Pros and Cons of marxism - Two great articles

[pce]

http://www.zmag.org/debateiso.htm

read these two articles. it's a debate. they're lengthy but very good. i'd be interested in reactions from both sides.

(actually i just noticed there's a third in the way of a reply, but i don't have time to read it now)

[vox]

I like Albert and I think a lot of what he's written throughout the years is quite valuable, but I think he's terribly mistaken when it comes to Marx. The most obvious mistake he makes is quite clear in the following quote:

"Finally, Leninism is a natural outgrowth of Marxism when employed by people in capitalist societies, and Marxism Leninism, far from being the 'theory and strategy for the working class,' is, instead, due to its focus, concepts, values, goals, organizational and tactical commitments, the theory and strategy of the coordinator class not the working class."

I agree with his criticism of Leninism, but I don't agree that Leninism is the natural outgrowth of Marxism, and most Marxists agree with me on that.

Also, Albert dismisses market socialism out of hand, saying that markets create an "allocational basis for coordinator rule," but, as Harrington points out, one can't talk about markets apart from the society in which they are in: "The fact is, we cannot evaluate or even describe the workings of markets independent of the social structure in which they operate." (Socialism: Past and Present) Albert, however, demands that we do just that.

Albert's main criticism is not one of Marx, but of Bolshevism. In so far as he separates Bolshevism from Marx, we agree.

I'd also like to take issue here with the beginning of his piece. It's easy to criticize vulgar Marxists with their demands of economic determinism, and Albert joins in a long list of folks who do that. Fine. However, it gets a bit more complicated when it's realized that most Marxists today don't believe in the simple base/superstructure dichotomy that Albert offers.

vox

[peaccenicked]

From Maass
''The most important conclusions came from the Russian revolutionary Lenin—who is probably more reviled than Marx in the Marxist tradition. Too often on the left, the word “Leninist” is hurled around as a term of abuse, without any effort to understand and answer the substantial political questions about organization that he posed''

[El Che]

Albert`s critique is raises some valid issues. However, some of them dont apply to all "maxists" and the remaining part (if anything remains...) concerns matters of detail, like missing concepts or certain subtleties which escape (or escaped, somehow I dont think he just discovered gunpowder) marxists.

For example, while it is true that " Some waged employees monopolize empowering conditions and tasks and have considerable say over their own work situations and those of other workers below. Other waged employees endure only disempowering conditions and tasks and have virtually no say over their own or anyone else's conditions. The former try to maintain their monopoly on empowering circumstances and greater income while ruling over the latter. Class struggle." this is a result of capitalist relations of production and class society in general. Individuals seek to advance in the social hierarchy and naturaly power within the work place is differenciating factor. But this is detail and there is no such thing as "cordinator" class... lol come on who is this guy kidding? Who ever said the working class is completely homogenious? Further more do all Marxists fail to realise this and other things he points out? I seriously doubt it.

And even if they do, I see no credible alternative. So I disagree with Mr.Albert, I think our best bet its to build on what we have, to continue to better Marxism. It isn`t perfect and it never will be for nothing is, but we`ll just have to reconsile our selves with that.

(Edited by El Che at 9:14 pm on July 22, 2002)

[pce]

el che, i think Albert's coordinator class is a valid point, and perhaps more than just a detail, and also something that is, to an extent, overlooked. the psychology of a cordinator worker is different from that of a regular worker. the coordinator has different ideals, different goals, and a different set of values. for example, if there was a struggle between workers and capitalists, the coordinators would no doubt side with the capitalists because they stand to gain more that way. however, this is paradoxical (is that a word?) because they are being used by the capialists as well (if not as much) as the regular worker. the coordinator class's train of thought is a mix between a capitalist's and a worker's and therefore the approach to change his mind would have to be different.

[El Che]

pce, indeed Albert has a point, however I find his general idea irresposinble and self defeating. The main concern should always be the cause and marxism gives us the best frame work to further this cause. Sure, there are many things wrong with marxist theory and praxis, many things overlooked or left out, things marxist before us failed to predict and perhaps a general misunderstanding of the difficulties envolved with effectivating social, political and economic changes on such a huge scale as the one proposed. Like Albert I assimilate Marxist`s most valueble insights but unlike Albert I refuse to scrap Marxism (and socialism as practice oriented Marxism) because some concepts were less correctly thought out (and/or executed, maybe). If you ask me Albert is more interested in personal fame than in making positive contributions to the wealth of Marxism.

The secrete, if you ask me, is to refuse dogmatism and orthodoxy that cripple free thought and independant analysis. If something is wrong, this should be acknowledge and addressed.

Good read non the less, thanks.