Good [time of day in reader's location]

[Cumulus]

Hello, all. My name is Cumulus (not really) and I felt like posting something here. How is everyone doing? :)

[Q]

Welcome :)

If you have political questions, you can ask them in the Learning forum. That's why it's there after all!

If you have questions about your account, don't hesitate to send me a PM or ask here.

What are your political ideas, if anything in particular?

[Cumulus]

Whenever I try to apply a label, I see something that contradicts my beliefs, so let's just go with "Cumulism". ;)

I believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat that comes to power - if not democratically, which might be impossible - through peaceful revolution supported and performed by the majority of the proletariat. For this new government to truly represent the will of the people, I believe freedom of speech to be essential, and that it should be granted even to those who speak for the bourgeoisie. Counter-revolutionary ideas should be drowned out by revolutionary ideas, not censored. The eventual withering away of the state should not be realised as the compete abolition of government, but rather as a transition to direct democracy, with fewer and fewer leaders being necessary.

So, that's it. What camp might this fall into?

[Q]

Whenever I try to apply a label, I see something that contradicts my beliefs, so let's just go with "Cumulism". ;)

I believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat that comes to power - if not democratically, which might be impossible - through peaceful revolution supported and performed by the majority of the proletariat. For this new government to truly represent the will of the people, I believe freedom of speech to be essential, and that it should be granted even to those who speak for the bourgeoisie. Counter-revolutionary ideas should be drowned out by revolutionary ideas, not censored. The eventual withering away of the state should not be realised as the compete abolition of government, but rather as a transition to direct democracy, with fewer and fewer leaders being necessary.

So, that's it. What camp might this fall into?
Heh. A first estimate would be 'orthodox' Marxism, but this can change of course ;) You could read more about it right here (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/about-the-cpgb/faq) or else right here (http://marxistcenter.net/2014/07/06/the-platform-of-the-communistisch-platform/). Both links are to groups that consider themselves 'orthodox' Marxist.

[Cumulus]

I see. I've found myself agreeing with the SPGB before. So, what are the main tenets of orthodox Marxism as opposed to other types?

[Q]

I see. I've found myself agreeing with the SPGB before. So, what are the main tenets of orthodox Marxism as opposed to other types?
I ought to make a blogpost out of this. Maybe this will be it :p

There are a few main tenets, although it isn't a very monolithic current in itself. The latter precisely because of the strong emphasis on democratic debate and, as such, the right to disagree. Having said that, I would say that strategically there are a few main focal points:
- In contrast to, for example, Trotskyists, there is no strong focus on the general strike. I wrote a critique against general strikists here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6618). That is the negative. The positive side of this point is that it focuses instead on building 'party-movements', which are mass politicised movements consisting of much more than a 'party': cooperatives, trades unions, communal centers, sports collectives, educational collectives, etc. It strives to organise the working class as a class-collective that is explicitly aware of its political tasks.
- In contrast to the rightwing of the working class, 'orthodox' Marxists oppose taking power prematurely. 'Prematurely' here meaning that we oppose taking power via coalitions or otherwise not being able to carry out our minimum programme, the very minimum we are willing to take power on: Establishing working class political hegemony. In Europe (where I reside), this would mean taking power on a continental level because otherwise, as we now see in Greece, you will be isolated by the powers that be.
- 'Orthodox' Marxism focuses on programmatical unity. The aformentioned minimum programme is one part. Then there is a 'maximum' programme which essentially describes the steps that the working class needs to take to grow towards a communist society after taking power. You don't need to agree with every single point in this programme, you just need to accept it. This means that you can and should develop your differences with specific parts of the programme in order so that the movement can develop. The minimum basis on which unity can and should occur is: agreement on organising democratically and fighting for radical democracy as a way to achieve the dictatorship of the proletariat; internationalism and fighting against all poison of nationalism in the workers movement; keeping an independent political position of ou class. This is in contrast to, for example, Trotskyists which focus their unity much more on agreement of every political stance their group defends. Public disagreement in this situation is impossible and will inevitably lead to a split.
- Another major disagreement is how to grow this movement. Trotskyists (I know I now pick on them a lot, but being an ex-Trotskyist myself, I'm most familiar with their strategy) have a tactic they call 'entryism' which basically means that you join a party, recruit as many people to your group as possible, and you get out. This is essentially a parasitical raiding party and extremely counterproductive. 'Orthodox' Marxists have a different approach. They do tend to organise separately, more as a measure against bureaucratic expulsions than anything else, but they aim to transform the movement by fighting to make the communist programme the programme of the movement. Instead of a raiding party, it tends to be much more constructive.

So, in a nutshell I think those are the main tenets of 'orthodox' Marxism. If you like, here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=7728) is a 'startup' reading list to get to know more.

[Cumulus]

What about the withering away of the state? Do any orthodox Marxists share the conviction that the state shouldn't be abolished, but replaced with direct democracy?

[Q]

What about the withering away of the state? Do any orthodox Marxists share the conviction that the state shouldn't be abolished, but replaced with direct democracy?
To give a short reply to that:

Yes, we want to abolish the capitalist state apparatus. But given that states are in reality just ways for a ruling class to stay in power and given that we won't be able to overcome class society overnight, we can't but replace the capitalist state with another one. This workers 'state' however is not really comparable to a capitalist one.

Whereas capitalist states are designed to benefit minorities (the capitalist class is but a tiny minority of society) and are as such highly stratified and bureaucratic, workers 'states' aim to establish working class rule. In developed capitalist societies, where the working class is the vast majority of society, this cannot be anything else than a radical democracy. So yes, other classes get a say in post-capitalist society. Socialism will be another form of class struggle as for example Mike Macnair explained over here (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/823/socialism-is-a-form-of-class-struggle/).

Only when we can overcome class society, can we overcome the need for a state, can all tasks of the workers 'state' collapse into society running itself, can it 'wither away'.

Just as an aside, the guy who coined the 'withering away' of the state, Lenin, was himself an 'orthodox' Marxist ;) It's just that many people completely misunderstand what Lenin's and the Bolsheviks strategy was, how it was based on what the Marxist movement was doing in Germany, be it under Russian conditions and started this myth about 'Leninism'. But that is maybe for another time.

[Cumulus]

I like this. Thanks.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Just as an aside, the guy who coined the 'withering away' of the state, Lenin, was himself an 'orthodox' Marxist ;) It's just that many people completely misunderstand what Lenin's and the Bolsheviks strategy was, how it was based on what the Marxist movement was doing in Germany, be it under Russian conditions and started this myth about 'Leninism'. But that is maybe for another time.

"The guy who coined the 'withering away' of the state, Lenin" was in fact Engels. And given that you have no problem constantly using intro threads to push the CPGB/YY line, Leninism signifies precisely the break of the new Bolshevik group in 1917 with the social-democracy of the Second International, whose branches apart from that in Germany you completely ignore due to an obsession with bike clubs and whatnot, a break expressed in concepts such as the labour aristocracy as the social root of reformism etc.

And of course no one except the CPGB and YY call the CPGB line "orthodox Marxism".

[Cumulus]

"The guy who coined the 'withering away' of the state, Lenin" was in fact Engels. And given that you have no problem constantly using intro threads to push the CPGB/YY line, Leninism signifies precisely the break of the new Bolshevik group in 1917 with the social-democracy of the Second International, whose branches apart from that in Germany you completely ignore due to an obsession with bike clubs and whatnot, a break expressed in concepts such as the labour aristocracy as the social root of reformism etc.

And of course no one except the CPGB and YY call the CPGB line "orthodox Marxism".

It's good to hear some different ideas. Could you give me a summary of orthodox Trotskyism and how it differs?

[Q]

"The guy who coined the 'withering away' of the state, Lenin" was in fact Engels.
Ah, the more you know. Would you be so kind as to provide a source? I like to read about it.


And given that you have no problem constantly using intro threads to push the CPGB/YY line, Leninism signifies precisely the break of the new Bolshevik group in 1917 with the social-democracy of the Second International, whose branches apart from that in Germany you completely ignore due to an obsession with bike clubs and whatnot, a break expressed in concepts such as the labour aristocracy as the social root of reformism etc.
Nope. Lenin remained true to the 'orthodox' strategy until the very end.


And of course no one except the CPGB and YY call the CPGB line "orthodox Marxism".
Duly noted.

[Sewer Socialist]

As far as "the state withers away," Lenin did use that phrase, but he was indeed quoting Engels in Anti-Duhring. The text I found on marxists.org uses the phrase "dies out," not "withers away," but it's just a different translation.


The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property. But, in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, based upon class antagonisms, had need of the state, that is, of an organisation of the particular class, which was pro tempore the exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited classes in the condition of oppression corresponding with the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom, wage-labour)...

State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not "abolished". It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase "a free people's state", both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the state out of hand.

[Q]

As far as "the state withers away," Lenin did use that phrase, but he was indeed quoting Engels in Anti-Duhring. The text I found on marxists.org uses the phrase "dies out," not "withers away," but it's just a different translation.


The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property. But, in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, based upon class antagonisms, had need of the state, that is, of an organisation of the particular class, which was pro tempore the exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited classes in the condition of oppression corresponding with the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom, wage-labour)...

State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not "abolished". It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase "a free people's state", both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the state out of hand.
Ah, thank you. So, the 'withers away' term was coined by Lenin then, or maybe it itself was a product of a translation choice.

[Sewer Socialist]

Oh, it is attributed it to Engels directly; I just can't find the translation with that exact phrasing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withering_away_of_the_state#Origin_of_the_phrase