One Fundamental Lesson in Marxism

[Saint-Just]

'How is Communism inevitable? Nothing is inevitable, nothing just happens. The masses have been slaving for eons, yet true Communism is yet to happen.' -Xprewatik RED

Marx saw an ineluctable trend towards communism in history. Using dialectics and materialism he analysed history to an extent that he saw each society on a rigid path:

Primitive Communism
Slavery
Feudalism
Capitalism
Higher Form of Communism

In these societies contradictions arose largely from class and when these contradictions reached a climax revolution came about. When this revolution came about a new class became ruler and a new economic base created.

Very simply, Marx saw the only logical development to society after capitalism as communism.

Although he was a determinist he said that the point of philosophy was to change society, therefore he must have thougth to some extent that it is not inevitable. He was also said that he was the only philosopher to realise that the key to any society is the economic base and as a result all past philosophers not having realised this were influenced by it to an extent that they could not see past the society they were presently living in, for example, Marx's teacher Hegel said that german society at that time was the epitomy of human development and achievement.

You have to accept that Marx saw communism as inevitable. Although I think that many people would criticise that to some degree, Leninists included. Whilst studying the Juche idea I found that it considered history a struggle towards communism, similar to Marx's idea that 'The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.' Anyway it didn't see this victory as necessarily an easy affair and that societies could take steps back as well as forwards. Maybe Marx saw it like this, that history followed this trend as it progressed but we could not now when it would progress and how quickly. Maybe he thought it could be possible to skip a stage in society.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 13 2003, 02:57 PM
Although he was a determinist he said that the point of philosophy was to change society, therefore he must have thougth to some extent that it is not inevitable.
Right - if it's inevitable, why struggle and sacrifice? Marx was an activist as well as a writer y'know, and endured a certain amount of persecution and economic hardship because of his ideas.

The Manifesto comments that each previous stage of class struggle has ended either in the revolutionary transformation of society - or else in "the common ruin of the contending classes." Engels later amplified on this: with the increasing destructive power of weapons technology, the question is "socialism or barbarism" - will the exploited succeed in moving society forward to the next stage of history, or will the exploiters' wars throw it back?

Truth of that should be even more evident today, with nuclear weapons and the experience of the two World Wars.

The history of 20th century revolutions shows something else too...there is no situation where revolution is totally inevitable. There is no situation that is totally hopeless for the exploiters. No situation where they cannot find some way to save their system for a little longer ---- if the leadership of the workers' movement is incompetent or treacherous enough to give them the chance.

Enough missed chances for revolution, and fascism and war follow.

[redstar2000]

Maybe he [Marx] thought it could be possible to skip a stage in society.

Don't bet the rent money on that one.


The history of 20th century revolutions shows something else too...there is no situation where revolution is totally inevitable. There is no situation that is totally hopeless for the exploiters. No situation where they cannot find some way to save their system for a little longer ---- if the leadership of the workers' movement is incompetent or treacherous enough to give them the chance.

Emphasis added...and for a reason.

Why should the quality of the "leadership" be a factor of any significance?

If the working class follows "bad leaders", who is responsible? The "leaders" or the class not sufficiently conscious to see through their pretensions and disobey them?

And to carry it back a step further, if the working class is not sufficiently conscious of its own interests to refuse to follow "bad leaders", is that their "fault" or is it a reflection of material reality?

If the development of the means of production has not reached the stage where proletarian revolution and communism are sustainable, then can one "blame" the workers for "following bad leaders" when no other kind was historically possible?

Thus, I submit that the failure of 20th century "communism" was not "leadership" that was "treacherous" or "incompetent"...it was a consequence of the material fact that capitalism had not yet exhausted its productive possibilities, that communism was not yet "on history's agenda".

This century might turn out quite differently.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 04:43 PM
[
The history of 20th century revolutions shows something else too...there is no situation where revolution is totally inevitable. There is no situation that is totally hopeless for the exploiters. No situation where they cannot find some way to save their system for a little longer ---- if the leadership of the workers' movement is incompetent or treacherous enough to give them the chance.

Emphasis added...and for a reason.

Why should the quality of the "leadership" be a factor of any significance?
Why "should it be" a priori? I don't know. But historically, it has been, again and again.

For example, why was there a victorious revolution in Russia, while other revolutions during and immediately after WWI were crushed? Were the "objective conditions" better in Russia? Quite the opposite. Was it because workers in Germany and Hungary, for example, didn't want a revolution, or didn't fight for it? No.

It was because there was an experienced revolutionary party in Russia, which split from the reformists well in advance. In other countries, revolutionary parties were founded only at the last moment, and were too inexperienced, made a number of mistakes, and were unable to successfully lead revolutions.

I could give many other examples of revolutions crushed due to incompetent or outright treacherous leadership.


If the development of the means of production has not reached the stage where proletarian revolution and communism are sustainable, then can one "blame" the workers for "following bad leaders" when no other kind was historically possible?

The grain of truth in this is that objective conditions had a lot to do with the degeneration of the Russian Revolution, for example.

But my point had nothing to do with that, in any case.

[redstar2000]

For example, why was there a victorious revolution in Russia, while other revolutions during and immediately after WWI were crushed? Were the "objective conditions" better in Russia? Quite the opposite. Was it because workers in Germany and Hungary, for example, didn't want a revolution, or didn't fight for it? No.

This is really a muddle, I'm afraid.

The objective conditions for a bourgeois revolution were indeed present in Russia in February 1917 and that revolution was successful without any organized leadership at all. The old aristocracy was liquidated as a class (by the actions of the peasantry, primarily) and its attempted come-back in the civil war rested entirely on support from imperialist interventionists.

Similar conditions prevailed in Germany at the end of World War I...with a partially successful bourgeois revolution. In this case, however, the bourgeoisie did not liquidate the aristocracy as a class, which fought a bitter rear-guard resistance against the Weimar Republic.

In neither place were the objective conditions ripe for proletarian revolution...and it is only a courtesy that the October coup by the Bolsheviks is designated a revolution at all. Lenin's "New Economic Policy" was a clear admission that the real Russian Revolution was bourgeois in character. It could not have been otherwise.

In Germany, only a small minority of German workers supported the Spartacists or the subsequent KPD. No amount of "leadership" could have changed that.

I'm not well versed in Hungarian history, but what little I know suggests that the old Hungarian aristocracy did succeed in retaining state power by instituting a military dictatorship, perhaps with some concessions to the Hungarian bourgeoisie. The small Hungarian working class was easily defeated and, again, no amount of "leadership" would have changed the outcome.

Certainly one can point with assurance at blunders and/or betrayals of this or that "revolutionary leadership" in the 20th century. The Leninist error is to assert that those blunders/betrayals "caused" the defeat of the revolution(s).

It actually gets kind of mystical after a while. If only the "correct leadership" had been present, victory would have inevitably followed.

That is foolishness. Any Marxist should understand that material reality prevails. There's no "magic formula" that overcomes that--not even "dialectics".

And certainly not "correct leadership".

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas