"REvolutionary Marxists", a question!

[Red Enemy]

Since it is so very, extremely difficult for anyone to GET IT, I will be very frank:

What are the major theoretical, organizational, and any other major differences within the revleft "Revolutionary Marxist" tendency?

[Art Vandelay]

[mod snap] Here is the quote that I was talking about, its hardly a a list of disagreements or whatever, but it talks about some of the differing political backgrounds some members of the Revolutionary Marxist usergroup associate and come from.


I must say that I find alot of these political shifts odd; although I'm far from one to really talk here, as I made a fairly drastic switch from anarchism to Marxism recently (it probably seemed more drastic than it was in reality however, I began to question my convictions probably well over a year before the switch).

The one reason I have my tendency set to the 'Revolutionary Marxist' user group is due to its non-sectarian approach; it's not so much that the tendency is a set group of theories one must abide by, but rather simply that you identify there being some worth in the politics associated with the 2nd international that many overlook. To me it was a sort of a back to the basics moment. We have members which come from varying different backgrounds: Q coming from a Trotskyist background and currently a member of the CWI (who comrade Ghost Bebel, although apparently no longer holding the same politics, always chastised), Paul Cockshott, considering himself a Maoist of sorts (sorry if this is a mis-labeling as I am not entirely familiar with your politics), myself approaching my current political stance coming out of anarchism, DNZ apparently holding a belief in some sort of "bizarre hybrid Stalinism" as people here have been claiming.

Ultimately I don't understand how any of this is either productive or beneficial. The whole point, or at least what I felt like was the point and the reason I have the "Revolutionary Marxist" user group set as my tendency, was that as Marxists we should be able to take any given political figure (Kautsky for example) and take what's good and leave the rest, to not be dogmatic about these issues. Kautsky is dismissed by the majority of the left and yet for many years before he reneged, was the primary Marxist theorist after Marx & Engels death. Plekhanov, to use another example, eventually sided with the Mensheviks; however this does not dismiss the fact that his writings on materialism are some of the best that I personally have ever seen.

[Sasha]

wow, since about everyone in this thread acted like a dick, which is esp not allowed in the learning section i trashed about everything.
verbal to everyone, including the OP.

i believe the question is, what is "revolutionary marxism" and are there theoretical and organizational differences within this "tendency" and if so what are they?
if anyone has an answer or ideas please share and discus them, if not, sorry OP but you cant just demand them.

[l'Enfermé]

We disagree on so many things it would take a few pages to write it all down. On the role of Trotsky, on the role of Stalin, on Menshevik-Internationalists and left-SRs, on the KKE and SYRIZA, on Die Linke, etc., etc..

[Red Enemy]

We disagree on so many things it would take a few pages to write it all down. On the role of Trotsky, on the role of Stalin, on Menshevik-Internationalists and left-SRs, on the KKE and SYRIZA, on Die Linke, etc., etc..
You could easily write a sentence or two to summarize the disagreements on each of these issues.

Again, I state that I emphasize MAJOR differences, and not minor.

Maybe I should make some more clear questions:

Do you guys disagree on the nature of the USSR?

Do you have disagreements on party organization?

Do you have disagreements on when Kautsky became a "renegade"?

Do you have disagreements about the nature of socialism (whether it is classless for instance)

These are the types of things I am asking. And if not, you listed a bunch of things you disagre of.

You could at least write a couple sentences on ONE of those things, perhaps what you view to be the most significant disagreement.

[Q]

We disagree on so many things it would take a few pages to write it all down. On the role of Trotsky, on the role of Stalin, on Menshevik-Internationalists and left-SRs, on the KKE and SYRIZA, on Die Linke, etc., etc..

Pretty much. One of the core points the Revolutionary Marxists on revleft do agree on is that if we have any kind of unity, it has to be around the acceptance (note: not agreement) of a common programmatical document by which the party can be formed, the leadership can be held accountable and which maps out a basic strategy from "here to there" regarding the communist goal.

One other fundamental point is that we agree on democracy as a vital component of any such party. "Unity in disagreement" is a way to describe it since we stand for the open debating of ideas in order not only to form the party itself, but to educate our class in high politics.

So, there can be and are a wide variety of disagreements on all sorts of topics. I've never thought about codifying an exhaustive list and I don't really see the need for one.

Also: I'm sorry if I hurted your (the OP) feelings before.

[Red Enemy]

So, there can be and are a wide variety of disagreements on all sorts of topics. I've never thought about codifying an exhaustive list and I don't really see the need for one.So, you are unable to summarize what you view as one of the more significant disagreements?

Or are you unable to, because there are no significant disagreements?


Also: I'm sorry if I hurted your (the OP) feelings before.I appreciate the condescension. As a mod, however, you should be setting an example of following the rules, not breaking them.

[l'Enfermé]

Do you guys disagree on the nature of the USSR?
Yeah, a bunch. A few of us agree with Hillel Ticktin's assessment, others are closer to the Trot version, some are a bit Stalinist on this question.


Do you have disagreements on party organization?
No, not on the fundamentals.


Do you have disagreements on when Kautsky became a "renegade"?
Generally most of us concur with Lenin's assessment that The Road to Power(1909), which is a summary of what Kautsky has been writing for the past decade, was the last major piece written by Kautsky-the-Marxist and not Kautsky-the-renegade.


Do you have disagreements about the nature of socialism (whether it is classless for instance)
No, I don't think so, our view on the nature of socialism is derived solely from Marx/Engels.


Pretty much. One of the core points the Revolutionary Marxists on revleft do agree on is that if we have any kind of unity, it has to be around the acceptance (note: not agreement) of a common programmatical document by which the party can be formed, the leadership can be held accountable and which maps out a basic strategy from "here to there" regarding the communist goal.

One other fundamental point is that we agree on democracy as a vital component of any such party. "Unity in disagreement" is a way to describe it since we stand for the open debating of ideas in order not only to form the party itself, but to educate our class in high politics.

So, there can be and are a wide variety of disagreements on all sorts of topics. I've never thought about codifying an exhaustive list and I don't really see the need for one.

Also: I'm sorry if I hurted your (the OP) feelings before.
:thumbup1:

[Red Enemy]

Oh look, someone answering a question! Thanks L'enferme.

So, what are the most significant disagreements you find, and could you give a brief summary?

Also, on the question of agreeing on socialism, I noticed that Q and DNZ agree to the notion that Socialism, the first phase of communism, is NOT classless.

[Q]

You could easily write a sentence or two to summarize the disagreements on each of these issues.

Again, I state that I emphasize MAJOR differences, and not minor.

Maybe I should make some more clear questions:
Note: These are questions you impose upon us. I can give an answer from what I think is the majority view, but there have been no discussions about such "fault lines" (to take a phrase), nor do we view them as such. That is to say, they are not "major questions" in our view (that is, reasons to split over):


Do you guys disagree on the nature of the USSR?
Yes. Some, like me, tend to agree with Hillel Ticktin's "non-mode of production". Others hold more traditional views.


Do you have disagreements on party organization?
My previous post outlines in utmost basics what we agree on. We do not have blueprints.


Do you have disagreements on when Kautsky became a "renegade"?
We have pretty consistently kept the view that his renegade turn was between 1909 and 1914.


Do you have disagreements about the nature of socialism (whether it is classless for instance)
It never came up as a topic as far as I'm aware.

Not the type of answer you wanted I guess.

[Red Enemy]

Note: These are questions you impose upon us. I can give an answer from what I think is the majority view, but there have been no discussions about such "fault lines" (to take a phrase), nor do we view them as such. That is to say, they are not "major questions" in our view (that is, reasons to split over):


Yes. Some, like me, tend to agree with Hillel Ticktin's "non-mode of production". Others hold more traditional views.


My previous post outlines in utmost basics what we agree on. We do not have blueprints.


We have pretty consistently kept the view that his renegade turn was between 1909 and 1914.


It never came up as a topic as far as I'm aware.

Not the type of answer you wanted I guess.
So, it seems the RM tendency has no significant disagreement on anything.

Are there disagreements on some of DNZ's theories, such as Third World Caesarian Socialism?

[Q]

Are there disagreements on some of DNZ's theories, such as Third World Caesarian Socialism?

Despite my earlier attempts to "get his point", I've failed to fully grasp it and it has been a while that I've bothered trying. Mostly so because I have other priorities. As for the 'critique' from most people here on it: They understand it far less than I do, but respond anyway with the pretension that they know what they talking about.

I can say that TWCS doesn't define the "Revolutionary Marxists" as a social group here on Revleft.

Again, not the answer you're looking for I'm sure.

[l'Enfermé]

Oh look, someone answering a question! Thanks L'enferme.
No problem. I like answering questions, it makes me feel important. :grin:


So, what are the most significant disagreements you find, and could you give a brief summary?
There's a problem with that question because the way I define as "significant" differs from how some other comrades might define it. Some might consider disagreement on long-irrelevant historical questions to be "significant". But I think on all the fundamental questions, except for one(that is, the attitude to SYRIZAvsKKE, Die Linke, Chavez, and other contemporary far-left-but-not-marxist movenents), we are in accord.



Also, on the question of agreeing on socialism, I noticed that Q and DNZ agree to the notion that Socialism, the first phase of communism, is NOT classless.
If that's their opinion on the question, I disagree with them. I side with Lenin here. I think that there will no longer be classes during the first phase of communist society.

[Art Vandelay]

You could easily write a sentence or two to summarize the disagreements on each of these issues.

I'll do my best.


Again, I state that I emphasize MAJOR differences, and not minor.

Maybe I should make some more clear questions:

Do you guys disagree on the nature of the USSR?

Yes (edit: I originally stated no, but it is because I read the question wrong). We all have differing conceptions on what the nature of the USSR was and up until what point should it be supported. As Q already stated, he holds the view of Hillel Ticktin, that the USSR was something of a non-mode of production. I have no idea what DNZ's views on the subject are, however I know that Paul Cockshott tends to think that the USSR should be supported until its demise (if I am not mistaken) meanwhile I generally withdraw my support somewhere in the late 1920's (my views on the matter still aren't entirely solidified). Personally I uphold the theory of degenerated workers state (however not as it is commonly understood). I believe that a genuine dictatorship of the proletariat was established in the USSR and could not have quantitatively changed into something else over night. It is thus of my opinion that it degenerated. At what point in time the new state capitalist class was fully established and at what point in time the dictatorship of the proletariat fundamentally changed, I'm not sure yet.


Do you have disagreements on party organization?

I think this is a matter we are largely in agreement with.


Do you have disagreements on when Kautsky became a "renegade"?

While (based off his actions) I feel that many might debate the exact year Kautsky renegaded, but that most consider "The Road to Power" to be his last Marxist work.


Do you have disagreements about the nature of socialism (whether it is classless for instance)

I believe (once again am not sure) that both Paul Cockshott and Workers Control Over Production believe that USSR was Socialist during its entirety, or at least until Stalin's death, respectively. I myself don't believe socialism can exist on anything other then a global scale and that it will be both stateless and classless. This is a matter that I disagree with Q on, as I believe that he falls in line with the traditional Leninist definition.

Another significant disagreement we would all have would be on various historical figures, but I feel like I have already responded to this enough to dismiss the idea that we all toe some party line.

[Art Vandelay]

Are there disagreements on some of DNZ's theories, such as Third World Caesarian Socialism?

I completely reject it in favor of permanent revolution, although I must admit that I find alot of what DNZ writes to be quite dense and am sometimes unable to decipher his meaning.

[l'Enfermé]

Are there disagreements on some of DNZ's theories, such as Third World Caesarian Socialism?
I think it's an improvement over permanent revolution(sorry 9mm :grin:) but I don't agree with him completely re. TWCS.


I completely reject it in favor of permanent revolution, although I must admit that I find alot of what DNZ writes to be quite dense and am sometimes unable to decipher his meaning.
Trotbag. :angryface:

[Sasha]

Look at everybody playing nice and helpful, thanks guys!

[Die Neue Zeit]

My previous post outlines in utmost basics what we agree on. We do not have blueprints.

Comrade, isn't revolutionary strategy in between "utmost basics" and "blueprints"? It's basic "prefiguration" but not going into utopianism.

To the OP: Please re-word your question on party organization. You need to be specific, as all comrades distinguish between the institutions-based model of the pre-WWI SPD, shared by Austrian Social Democracy and the inter-war USPD, and everything else (in my view, really "nothing" else of substance and durable class organization).


If that's their opinion on the question, I disagree with them. I side with Lenin here. I think that there will no longer be classes during the first phase of communist society.

Wrong guy, comrade. That's late Marx, not Lenin or Kautsky, who held the opposite view.


I completely reject it in favor of permanent revolution, although I must admit that I find alot of what DNZ writes to be quite dense and am sometimes unable to decipher his meaning.

That's because I try to jam-pack as much meaning into what I say as I can. If you think I'm dense, then I really don't want to be verbose.