phrased does not make sense.

To echo Red Dave, I was a bit surprised to see Zanthorus repeating hack work. He of all people should know better.

[Zanthorus]

How many bullshit statements can you find in this piece of stalinist crap?

'The Communist Programme' was the journal of the pro-Bordiga faction of the split in the Internationalist Communist Party. It's probable that the text was written by Bordiga himself. Calling the text 'Stalinist' shows a comple lack of understanding of what 'Stalinism' actually is. Just a quick example, the statement you just quoted rejects the idea that Marxism is the result of 'a few big names' ('The child of a useless genius', as Bordiga once put it) but of a school of thought and of the party in the broad historical sense.


From the above (follow the link)

On the other hand, we have Marx's favorite quotes:

This is a solid and well thought out refutation (Am I the only one who saw the irony of quoting Marx to refute a text asserting the historical invariance of Marxism?).


To echo Red Dave, I was a bit surprised to see Zanthorus repeating hack work. He of all people should know better.

I'm not sure how the piece is a 'hack work'. Paul Mattick had written along similar lines in 'Marxism: The Last Refuge of the Bourgeoisie?', for example.

[SacRedMan]

I didn't answer the poll because the way the questions are phrased does not make sense.

What else did I had to type?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Its not that its basic premise is without truth its that it appears reactive, hunting out heretical "revisionists". The revisionism was because of powerful material forces, not so much organised parties.It might have more validity during the time of Bernstein but it does appear close to a Stalinist hunt for "Trotskyite wreckers".A valiant "party" as the guardian against wreckers does sound a bit out of place.

"We Bolsheviks are people of a special breed"...

[Lenina Rosenweg]

What else did I had to type?

I didn't mean to be overly critical, its that important options were left out. Other questions could have been:

"The basic elements of Marxism are correct but its an evolving science instead of a dogma so of course it must change, but not by abandoning the insights of Marx"

or

"Some aspects of Marxism are correct but other aspects are not"

The way the questions were phrased were a bit too either/or.

[Zanthorus]

The revisionism was because of powerful material forces, not so much organised parties.

I'm not sure where the text denies this? In fact, the final of the thesis I chose to quote seems to recognise that 'revisionism' was the result of historic downturns in the class struggle. A similar theme is developed in other of their texts, that the historically low number of communist militants at the time was the result of the downturn in class struggle and thus the proper line to take was not to engage in various fronts and political maneuvers in an attempt to regain social influence but to wait until conditions were ripe again.


...it does appear close to a Stalinist hunt for "Trotskyite wreckers".

Except that Bordiga had written in defence of Trotsky and against the idea that "automatic discipline... can assure enforcement of orders and provisions from on high" (See 'Communist Organisation and Discipline (http://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/comlef/cotu/cotugdiboe.html)'). The text appears to me to be a basic call to return to the fundamental analytical tools of Marxism rather than accepting the thesis being put forward by people like Castoriadis that capitalism had overcome it's tendencies towards collapse, not a witchhunt for anyone who didn't conform to correct principles. The latter would again have been in conflict with their critique of democratic centralism and Stalinism.


A valiant "party" as the guardian against wreckers does sound a bit out of place.

The 'well-defined party' which the text talks about is a party 'in the historical sense', which it says is equivalent to a school of thought.

[black magick hustla]

while the miserable law of value exists the program is invariant!

[black magick hustla]

to expand, certain strategic questions are down for discussions. but the program is absolutely clear and invariant while capitalism exists. that is, the destruction of the state, capitalism, borders and the creation of world communism through the self organization of the working class. this is the communist program and even if it is not expressed formally it is expressed when the class fights.

[S.Artesian]

Look, first we need to grasp what Marxism is: and that is quite simply, the analysis of capitalism, the expression of the social relation that defines capitalism as it is mediated in the real world, AND the forces, compulsions inherent in that social relation that create the basis for the abolition of that social relation of production.

Updated? Revised? No, the analytic tools are the determinants of capital itself. Expanded, Practiced? Most def'

[Dragunov]

I voted no, Marx's works have left a profound influence on current critiques of capitalism. Any other work since then has been more or less a variation of Marx's.

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

I don't think we should change any of marx's theories because they are easily adaptable to the modern age. As for repackaging it, I dont think it's very wise because when the capitalists notice what we've done it'll be used as propaganda against us and they would make us look more sneaky