The Eurocentrism of Marxist Traditionalism

[ind_com]

The Eurocentrism of Marxist Traditionalism

Frequent readers of this blog will be aware that I am generally annoyed by "movementism" and the tendency to ignore revolutionary history in pursuit of some new revolutionary theory that is neither new nor revolutionary. Indeed, my previous post was another (and admittedly ranty) screed about this tendency. If I'm not careful, I might end up coming across as a crotchety old leftist who is afraid of new ideas––like that old man who perpetually shakes his cane at children.

Thus, I think it is probably important to again point out that my annoyance with the above tendency is balanced by my equal annoyance with the tendency to fetishize the past. As I have argued before, revolutionary theory needs to be understood as the dialectical tension of continuity and rupture. The movementism that wants to see only rupture is no less erroneous than the dogmatism that focuses only on continuity––or, more accurately, sees a continuity up to the Bolshevik Revolution and then, rejecting any notion of theoretical rupture as properly revolutionary, seeks a return to this Eden of continuity that never existed.

In the past, I have complained about the dogmatism of this traditionalist approach to communism and why it is a practice in defiance of historical materialism––something that is more properly religious than scientific and, because of this, is often forced to ignore reality. Its practitioners end up becoming sad little sectarians who annoy the hell out of everyone else in the left because they're self-righteous and do nothing to warrant their self-righteousness (like that annoying academic who thinks s/he's more brilliant than everyone else even though s/he is still working on that fifteen year PhD), and in general just make the left seem like a joke to the non-left.

But now I want to write about what I find significantly troublesome about the ideology of those marxists who think that the left died somewhere around World War One, whether or not they have decided to commit themselves to some missionary marxist sect. For there is a rather problematic story that is sometimes told about communism: from Marx and Engels to Lenin there was an unbroken movement that was amazing and properly "marxist"––the First International was a gas, the Second International was a setback, but thank god that the Third International put some of the fun back into communism… And then Stalin came along and ruined everything and marxism has lost its way ever since. Oh and maybe the "Fourth International" could have been fun, but no one's really sure what that tiny and insignificant (insignificant for world revolution, not for Trotskyists mind you) European "international" really meant anyhow because all of those Trotskyite sects who hate each other have a different interpretation of what happened.

This view of actually existing communism is a historical simplification primarily because it is virulently eurocentric. What it really breaks down to is this: the communist movement was good until it was no longer a movement centred in Europe and its colonies, and until the theory of these other movements no longer argued that the eurocentric world would lead the revolution. And maybe throw in some ahistorical analysis about how all of these other communist movements are somehow "Stalinist" just to hide your eurocentrism; sit back on your pure Marxism-up-until-1917 theory, never bother to study other revolutionary movements and the theory that actually emerged from these movements, and you can write books pining for the days when marxism was pure––meaning, of course, racially pure and properly focused on Europe.

Even the Bolshevik Revolution is white-washed according to this eurocentric traditionalism. Now we tend to forget that Russia was once considered "Asiatic", that Nazi ideology even considered Russians to be a weaker race, because this discourse has somehow succeeded in bringing the Russian Revolution into the history of Europe. Isaac Deutscher, for example, promoted this way of seeing the Bolshevik Revolution in his biography of Stalin (although it must be admitted that this biography, despite its eurocentric flaws, is better than a lot of the current pseudo-history written today) in his claim that Trotsky was an enlightened and cultured European whereas Stalin was a boorish Asiatic. The former was the proper heir of Lenin's "european" legacy, whereas the latter betrayed it with his orientalish ways, and thus the Soviet Union could have been saved if only it was properly European!

Deutscher, however, was influenced by the ideology of the so-called "Fourth International" where Trotskyism was born as a marxist theory. And it is important to note, regardless of the charges of sectarianism that might result from this insight, that the Fourth International and the theory it produced was a thoroughly eurocentric affair that succeeded in generating a discourse that would permit one to ignore any significant revolutionary developments outside of the European and European-colonized world. Pabloism, after all, was the great heresy of the Fourth International: not because it advocated that Trotskyists should work with "Stalinists" (shudder!), in my opinion, but because European marxists were horrified by the Pabloists support of anti-colonial movements in places like Algeria. We need to ask why the only Trotskyism that pushed an anti-colonial ideology was considered blasphemous by all of the other sects that splintered out of the Fourth International.

In any case, what is most interesting about the theory that emerged from the Fourth International was that it was a theory that recentered Europe as the global agent of revolution. In a combined and uneven global mode of production, the best that revolutions in the periphery could do was hold their revolution in permanence and wait for the "proper" proletariat of the imperialist centres to lead the revolution: the marxist equivalent of imperialist discourse about the peripheries "catching up" to the advanced and civilized centres. Thus, any revolutionary communist movement and its theory manifesting in the periphery would be treated, by necessity, as backwards, useless, and part of the theoretical fall from grace that happened after 1917. Most probably this theory was "Stalinist"… although Stalinism, regardless of it common pejorative usage, is really an empty concept that breaks down to little more than "they seem to like Stalin so they're bad" or "this is 'socialism in one country' damnit"––complete nonsense, really.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7HOUKuR6glk/T97JLVS6ftI/AAAAAAAAAsw/RudlC0gpFG0/s320/darayee-syllabus-history-240b-image.jpeg

"We must fight to make sure that communism remains the property of Europeans!"

This is why I have little patience for Trotskyism as a revolutionary theory. Not because I think Stalin was super awesome (and I have even less patience for the binary ideology, often promoted by some Trotskyists, that all Leninist theories that aren't Trotskyist are somehow secretly "Stalinist"), but because I find the commitments of historical Trotskyism to be wholly eurocentric. None of this is to say, of course, that the Soviet Union under Stalin wasn't also affected by eurocentrism: Stalin's approach to anti-colonial movements was no more laudable than Trotsky's would have been if he was in the same position, and there is an eerie similarity in Stalin and Trotsky's approach to revolutionary theory. Nor am I trying to say that Trotsky was an uber counter-revolutionary who was taking money from the CIA––really, I could care less for these arguments. My point, here, is that Trotskyism is the prime example of that traditionalist marxism that, in seeking a paradise before the collapse of the Bolshevik Revolution, imagines that all of the communist movements since that point are worthless––primarily worthless because they are not properly "european". What we call Trotskyism isn't Trotsky anymore than Marxism is properly Marx, Leninism is properly Lenin, or Maoism is properly Mao.

But of course this fetishization of the "good old days" of marxism has become broader than the boundaries drawn by the Fourth International. It is now an entire industry of eurocentric marxism that, though at one point was influenced by Trotskyism (which became the prime marxist ideology at the centres of capitalism), has now morphed into a nebulous orthodox marxism. More importantly: the arguments made from the position of this orthodoxy have now succeeded in affecting heterodox marxisms who are unaware of the orthodox nature of some of their core commitments.

Those marxist theories that go further than Trotskyism in recentering marxism in Europe––that reject the theory of the labour aristocracy, downplay the importance of imperialism, de-emphasize the role colonialism played in the emergence of capitalism, fetishize a working class that is essentially white, continue to promote an historical ignorance when it comes to every revolutionary movement after the Russian Revolution… all of these theories result in the erasure of over two thirds of the world's population.

So forgive me if I have little tolerance for those who are overly nostalgiac for a pure communism that existed up until 1917––or, even worse, those whose "pure communism" is only to be found in the works of Marx and Engels––because I feel that this is an attempt to write-off the majority of the world's population, and primarily the most oppressed peoples in the world, because they are incapable of contributing to revolutionary science. Moreover, I feel it demonstrates ignorance to the actual unfolding of communism as a living science; those who claim that there has been no development in marxist theory since 1917 are those who refuse to study the Chinese Revolution and those who are unaware that maoism was asserted as a new development of revolutionary communism around 1993. And even if we forget these molar crystallizations of revolutionary communism (which we should not), then what about an entire constellation of revolutionary theory that has exploded, from 1917 until now, due to the struggles of the most oppressed? Here is where these revolutionary moments of the new triumph over the traditionalism of the old… and yet marxist traditionalists, because they are immersed in tradition and only tradition, are incapable of grasping the fact that communism needs to be a living science in order to be properly revolutionary.

http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.in/2012/06/eurocentrism-of-marxist-traditionalism.html

[Rational Radical]

Complete garbage,everything from the writer's identity politics to his praise of " actually existing socialism/communism". Maoism has contributed absolutley nothing to the advancement of communist theory and the workers struggle. The writer really has no knowledge of marxism and is talking out of his ass with his cancerous politics.

[ind_com]

Complete garbage,everything from the writer's identity politics to his praise of " actually existing socialism/communism". Maoism has contributed absolutley nothing to the advancement of communist theory and the workers struggle. The writer really has no knowledge of marxism and is talking out of his ass with his cancerous politics.

Nothing better than a blunt Eurocentric comment to prove the writer's point.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Oh look, more cultural obstructionism masquerading as an 'alternative position'!
Nothing better than a blunt Eurocentric comment to prove the writer's point.

Bullshit. There was absolutely nothing "Eurocentric" about that post and you bloody know it. That article had thrown historical materialism and class analysis out of the fucking window, instead grasping at ridiculous claims of idealist determinism and 'cultural injustice'. All the while pointing their criticism at a Brezhnevite belief.

Are you going to call class analysis and historical materialism 'Eurocentric'? Hell, let's just call everything that originated from Europe 'Eurocentric' so that we can mold our reactionary politics in any way we wish to avoid criticism!

[Rational Radical]

Lol I'm sure CLR James, great marxist writer,who wrote about the history of negro revolt and the Hatian Revolution ,who also labeled the Soviet Union as State Capitalist and contributed more to socialist theory than any nonsensical maoist, wouldn't be considered "eurocentric" now would he? I'm African-American by the way .

[Mr. Natural]

ind_com, I seem to be following you around today. Your comment, "communism needs to be a living science in order to be properly revolutionary," is a truism that most comrades currently violate.

I know little of Maoism, and perhaps you need to further elaborate on your (and Mao's) politics. I do know this, though: the Russian Revolution failed to adequately engage the majority peasantry, and a case can be made that it foundered for this reason. I also know that Mao engaged the peasantry in a successful revolutionary process, and that Maoism cannot be dismissed for this reason alone.

When I think of "Eurocommunism," I think of an abandonment of revolutionary theory and an escape into cultural analysis and a postmodernist resignation to capitalism's triumph. There is some value in these pursuits, but in the meantime, capitalism is killing us all.

My red-green best.

[maskerade]

i think the eurocentricism of Marxism that this badly written article fails to address is that theories such as 'historical materialism', in some regard, assume a European temporality and historicity. That is, it assumes a linear historical development that is universal, mostly mirroring the developments that took place in Europe, particularly the transition between fuedalism and capitalism. I think we can all agree that the historicity of Europe cannot and should not be applied to the rest of the world.

Personally, I don't think Marx was trying to come up with a blueprint for historical development, but rather wanted to introduce 'class' as a factor worthy of devoting attention to.

[ind_com]

Oh look, more cultural obstructionism masquerading as an 'alternative position'!

Bullshit. There was absolutely nothing "Eurocentric" about that post and you bloody know it. That article had thrown historical materialism and class analysis out of the fucking window, instead grasping at ridiculous claims of idealist determinism and 'cultural injustice'. All the while pointing their criticism at a Brezhnevite belief.

Are you going to call class analysis and historical materialism 'Eurocentric'? Hell, let's just call everything that originated from Europe 'Eurocentric' so that we can mold our reactionary politics in any way we wish to avoid criticism!

Traditional Marxist class analysis was based on Marx's observations on 19th century Europe. Mechanically applying the same analysis to other parts of the world in the era of consolidated imperialism, and considering only the same type of class-actions as revolutionary is nothing but Eurocentrism. The underlying counter-revolutionary nature of this Eurocentrism is very evident through that the failure of its proponents in overthrowing a single bourgeois regime, and their enthusiasm in claiming that the revolutions that actually did so were not revolutions at all.


Lol I'm sure CLR James, great marxist writer,who wrote about the history of negro revolt and the Hatian Revolution ,who also labeled the Soviet Union as State Capitalist and contributed more to socialist theory than any nonsensical maoist, wouldn't be considered "eurocentric" now would he?

Sorry, don't know about him. Until the admirers of such great Marxist writers are able to achieve anything but long and empty speeches on Indian soil, we will continue embracing Maoist 'nonsense'.


I'm African-American by the way .

That instantly rules out all possibility of you being Eurocentric, yes?

[ind_com]

Personally, I don't think Marx was trying to come up with a blueprint for historical development, but rather wanted to introduce 'class' as a factor worthy of devoting attention to.

I think Marx was indeed trying to come up with a blueprint for historical development, and I don't blame him much for that. He provided a model based on his own observations. The duty of subsequent Marxists is to enrich and develop and rectify his model based on their own observations. Since Marxism is a science, the tendency will be to capture general laws through a continuous series of observations and experiments. However, those who do not modify the theory according to observations and experiments are not Marxists; they are bigots. They are mere counter-revolutionaries using Marx's name to attack Marxist revolutions.

[The Jay]

I'm not apologizing for the Enlightenment.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I don't feel that there is a lot of substance to this kind of critique. It seems that the author and the op would simply like to avoid addressing the normal criticism Maoism receives by turning it into an issue of identity politics. The criticisms of Maoism that I've read are not based on Maoists having the audacity to act differently from Europeans, rather they seem to focus on the historical fact that Maoist tactics generally do not work and when they do, they do not actually succeed in doing anything revolutionary.

There is a lot to be said about eurocentrism within leftist discourse, but this is just some bullshit hand waving.

[Questionable]

i think the eurocentricism of Marxism that this badly written article fails to address is that theories such as 'historical materialism', in some regard, assume a European temporality and historicity. That is, it assumes a linear historical development that is universal, mostly mirroring the developments that took place in Europe, particularly the transition between fuedalism and capitalism. I think we can all agree that the historicity of Europe cannot and should not be applied to the rest of the world.

Personally, I don't think Marx was trying to come up with a blueprint for historical development, but rather wanted to introduce 'class' as a factor worthy of devoting attention to.

You people always say this, but can you please explain your position more? I don't see anything intrinsically Eurocentric about historical materialism.

Also this blog author has some good thoughts sometimes, but I feel like his railing against "Eurocentrism in Marxism" is really just a cover for identity politics. I know from speaking to him that he's sympathetic to third-worldism.

[maskerade]

You people always say this, but can you please explain your position more? I don't see anything intrinsically Eurocentric about historical materialism.

Also this blog author has some good thoughts sometimes, but I feel like his railing against "Eurocentrism in Marxism" is really just a cover for identity politics. I know from speaking to him that he's sympathetic to third-worldism.

you people??:confused:

I'd say that a theory based upon a uniquely European historical process is by definition eurocentric. It assumes a singular evolutionary scheme for human societies, and it is difficult for me to see how such a view is anything but religious. The problem I have isn't necessarily with Historical Materialism, but rather European historicism, of which Historical Materialism is a part. It carries with it the implicit assumption that societal models strive toward an ideal, which in European thought happens to be Europe, even though that isn't explicitly stated.

That's not to say that Marxist methodology isn't useful for understanding history.

[Questionable]

you people??:confused:

I'd say that a theory based upon a uniquely European historical process is by definition eurocentric. It assumes a singular evolutionary scheme for human societies, and it is difficult for me to see how such a view is anything but religious. The problem I have isn't necessarily with Historical Materialism, but rather European historicism, of which Historical Materialism is a part. It carries with it the implicit assumption that societal models strive toward an ideal, which in European thought happens to be Europe, even though that isn't explicitly stated.

That's not to say that Marxist methodology isn't useful for understanding history.

So your problem is that it originated in Europe? I'm asking for some specific flaws in the theory that you're aware of.

I'm just not really seeing where this Eurocentric aspect is coming from. Historical Materialism is the theory that all societies are grounded in their economic activities. That is no Eurocentrism, unless you know of a non-European country that has violated the laws of reality and now develops on Idealistic grounds.

Even the blog writer is an advocate of historical materialism, he just dislikes people using it incorrectly.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Deutscher, however, was influenced by the ideology of the so-called "Fourth International" where Trotskyism was born as a marxist theory. And it is important to note, regardless of the charges of sectarianism that might result from this insight, that the Fourth International and the theory it produced was a thoroughly eurocentric affair that succeeded in generating a discourse that would permit one to ignore any significant revolutionary developments outside of the European and European-colonized world. Pabloism, after all, was the great heresy of the Fourth International: not because it advocated that Trotskyists should work with "Stalinists" (shudder!), in my opinion, but because European marxists were horrified by the Pabloists support of anti-colonial movements in places like Algeria. We need to ask why the only Trotskyism that pushed an anti-colonial ideology was considered blasphemous by all of the other sects that splintered out of the Fourth International.Yup. Marxism originated in Europe. And that's not accidental, but a fact. The most advanced political thinking comes from the most developed areas of the world. Must have been a coincidence. Not that it had to orginate in Europe, but there is a connection.

Interesting aside is that the places where Trotskyists were leading the worker's movement (as opposed to Stalinist parties), were Vietnam, Ceylon and Bolivia. Uh, none were in Europe. I guess those folks were self-hating third worlders.

The problem with Pabloism, comrade, was not the support of the Algerians against the French, that was elementary, it was the uniting politically with Algerian nationalists and burying the program of Trotskyism. On a larger scale, it was abdicating the role of revolutionary leadership to Stalinist parties and non-proletarian political forces all around the world. Worked out great in Algeria, didn't it?:(

In general you analysis drips with subjective idealism. Trotskyists look to the Russian Revolution because it was the only successful proletarian revolution (okay if you want to quibble about the Paris Commune) that ever happened. Did you know the Bolsheviks were absolutely obsessed with the French Revolution? Only a fucking idiot would hark back and say it was paradise. The Bolsheviks were faced with ridiculously trying conditions, and the European Revolution was stillborn. But 1917-21 are years that represent the high water mark for communist movement in the world. So yeah, that looks more promising than things look today -- but that's all.

The focus on Europe or the US (maybe now include Japan) as the most important centers for revolution is because that is where the fucking wealth and power is, man. It not because Trotskyists think Paris is cooler than Kuala Lampur or because of racist or ethnic prejudices. You turn it into a moral category. So yeah, it's great if there is a revolution in Mexico -- but if it doesn't spread to the US, Mexico is fucked. Multiiply that by a hundred for places like Bolivia and Nepal. We defend the Cuban Revolution, but how long is it going to hold out with the USSR gone?

Your view reminds me of some of the workerist shit I saw in the seventies. Comrades on the left, mostly from petite bourgeois backgrounds, became very enamored with the concept of behaving like "workers" -- to the point where words were intentionally misspelled and speakers at forums would try to sound uneducated when they spoke. Why do Marxists want to win over the proletariat? Because they are the class that can make socialist revolution and who have the most to gain by it. There is nothing magical or inherently wonderful about the proletariat. But without the proletariat taking a central role, we are stuck with this barbaric, rotting system of world capitalism. The peasantry can't do it, the petite bourgeoisie cannot do it. They can, of course participate and play a role. There is nothing inherently progressive about being a worker(or gay, or a woman, or any oppressed minority) -- thinking this way is profoundly idealistic. There is nothing progressive or better about being either European or from central Africa. What is the program comrade? What's the plan to defeat world imperialism? That is where Stalinism in all its variants fails so miserably.

Che Guevera was a heroic guy. But he bought into his own misguided theory about revolution. It was, very much a third-worldist approach. Sadly it led to his death.

Many things have changed since 1917. However, the basic tasks of revolutionary socialists have not. The collapse of the USSR has ushered in a period of reaction and political regression. You really don't discuss, materially, that shortcomings of Trotskyism (I would use Leninism and Marxism almost interchangeably). Saying it is Eurocentric seems to be vapid and moralistic.

And you dismiss the Trotskyist analysis of Stalinism. You make it sound like it is superficial or even specious. Well, nationalism is a big part of it, and quite incompatible with Revolutionary Marxism. It leads to all kinds of mistakes and has cost the world revolution immense amounts of human material and time. You took the time to read Deutscher on Stalin (which is vastly inferior, btw, to his biography of Trotsky). Have you read "The Revolution Betrayed"?

[Grenzer]

Too many people forget about the strong and vibrant Trotskyist movement in Vietnam; you do well to bring that up. There are some self-described Marxists that are Eurocentric, but I do not believe that this is the case with genuine Marxists as you have made the case. However, there are a few comments that I have to make.

Also, as disgusting as Maoism is and the conduct of the Maoists around here, you might want to tone back on the ad homs a bit.




We defend the Cuban Revolution, but how long is it going to hold out with the USSR gone?

I thought you just said that the October Revolution was the only successful proletarian revolution. Clearly this is not true if you acknowledge Cuba, China, and whatever other countries have waved a red flag at some point as being proletarian dictatorships. If a revolution results in the political dictatorship of the proletariat, then in a political sense, that is a successful revolution; just as was the case in the October Revolution where the proletariat seized political power, but could not abolish Capital.



And you dismiss the Trotskyist analysis of Stalinism. You make it sound like it is superficial or even specious. Well, nationalism is a big part of it, and quite incompatible with Revolutionary Marxism. It leads to all kinds of mistakes and has cost the world revolution immense amounts of human material and time. You took the time to read Deutscher on Stalin (which is vastly inferior, btw, to his biography of Trotsky). Have you read "The Revolution Betrayed"?

Well the orthodox Trotskyist analysis of the Soviet Union is superficial. Trotsky never really argues that it could be considered a proletarian dictatorship in anything remotely approaching a valid argument. The crux of his argument revolved around the State's ability to rapidly industrialize, improve education, and pursue like policies that would ordinarily be quantified as "progressive". In substance, this does not depart from the same arguments that reformists and liberals use in the defense of the welfare state against conservatives.

The real problem is that he never tackles the question of class rule. In the Soviet Union, it's undeniable that all political power rested in the hands of the bureaucracy. This arrangement can only be considered a proletarian dictatorship if, and only if, the bureaucracy is explicitly acknowledged as a vehicle of class wide rule. Apparently Trotsky considered the bureaucracy to be a vehicle for class-wide rule.. this is no different from how the Stalinists view it. Unless it is a tool for class wide rule, then the state cannot be considered representative of a proletarian dictatorship. The soviets had been the organ for class rule. With their abolition, there could be no class rule; the proletarian dictatorship was no longer tenable.

By defending the Soviet Union as a proletarian dictatorship, Trotsky is implicitly saying that Stalinism is a valid form of proletarian rule; only that the specific policies it pursued were wrong. When viewed within the context of the short window of time in which these events occurred and Trotsky's personal closeness to the events involved, it is understandable that he would come to a wildly incorrect conclusion. Objective analysis on his part was impossible; to acknowledge that many of the serious political problems with the Party began with the dismantling of the soviets and the party's merger with the state would be also be to acknowledge his personal agency and responsibility in the creation of Stalinism to begin with. People who have a materialist view know that he would not contradict his own interests by seriously condemning his own past mistakes and views.

However, we aren't veterans of the revolutions or members of the bureaucracy as Trotsky had been; there is no reason for us to be constricted by the limitations Trotsky faced. We have had 80 years since the publication of The Revolution Betrayed. There is no excuse for continuing to hold these erroneous views. Consequently, so-called "Orthodox" Trotskyism cannot seriously be considered a part of the revolutionary proletarian political current.

I'm still curious as to why so many "Orthodox" Trotskyists ape Deutscher's works considering he correctly savaged Trotsky for his hypocrisy and inconsistencies, especially regarding his erroneous views on the nature of the Soviet Union and the causes of Stalinism.

[ind_com]

ind_com, I seem to be following you around today. Your comment, "communism needs to be a living science in order to be properly revolutionary," is a truism that most comrades currently violate.

I know little of Maoism, and perhaps you need to further elaborate on your (and Mao's) politics. I do know this, though: the Russian Revolution failed to adequately engage the majority peasantry, and a case can be made that it foundered for this reason. I also know that Mao engaged the peasantry in a successful revolutionary process, and that Maoism cannot be dismissed for this reason alone.

When I think of "Eurocommunism," I think of an abandonment of revolutionary theory and an escape into cultural analysis and a postmodernist resignation to capitalism's triumph. There is some value in these pursuits, but in the meantime, capitalism is killing us all.

It is difficult to elaborate Maoism in a few posts. It is a very vast subject, and is developed only with concrete revolutionary practice. It differs from most other tendencies in the point that instead of waiting indefinitely for the working class to become class-conscious spontaneously, or the army rebelling etc, it seeks to organize the oppressed masses and mould them for seizing power, irrespective of whether the proletariat or peasantry is the majority among the oppressed masses. And to achieve the same, Maoists creatively work out the lines according to the concrete conditions of the areas involved. Another very important feature of Maoism is that, in the strong base-areas usually a party-rule is replaced by bottom-up decision making by class-structures, so as to lessen the probability of bureaucratic degeneration.


My red-green best. Thank you. I think you might be interested in the ways the Indian Maoist movement takes into account the destruction of the environment, and how the Indian people's war is conserving the environment besides constructing socialism.

[Rafiq]

i think the eurocentricism of Marxism that this badly written article fails to address is that theories such as 'historical materialism', in some regard, assume a European temporality and historicity. That is, it assumes a linear historical development that is universal, mostly mirroring the developments that took place in Europe, particularly the transition between fuedalism and capitalism. I think we can all agree that the historicity of Europe cannot and should not be applied to the rest of the world.


Read a book called Marx on the Margins and you'll know why you're wrong. Marx and Engels had quite a lot to say regarding the East, from the early existent modes of production to the rise of Islam.

[Positivist]

I'm not apologizing for the Enlightenment.

Hmm? I don't quite understand what you're saying here.

[maskerade]

So your problem is that it originated in Europe? I'm asking for some specific flaws in the theory that you're aware of.

I'm just not really seeing where this Eurocentric aspect is coming from. Historical Materialism is the theory that all societies are grounded in their economic activities. That is no Eurocentrism, unless you know of a non-European country that has violated the laws of reality and now develops on Idealistic grounds.

Even the blog writer is an advocate of historical materialism, he just dislikes people using it incorrectly.

read my post again and it will answer your questions. enough of these red herrings please.

[maskerade]

Read a book called Marx on the Margins and you'll know why you're wrong. Marx and Engels had quite a lot to say regarding the East, from the early existent modes of production to the rise of Islam.

sure. expect my reply in 2-3 weeks

[Let's Get Free]

It is difficult to elaborate Maoism in a few posts. It is a very vast subject, and is developed only with concrete revolutionary practice. It differs from most other tendencies in the point that instead of waiting indefinitely for the working class to become class-conscious spontaneously, or the army rebelling etc, it seeks to organize the oppressed masses and mould them for seizing power, irrespective of whether the proletariat or peasantry is the majority among the oppressed masses. And to achieve the same, Maoists creatively work out the lines according to the concrete conditions of the areas involved. Another very important feature of Maoism is that, in the strong base-areas usually a party-rule is replaced by bottom-up decision making by class-structures, so as to lessen the probability of bureaucratic degeneration.


Maoism isn't about revolts on behalf of the working class. Maoism is, in essence, a variety of "revolutionary nationalism", a method of freeing the neo-colony from foreign domination. They are fought in the interests of the national petty bourgeoisie allied with the workers and the peasants. Mao ruled over a new state, not as a direct expression of the working class, but by balancing between the classes. It was through this state that he expropriated the landlords and capitalists. In spite of the distorted manner in which it was achieved, it was still a progressive measure and a huge step forward for China. However, it was not a proletarian revolution, at least not in the sense understood by Marx.

As a result, the Revolution was carried out in a Bonapartist, top down manner, without the participation and democratic control of the workers. The bureaucracy developed a highly authoritarian one-party dictatorship, shaped in image of Stalin’s Russia. Given the way the revolution was carried out, and the existence of a mighty Stalinist regime on China’s borders, this outcome was entirely predictable- a rise of a red bourgeoisie.

[Questionable]

read my post again and it will answer your questions. enough of these red herrings please.

I did, it didn't, unless this is some attempt to ignore me.


I'd say that a theory based upon a uniquely European historical process is by definition eurocentric.

Historical materialism is the theory of analyzing a society based upon its economic mode of production. What makes that Eurocentric? It can be applied to any society. What is this unique European process we're talking about?


It assumes a singular evolutionary scheme for human societies, and it is difficult for me to see how such a view is anything but religious.

And this is what I'm talking about. You attribute things like this to historical materialism (You also did this is the primitive tribes thread), but then you never bring up exactly what you're talking about. This is where I'm confused.


The problem I have isn't necessarily with Historical Materialism, but rather European historicism, of which Historical Materialism is a part.

Again, explain the intrinsic European thought you're seeing here.


It carries with it the implicit assumption that societal models strive toward an ideal, which in European thought happens to be Europe, even though that isn't explicitly stated.

What are you talking about? Marx and Engels were directly against this viewpoint of Idealism. There is nothing about society striving towards some idea, historical materialism is simply the theory that societal modes are bound to their economic levels, which change according to new developments. If you're talking about Marx (And I'm not really sure that's what you're saying but it's my best guess) and others saying that history trends towards a similar line, they were right unless you can bring up a contradictory example like I asked you to. So far the majority of the world has entered similar stages of production such as feudalism or capitalism at generally the same time, with different characteristics depending on geographic location.

Do you see what I'm asking for now?

[black magick hustla]

"look at me im brown"

[ind_com]

Maoism isn't about revolts on behalf of the working class. Maoism is, in essence, a variety of "revolutionary nationalism", a method of freeing the neo-colony from foreign domination. They are fought in the interests of the national petty bourgeoisie allied with the workers and the peasants. Mao ruled over a new state, not as a direct expression of the working class, but by balancing between the classes. It was through this state that he expropriated the landlords and capitalists. In spite of the distorted manner in which it was achieved, it was still a progressive measure and a huge step forward for China. However, it was not a proletarian revolution, at least not in the sense understood by Marx.

As a result, the Revolution was carried out in a Bonapartist, top down manner, without the participation and democratic control of the workers. The bureaucracy developed a highly authoritarian one-party dictatorship, shaped in image of Stalin’s Russia. Given the way the revolution was carried out, and the existence of a mighty Stalinist regime on China’s borders, this outcome was entirely predictable- a rise of a red bourgeoisie.

Evils of vanguardism. I know.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Too many people forget about the strong and vibrant Trotskyist movement in Vietnam; you do well to bring that up. There are some self-described Marxists that are Eurocentric, but I do not believe that this is the case with genuine Marxists as you have made the case. However, there are a few comments that I have to make.

Also, as disgusting as Maoism is and the conduct of the Maoists around here, you might want to tone back on the ad homs a bit.





I thought you just said that the October Revolution was the only successful proletarian revolution. Clearly this is not true if you acknowledge Cuba, China, and whatever other countries have waved a red flag at some point as being proletarian dictatorships. If a revolution results in the political dictatorship of the proletariat, then in a political sense, that is a successful revolution; just as was the case in the October Revolution where the proletariat seized political power, but could not abolish Capital.




Well the orthodox Trotskyist analysis of the Soviet Union is superficial. Trotsky never really argues that it could be considered a proletarian dictatorship in anything remotely approaching a valid argument. The crux of his argument revolved around the State's ability to rapidly industrialize, improve education, and pursue like policies that would ordinarily be quantified as "progressive". In substance, this does not depart from the same arguments that reformists and liberals use in the defense of the welfare state against conservatives.

The real problem is that he never tackles the question of class rule. In the Soviet Union, it's undeniable that all political power rested in the hands of the bureaucracy. This arrangement can only be considered a proletarian dictatorship if, and only if, the bureaucracy is explicitly acknowledged as a vehicle of class wide rule. Apparently Trotsky considered the bureaucracy to be a vehicle for class-wide rule.. this is no different from how the Stalinists view it. Unless it is a tool for class wide rule, then the state cannot be considered representative of a proletarian dictatorship. The soviets had been the organ for class rule. With their abolition, there could be no class rule; the proletarian dictatorship was no longer tenable.

By defending the Soviet Union as a proletarian dictatorship, Trotsky is implicitly saying that Stalinism is a valid form of proletarian rule; only that the specific policies it pursued were wrong. When viewed within the context of the short window of time in which these events occurred and Trotsky's personal closeness to the events involved, it is understandable that he would come to a wildly incorrect conclusion. Objective analysis on his part was impossible; to acknowledge that many of the serious political problems with the Party began with the dismantling of the soviets and the party's merger with the state would be also be to acknowledge his personal agency and responsibility in the creation of Stalinism to begin with. People who have a materialist view know that he would not contradict his own interests by seriously condemning his own past mistakes and views.

However, we aren't veterans of the revolutions or members of the bureaucracy as Trotsky had been; there is no reason for us to be constricted by the limitations Trotsky faced. We have had 80 years since the publication of The Revolution Betrayed. There is no excuse for continuing to hold these erroneous views. Consequently, so-called "Orthodox" Trotskyism cannot seriously be considered a part of the revolutionary proletarian political current.

I'm still curious as to why so many "Orthodox" Trotskyists ape Deutscher's works considering he correctly savaged Trotsky for his hypocrisy and inconsistencies, especially regarding his erroneous views on the nature of the Soviet Union and the causes of Stalinism.
Hmmm a lot to deal with in your post, comrade. First, I thought I was dealing with issues and not making a personal attack -- I did use a few expletives, none directed at the poster. I don't use idealism merely as an epithet.

Okay, capitalism had been overthrown in Russia -- you wind up in impossible contradictions if you say the USSR was capitalist. After the late 20s, there was almost no private capital. It wasn't like Sweden or France in 1978. All major industry and banks were state owned. There was centralized planning and, more importantly, production was not geared to profit. Does that sound like capitalism to you? So, if you expropriate the bourgeoisie which class rules? And of course under capitalism the bourgeoisie do not have to have direct political power, why can't that be the same for the dictatorship of the proletariat? Otherwise you wind up with the oxymoronic state capitalist views, or the bureaucracy as a newly minted class. So as convoluted as the degenerated/deformed workers state formulation is, it is better than any other. Yes the bureaucrats have political control, but what are the property forms and mode of production? And it applies to Cuba -- so Trotskyists can defend countries that have overthrown capitalism, while expressing political opposition to their leadership.

And you bring Trotsky's views down to his not being able to tolerate contradicting his earlier views and admitting complicity in Stalin's rise. Seems like an idealistic view to me.

This is probably not the thread for another discussion about the circumstances in the USSR post revolution. But a Trotskyist view recognizes the extreme material contradictions created by the revolution, especially with the subsequent failure of the German Revolution.

As for Deutscher, what is there to say. His biography of Trotsky is great, although with some serious political flaws -- he applies a kind of fatalism not consistent with dialectical materialism. His writings are very valuable.

[Mr. Natural]

Comrades, There's a lot of knowledge being displayed in this thread, but it's "dead" knowledge, whether it resides in "Eurocentrist Marxism" or "Maoist Third-Worldism." Revolution has failed everywhere, and if Marxism hasn't advanced theoretically since 1917, Maoism (which I interpret as an attempt to adapt Marxism to a non-industrial, peasant-based economy) seems stuck in the 1950s. Perhaps Comrade ind_com will provide more on the Maoist revolutionary theory underlying his Indian People's War. A thread on the theory of the Indian People's War seems like a good idea.

I lack the excellent specific historical knowledge several comrades are bringing to this thread. I look for root forces and realities, and what I'm seeing and feeling here is a left that hasn't advanced theoretically for a long time and has been reduced to ultra-sectarian, "my dogma can kick your dogma's ass" infighting. We don't know how to combat capitalism, whether we're Marxist or Trotskyist or Maoist-Marxist, and so we wind up fighting each other.

I see a peril in this discussion. I believe "third-worldism" is a bannable offense at Revleft, a position with which I strongly disagree; what one comrade might disdain as "third-worldism" might be another's revolutionary organizing theory. There's too much subjectivity in the term, and I don't want to see anyone banned for trying to explain revolution in the third world.

The point of this post is that this thread manifests the pandemic conservatism plaguing the left. This conservatism is a consequence of capitalism's systemic, global triumph, and the inability of Marxism/Trotskyism/Maoism/anarchism to develop theoretically in response.

What's missing? Comrades, we don't know how to organize! Never have! Both the First International and, I'll claim, the Russian Revolution, were stillborn. Life, communism, and anarchism have a natural organizational pattern that revolutionaries must consciously apply to their various projects if they are to come to life. Matter has self-organized into living, communal systems on Earth--cells to biosphere--and humans, who are also material systems, are already bodily organized in this pattern and must now learn to consciously organize their social systems in the pattern by which matter comes to life on Earth.
Marx defined communism as an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all, and this communal form of organization parallels that of the rest of life's living systems. But how do we organize anarchist/communist forms of community? Marx didn't know, and as we have failed to engage the new sciences of organization that Marx couldn't access, we, too, cannot organize.

Comrades, there are, indeed, new sciences that reveal the underlying organization of life, community, and revolution. Ind_com, the green of my "red-green" refers not only to living ecologically in community, but to organizing in the pattern that creates community and ecologies and anarchism/communism.

The book that brings these new sciences to Earth for popular comprehension is The Web of Life (1996), by the theoretical physicist, Fritjof Capra. Should anyone read it, apply life's organizational relations to human beings and our social systems as you go. For we humans, despite our conceits and consciousness, must organize in the manner by which matter comes to communal life on Earth. Are we not life?

Most comrades will automatically dislike these references to a science of organization, and I invite them to confront their conservatism. Aren't we all stuck? Aren't we revolutionaries? What's missing? What would Marx and Engels do?

Engels at Marx's funeral: "Science was for Marx a historically dynamic, revolutionary force." My red-green best.

[The Jay]

Hmm? I don't quite understand what you're saying here.

Usually when people talk about 'eurocentrism' in a criticizing way from a third worldist standpoint they usually mean that we 'think european'. This is a shot at the Enlightenment, as though we are supposed to give up all the values of liberty, egalitarianism, and fraternity. No, I refuse to do so.

The claim of 'eurocentrism' usually is also used as a form of identity or privilege politics, which are stupid all on their own.

[MarxSchmarx]

When I was 13, I read a passage from Lenin that read:

"From Japan to California, the worker's movement blah blah blah". At the time, I thought that was really sad, how the worker's movement was restricted to Japan, California, Hawaii, places like Fiji, Guam and Tahiti, and maybe parts of Rural Alaska and Siberia.

It took me a few years to realize that that statement presupposes the center of the world is located not on Oahu.