Marxism [Archive]

Tim Cornelis

15th February 2015, 11:55

http://www.revleft.com/vb/basic-communist-marxist-t170049/index.html?t=170049
http://www.revleft.com/vb/fundamentals-various-theoriesi-t188663/index.html?t=188663

What are the fundamentals of the following terms, which anyone calling themselves by those terms will have to accept, and which all their fellows will agree on?

Of course anyone can call themselves anything they like, but we give words meanings to help us distinguish things, and so a word, unless it's a synonym, must mean something that differentiates it from everything else.

I've read the Wikipedia article for each of these, but I'm probably more confused than before. I'm hoping for very brief summaries of the absolute fundamentals. I understand that summaries are incomplete and insufficient for a full understanding. Thanks in advance.

Marxism

Marxist historiography is based on the idea that the material conditions shape the base (mode of production) and consequently the superstructure (politics, legal structure). Material conditions are the technological level in terms of production —the productive forces. As the productive forces increase, the base and thus the superstructure are reshapen.
A new mode of production is brought about when the old relations of production no longer fit the old mode of production due to increases in the productive forces, which leads to a rupture: a social revolution (again, which reshapes the base and superstructure of society). For instance, industrialisation from the 16th century onward and consolidated with the Industrial Revolution brought into existence a dispossessed working class owning nothing but their labour-power and a bourgeoisie owning means of production. This created the capitalist mode of production and brought the bourgeoisie into conflict with the aristocracy which culminated in bourgeois revolutions around the developed world: Iberian liberal revolutions, French revolution, American revolutionary war, revolutions of 1848.

Historical materialism summarised by Engels:

I. Mediaeval Society — Individual production on a small scale. Means of production adapted for individual use; hence primitive, ungainly, petty, dwarfed in action. Production for immediate consumption, either of the producer himself or his feudal lord. Only where an excess of production over this consumption occurs is such excess offered for sale, enters into exchange. Production of commodities, therefore, only in its infancy. But already it contains within itself, in embryo, anarchy in the production of society at large.

II. Capitalist Revolution — transformation of industry, at first be means of simple cooperation and manufacture. Concentration of the means of production, hitherto scattered, into great workshops. As a consequence, their transformation from individual to social means of production — a transformation which does not, on the whole, affect the form of exchange. The old forms of appropriation remain in force. The capitalist appears. In his capacity as owner of the means of production, he also appropriates the products and turns them into commodities. Production has become a social act. Exchange and appropriation continue to be individual acts, the acts of individuals. The social product is appropriated by the individual capitalist. Fundamental contradiction, whence arise all the contradictions in which our present-day society moves, and which modern industry brings to light.

A. Severance of the producer from the means of production. Condemnation of the worker to wage-labor for life. Antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

B. Growing predominance and increasing effectiveness of the laws governing the production of commodities. Unbridled competition. Contradiction between socialized organization in the individual factory and social anarchy in the production as a whole.

C. On the one hand, perfecting of machinery, made by competition compulsory for each individual manufacturer, and complemented by a constantly growing displacement of laborers. Industrial reserve-army. On the other hand, unlimited extension of production, also compulsory under competition, for every manufacturer. On both sides, unheard-of development of productive forces, excess of supply over demand, over-production and products — excess there, of laborers, without employment and without means of existence. But these two levers of production and of social well-being are unable to work together, because the capitalist form of production prevents the productive forces from working and the products from circulating, unless they are first turned into capital — which their very superabundance prevents. The contradiction has grown into an absurdity. The mode of production rises in rebellion against the form of exchange.

D. Partial recognition of the social character of the productive forces forced upon the capitalists themselves. Taking over of the great institutions for production and communication, first by joint-stock companies, later in by trusts, then by the State. The bourgeoisie demonstrated to be a superfluous class. All its social functions are now performed by salaried employees.

III. Proletarian Revolution — Solution of the contradictions. The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free.

Marxist economics sought to define capitalism in terms of materialism and prove that advances and changes in the material conditions--increase of the productive forces--under capitalism would lead to a new mode of production: socialism. According to Marxist economics, increases in the productive forces in capitalism ensured there was a tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Capitalists have a short-term interest in investing in machinery, but in the long run this leads to a fall in profits (though there are counter-acting tendencies such as monopolization of markets, state intervention, concentration of capital, increasing rate of exploitation by extending work day or slashing wages). This is because only labour (and nature) creates value, according to the labour theory of value or law of value that is, and fixed capital does not. Because of this, there are internal contradictions within capitalism that makes it inherently unstable, it is argued.
Capitalist development also concentrates capital over time. We've seen this: from small-scale businesses and local factories to worldwide conglomerations and joint-ventures. This socialises production as it creates longer production chains which interconnects the working class, and class conflict leads to the proletariat assuming control over the socialised economy through a social revolution.

The Marxist revolutionary strategy involves the dictatorship of the proletariat. The state came into existence when social classes did (in their turn, social classes came into existence due to an increase in the productive forces: the neolithic revolution). The state became a necessity to protect the privilege of the ruling class--the state serves as a body of the ruling class as its protector. The state is a manifestation of class antagonisms, as long as class antagonisms exist there is a need for a violent centralised body to keep the exploited class at bay, Marx and Engels reasoned. Shortly after the workers come to power there will still be class antagonisms because the bourgeoisie wants to initiate a counter-revolution, a state is thus necessary to crush the reaction to the revolution. This workers' state will need to be based on workers' power but be unitary and centralised at the same time. It's nevertheless a semi-state because it contains within the structures of a stateless society based on the free association of equal producers and consumers. As class antagonisms die out, the need to suppress the bourgeoisie (who no longer exist) disappears and thus the state dies out, and what's left is the associations.

Classical Marxism

Exclusively the writings of Marx and Engels.

Orthodox Marxism

Based around the Second International and figurehead Kautksy. Modern reincarnation the CPGB in the UK and…. the newly started Communist Platform in the Netherlands. Advocates a democratic republic achieved through the building of a mass party-movement, similar to the SPD and Bolsheviks, which is supposed to encompass the majority of the workers and unite them under a communist programme for that democratic republic (the dictatorship of the proletariat). It's also associated with economic determinism, but I don't see that in the CP and CPGB (although I may be simply unaware of that). Often considered the seed that lead to the degeneration of social-democracy.

Leninism

Emphasizes the vanguard party leading the working class, and the theory of imperialism.

Marxism–Leninism
Stalinism

My view: Ideological whitewashing as a consequence of the degenerated Russian revolution and its failure. Sought to rationalise the continued existence of wage-labour and commodity production and the law of value and finance and economic growth, etc., as somehow socialist. Stalinism and Marxism-Leninism are considered synonymous, but most tendencies deny continuity between Lenin and Stalinism, while Stalinists do not.

Trotskyism

Provided a Leninist alternative to explain the failure of the Russian revolution. Involves theories about degenerated and deformed workers' states and permanent revolution.

Maoism

My view: Bourgeois-romanticist ideology based on the degenerated ideas of Stalinism applied to Chinese society, embedded in idealism and a bourgeois paradigm, including but not limited to, new democracy (bloc of four classes, class collaboration) and nationalism.