How do Marxists explain the absence of communism, the real movement that abolishes...

[Tim Cornelis]

How do Marxists explain the absence of communism, the real movement that abolishes the present state of things?

This question especially goes for those I consider to more closely approximate Marxist analysis, the orthodox Marxists and left communists, but applies to Marxist-Leninists as well, to a certain extent.

Socialism has never been so unpopular as it is today (perhaps today a little more than in the mid 1990s). In the 19th and early 20th century, socialism posed a real threat to the ruling class. Today, socialists cannot even dream of enjoying the same amount of support socialism had back then.

Marx stated that communism was a real movement, but today this movement is non-existent. The largest far-left tendency in the world, Marxism-Leninism, is but a fringe ideology. And most ML parties aren't even revolutionary, they are parliamentary groups that uses reforms within the system. If I remember correctly, every single Communist Party (of country X) in Latin America is part of a centre-left coalition and polls around 3% of the popular vote. In Europe, most Marxist-Leninist parties, e.g. in Russia and Czech Republic, are highly reformist and the non-reformist ML parties, e.g. KKE, enjoys merely 5% of the popular vote.

Marx theorised 'false consciousness' to explain why, say, merely 35% or 60% of the working class at times were class conscious instead of 100% of the proletariat, not why 1% of the working class is class conscious. Additionally, false consciousness is a rationalisation for an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

If I recall correctly, Bordiga even went as far as saying there is no working class unless a subset of this class organises itself in a political party in its own class interest, which would make Iceland a classless society, for instance.

So where is this communist movement? The only spontaneous class-based political movements I can think of are the 'landless workers' movements' -- which aren't exactly communist -- as well as the Abahlali baseMjondolo.

[The Jay]

Parliamentary democracy gives concessions to workers if they work hard enough, just never enough to threaten the existence of the bourgeoisie. When workers are both indoctrinated and offered a reprieve or two every so often I don't think that they recognize that the role of parliamentary democracy is a pressure valve for working class anger and a justification for the status quo. The onset of a more effective public relations (read propaganda) industry leads to people not thinking that a change of economic systems is just or possible.

[Rational Radical]

I agree i dream of joining an already established group that tries to engage in the class struggle by all means whether its through helping and supporting union and non union workers, feeding the hungry and debating/educating and organizing . As the global economy gets worse it's essential that these groups form,i'll continue my search.

[l'Enfermé]

You're taking that German Ideology quote completely out of context. It's just a jab at idealists.

Any way, Marx and Engels wrote it when there were no more than a few hundred communists in the entire world. Your average Trot sect has more members today.

[RedMaterialist]

Communism is a revolutionary movement and has appeared in the 20th century only as the result of national revolutions: Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, etc. IMO, the ruling class has granted social reforms to people in order to deflect a move to socialism. We have the social welfare state now, with its national pension, national healthcare, free education, etc, etc. That national system of bribery appears to be unraveling.

I agree that the current situation can be demoralizing; but I still think Marxists can be the leaders of the next workers' revolution. Besides, the only choice is barbarism or socialism.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

If I recall correctly, Bordiga even went as far as saying there is no working class unless a subset of this class organises itself in a political party in its own class interest, which would make Iceland a classless society, for instance.
As I understand him, Bordiga was making the same point as Marx when he said that the proletariat without political organisation is just raw material for exploitation.
As far as Iceland is concerned I´m not sure what you mean? The liberal bourgeoisie here like to claim I live in a "classless society" though:rolleyes:


So where is this communist movement? The only spontaneous class-based political movements I can think of are the 'landless workers' movements' -- which aren't exactly communist -- as well as the Abahlali baseMjondolo.
But these spontaneous movements do learn from experience as they clash with capital and the state. They learn both how to organise more effectively and perhaps draw communist conclusions.
In any case I´m not keen on the concept of "false consciousness" but it is precisely from it´s struggle for it´s own interests against capital that the working classes learn and "become conscious". I think the lack of active class struggle on behalf of the working classes in the west is the real reason there is no communist movement here today.

[human strike]

Communism =/= class consciousness

It is incorrect to assume that communism, the real movement that abolishes the present state of things, is always conscious of class. If one considers the question in these terms then one quickly finds that communism isn't so absent after all and is still a haunting specter.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

The movement of communism is inseparable from worker's struggles; you could say perhaps that communism is what workers are really fighting for when they struggle for their control over their lives, if they were free of ideological notions that they could never run society. This conflict takes place without the hammer and sickle brand the majority of the time, and often occurs outside of our information bubble. The militant Chinese workers striking every couple of weeks is the communist movement, not the CP running the country.

[Lokomotive293]

Any way, Marx and Engels wrote it when there were no more than a few hundred communists in the entire world. Your average Trot sect has more members today.

Something to think about. Basically, we've suffered a huge defeat about 20 or so years ago, and we've still not really gotten over it. And, that holds true for the whole left, not just Marxist-Leninists. It's not true, though, that there is no movement. Look at Greece, Spain or Portugal, look at Kurdistan, and look at Latin America. And, I would say that even here, in the centers of Imperialism, things are better than they were in the 1990s. It's just normal that there are ups and downs in revolutionary struggle, and sometimes you go one step forward, and then two steps back. Then you have to analyse your defeats and start again, this time better prepared, but its no reason to despair.

[Buttress]

I think it is easy to underestimate the role of cultural hegemony in normalising and securing capitalism. We all know about consumer culture and advertisements and we all believe we are somewhat above this kind of thing, but in reality we are all at the mercy to some degree of this extremely effective propaganda tool. It legitimises the brands that slap their logo on products and they (the company) become synonymous in the consumer's mind with the commodity's use value. Given that nigh everything has become commodified, capitalist organisation occupies the totality what most people think of production, distribution, etc.

If we are to move onto exploitation, hegemony follows. Everyone knows about some of the henious things corporations make their workers do. Workers know of the long, hard hours with few benefits that are pushed onto them by these companies. They know that in China or in India there are plenty of people whom they would consider to be "the exploited". But rather than turning their attention to the system itself that allows such exploitation to occur, they turn it to the exploiters individually. The individual company that forces its workers to pay a non-refundable lump sum just to get the (grossly underpaid) job. Or the individual CEO that merely shrugs his shoulders at factory closures. They blame certain parts of capitalist society for exploitation, not the sum of. And this tendancy typically extends to government and government policy as well.

So something clearly is not "clicking" with the working class. Do they turn a blind eye to capitalism as a whole? If so, is it because of the complexity and confusion that can occur when you look at such superstructure? I think it has more to do with the normalisation of capitalism as a productive imperitive. It is not easy to envision a feasible replacement of capitalism's productive prowess or the way in which it deals with overpopulation (exacerbated by capitalism, of course). I think most people presume that capitalism can be massaged into a workable and even ethical mode of production in most places, given the "right" amount of state intervention, which would depend on an individual's politics. Perhaps we (Marxists, leftists in general) need to do more to prove or convince others that this is unacceptable and unsustainable.

[Strannik]

I have always understood that this quote means - communism is not an abstract "state" of social order, or a "program". It is actual movement of oppressed to improve their lives - that's how it differs from feudalism and capitalism. It has no idea how things should be, from now to forever, it tries to give people the possibility to establish this each day anew. Therefore you can't really say that it's "absent" - no matter what form it takes, this concrete form is more "communism" than most ingenious political theory an intellectual could conceive because it's where communism, collaborative power of wealth-producing masses, is located at this point of development.

I can't agree, that socialism is currently unpopular among people - at least where I live. What is unpopular is the social order in USSR and even more the caricature of it that was created later by bourgeois apologists. But it seems to me that this caricature has more to do with capitalism itself. When people say they hate socialism they say that they hate a social order where their labour goes to enrich a tiny minority who have no rational entitlement to it and who allocate it according to their personal whims using their complete monopoly of violence. But that's not really what socialism originally was about, is it? Socialism is not centralized command economy that grants people some cozy mass-produced "rights", no matter how many believe that it is. I understand socialism to be more a dynamic collaborative network economy that is constantly re-allocating capital's usership rights to maximize social benefits. And when I explain it like this to workers (not petty-bourgeois intellectuals!) who express libertarian or even fashist beliefs I usually find out that they aren't really opposed to this. They just don't believe that this is possible. But that's another problem.

[subcp]

Communism is not a transitional society- it is the movement of the working-class, on an international level, abolishing capital, states, value and all classes (including themselves). Subjective beliefs about communism are irrelevant: because communism is a material necessity, not a lifestyle choice.

From a couple communisation publications regarding your question:


The period from the Second World War to the beginning of the ’70s was actually a very specific period for worldwide capitalism. It is necessary to understand clearly the characteristics of this period, to understand why it has disappeared, and why – contrary to the hopes of unions and liberals – it will never return.http://riff-raff.se/texts/en/sic1-what-is-communisation

That last sentence is important: if you recognize there has been a severe decline in the classical worker's movement since the '70s (i.e. implosion of the official Communist Party's, decline in union membership and density and power, etc.), it means reconceiving how we view organization and revolution itself in these times. If the working-class can't get out of unions and left groups fast enough, we should understand why this is (as you say, communism being so 'unpopular' being a part of this) and what it means for the communist potential of the proletariat. A lot of people grit their teeth and ignore it, and join sects and 'would be' mass parties or revolutionary unions in embryo thinking either nothings changed or things will turn back to a resurgence in the worker's movement.


The theory of the abolition of capital as the theory of the production of communism – communisation. How will the revolution be produced as communisation? In the progress of its revindicative struggles it will attack specifically the means of production as such, that is their role as means of production (as for example workers in Bangladesh are doing as they demand their wages; we can think the generalisation of such a condition). This attack, if revolution continues as a chain reaction, as a revolution within revolution, will lead to their abolition as value, it will de-capitalise them. The attack on banks in which proletarians have their money is what will necessarily open up the issue of how life without money can continue, and it will not be a decision to abolish money. The attack on police stations will open up the question of arming the revolution to face the consequences of its actions. The attack on shops and the looting of commodities will pose the issue of non-exchange and non-distribution at a nascent level, for a short but critical period. The continuation of the struggle in public space, the inability to go home, will open up the issue of gender. The occupation of the means of production and the destruction of some of them will raise the issue of how to reproduce life as a whole. If communising insurgents sway with them a large section of society, through a conflictual process of course, into the implementation of communising measures, only then will the revolution be able to move on. What is most important: only if all of these things happen together and not separately, only if they occur in parallel on several fronts and not centrally, will the revolution as communisation take place.


The left communist answer to your question would probably differ based on which tradition of the communist left the person is a sympathizer of, or which organization they belong to/sympathize with.

[human strike]

edit: The post I made was pretty stupid, so I've removed it.... Mods feel free to delete.

[Let's Get Free]

Capitalism is a system that involves billions of people, but those who actively struggle against it are a very small number of people. Typically, those who are in the struggle say it is a problem of consciousness: if people understood how they were exploited they would join with us.

[Rafiq]

Capitalism today, as in, the capitalism as it exists after the 1990's was built upon the total destruction of proletarian consciousness. In the same way, the Communists will destroy it with the revival of (revolutionary) proletarian consciousness.

[Rafiq]

How do Marxists explain the absence of communism, the real movement that abolishes the present state of things?

This question especially goes for those I consider to more closely approximate Marxist analysis, the orthodox Marxists and left communists, but applies to Marxist-Leninists as well, to a certain extent.

Socialism has never been so unpopular as it is today (perhaps today a little more than in the mid 1990s). In the 19th and early 20th century, socialism posed a real threat to the ruling class. Today, socialists cannot even dream of enjoying the same amount of support socialism had back then.

Marx stated that communism was a real movement, but today this movement is non-existent. The largest far-left tendency in the world, Marxism-Leninism, is but a fringe ideology. And most ML parties aren't even revolutionary, they are parliamentary groups that uses reforms within the system. If I remember correctly, every single Communist Party (of country X) in Latin America is part of a centre-left coalition and polls around 3% of the popular vote. In Europe, most Marxist-Leninist parties, e.g. in Russia and Czech Republic, are highly reformist and the non-reformist ML parties, e.g. KKE, enjoys merely 5% of the popular vote.

Then, as much, it is fair to say that today Communism does not exist. The real movement which exists to abolish the present state of things died as it was unable to adjust to the creatively destructive changes brought about from the capitalist mode of production. Marxists are not "economic determinists" in the vulgar sense, class struggle does exist and although it is not a product of individual or even conscious intention it is a process, a very real process with no "destiny", it is very possible for the proletariat to lose in battle to the bourgeoisie and so on, it is not simply a neutral process which runs in the background of our lives.


Marx theorised 'false consciousness' to explain why, say, merely 35% or 60% of the working class at times were class conscious instead of 100% of the proletariat, not why 1% of the working class is class conscious. Additionally, false consciousness is a rationalisation for an unfalsifiable hypothesis.


What an astronomically baseless claim! Your declaration is as grand as the ass of an obese grizzly bear, but in the very same sense just as vulgar and bizarre. If one, nay, if no proletarians are of class consciousness this does not revoke any substance out of Marx's understanding of ideology and it's relation (or should I say dependency) to class interest, the magnitudes of how many proletarians are capable of being of false consciousness is not constrained by the extensiveness of class struggle during Marx's time. It can apply. If anything, this demonstrates that the cultural hegemony, the class power of the bourgeoisie is stronger today than it ever was. But like I said, class struggle is not "pre-destined", blows to the proletariat's class power can very well be attributed to strategic blunders and organizational failures.


So where is this communist movement? The only spontaneous class-based political movements I can think of are the 'landless workers' movements' -- which aren't exactly communist -- as well as the Abahlali baseMjondolo.


There may not yet exist one, but you seem to be under the impression that this is a permanent condition of capitalism. Look around, friend, look around and tell me if you can not see the recovery progressing, the seeds of class struggle being planted. Things are changing today faster than ever, the superstructural and social (with the crises) hegemony of the bourgeoisie is weakening every day.



Any way, Marx and Engels wrote it when there were no more than a few hundred communists in the entire world. Your average Trot sect has more members today.

Surely it is acknowledged that class struggle and the magnitude of class consciousness of the proletariat was much greater than then it is today, no?

[Kevinicus]

The bourgeois have cleverly exploited the failure of Leninist states. Their propaganda has made capitalism more than just an economic system, it has become a religion. In the US people have been conditioned to believe that no form of socialism can ever work. The average person associates communism with the Soviet gulag and the North Korean dictatorship (which is now a dynasty). Marxism is obviously not taught in high school, and it is only briefly discussed in a few college classes like sociology and philosophy.
There is some light at the end of the tunnel. As capitalism continues to crumble more people will look to alternatives. Most people will have to see for themselves that capitalism is dysfunctional and not sustainable. Many will have to experience hardships firsthand before their faith in capitalism is broken. It will be up to us to convince people that we should adopt some form of libertarian socialism because you can bet that the fascists will also attempt to influence the masses.

[Die Neue Zeit]

How do Marxists explain the absence of communism, the real movement that abolishes the present state of things?

First off, while considering L'Enferme's comradely FYI above, I have always been reserved about that Marx quote. To me, it's so close to Bernstein's "the movement is everything, the end goal nothing."


This question especially goes for those I consider to more closely approximate Marxist analysis, the orthodox Marxists and left communists, but applies to Marxist-Leninists as well, to a certain extent.

Socialism has never been so unpopular as it is today (perhaps today a little more than in the mid 1990s). In the 19th and early 20th century, socialism posed a real threat to the ruling class. Today, socialists cannot even dream of enjoying the same amount of support socialism had back then.

Gaining political support isn't cheap. Agitational slogans and electoral campaigning won't do. Educational seminars won't cut it either. Politically tangible incentives need to be on offer (no, experiments in utopianism aren't political). That's where politicized solidarity networks, Alternative Culture, and all those new twists on what left-coms call "voluntarism" all come in.

It's a "responsible" strategic alternative to going politically nowhere, certainly the case by joining coalition governments and doing all sorts of class-collaborationist crap, as you mention later in your post. I'm not surprised at the pro-"communization" posts made above, too.


Marx stated that communism was a real movement, but today this movement is non-existent. The largest far-left tendency in the world, Marxism-Leninism, is but a fringe ideology.

Has M-L ever been a real movement? Again, consider the institutional framework I posed above.


Marx theorised 'false consciousness' to explain why, say, merely 35% or 60% of the working class at times were class conscious instead of 100% of the proletariat, not why 1% of the working class is class conscious. Additionally, false consciousness is a rationalisation for an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

I have a better, less condescending, more contemporary explanation: Behavioural Political Economy and Economy-Wide Indicative Planning (http://www.revleft.com/vb/behavioural-political-economy-t161630/index.html)


If I recall correctly, Bordiga even went as far as saying there is no working class unless a subset of this class organises itself in a political party in its own class interest, which would make Iceland a classless society, for instance.

Bordiga wasn't new. Marx's work in the IWMA declared that the class could not "act as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party." That's the bottom line. Real parties are real movements and vice versa.

[All the more reason to be suspicious of Bernstein's quote, since the movement was real.]

The working class at present has a self-institutional deficit, not just a self-organizing problem.


So where is this communist movement? The only spontaneous class-based political movements I can think of are the 'landless workers' movements' -- which aren't exactly communist -- as well as the Abahlali baseMjondolo.

Without a revolutionary program and strategy, there can be no revolutionary movement.


Then, as much, it is fair to say that today Communism does not exist. The real movement which exists to abolish the present state of things died as it was unable to adjust to the creatively destructive changes brought about from the capitalist mode of production. Marxists are not "economic determinists" in the vulgar sense, class struggle does exist and although it is not a product of individual or even conscious intention it is a process, a very real process with no "destiny", it is very possible for the proletariat to lose in battle to the bourgeoisie and so on, it is not simply a neutral process which runs in the background of our lives.

Note, comrade, that here you've distinguished between "Communism" and class struggle. One is a process. The other isn't, and is much closer to program. The merger formula solves the difference between the program and the process.

It's too bad Marx used the word "Communism" instead of something more related to class-related emancipation, which can be both process and program. :(

[Q]

Something to think about. Basically, we've suffered a huge defeat about 20 or so years ago, and we've still not really gotten over it. And, that holds true for the whole left, not just Marxist-Leninists. It's not true, though, that there is no movement. Look at Greece, Spain or Portugal, look at Kurdistan, and look at Latin America. And, I would say that even here, in the centers of Imperialism, things are better than they were in the 1990s. It's just normal that there are ups and downs in revolutionary struggle, and sometimes you go one step forward, and then two steps back. Then you have to analyse your defeats and start again, this time better prepared, but its no reason to despair.

This is a common view and, I think, a misconception of history.

The communist movement, from a pan-historic perspective, knew quite a few phases:
- 1830's-1850: The Chartist Movement: A working class movement in England that had a strong influence on the thinking of Marx and Engels.
- 1850-1875: A period of action and reaction in the class struggle. The smash down of the 1848 uprising, the Paris Commune and it aftermath, etc. Working class struggle remains localised.
- 1875-1921: The Marxists achieve the goal of the "merger formula", first at Gotha, later elsewhere too. This builds a mass movement and for the first time we see the working class being formed as a class-collective through a party-movement. For the first time Marxism is developed as a consistent method ("Orthodox Marxism"). Then, in 1914-1919 we see a split which leads to the creation of Comintern and which absorbs most of the left of the Second International. The "Marxist Center" around Kautsky meanwhile collapses and only the Bolsheviks remain as the Orthodox Marxist wing of a Comintern largely influenced by "infantiles" on its left.
- 1921-1945: A fierce battle rages in Comintern as it degenerates. The counterrevolutionary wing eventually wins and Trotsky's stillborn Fourth International attracts no more than a few thousand members. Also, the Spanish civil war leads to disaster, destroying a large alternative communist movement. Most of the communist oppositionists toward Stalin are executed during WW2, either by the nazi's or by Stalinists.

From then on the workers movement in many countries has been dominated by Stalinism, which was a perversion of communism. It quickly degenerated into nationalist politics and became the left wing of social democracy. It was this perversion that collapsed in the 1980's and early 1990's in most countries in Europe and elsewhere. It is this collapse that had a detriment effect on the organised workers movement.

But the communist movement has been in crisis since the 1930's, if not earlier. It is the communist movement around Orthodox Marxism that had built the workers movement into a mass force. This was then inherited and reshaped to fit the interests of Stalinism and its allies in the trade union bureaucracy in the West.

With the collapse of Stalinism, our historic task has actually become not to reshape the conditions of pre-1991, but to recreate "Gotha": Merge the workers movement with communism.

So yes, we're screwed and to become unscrewed it will take probably a few more decades of work to rebuild that party-movement we need.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrade, I'm not that pessimistic. A revolutionary period is a long way's away, but class independence is something that can be achieved in several years or a few decades depending on the stubbornness of leftists bumping their heads against the wall by not abandoning time-and-again failed strategies, and depending on sympathetic workers giving an audience to revolutionary strategy.

[Q]

Comrade, I'm not that pessimistic. A revolutionary period is a long way's away, but class independence is something that can be achieved in several years or a few decades depending on the stubbornness of leftists bumping their heads against the wall by not abandoning time-and-again failed strategies, and depending on sympathetic workers giving an audience to revolutionary strategy.

As I put it in my blog here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=11278):


So, that leaves us to where we are now: To start the battle for democracy, we need to start today and within the already constituted left. Because as much as the left is currently part of the problem in our fight to communism, its many committed militants are also the solution. Thus, we need to rebel against the status quo and revolutionise the revolutionary left!

Communists of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your sects.

But there are no silver bullets here and we'll probably see lots of contradictions along the way. The current crisis in the SWP is one example of this process.

[RedMaterialist]

How do Marxists explain the absence of communism, the real movement that abolishes the present state of things?



Starting with Marx's quote from The German Ideology:

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."

I think your question takes as a premise that because world wide communism does not yet exist that, therefore, communism is a failed ideology. Marx specifically says that communism is not a state of affairs to be established. but rather a "real movement." Communism, for Marx, does not just come into existence, but develops over time and space, it is a movement. It has an origin, in the production of commodities for sale and profit through the use of social labor. The movement is not perfect, it changes course, reverses course, expands, contracts, depending on the social conditions of the society in which it is developing.

Degraded Russian communism was probably, IMO, at its height when Soviet troops entered Berlin in 1945. Since then communism has shrunk, no question. But it's only a matter of time before capitalism enters another crisis from which it won't be able to recover. It may not have recovered from the 2008 crisis. Will the people of Europe and the U.S. continue to live in the enforced poverty of austerity? I don't think so.

[Rafiq]

First off, while considering L'Enferme's comradely FYI above, I have always been reserved about that Marx quote. To me, it's so close to Bernstein's "the movement is everything, the end goal nothing."

The quote is the embodiment of Marx's understanding of Communism and it's relation to (dialectical) materialism. In essence, the end goal is nothing in the face of the movement which abolishes the present state of things, because without the struggle for emancipation, the fulfillment of the interests of the proletarian class, there is nothing, a society beyond capitalism is impossible. Again, Communism is not a future society of which we plan and organize, it is the embodiment of the interests of the proletarian class. Marx said this as an attack on utopians, the embarrassments of the movement. The goal of the Communists is not to "achieve a new state of affairs" but to actively fulfill the class interests of the proletariat as history is moved not by conscious will but through class struggle.



Note, comrade, that here you've distinguished between "Communism" and class struggle. One is a process. The other isn't, and is much closer to program. The merger formula solves the difference between the program and the process.

It's too bad Marx used the word "Communism" instead of something more related to class-related emancipation, which can be both process and program. :(


There is no Communism without that which necessitates it, it's material basis, the proletarian class and class struggle. The bourgeois-romantics of the 18th and 19th century did not fight for capitalism, they fought, with Liberalism at helm, for "Liberty" and so on. But in the end this conscious ideological rhetoric veiled a real existing class interest which perhaps even they were not aware were fighting for. To the proletariat, Communism is not an exception with regards to how "ideology" (If I am still calling it that) and class interest relate. No one can be certain of a new society that will succeed the capitalist mode of production and to adopt one as a program would be a futile effort, it entails that "communism" can be partially 'achieved' or built within the framework of capitalist social relations (within the field of political struggle). Political struggle is unquestionably necessary for the building of class power for the proletariat, but it cannot achieve a society beyond capitalism (something closer to Bernstein's supposions), what it can do is serve as a catalyst for proletarian revolution and on an extremely small scale build the basis for a proletarian dictatorship.

[Drosophila]

Comrade, I'm not that pessimistic. A revolutionary period is a long way's away, but class independence is something that can be achieved in several years or a few decades depending on the stubbornness of leftists bumping their heads against the wall by not abandoning time-and-again failed strategies, and depending on sympathetic workers giving an audience to revolutionary strategy.

Nah, actually the whole concept of "revolutionary strategy" is terribly flawed. There are no examples of "time-and-again" strategies that are successful, since no strategy has ever done anything beyond being a piece of paper (or in your case, blog posts on the internet). Workers will move and revolutions will happen without strategies directing them, and it is not all the fault of "flawed revolutionary strategy" if a revolution does not succeed.

It's actually kind of funny that this is one of the few Marx quotes that you oppose. The quote is basically a reflection of Marxian analysis and historical materialism, and the fact that you are so critical of it makes me wonder whether you should even be calling yourself a "Marxist."

[Die Neue Zeit]

The bourgeois-romantics of the 18th and 19th century did not fight for capitalism, they fought, with Liberalism at helm, for "Liberty" and so on. But in the end this conscious ideological rhetoric veiled a real existing class interest which perhaps even they were not aware were fighting for. To the proletariat, Communism is not an exception with regards to how "ideology" (If I am still calling it that) and class interest relate. No one can be certain of a new society that will succeed the capitalist mode of production and to adopt one as a program would be a futile effort, it entails that "communism" can be partially 'achieved' or built within the framework of capitalist social relations (within the field of political struggle). Political struggle is unquestionably necessary for the building of class power for the proletariat, but it cannot achieve a society beyond capitalism (something closer to Bernstein's supposions), what it can do is serve as a catalyst for proletarian revolution and on an extremely small scale build the basis for a proletarian dictatorship.

Comrade, I'll definitely have to disagree on the last part. For me, it is the expansion of politics, political struggle, political activism, etc. that propels going beyond capitalism and ultimately generalized commodity production itself. On a large small it builds the basis for the DOTP, and on a larger scale the basis of what's beyond.

As for Bernstein, he narrowed his views on politics anyway.


Nah, actually the whole concept of "revolutionary strategy" is terribly flawed. There are no examples of "time-and-again" strategies that are successful, since no strategy has ever done anything beyond being a piece of paper (or in your case, blog posts on the internet). Workers will move and revolutions will happen without strategies directing them, and it is not all the fault of "flawed revolutionary strategy" if a revolution does not succeed.

It's actually kind of funny that this is one of the few Marx quotes that you oppose. The quote is basically a reflection of Marxian analysis and historical materialism, and the fact that you are so critical of it makes me wonder whether you should even be calling yourself a "Marxist."

There's materialism that's dynamic, and there's "materialism" that's vulgar. That line of spontaneous action is based on the latter, not unlike, say, "economic determinism." Key parts of the stage are set: Who will pull the strings?

[Drosophila]

Was it really necessary to negrep me and then make a 2 sentence response? :rolleyes:


There's materialism that's dynamic, and there's "materialism" that's vulgar. That line of spontaneous action is based on the latter, not unlike, say, "economic determinism." Key parts of the stage are set: Who will pull the strings?

There is nothing "vulgar" about the notion that revolutions happen organically and without the assistance of outside groups. Almost every tendency acknowledges this to a certain extent, but you guys seem to think that some "mass party" can form and instigate revolution through voluntary actions. "Revolutionary strategy" as you promote it is really just a way of making up idealistic excuses for why past revolutions have failed, and how that if we all just follow a certain program things will go correctly. There's nothing more non-materialist than that viewpoint. The question of "who will pull the strings" falls into that the line of thought that the proletariat is just a lump of uneducated minds that we need to win over. It's an elitist viewpoint at best, and I could go further to argue that it is alien from Marxism and historical materialism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm not saying anything new on the matter, nor have I done so. I have made my message in the most down-to-earth words possible.


There is nothing "vulgar" about the notion that revolutions happen organically and without the assistance of outside groups. Almost every tendency acknowledges this to a certain extent, but you guys seem to think that some "mass party" can form and instigate revolution through voluntary actions.

We've debated this before, but define "organically." There are left-com and other spontaneous definitions of this, various shades of "voluntarist" organizational definitions of this, and institutions-based definitions of this. Mass institutions of the class aren't "outside groups."

I'll waste no more words on the matter and on your strawman confusing "voluntarist" class independence, revolutionary periods, and political revolution.