Marxism and Class War

[kromando33]

I believe a proper understanding of Marxism and a general disspelling of generalizations should be taken in defense of Marxism, and I think foremost and most important of all is class struggle, without Marx's concept of historical materialism socialism maybe just be a fascist movement. Marx posited that historical material conditions formed the basis for class struggle, and that the proletarianization of the working class bring a sharp divide in the material interests between the proletariat and bourgeois. You must understand therefore the two economic dictatorships: the dictatorship of the bourgeois and the proletariat - both are the absolute opposite of each other, and both breed opposite results in material conditions.

Think of it like this, the bourgeois dictatorship as the opposite of the proletarian one will naturally make horrible material conditions, and naturally cause more division and class struggle between the rich and poor. The proletarian dictatorship (socialism) is the opposite and breeds better material conditions because the interests of the proletariat are the same of those of humanity, and thus that's why economic socialism breeds communism, class barriers are broken down through the struggle of the workers to destroy the bourgeois.

Socialism in definition is an imperfect implementation of collectivist ideals, and thus contradictions and reactionary tendencies will remain in this society, so the bourgeois (and classes themselves) will continue to exist in socialism, although class struggle is the active praxis(process) by which these contradictions are righted and more communistic relations of production are formed.

Socialism posits that proletarianization, that is proletarian control over the means of production (ie economics) breeds a more communal society and thus destroys bourgeois tendencies and attitudes. Thus socialism is equality in economics, communism equality in everything, life itself.

As to your question of Terror, the stage of 'terror' against the bourgeois in my opinion is a short-term one, I would call it the phase of 'direct reaction' by which the desperate bourgeois are still an active and conscious (important to remember this) class, and thus still act in their own interests, which are to resist the proletariat. This is a 'war' in the direct sense of the word because it's straight after the revolution, as Lenin's terror was straight after the Russian revolution. This is because it's straight after the bourgeois dictatorship is overthrown and the proletarian one replaces it, this is an unstable time and the ousted bourgeois class will actively resist through armed struggle, subversion and sabotage, the Whites and Tsarists in the Civil War are a good example of this.

Now after this 'direct phase' of class struggle under socialism, the bourgeois are dispersed and are no longer the coherent class entity, I would call this phase the 'revisionist' period, no country has yet passed this. In this stage the bourgeois are embodied in a passive, conformist, yet nonetheless dangerous, party element. Under the guise of 'reformism', 'democracy', 'openness' or whatever doctrine they claim to purport, the content is always the same.

Anti-revisionism, as a school of Marxist thought, seeks to combat the revisionist tendencies within varying schools of Marxism that deviate from the Marxist-Leninist line and employ a varying assortment of means towards conciliatory ends. Whether this be realpolitik, economic pragmatism, policies of "openness," and reform to outright denunciation and discredit of the past. It's a vile tumour amongst Marxists that has been used by opportunists to propel themselves to positions of mainstream acceptance and power (depending on the situation for which said revisionist may find himself in). The point being, anti-revisionism is a broad concept designed to combat the revisionist tendencies in Marxist thought and the political activities of revisionist organizations that inherently (by design or accident) betray the working class.

Thus this stage of class struggle displays the elements of 'quasi-direct' reaction to socialism, and although it maybe indirectly supported by bourgeois interests abroad - usually in the form of pragmatic nations, in the actual party itself the tendency is usually an unconscious reactionary tendency, disguised in terms of 'freedom' or 'democracy'. It's most recognizable trait is a desire to 'conform' to the standards of bourgeois statehood, to be recognized on the stage of bourgeois states and to participate in their games of 'international relations'(jingoistic bourgeois self-interest), or simply the 'big boys club'. But as always a dedicated and professional vanguard party usually utilizing a measure of self-criticism can combat this.

And finally it would seem the final stage of class struggle to be eliminating the last unconscious reactionary contradictions in society, these contradictions are of course not a conscious active group, but just tendencies which remain, but can be overcome by self-criticism and active aggravation of them until the relations of production are truly communistic.

[BobKKKindle$]

This is an incorrect analysis of how a post-revolutionary society functions and how a revolutionary movement can disintegrate.


Socialism in definition is an imperfect implementation of collectivist ideals, and thus contradictions and reactionary tendencies will remain in this society, so the bourgeois (and classes themselves) will continue to exist in socialism, although class struggle is the active praxis(process) by which these contradictions are righted and more communistic relations of production are formed.

You seem to have reversed the causative relationship. Socialism does not create or maintain class antagonisms, rather, the continued presence of class struggle following the initial revolutionary insurrection makes a state necessary until class division has been resolved - the existence of a state entails socialism, as the state is the most important, although not the sole characteristic that allows one to distinguish between communism and socialism (which is in some cases referred to as lower communism) as separate stages of historical development.


Thus socialism is equality in economics, communism equality in everything, life itself.

This is vague. Equality simply means being the same as someone else in some respect, and can assume many different forms, including equality before the law, everyone receiving the same share of output, everyone wearing the same kind of clothes - clearly we cannot treat any post-revolutionary stage of development as meaning absolute equality, as the imposition of equality in every area of life would not be beneficial, and could not be sustained for very long. Under Communism, goods are distributed according to what each individual needs, and everyone contributes what best corresponds to their abilities. Marx actually criticized the misguided notion that Socialism is synonymous with the practical implementation of 'equality' as an abstract concept.

However, these issues are clearly not the central ideas you wish to put across. I'll move on to the real core of your argument: revisionism.


Now after this 'direct phase' of class struggle under socialism, the bourgeois are dispersed and are no longer the coherent class entity, I would call this phase the 'revisionist' period, no country has yet passed this. In this stage the bourgeois are embodied in a passive, conformist, yet nonetheless dangerous, party element. Under the guise of 'reformism', 'democracy', 'openness' or whatever doctrine they claim to purport, the content is always the same

I recently posed a criticism of this view in another thread. If, as you say, the revisionist tendency is a clear danger, why did the Cultural Revolution fail to remove sections of the party that were hostile to the group which had managed to remain free from the corrupting influence of capitalism and wished to maintain China's revolutionary direction? How could the Cultural Revolution have been altered so that this section was removed - or do you think a completely different strategy is required? These are crucial questions which have to be answered by the anti-revisionist section of the left if their position is to gain wider acceptance.

I contend that the Russian revolution underwent bureaucratic degeneration because of the failure of the revolution to spread to other countries, as the disintegration of the proletariat (which had hitherto served as the popular base of the party and had controlled the state through the soviets and other democratic institutions) and the subsequent need to industrialize allowed for the growth of a new bureaucracy, divorced from the needs of the general population, which eventually achieved hegemonic control within the party. Thereafter, even though the economy was subject to the control of the state, Russia became a new class society. The concept of 'revisionism' is a form of ideology that has been used to justify the imposition of harsh measures (such as the purges in the Soviet Union) so that the core of the bureaucracy is able to maintain a hegemonic position. Russia began to assume many of the key characteristics of capitalism, especially competition, as the primary objective of those responsible for setting economic priorities became military competition with the West (primarily in the acquisition of a nuclear arsenal) and the military sector within the Russian economy began to compete with other sectors, including the manufacture of consumer goods, for resources.


Anti-revisionism, as a school of Marxist thought, seeks to combat the revisionist tendencies within varying schools of Marxism that deviate from the Marxist-Leninist line and employ a varying assortment of means towards conciliatory ends. Whether this be realpolitik, economic pragmatism, policies of "openness," and reform to outright denunciation and discredit of the past.

Emphasis mine. I have highlighted these sections of your post because they pose a major contradiction to your argument; the leaders which you claim did everything possible to combat revision also exhibited these traits in the way they interacted with other states and managed the countries under their control. Stalin made an alliance with Hitler (allegedly) so that Russia would have sufficient time to build up it's military strength, in preparation for an eventual war against Hitler which would prevent the rest of Europe from falling under the control of Nazi Germany - would you deny that this is a form of 'realpolitik'? To take another example - Stalinist parties have historically been willing to participate in bourgeois elections and form alliances with other political parties, including those that bear no ideological link to socialism, in order to further the cause or respond to a specific threat. This has often prevented the development of popular movements which, if allowed to grow, could have posed a critical challenge to the capitalist state, as occurred in May 1968. Would you claim that this is also not a form of 'pragmatism' - or, for that matter 'openness', given the apparent willingness to cooperate with anyone? Please deal with the examples I have given - this is a crucial weakness in your case and revisionism as a general tendency. If the label 'opportunist' can be applied to anyone, it is the Stalinists.


But as always a dedicated and professional vanguard party usually utilizing a measure of self-criticism can combat this.

A vanguard party requires acceptance of a range of different viewpoints so that, through collective discussion, the party is able to decide on the best course of action. Even during the most dangerous periods of the revolution, the Bolshevik party always tried to preserve this spirit of pluralism and in some cases the leadership was often overpowered by the general membership- for example, initially Lenin failed to gain popular support for his position on the peace with Germany (that a peace treaty should be signed immediately regardless of the costs, in terms of annexed land, demanded by Germany) Stalinists seem all too willing to brush this aside in favour of a culture of not challenging the 'party centre'.