Members

I just let 'em in, but sometimes I actually have the time to weed out those with less than 50 posts. For the most part, though, those who set this as their tendency are well aware of Orthodox Marxism.

I think a lot of people don't really understand what this group is about. Many people must have the mistaken impression that it's just supposed to represent generic political Marxism.

There are a few people with it set as their primary tendency who don't know what it is, but they are pretty irregular posters.

I agree that the goal of this group is very much misunderstood. But then again, why don't we (the Ortho's) use it more to debate among ourselves and "intervene" (sorry, my Trotskyist-speak shows) in the broader Revleft where appropriate?

I've only recently arrived at this 'tendency', I'm not one of those people am I?

I think that this would be a great idea, but personally, I am not at the theoretical level yet where I feel I have much to add to any possible discussions; I am here to learn myself.

In that case: Just ask

I've only recently arrived at this 'tendency', I'm not one of those people am I?

Can't really tell.

Why are there so many people with the revolutionary marxist set as their tendency who apparently have nothing in common with the politics of orthodox marxism? Not saying that I am some model orthodox marxist or anything, but from what I have read, it is what I agree with the most. Is it simply a misunderstanding and that these people don't realize what this group is intended for and simply like the name of "revolutionary marxist;" which to me is a tautology to tell you the truth.

I honestly thought you were a Bordigist, not to be offensive or anything I just kinda thought you were. As for myself, I set this tendency because I agree with it more than anything else. That's not to say that I think of myself as strictly an orthodox marxist, I think Lenin and others contributed to theory too, I'm just not interested in the cults that surround historical figures that I happen to agree with. This may be the case with a lot of ML or Bordigist or Trot leaning marxists.

Interesting, I have no ideas why you would think that to tell you the truth; I have never read anything written by Bordiga or even really looked up a summary of his thought.

Honestly it wasn't really based on anything other than I've seen you and Brosa agree on a lot of issues (which I agree with too) and I basically think of Brosa as the embodiment of Bordigism on this site haha. Haha sorry if that was offensive I didn't mean anything by it I just had a pre-existent image of you as a a bordigist so when I saw your post that suggested otherwise I was just surprised.

I honestly thought you were a Bordigist, not to be offensive or anything I just kinda thought you were. As for myself, I set this tendency because I agree with it more than anything else. That's not to say that I think of myself as strictly an orthodox marxist, I think Lenin and others contributed to theory too, I'm just not interested in the cults that surround historical figures that I happen to agree with. This may be the case with a lot of ML or Bordigist or Trot leaning marxists.

Same here. I wouldn't presume to act as though I've figured out and understood everything falling under this particular line of thought - but I do agree with the bulk of it. I intend to deepen this understanding, and to *hopefully* expand on it. But for all intents and purposes, this seems like a good fit. If I slip up, forgive my ignorance.

Well I saw Le Socialiste referring to the works of Plekhanov and Kautsky earlier, so I'd say that he knows enough of what Orthodox Marxism is about. I dont' think there are really works you need to read to understand Orthodox Marxism. It's really just an understanding of proper revolutionary strategy as first formulated by the Erfurt Program, and as expounded by Kautsky during his years as a revolution(prior to 1911. His last work as a revolutionary is typically considered to be The Road to Power. A key classical work in Orthodox Marxism), and then expanded upon and successfully put into practice by Lenin(albeit with some mistakes).

God.. this Bordigism thing is really getting out of hand. Bordigism really only makes sense if a significant portion of Marxism is thrown out the window. It's never really existed as a real tendency either. Even Hoxhaism is more relevant. Just seems like the perfect thing for internet hipsters.. anyway, I digress. A key part of Orthodox Marxism is understanding that a solid political program based along an effective strategy is key. Theories are only useful to the degree that they produce a political program that is actually capable of building up the working class as a class for itself imbued with consciousness. The ultra-left fails to understand that, and in deliberately choosing strategies based along economism, they are damaging the movement. However, one shouldn't overestimate them.. the ultra-left is more of a result than a cause, and the cause is incorrect strategy. Bordigism throws Lenin's political thought out the window; and Lenin himself basically derided Bordiga as a childish, ultra-left twat.

The collapse of the Second International into reformism demoralized the portion of the workers' movement that remained revolutionary, and many reacted by retreating into ultra-revolutionary sloganeering and posturing in order to "protect their purity" so to speak. Also, with the Soviet Union having created the Third International and having subordinated it to the national interests of Russia, rather than the international interests of the working class, they revised the historical and theoretical understandings of Orthodox Marxism to be in line with their own revisionist program. The real underpinnings of the revolutionary Bolshevik strategy are to be found in the pre-war SPD.. you can only get so much from Lenin alone as the vast majority of Lenin's political line is just parroting Kautsky's.

It's also key not to approach this in an anachronistic way. There were flaws and misunderstandings in the old Orthodox Marxism, in part, this led to the errors that would lead people like Kautsky into reformism. One example of this is the minimum-maximum program, which is a key part of Orthodox Marxist political strategy. The revolutionary SPD's minimum strategy amounted to less than a proletarian dictatorship; it's key that a new modern minimum part of the minimum-maximum program lead to the political dictatorship of the proletariat.

Some of Leon Trotsky's political ideas have their roots in Orthodox Marxism, although in a heavily diluted form. He met with many of the leading theorists of Orthodox Marxism in his travels in Europe; and no doubt the inspiration for the Transitional Program has its origins in the Orthodox Marxist minimum-maximum program.

Damn, comrade, I couldn't have said it better myself, though I'm skeptical about the last paragraph. If you're suggesting that even Boris Krichevski's agitational "program" approach has its origins in the ortho-Marxist minimum-maximum program (since he and his colleagues were against the narrow economists), despite the slippery slope of broad economism, then I suppose you may have a point about Trotsky.

[It's because the call for sliding scale of wages is made at the workplace level, not at the level of public policy, which makes me skeptical.]

Indeed, I have little to add myself. Well done GB.

Well don't get me wrong, there is much to criticize in the Transitional Program, in terms of the demands it's actually putting forth; but after doing some reading I get the impression that the essential idea of his transitional program has distant origins in it. I would never recommend reading Trotsky's transitional program as a guide to the orthodox Marxist minimum-maximum precisely because of its heavily dilluted and economist nature.

I guess people don't read the description before joining, but I think that's fine. We shouldn't try to operate as a cult (which too many groups on revleft do).

That last sentence should be something for comrades to remember, since this is by far the oldest of the groups, real or perceived, to be generic/multi-tendency/non-doctrinaire.

I set this group as a tendency mainly because i fleetingly agree that there is a glaring divide between worker movements and communists increasingly in the last forty years in the west and because i see the importance for a party proposal to show the public and rather enjoy the precise discussion on party programs. The book that turned me towards revolutionary reality was Revolution in Bavaria [November] 1918 to [March] 1919 which sadly seems to be a rare leftist literary genre, revolutionary politics.

If I'm understanding folks here correctly, then I don't think I agree with the conception of "Orthodox Marxism" that is being put forth here. In my view, Orthodox Marxism is not simply a set of ideas or principles that one must accept, but rather it is a method used to develop theory and practice.

A good explication of this is Georg Lukas' essay What is Orthodox Marxism? from History & Class Consciousness.

Comradely,

-SoR

I have my politics, as anyone does, but I try not to concern myself too much with particular tendencies or their specific agendas and politics - thus why I joined this group. Mostly, I am just here to learn, but I understand the importance of the science of Marxism being the necessary tool for proletarian class consciousness.

Excellent posts all. For me personally, a big part of it is the oblique criticism of the rampant sectarianism on the left. There was always sectarianism, but one thing the pre-WWI movement got very right was seeking to develop a messy consensus that still accommodated diversity on what the practical implications of questions like "the liberation of the working class must be done by the workers themselves" entailed. Indeed, there was room enough in entities like the late 19th century SPD for a spectacularly wide variety of view points that I think reflects a certain pragmatism that can only be inspired by an earnest commitment to the socialist vision. My own views are that the movement as a whole is best served by systematically integrating the economic struggle ("worker's movmeent") with the political (of which voting is actually an after thought), but I also understand and respect comrades who disagree. It might just be plain old nostalgia, but a reminder that all are fruit of the same tree forces me to post with a kind of pan-leftist outlook that seeks to build common ground rather than split hairs.