1. The theory of the communist revolution

  1. Devrim
    Devrim - 11th November 2008, 11:04
    Platform of the ICC

    1. THE THEORY OF THE COMMUNIST REVOLUTION

    Marxism is the fundamental theoretical acquisition of the proletarian struggle. It is on the basis of marxism that all the lessons of the proletarian struggle can be integrated into a coherent whole. By explaining the unfolding of history through the development of the class struggle, that is to say struggle based on the defence of economic interests within a framework laid down by the development of the productive forces, and by recognising the proletariat as the subject of the revolution which will abolish capitalism, marxism is the only conception of the world which really expresses the viewpoint of that class. Thus, far from being an abstract speculation about the world, it is first and foremost a weapon of struggle for the working class. And because the working class is the first and only class whose emancipation necessarily entails the emancipation of the whole of humanity, a class whose domination over society will not lead to a new form of exploitation but to the abolition of all exploitation, only marxism is capable of grasping social reality in an objective and scientific manner, without any prejudices or mystifications of any sort.
    Consequently, although it is not a fixed doctrine, but on the contrary undergoes constant elaboration in a direct and living relationship with the class struggle, and although it benefited from prior theoretical achievements of the working class, marxism has been from its very inception the only framework from which and within which revolutionary theory can develop.
  2. Junius - 11th November 2008, 12:33
    Points I like:

    1. Emphasis on the working class as the only class that can abolish exploitation.

    2. Marxism not as an academic endeavor, but as a weapon of class struggle.

    3. That Marxism is not a fixed doctrine & emphasis on history of class struggle.

    Things that I don't like:

    1. Reads like a Psalm.

    2. Sounds slightly dogmatic - less imperatives and more elucidation, although I understand it is a platform and not a polemic.

    3. Is it a theory of a communist revolution, or support for a Marxist approach? If I was naming the heading, I would have named it 'Importance of Marxism in the Class Struggle' not a 'theory of communist revolution'...although I do think other parts of the ICC platform are good (from what I have read of it).
  3. black magick hustla
    black magick hustla - 11th November 2008, 19:26
    I have similar problems with this. I think the platform should drop a lot of the references to marxism being the "class struggle outlook", because I think non-marxists like anarchists can take proletarian positions. And like LeftCommunist said, it reads a little bit like a psalm.

    I think a platform would look better if it only elucidated about the nature of capital and the proletariat and world revolution, rather than refering to marxism as the only "proletarian outlook".

    Marxism can be recuperated, from stalinists to academics. I mean we can argue all day if they are marxists or not, but clearly their theses are influenced by marx to the degree they can call themselves marxists. If marxism is proletarian because it is scientific and materialist, then it would be like saying physics is proletarian because of this. The marxist theoretical assumptions of history are just that, objective assumptions on the nature of history and the economy. What is a proletarian y is internationalism and communism, because the ideological assumptions both make are based on what we perceive as the interests of workers.
  4. Devrim
    Devrim - 11th November 2008, 21:42
    I am not so keen on the term 'Marxism' either. I don't think that it is a particulary useful one, and I don't like some of its implications.

    I agree with LC that the point about the working class being the only class that can abolish exploitation is important. There is a difference between the poor and the working class.

    Devrim
  5. zimmerwald1915 - 12th November 2008, 01:16
    [FONT=Calibri]I don’t think it correct to simply look at the platform. That is, the existence of words on a page (or a screen) can only tell us so much, and cherry picking “good” and “bad” aspects is not only a waste of time, it is harmful. I think it necessary to review what was meant to be said, and if it is to be revised, to revise with that intention in mind.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri][/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri]What was the intention of this bit of the platform? If I am correct in my guess, the intent was to mark off the “proletarian political camp” (to use a bit of ICC phraseology) from the bourgeois. How to go about doing this? Marx and Engels went about it thus: “The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.” In Marx and Engels’ own day, it was possible to be a part of the “proletarian movement” without being a communist. Today, that is no longer the case. Currents that self-identify as proletarian, which I won’t bother listing because the list of ideologically-specific RevLeft groups is perfectly adequate, are not necessarily so, and are indeed, for the most part, either lying outright or deceiving themselves. The first quality of communists, that of being a fraction of the working-class parties, no longer applies. The communists today are external fractions whose task it is to build a working-class party.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri][/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri]One quality remains: that of “theoretically…understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement”. If I’m interpreting the platform correctly, that is what the ICC wants to convey with this section. Condensed, this bit of the platform is basically saying “we understand the line of march, the conditions, and the general results of the proletarian movement because our theory is scientific, and because it has a ‘direct and living relationship with the class struggle’”.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri][/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri]Marmot mentioned anarchists. While it is true that historically communists have worked with anarchists that expressed proletarian positions (internationalism, revolution by mass strike, the need to abolish the bourgeois state), it is important to differentiate between communists and anarchists. The outlook of the anarchists, though they may chance on proletarian positions, is fundamentally riddled with “prejudices and mystifications” and, given that it is formulated on ideal grounds, has no “direct and living relationship with the class struggle”. If it is true that the intent of this section is to define the proletarian political camp, then it places the anarchists outside it, though not in the camp of the bourgeoisie to the extent that common work is disallowed from the start.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri][/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri]Then there is the need for a usable shorthand, and the need to rescue communist terminology from its abuse at the hands of the Stalinists, Trotskyists, and other Left currents.[/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri][/FONT]
    [FONT=Calibri]Does it hurt the ear to hear this bit of the platform? Of course it does. It was written thirty years ago. Does it use the word “Marxism” overmuch? Oh, yes. Does it make its point in a backwards fashion stylistically? Yes. Personally, if I were on a committee to update the platform, I would write about how the working class, and especially the revolutionary groups that come out of the class, need to understand history as the history of class struggle, need to recognize the revolutionary potential contained in the working class and only the working class, need to recognize the relationship between the revolutionary theory and the experience of the class, and only then name Marxism (once) as the historically discovered theoretical weapon of class struggle. But the need to delineate the proletarian political camp from the bourgeois would remain the same.[/FONT]
  6. Leo
    Leo - 12th November 2008, 08:29
    Is it a theory of a communist revolution, or support for a Marxist approach? If I was naming the heading, I would have named it 'Importance of Marxism in the Class Struggle' not a 'theory of communist revolution'
    I think the relation between marxism and the theory of communist revolution is expressed while saying: "marxism has been from its very inception the only framework from which and within which revolutionary theory can develop"

    I have similar problems with this. I think the platform should drop a lot of the references to marxism being the "class struggle outlook", because I think non-marxists like anarchists can take proletarian positions.
    Of course they can, and this isn't something new: some anarchists have been taking proletarian positions for more than a hundred and fifty years.

    On the other hand, while of course it is possible for anarchists to defend proletarian positions, I don't think we can say the same thing about them clarifying proletarian theory, since they don't have a methodological approach behind their positions to begin with hence the statement saying "only marxism is capable of grasping social reality in an objective and scientific manner".

    So I don't think the reference is about "class struggle outlook", it is rather about the methodology that guides the development of revolutionary theory.

    I mostly agree with the points Zimmerwald1915 makes.
  7. Junius - 12th November 2008, 12:00
    I am not so keen on the term 'Marxism' either. I don't think that it is a particulary useful one, and I don't like some of its implications.
    What 'implications' in particular?

    Also, why are you interested in discussing the ICC's platform or the IBRP's platform? Not that I am discouraging you, but what in particular do you find educational about it - most of us would agree on their basic premises, right?

    [FONT=Calibri]The first quality of communists, that of being a fraction of the working-class parties, no longer applies. The communists today are external fractions whose task it is to build a working-class party.[/FONT]

    [FONT=Calibri]But the need to delineate the proletarian political camp from the bourgeois would remain the same.[/FONT]
    I agree on this. I think they made it clearer here:

    ICC Basic Positions
    All factions of the bourgeoisie are equally reactionary. All the so-called ‘workers’, ‘Socialist’ and ‘Communist’ parties (now ex-’Communists’), the leftist organisations (Trotskyists, Maoists and ex-Maoists, official anarchists) constitute the left of capitalism’s political apparatus. All the tactics of ‘popular fronts’, ‘anti-fascist fronts’ and ‘united fronts’, which mix up the interests of the proletariat with those of a faction of the bourgeoisie, serve only to smother and derail the struggle of the proletariat.
    There is no room for misinterpretation here.

    Originally posted by Leo
    On the other hand, while of course it is possible for anarchists to defend proletarian positions, I don't think we can say the same thing about them clarifying proletarian theory, since they don't have a methodological approach behind their positions to begin with hence the statement saying "only marxism is capable of grasping social reality in an objective and scientific manner".
    I think its possible for anarchists to adopt Marxist methodology; a historical materialist approach. I do think that they would have to drop some of the fetishism of ideas like 'direct democracy' and 'anti-authoritarianism' since, ultimately, they begin their analysis with this, rather than draw such ideas from their analysis, if you take my meaning. But that would water down their anarchism.
  8. Leo
    Leo - 12th November 2008, 14:06
    I think its possible for anarchists to adopt Marxist methodology; a historical materialist approach. I do think that they would have to drop some of the fetishism of ideas like 'direct democracy' and 'anti-authoritarianism' since, ultimately, they begin their analysis with this, rather than draw such ideas from their analysis, if you take my meaning. But that would water down their anarchism.
    Well yes, basically; of course it is possible for an anarchist to adopt the marxist methodology, but this would mean forsaking the anarchist conceptions about authority, state, anarchy and similar things that make up the vague anarchist methodology, and this would mean that in effect they would no longer be anarchists. Of course anarchists don't have to be marxists in order to be revolutionaries and in order to defend proletarian positions; but one can't deny that clearly there is a difference of methodology between the two which makes being both at the same time impossible.

    What 'implications' in particular?
    I think the implications Devrim is talking about is the glorification of the individual, which are not nonexistent implications because of the way the term "Marxism" has been thrown around in the last century, on the other hand I don't see it much different from the usage of "Darwinist" for those who agree with the theory of evolution or "Freudian" for adherents of psychoanalysis. It is of tradition to name a scientific method after one of it's principal animators.
  9. zimmerwald1915 - 12th November 2008, 17:09
    I agree on this. I think they made it clearer here:
    It'd be nice if the reader didn't have to flip back and forth between two documents, though
  10. Alf
    Alf - 12th November 2008, 20:51
    Good discussion! Good to see some out and out left communists here!
    I agree with Leo. In so far as anarchists have much to contribute at the theoretical level, they relay heavily on Marx and (dare I say it) marxism. I think the term marxist is useful because it conveys both the class position and the theoretical outlook - in fact the two are inseparable. For example, Marx's understanding of surplus value could only have come from a proletarian class standpoint. Marxism also immediatelt makes it clear that we are part of a tradition within the workers' movement and don't claim to be inventing communism ourselves.
  11. Devrim
    Devrim - 13th November 2008, 17:48
    I think the implications Devrim is talking about is the glorification of the individual, which are not nonexistent implications because of the way the term "Marxism" has been thrown around in the last century, on the other hand I don't see it much different from the usage of "Darwinist" for those who agree with the theory of evolution or "Freudian" for adherents of psychoanalysis. It is of tradition to name a scientific method after one of it's principal animators.
    Yes, Leo is right here about what I think. I understand what he is saying, but I just don't like the word.

    Also, why are you interested in discussing the ICC's platform or the IBRP's platform? Not that I am discouraging you, but what in particular do you find educational about it - most of us would agree on their basic premises, right?
    To clarify levels of agreement/disagrement, and hopefullt draw others into the discussion.

    I think its possible for anarchists to adopt Marxist methodology; a historical materialist approach.
    I agree with this. It is just that they don't very often.

    It'd be nice if the reader didn't have to flip back and forth between two documents, though
    I think that they are meant to be complimentary. The platform explains the basic positions in more depth.

    Devrim
  12. zimmerwald1915 - 13th November 2008, 21:21
    I think that they are meant to be complimentary. The platform explains the basic positions in more depth.
    While this is true, IIRC, the platform is published as a seperate document, while the basic positions appear on the back of International Review and other journals. Except on the Internet, and again, this is just IIRC, they're not in the same place.
  13. zimmerwald1915 - 14th November 2008, 08:49
    This isn't getting many more posts, is it?
  14. Junius - 14th November 2008, 10:35
    This isn't getting many more posts, is it?
    I'm not sure much more can be squeezed out of one paragraph.