Raya Dunayevskaya - Marxist-humanism. The way forward.

[MJM]

This is in response to the rebranding thread.
I strongly urge all non-marxists comrades here to read up on the work she, Raya Dunayevskaya, did. Of course Marxists should read it too :)
It's very liberating and it may change your perspective on marxism and marxist-leninism.

http://www.newsandletters.org/index.htm


On Che

http://www.struggle.net/mhf/double.htm


However, the theory and practice of guerrilla warfare as if that were the only road to revolution led Guevara to disdain other forms of class struggles--from a minor strike to a general strike, from political struggles to theoretical development, including the separation of true Marxism from Communist perversions.

Because Guevara could not separate the one from the other, he became impatient and looked for shortcuts to revolution. Yet he himself did, at certain critical periods, understand that only when the working class and the peasants are united, "the first step toward definite liberation is taken."

SPONTANEITY AND THEORY

This is what the guerrilla fighter forgets when he becomes impatient and wishes to substitute himself for the masses. At those moments, Guevara argued against the statement of Lenin: "Without a revolutionary theory, there is no revolutionary movement."(3) Instead he held that "even if theory is not known, the revolution can succeed if historic reality is interpreted correctly and if the forces involved in it are utilized correctly." (4)

[MJM]

FAQ on marxist-humanism
http://www.struggle.net/mhf/what.htm


Q: What is Marxist-Humanism?

A: Marxist-Humanism is a form of Marxism that focuses on the humanist side of Marx’s philosophy. Other Marxists often tend to downplay or ignore the humanist side of Marx’s philosophy.






Q: Was Marx a Communist?

A: That depends on what you mean by Communist. If by Communist you mean someone that wants a society in which things are produced and distributed on the basis on need (the second definition as described above) then yes, he was a communist. Marx called the new society that would come after capitalism Communism. If you are referring to a one-party totalitarian state then Marx was definitely not a communist. The Communist manifesto, which he wrote along with his good friend Fredrick Engels, stated, “the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.” Marx in fact condemned “crude communism”, communism achieved by totalitarian means. Unless otherwise specified, this document will use the word Communism in same sense Marx meant it.






Q: Was the USSR always State-Capitalist?

A: No. The Russian revolution, which created the Soviet Union, was a genuine Socialist revolution. The Russian lords and capitalists were overthrown and the factories were put under the control of worker’s organizations, called Soviets. However, with Stalin’s rise to power control over the state and the economy slipped from the hands of the workers and their supporters and into the hands of state bureaucrats. This went hand in hand with Stalin’s five year plans, which industrialized the Soviet Union. These bureaucrats ended up becoming a new capitalist class.


(Edited by MJM at 4:06 pm on Feb. 22, 2003)

[Ian]

I enjoyed your post MJM, can you please tell us where you got the information (or where News & Letters) regarding crude communism?

[MJM]

I think it comes from "we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."
Communist Manifesto.

http://www.marxists.org/subject/students/communism.htm

It's also one of the main themes of Raya Dunayevskayas' works, she was one of Trotskys' assistants but broke with him during WW2.
She criticises Mao, Stalin and Trotsky.
Her knowledge and understanding of Marx and Lenin is far greater than mine and I've only read one book that she wrote, but I will be following up her line of thinking.

I'm revising the Marxism and Freedom at the moment so if I find any concrete quotes I'll post them.


I also know Engels wrote about how nationalising the means of production is not socialism in the marxist sense, if this was the case then Napoleon would be a marxist (this comparison was Engels not mine).
I can't remember the quote at the moment, I posted it here once a long time ago.

[Ian]

thank you very much

[Kez]

Quote: from MJM on 2:09 am on Feb. 23, 2003I also know Engels wrote about how nationalising the means of production is not socialism in the marxist sense, if this was the case then Napoleon would be a marxist (this comparison was Engels not mine).


Is this referring to Bonapartism?

[peaccenicked]

Yes, The broad point is that the Welfare State in itself is not Socialist. It may be regarded as a transitional form as it does not operate the Law of Value.
Yet we have witnessed counter revoulutions against the welfare state by the onslaught of privatisation.
The strength of a Welfare State is also related to the level of class struggle.
Nevertheless, the form of nationalistion has tended to be statist .
The bureaucratisation of these forms has also to do with keeping them tied to the interests of big business or ruling elites.
Socialism, in the Marxist sense, tres to assure that nationalisation is replaced with socialisation, which is in short, the democratisation of all institutions.

[Kez]

Doesnt Nationalisation show how capitalism is fuckeed and it dont work?
By helping keep up capitalism, they nationalise things, not to make it socialist

[MJM]

They nationalise the means of production, then when they go on a nationalist/racist crusade, like hitler, the capitalist class calls it socialism.


say "have to". For only when the means of production and distribution have actually outgrown the form of management by joint-stock companies, and when, therefore, the taking them over by the state has become economically inevitable, only then -- even if it is the state of today that effects this -- is there an economic advance, the attainment of another step preliminary to the taking over of all productive forces by society itself. But of late, since Bismarck went in for state-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkeyism, that without more ado declares all state ownership, even of the Bismarckian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the state of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of socialism. If the Belgian state, for quite ordinary political and financial reasons, itself constructed its chief railway lines; if Bismarck, not under any economic compulsion, took over for the state the chief Prussian lines, simply to be the better able to have them in hand in case of war, to bring up the railway employees as voting cattle for the government, and especially to create for himself a new source of income independent of parliamentary votes -- this was, in no sense, a socialistic measure, directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously. Otherwise, the Royal Maritime Company, [116] the Royal porcelain manufacture, and even the regimental tailor of the army would also be socialistic institutions.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...hring/notes.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/notes.htm)