What does it mean to be a "Revolutionary Marxist"?

I notice this group is one of the few that lacks a definition in the FAQ. Perhaps we can work towards a coherent description. I propose that to be a revolutionary Marxist necessitates two criteria:

First, Marxists are intellectually obligated to employ the tools of historical materialism to understanding the past and present. Historical materialism as a methodology can be derived from the following passage from Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859):

In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.

-- emphasis mine.

The second criteria for a revolutionary Marxist to apply historical materialist thought toward the goal of facilitating proletarian revolution in our respective societies.

Obviously, there are many conflicting views within the Marxist tendency, and many arguments stemming from our history. But this definition is meant to encompass them, but still providing the tools for figuring out which ideas are best fit for the revolutionary project today.

^^^ Huh? There is a definition in the "'Internal' challenges" thread:

BTW, since you're leaning towards spontaneity, you SHOULD read that thread, plus my Theory response on class consciousness:

Uneven development of consciousness: rebutting the reductionist spontaneists



Just as there is uneven capitalist development in the sphere of economy (between nations and, as has yet to be contested in my Stamocap thread, between wholesale economic "sectors" ), there is uneven development of consciousness amongst the working class (hence the vanguard and vanguard party).

The point is that the whole mass of working-class folks by itself cannot develop this consciousness [particularly at the same time]. It has to be either imported (petit-bourgeois intellectuals, with their literary works, and ESPECIALLY "coordinator"/managerial individuals per my Theory thread on modern class relations) or developed by informed segments of the working class.

[As a revolutionary Marxist side rant, Kautsky made a reductionist error by saying that the "bearers of consciousness" in his time were exclusively petit-bourgeois.]

By the definition in the "'Internal' challenges" thread, there are three founders of revolutionary Marxism: Vladimir "Jacob Richter" Lenin (yes, the "petit-bourgeois vanguardist/Blanquist" whom you decry), Rosa Luxemburg, and James Connolly. [Kautsky, in spite of his theoretical mistakes, being the founder of "Marxism," and Marx and Engels being the founders of "scientific socialism" ]

The verbosity of the "Internal challenges" was such that I lost interest pretty quickly. If there was any coherent definition of "revolutionary Marxism" in the first post, at least, I didn't catch it. I don't understand, however, how "Marxism" as a metanarrative cannot be simple, and in fact, self-evident. As CLR James aptly put it, "Life teaches us all Marxism."

But I scoff at your weak dismissal of my critiques - I am hardly a "spontaneist", and I really feel that phrase is thrown around in an effort to make we "ultra-leftists" (another meaningless phrase) seem idealistic. The reality of the fact is that revolutions are not "spontaneous", as in being capable of occurring without understanding - revolution is the cathartic culmination of material contradictions in society, which manifest over very long periods of history.

Leninists claim historical materialism is invalidated by the failure of 20th century capitalism to immiserate workers in the advanced capitalist nations. It is here that you guys break from Marxism, and venture into the endless realm of "villainy" and "betrayal". And this is why your ideology and culture haven't developed in the last fifty years, and why your rational is increasingly divorced from reality.

Oops, what a "spontaneous" outburst from me.

Verbose? A poster got my comments quite nicely.

Summary: In that thread, I defined challenges that revolutionary Marxism must overcome again and again.

Reductionism examples
- Worship of spontaneity (the idea that revolutions can only be spontaneous)
- Base-superstructure (compare that to my geocentric approach) and the overall "vulgar materialism"
- "complete, integral world-outlook" (one of Kautsky's revisionist mistakes)
- "traditional schematism" (read my thread on the "narrow" democratic centralism versus Lenin's broad slogan)
- over-emphasis on organization (so much for your comments on "betrayal" )

Revisionism examples
- "apocalyptic predestinationism" (leads to a lot of wrong theoretical positions and political actions)

Sectarianism

But I scoff at your weak dismissal of my critiques - I am hardly a "spontaneist", and I really feel that phrase is thrown around in an effort to make we "ultra-leftists" (another meaningless phrase) seem idealistic.

I don't use the term "ultra-leftist." Personally, I think that the term "materialist" has been abused too much. One comrade's materialist is another's "idealist" (an insult you'd heap on Lenin and myself). Another comrade's materialist is yet another's "vulgar materialist" or whatever (an insult I'd heap on you in turn, but outside this user group).

You should note that I am NOT a dialectical materialist. I use historical materialism, simply because philosophical dialectics is irrelevant to the class struggle.

Leninists claim historical materialism is invalidated by the failure of 20th century capitalism to immiserate workers in the advanced capitalist nations. It is here that you guys break from Marxism, and venture into the endless realm of "villainy" and "betrayal". And this is why your ideology and culture haven't developed in the last fifty years, and why your rational is increasingly divorced from reality.

You've never heard of Leninist Marxists (a subset of "revolutionary Marxists," mind you) who don't subscribe to either Stalin or Trotsky.

I just can't help but notice that "reductionism", "revisionism", "sectarianism", et. all are just idealist explanations for the failure of the vanguard parties to either: a, make communism in the countries where they did come to power; or b, take power in any country more advanced than a feudal hellhole. But real scientific and ration thought recognizes that if an assertion fails repeatedly and without exception, than it must be false.

Leninism is an inherently idealist paradigm. You claim to use historical materialism, yet you explain the failure of the socialists with "revisionism" or "sectarianism" - two very un-materialist and un-Marxist explanations.

For those who actually employ a historical materialist understanding, it is obvious that the socialist states failed because you can't just jump from feudalism to communism by "revolutionary will" or "correct dialectics". And the proletariat has yet to become a class for itself because the productive capacity of capitalism has not yet exhausted itself. Our objective conditions do not allow for it yet. This doesn't mean all we can do is "sit back" and "wait" for communist revolution, as you claim I assert - it means that any talk about "leading the working class" is just masturbation.

The limitations of directly materialist analysis

I must warn, you however, that given my new "geocentric" approach (solid inner core, liquid outer core, mantle, convections, crust), that my old base-framework-skin analogy (since Marx based his off of buildings) is reductionist, for reasons explained in the "'Internal' challenges" thread. You may find the above link "verbiose," as well, but please read it carefully.



Lenin, Stalin, and post-Stalin (Khrushchev)

In here, I already argued that Lenin's Russia was state-capitalist.

"Geocentrism" has nothing to do with the Leninist rejection of historical materialism.

^^^ You obviously didn't read either the last comment of my post above or the thread on Lenin, Stalin, and Khrushchev.

For those who actually employ a historical materialist understanding, it is obvious that the socialist states failed because you can't just jump from feudalism to communism by "revolutionary will" or "correct dialectics".

That's Trotsky's "permanent revolution," NOT Lenin's "revolutionary democracy" (which is "two-stage-ist"). Read his "Two Tactics" pamphlet on the "democratic revolution."

And the proletariat has yet to become a class for itself because the productive capacity of capitalism has not yet exhausted itself. Our objective conditions do not allow for it yet.

Marx hedged in Capital, not knowing much. If capitalism collapsed, he was right; if it didn't (because of CREDIT, per the Theory threads by Lynx and especially the responses by gilhyle), he was still right.

European feudalism, methinks, was an anomaly to the greater whole. The "Asiatic" mode of production was far superior - culturally, trade-wise, scientifically (except for who developed capitalism first out of necessity, but Imperial China nearly did with its big navy program and peasant revolts), etc.

I notice this group is one of the few that lacks a definition in the FAQ. Perhaps we can work towards a coherent description. I propose that to be a revolutionary Marxist necessitates two criteria:

First, Marxists are intellectually obligated to employ the tools of historical materialism to understanding the past and present. Historical materialism as a methodology can be derived from the following passage from Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859):

In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.

Firstly, I don't see how the quoted passage by Marx, which is a set of general propositions, gives us a definite methodology to follow.

Secondly, who's Historical Materialism are you referring to: the dialectical version of Marx & Engels, or the various undialectical forms espoused by certain others?

Thirdly, how come an anarchist is laying down the law about revolutionary Marxism and historical materialism? If you're an anarchist surely you abandoned both long ago?

Fourthly, who are the "Leninists" you're going on about. I don't know any Lenininsts who argue that historical materialism has been disproved by the twentieth century.

On the substantive topic of this forum having a clearly defined, locked-down definition of what constitutes revolutionary Marxism, I agree that it should be short on principles and long on strategy and tactics.

Jacob: I don't read threads on Stalin, Krushev, and their ilk. It's a waste of time, unless one is interested in 20th century Russian politicians. And I'm definitely not.

Zero: Firstly, the passage from Marx above gives a clear indication of a definite methodology to follow: when studying history, we give primacy to the objective material conditions, with the understanding that they determine the possible outcomes. From our understanding of the species-being, human beings shape their own consciousness as a result of producing their material environments. This means we must ignore the rhetoric of politicians and the like, but look under the label and understand what's really going on. Historical materialism is a hermeneutic for doing such - it is a way to place our accumulated knowledge of history into a coherent body. And this is very threatening for Leninists - who realize that their precious October coup was really a continuation of Russia's bourgeois revolution. Thus, whenever a real Marxist begins to stress the primacy of material conditions, the typical Leninist response is "reductionism!" - they refuse to accept the deterministic aspect of Marxism, and thus deviate into idealism.

Secondly, you cannot get off so easy by just claiming "other versions" of historical materialism are "undialectical." I, of course, am referring to Marx's historical materialism, but also the developments made subsequently of him. But, for simplicity, remaining with Marx: his analysis of history was often "dialectical", but was not blatant dialectics, a la Hegel. While the dialectic is obviously an incredibly useful tool for studying contradictions, dialectics did not permeate Marx's study of history. For example, The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte studied the complex conflicts of the many classes of France in the mid-19th century - it is not subject to the reductionists who want to simplify everything into a post-hoc thesis-antithesis model. We must remember that the dialectic is an incredibly useful tool for analyzing a contradiction - but it is not to be fetishized to the point of metaphysics, as diamat does. You can't use a hammer to saw a 2x4.

Thirdly, it's cute to disregard me as an "anarchist" without actually understanding my positions at all. But you vanguardists are probably starting to be worried about the rise of us non-Leninist Marxists. We're getting more numerous, and we don't just take the "shut up and follow orders" mentality that your vanguards necessitate. I, like many others, think that our objective conditions have developed to such an advanced point that anarchism has become the only truly revolutionary method of praxis. The objective conditions that have historically separated the Marxists and Anarchists (namely, scarcity & the state) have become obsolete. If the goal of revolutionaries is to push class struggle into unofficial and unregulated channels, then it's obvious the prefigurative praxis of the anarchists, while not perfect, are the only actions approaching "revolutionary".

Finally: the anachronistic attempt of Leninists to enforce the party-model of organization in the advanced capitalist states infers a rejection of historical materialism. After all, it is from historical materialism that Marx concluded that the objective conditions of capitalism would worsen so much as to develop revolutionary consciousness across the proletariat as a natural consequence of the approaching death of the system. And because workers are capable of becoming revolutionary themselves, real communist revolution must be the work of the workers themselves. Leninists obviously disregard this, both thinking the proletariat to be "incapable" of revolutionary consciousness, and incapable of building a post-capitalist society. Hence, the idealism of vanguardism.

renegadoe, thank you for your considered reply. You've given me a lot to think about.

Re. the marxist method, I understand your point now. I was confusing method with methodology.

Re. your comments on dialectics - I heartily agree! You'll find that I'm no Hegelian Marxist and I distance myself from the dialectics of nature arguments of Engels. So I'm in accord with this:

his analysis of history was often "dialectical", but never employed blatant dialectics.

That's why I would argue that the 18th Brumaire is as dialectical as anything Marx wrote.

Thirdly, it's cute to disregard me as an "anarchist" without actually understanding my positions at all.

Well understanding comes through discourse. You call yourself an anarchist (or libertarian Marxists which means the same thing) so I wasn't disregarding you, I was curious why you would hang on to historical materialism. But I can understand why you thought it was a slight. I am, after all, an evil vanguardist.

If the goal of revolutionaries is to push class struggle into unofficial and unregulated channels, then it's obvious the prefigurative praxis of the anarchists, while not perfect, are the only actions approaching "revolutionary".

I've really no idea what this means concretely, in practice. I'll need clarification before I can comment.

Your final paragraph is, I think, based on a misreading - some might argue, a purposefully narrow interpretation - of Lenin's view on the party and its relation to the class, which was, I believe, more complex and, ahem, dialectical. Nevertheless, I am quite open to the validity of the argument that the "Leninist model" is no longer fit for the challenges of the 21st Century. But if it is not the best template for revolutionary organization, the question still remains as to which organizational form or forms are best suited. But your simplification of the concept of the vanguard, and your subsequent rejection of it seems to point you in the direction of a spontaneous eruption of revolutionary consciousness across the whole class. So perhaps it is you, rather than Lenin, who is the idealist.

^^^ Don't be too open to the notion that the "Leninist mode" is obsolete.

the anachronistic attempt of Leninists to enforce the party-model of organization in the advanced capitalist states infers a rejection of historical materialism

Go tell that to the dead corpse of Rosa Luxemburg, who also stressed party organization (albeit of a mass type)!

Jacob: I don't read threads on Stalin, Krushev, and their ilk. It's a waste of time, unless one is interested in 20th century Russian politicians. And I'm definitely not.

Then you will NEVER understand the difference between revolutionary democracy and the bureaucratic approach!

[Reductionist]

Then you will NEVER understand the difference between revolutionary democracy and the bureaucratic approach!

[Reductionist]

"Revolutionary democracy" was a Bolshevik slogan to justify the continuing bourgeois revolution in Russia, but still appeal to their pseudo-Marxist rhetoric. The "revolutionary democracy" of Lenin and Trotsky was essential to building the foundation for a modern society that the bourgeoisie of the February revolution couldn't do, by throwing off the imperialists and allowing Russia to develop autonomously of the market. Their "revolutionary democracy," as the Trotskyist mantra went, "brought electricity to Russia" - it was progressive and necessary at the time (as historical materialism suggests, that feudalism is killed by a bourgeois revolution), but it has nothing to do at all with the task of Marxists in the 21st century. The fact that you "justify" the vanguard by appealing to the success of Luxembourg entrenches your divorcement from reality - we're far more developed in America today than Germany was in 1919.

But I'm bored of you hijacking my topic with some bullshit about Stalin and Krushev, and "revolutionary democracy". It doesn't mean anything for revolutionaries today.

Well understanding comes through discourse. You call yourself an anarchist (or libertarian Marxists which means the same thing) so I wasn't disregarding you, I was curious why you would hang on to historical materialism. But I can understand why you thought it was a slight. I am, after all, an evil vanguardist.

I can see how that confusion can be made. I did apply to groups, however, with the intention of being listed a Revolutionary Marxist first. I did interpret it as a slight, but obviously wrongly. I don't see you as a evil vanguardists - I think many vanguardists are entirely earnest about the desire to make revolution. I just tend to be annoyed by the ad hominem bullshit from some people on this board - not even all just vanguardists. But I hate to see how RevLeft has become a stage for egoism and rhetoric-clashing, instead of a conduit for meaningful discourse on revolutionary theory today.

I encourage people to believe what they believe, and even to argue it passionately. But ultimately we're not here to prove that our "chosen" ideology is right, but to learn more by conversing with fellow revolutionaries.

Quote:
If the goal of revolutionaries is to push class struggle into unofficial and unregulated channels, then it's obvious the prefigurative praxis of the anarchists, while not perfect, are the only actions approaching "revolutionary".
I've really no idea what this means concretely, in practice. I'll need clarification before I can comment.

I mean that the bourgeois social construct doesn't change through the mechanisms of the construct itself - they've all been constructed to develop consciousness conducive to the perpetuation of the system. Marx suggested that hitherto history is a series of class struggles - and even the great changes in America in the twentieth century occurred as a result of massive struggle. The New Deal wasn't FDR's "gift" to America - it was a concession by the bourgeois class in response to the massive labor movement that actively struggled. And black people weren't "handed" legal equality by Johnson - they won it over a decade of active struggle. At the time, the ruling class wasn't ready for millions of protesters in DC - I'm sure it scared the shit out of them. Great changes in the system are won by our class by struggle, but as the system develops to encompass those changes, it co-opts the institutions of struggle. Labor unions in the US today are effectively reactionary, often in consciousness but specifically in their functional role. They haven't fought for wage increases in years - accept against inflation. Unions have become wholly defensive institutions, co-opted into the contradictions of labor and capital. And as such, they have taken such shape to be conducive to this occurring.

But the movements have only accomplished small-scale changes - our goal is the complete destruction of capitalism and the eradication of wage-slavery.

We have to encourage struggle outside official channels of class mediation. We can't be suckered into politics - we want 10 million workers in the streets of every city, physically taking them for working-class rule. We have to encourage, then, any and all resistance to capital (including its component component imperialism), in all shapes and forms. And we must provide reasoned argument for further measures of resistance. We want people striking from all work, marching in the streets, and, ultimately, executing capitalists. How we can instigate this is up to further discussion.

But it can't be "lead" by philosopher-kings or enlightened despots.

But if it is not the best template for revolutionary organization, the question still remains as to which organizational form or forms are best suited. But your simplification of the concept of the vanguard, and your subsequent rejection of it seems to point you in the direction of a spontaneous eruption of revolutionary consciousness across the whole class.

The "best template" for making revolution will be derived from the material conditions of its day. And we cannot predict the technological advances of the future, so our speculations are ultimately masturbation. In all seriousness, we're not likely to see significant revolutionary ferment until the latter half of this century. I have no idea of what it will be like then.

I can't "show" you a new organizational form I've come up with - but I can give you a example. You claim my simplification of the vanguard was crude (which, I admit, it was). Many apologetic vanguardists stress that the party is an agent to develop and disseminate revolutionary consciousness through our class, not a "substitutionalist" nascent ruling class (yet). But, consider - if we truly wanted an "organized" body of Marxists to develop theory and spread propaganda, why not use the internet as a tool for creating and perpetuating this? The internet allows for complete internal democracy and transparency, and, as an organizational tool, and share information anywhere, regardless of time or place. Thus, we cannot truly speak of an organized Marxist discourse which utilizes the technology which can make this happen. And I'm sure the "Party Secretary" of your favorite vanguard would be horrified at such a proposal - discussion within the majority of the party is largely unheard of. I think we're beginning to see the technological developments that historical materialism suggests are necessary for the organization of a communist society. Thus why not scrap the old organizing forms, and try to build something new which utilizes them?

But, again, you try to dismiss my argument as relying on "spontaneity," which is simply a straw-man diversion. Historical materialism does not suggests revolutions can just happen at the "drop of a dime" - they are the social consequences of an epoch of production coming to an end. It could take decades or even centuries for our class to truly believe in our right to rule - we can only guess how bad things will have to get before it happens.

Marx suggested that hitherto history is a series of class struggles - and even the great changes in America in the twentieth century occurred as a result of massive struggle. The New Deal wasn't FDR's "gift" to America - it was a concession by the bourgeois class in response to the massive labor movement that actively struggled. And black people weren't "handed" legal equality by Johnson - they won it over a decade of active struggle. At the time, the ruling class wasn't ready for millions of protesters in DC - I'm sure it scared the shit out of them. Great changes in the system are won by our class by struggle, but as the system develops to encompass those changes, it co-opts the institutions of struggle. Labor unions in the US today are effectively reactionary, often in consciousness but specifically in their functional role. They haven't fought for wage increases in years - accept against inflation. Unions have become wholly defensive institutions, co-opted into the contradictions of labor and capital. And as such, they have taken such shape to be conducive to this occurring.

But the movements have only accomplished small-scale changes - our goal is the complete destruction of capitalism and the eradication of wage-slavery.

We have to encourage struggle outside official channels of class mediation. We can't be suckered into politics - we want 10 million workers in the streets of every city, physically taking them for working-class rule. We have to encourage, then, any and all resistance to capital (including its component component imperialism), in all shapes and forms. And we must provide reasoned argument for further measures of resistance. We want people striking from all work, marching in the streets, and, ultimately, executing capitalists. How we can instigate this is up to further discussion.

But it can't be "lead" by philosopher-kings or enlightened despots.

Please read my recent Article Submission thread on the party, and in particular some of the last points of that article.

But, consider - if we truly wanted an "organized" body of Marxists to develop theory and spread propaganda, why not use the internet as a tool for creating and perpetuating this? The internet allows for complete internal democracy and transparency, and, as an organizational tool, and share information anywhere, regardless of time or place. Thus, we cannot truly speak of an organized Marxist discourse which utilizes the technology which can make this happen. And I'm sure the "Party Secretary" of your favorite vanguard would be horrified at such a proposal - discussion within the majority of the party is largely unheard of.

Why didn't you read my thread on democratic centralism vs. Lenin's slogan, then? It implies this technology, and the Internet is mentioned elsewhere in the thread!

Likewise, the more party-wide decision-making there was from the party's rank and file with regards to policy and organization, the more likely it is that the central committee serves merely as a facilitator/moderator/referee of said discussion. The party unity is less representative and more direct, but it is there.

Oh, and so does the "Merge Marxism" analysis of Kautsky's "The Class Struggle" (in terms of mentioning the Internet).

I don't see you as a evil vanguardists - I think many vanguardists are entirely earnest about the desire to make revolution. I just tend to be annoyed by the ad hominem bullshit from some people on this board - not even all just vanguardists

What is it about Vanguardism that you dislike?

We have to encourage struggle outside official channels of class mediation. We can't be suckered into politics - we want 10 million workers in the streets of every city, physically taking them for working-class rule. We have to encourage, then, any and all resistance to capital (including its component component imperialism), in all shapes and forms. And we must provide reasoned argument for further measures of resistance. We want people striking from all work, marching in the streets, and, ultimately, executing capitalists. How we can instigate this is up to further discussion.

What you want is a revolutionary atmosphere. Unless you want to pray that the economy or mother nature hands workers a massive disaster, it is completely naive to expect this without a significant amount of work and organization workers will risk what security they do have for what you are suggesting. It is simply unrealistic.

if we truly wanted an "organized" body of Marxists to develop theory and spread propaganda, why not use the internet as a tool for creating and perpetuating this?

I actually agree with you here. At a time when mainstream papers are cutting jobs for hundreds of workers, it amazes me that Marxist groups still think it is wise to invest in the publication of party papers. Print is dead and leftists need to play catch up on how the world disseminates information.

^^^ Comrade, I certainly hope you're implying only quotation marks in mentioning "vanguardism." I've got an Article Submissions thread on the dynamics between the party and the social movement (and obviously the poster in question isn't bothering to pay attention to some of more level-headed elements of Kautsky's work). If I'm lucky, I'll get to contribute all my major material thus far to the Socialist Project of Canada.

As for your last remark:

1) I don't read newspapers except at work, and then only to skim to sports;
2) I get most of my news (and even then mostly global, anyways ) from Yahoo!; and
3) I SELDOM watch TV, given the wonders of the Internet.

[Translation: You are most certainly correct and then some. ]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/build-mass...400/index.html

Above, Ben Seattle talks about a "revolutionary news service" employing database technology.

"Implying only quotation marks"? I'm not sure what you mean. I was using the term in its most general sense.

^^^ He was using it as a pejorative. You didn't use quotation marks around "vanguardism," so I needed you to clarify.

Nice Napoleon av, BTW.

That painting makes me wish I had an imperial throne instead of a cheap computer chair I bought at IKEA.

What is it about Vanguardism that you dislike?

Our goal as revolutionaries is the complete destruction of capital and the state. And a historical perspective shows that parties are indisputably the invention of the nascent bourgeois class. In fact, before politics were run on the party-line, it was mostly a family affair of the aristocratic nobility. This is indicative of the historical role the Bolshevik coup played in Russia's development, but also obviates the material re-evaluation of the revolutionary potential of the vanguard. I do not understand, especially when faced by the weight of the 20th century, how anyone can hold the party as being a useful tool for either disseminating class consciousness, or "making" a revolution, anymore. We have seen for a fact that parties degenerate into reformists when not in power, and into capitalists when in power. So, regardless of what it says in the Manifesto or in What is to be Done?, I think historical materialism has rendered the vanguard an anachronism - we can't apply a bourgeois model to "win power" from a bourgeois system.

Which makes sense, because our goal is to destroy the system. I think we need something new, and significantly more radical than a party.

Our goal as revolutionaries is the complete destruction of capital and the state.

Our goal as Marxists is the dismantling of the capitalist superstructure and the production relationships upon which it rests. Marx never emphasized the necessity for the immediate destruction of the state. Because the state is part of the superstructure, he felt it would naturally transform into one of proletarian design, provided production relationships were shifted and capitalism had been overthrown.

In his Critique of the Gotha Program he implies a two stage passage into communism: "What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges." He focuses principally on labor, but consider his beliefs on the decline of religion (also part of the superstructure), we can get a better idea of how the state disappears.

And a historical perspective shows that parties are indisputably the invention of the nascent bourgeois class.

If you are going to talk about a historical perspective, than you need to at least make an attempt to explain why this occurred rather than implying that causation exists.

We have seen for a fact that parties degenerate into reformists when not in power

Reforms that benefit workers are bad? Maybe if you are an anarchist, but not if you are a Marxist.

and into capitalists when in power.

This is more of a problem with labor's lack of internationalism. So long as capitalism exists in the world we have to struggle against it. That means the necessity of coercion and therefore the necessity of the state.

I think historical materialism has rendered the vanguard an anachronism

A vanguard has a much wider meaning for leftists than what you are implying. The Vanguard can simply mean the advance section of the proletariat that seeks to educate and lead the less conscious. Party's are the most common organizational tool for any Marxist, be it Marxist-Leninist or Left Communist.

Which makes sense, because our goal is to destroy the system.

Yeah man. Smash the state. Oh wait, this isn't the anarchist member group, is it?

^^^ I imply three stages, since the immediate post-revolutionary society is still thoroughly capitalist (per my Stamocap and "permanent revolution" threads) in terms of mode of production: proletocracy, socialism, and communism.

I do not understand, especially when faced by the weight of the 20th century, how anyone can hold the party as being a useful tool for either disseminating class consciousness, or "making" a revolution, anymore. We have seen for a fact that parties degenerate into reformists when not in power, and into capitalists when in power. So, regardless of what it says in the Manifesto or in What is to be Done?, I think historical materialism has rendered the vanguard an anachronism - we can't apply a bourgeois model to "win power" from a bourgeois system.

Which makes sense, because our goal is to destroy the system. I think we need something new, and significantly more radical than a party.

If you're referring to a parliamentarian party, then yes (unless you count the revolutionary soviets as "parliamentary" bodies ). The problem is that you're behind the curve on this. The Bolsheviks weren't exactly a parliamentarian party.

I just can't help but notice that "reductionism", "revisionism", "sectarianism", et. all are just idealist explanations for the failure of the vanguard parties to either: a, make communism in the countries where they did come to power; or b, take power in any country more advanced than a feudal hellhole.

But this critique doesn't fit with actual historical facts. For example, Cuba was not feudal in any sense - it was fully a part of the global capitalist chain, and could only begin to break out of that role by defeating imperialism and building a workers state.

But real scientific and ration thought recognizes that if an assertion fails repeatedly and without exception, than it must be false.

Your counterparts in the mideighteenth century were saying the same thing about democracy- 'we'll never have republics, we'll always have the aristocracy'. And then 1848 came along. It's not really a shock that the first socialist states nearly all failures- so were the first democratic republics (for the most part).

Anyway, for a "failure", Socialist states have pretty impressive records of lifting billions out of the most extreme poverty ever known, providing education, healthcare, creating gender equality, protecting minorities, defeating fascism, rapid industrialisation, etc.

Leninism is an inherently idealist paradigm. You claim to use historical materialism, yet you explain the failure of the socialists with "revisionism" or "sectarianism" - two very un-materialist and un-Marxist explanations.

These are only idealist if you assume that human thought, tradition, culture, behaviour norms, etc., are not actual material forces. They very much are. You will have to debate them on their merits, not dismiss them as idealist.

For those who actually employ a historical materialist understanding, it is obvious that the socialist states failed because you can't just jump from feudalism to communism by "revolutionary will" or "correct dialectics". And the proletariat has yet to become a class for itself because the productive capacity of capitalism has not yet exhausted itself. Our objective conditions do not allow for it yet. This doesn't mean all we can do is "sit back" and "wait" for communist revolution, as you claim I assert - it means that any talk about "leading the working class" is just masturbation.

I'd agree with you to a limited extent- that most socialist states had an element of substitionism (or maybe more accurately, paternalist attitudes).

The problem is your confusion about productive forces running out of steam before revolution is possible*- this is demonstratably false. The aristocracy and landlords along with vestiges of feudelism were not completely eliminated as a class and capitalism was not completely in the ascendency before capitalist republics were established, to use one example.



*if memory serves, revolution is inevitable or most ripe when capitalism ceases to be progressive and becomes decadent, not only then however.

Anyway, for a "failure", Socialist states have pretty impressive records of lifting billions out of the most extreme poverty ever known, providing education, healthcare, creating gender equality, protecting minorities, defeating fascism, rapid industrialisation, etc.

While these may be good things, I think it would be nice to have a discussion on the institutionalization of socialist government, and how that effects long term international revolution.

^^^ Actually, I take an almost left-communist stance on such, in terms of one social-proletocratic party for all the world's working class coordinating the international social-proletocratic revolution. There's a thread on this in the Practice forum ("Why not an international socialist party?").

While these may be good things, I think it would be nice to have a discussion on the institutionalization of socialist government, and how that effects long term international revolution.

Sure, but I was responding to his statement that socialist states were all failures.

Well it depends on what you mean by success then. They may have improved the lives of working peoples to a certain extent, but was the bureaucratic institutionalization worth it in terms of sustained international class struggle? I.e.: was it 1 step forward 2 steps back?

Our goal as Marxists is the dismantling of the capitalist superstructure and the production relationships upon which it rests. Marx never emphasized the necessity for the immediate destruction of the state. Because the state is part of the superstructure, he felt it would naturally transform into one of proletarian design, provided production relationships were shifted and capitalism had been overthrown.

Marx never emphasized the need for the immediate destruction of the state until after the Paris Commune. Until this point, his writings suggest that he thought a bourgeois state apparatus could be "taken" and socialism can be instituted "in pieces." After the Paris Commune, however, he made the famous quip that the proletariat cannot simply "lay hold" of the apparatus, but must destroy it and construct something new. And I fail to see how anyone can argue that the Paris Commune state wasn't exponentially more democratic than a vanguard-despotism.

But, regardless of what Marx advocated, what does historical materialism suggest for us today? Marx's rejection of the anarchists in the IWPA was smart - he realized that communism necessitates a material abundance (or capability for) from the forces of production. Without the forces being developed that far, socialism will inevitably deteriorate into capitalism, he suggested. Thus, he opposed the anarchist's idealism (rightfully), and thought that the proletariat of Europe would have to create a "transitional state" to develop the forces of production far enough so that a superabundance of commodities would make communism feasible.

For today, however, this is obviously no longer necessary. Within the advanced capitalist world, we have the capability to produce an abundance - or, if not quite yet, we will relatively soon. So this distinction between the revolution that Marxists and anarchists discuss has become historically obsolete - another material reason for the convergence of Marxist thought and anarchist praxis.

Marx never, as far as I can recall in my readings of him, argued that a bourgeois state can "naturally transform" into a proletarian state. He did harbor illusions based on the early stages of bourgeois democracy in America - which was foolish, as the Congress of the robber-baron age openly bought and sold votes on the floor. Another strong example of why we can't refer to Marx as revelation, but instead employ his historical hermeneutic to derive accurate conclusions for today.

Reforms that benefit workers are bad? Maybe if you are an anarchist, but not if you are a Marxist.

Reforms aren't "bad" - that would infer that the moral distinction between "good" and "bad" is anything other than subjective. Reforms improve the everyday life of workers, but they are not a solution. They are begrudgingly handed over by the ruling class as a result of massive pressure by social movements - but they're dismantled as soon as it becomes both necessary and possible. And any analysis of the last four decades in America confirm this - and that reforms are no longer even possible in our system. Thus, any Marxist who earnestly works towards "gaining reforms" isn't really a Marxist.

This is more of a problem with labor's lack of internationalism.

Yes - the 20th century socialist states developed capitalism because laborers in the capitalist nations weren't internationalist enough. You know, I never thought I could hear a more reactionary and idealistic excuse for the dissolution of socialism besides the "betrayal" thesis - until now.

A vanguard has a much wider meaning for leftists than what you are implying. The Vanguard can simply mean the advance section of the proletariat that seeks to educate and lead the less conscious. Party's are the most common organizational tool for any Marxist, be it Marxist-Leninist or Left Communist.

Regardless of your subjective (and unsubstantiated and apologetic) definition of a "vanguard", perhaps I wasn't clear enough:

POLITICAL PARTIES CANNOT BE OF USE FOR COMMUNIST REVOLUTIONS - THEY ARE A BOURGEOIS INVENTION!

(also, read my next post)

Anyway, for a "failure", Socialist states have pretty impressive records of lifting billions out of the most extreme poverty ever known, providing education, healthcare, creating gender equality, protecting minorities, defeating fascism, rapid industrialisation, etc.

This just reaffirms my initial statement - socialism, historically, is a transitional stage between unindustrialized neo-colonialism and modern capitalism, borne out of anti-imperialist struggle. It is by all means "good", it improves the lives of the working-class, and is historically progressive. But it is of no use to revolutionaries in advanced capitalist countries for creating communist revolution.

For example, Cuba was not feudal in any sense - it was fully a part of the global capitalist chain, and could only begin to break out of that role by defeating imperialism and building a workers state.

Cuba wasn't "feudal" as in "ruled by a king", but it wasn't "fully a part of the global capitalist chain". Perhaps my terminology should be more precise - the majority of the property-relations in Cuba were based on land ownership and agrarian production; an agrarian-based economy, pre-relative industrial revolution. This even exists today, in severely underdeveloped parts of the world, namely in the Middle East and Northern Africa; places where most property and law are now owned by warlords. Capital will sometimes hyper-develop small markets in these countries, in Cuba's case, with sugarcane (profits appropriated by United Fruit), while ignoring the rest of the environment. Again, we must understand that capitalism is a system of uneven geographic development.

This really is a question of uneven geographical development - and, upon this point, I think a new descriptive noun needs to be used. Vanguard revolutions are applicable in undeveloped, unindustrialized, predominantly agrarian and "third-world" countries, whose bourgeoisie cannot fully take power (experience a 1789 revolution) to evenly develop the forces of production for the profitability of the nation itself. In these cases (Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc.) a vanguard party, often borne from the rebellious petty-bourgeoisie, come into power, and preform the functions of a bourgeois revolution - without a bourgeoisie in the traditional Marxist sense. They are, however, still bourgeois revolutions (in the sense that they are creating modern capitalism) - as indicated by the form of their government, a bourgeois party.

And, as Marx suggested with his whole theory of historical materialism, that was gonna have to happen anyway.

Your counterparts in the mideighteenth century were saying the same thing about democracy- 'we'll never have republics, we'll always have the aristocracy'. And then 1848 came along. It's not really a shock that the first socialist states nearly all failures- so were the first democratic republics (for the most part).

The first socialist states weren't failures - they preformed their historical roles of industrializing the economy, raising the living standards of the working-class, and paving the way for modern capitalism. They just never, and cannot, create communism - that's the historical role of the working-class in its entirety.

Also - I think this quote is more useful for a different analogy - the assertion that a bourgeois model of governance can be used for proletarian revolution is as equally absurd as if the nascent bourgeoisie of Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries tried to make bourgeois revolutions by organizing along "family" lines.

All new epochs of production require new paradigms of revolution. Period.

These are only idealist if you assume that human thought, tradition, culture, behaviour norms, etc., are not actual material forces.

Um...they're not. Thought, tradition, culture, and behavior are social constructs, and thus, by their very definition, idealism.

'd agree with you to a limited extent- that most socialist states had an element of substitionism (or maybe more accurately, paternalist attitudes).

The "element" of "substitutionalism" isn't "accidental" - it's the result of the form of which the revolutions were made. Sure, no vanguard will openly admit to wanting to "run the show" after the revolution - but, if they don't, why do they take the form of a political party?

Form determines function, and being determines consciousness. You cannot ignore this forever.

Okay, maybe it's 'cause I'm kind of stoned, but I was smoking a cigarette and thoroughly contemplating chimx's question above, what do exactly do I have against the vanguard. After all, I come from vanguardist roots, having once been a student of Lenin's thought.

It comes down to this: the "vanguard" remains ever-ambiguous in Lenin's writings. The idea "conveniently" has two theoretical uses: first, in the context of the pre-revolutionary era, the "most advanced" section of the working class (however that can be quantified), which is presumably organized with a party; second, the party that then becomes the state apparatus following the ousting of the ruling class. The problem with Leninism is that the ambiguity of the "vanguard," by maxim that form determines function, is prone to generate vanguard-despotisms; it would follow that what you call the "betrayal of the revolution" or the "victory of revisionists" or the "success of the capitalist roaders".. was actually inevitable, at least with a probable variation of authoritarianism. Most people wouldn't compare Castro to Stalin, and rightly so - Cuba's variant of socialism is considerably more democratic. But the fact that we've seen all the socialist vanguard-despotisms develop this way, in concordance with this critique, strongly suggests the time to come up with something new.

I don't consider it rational to expect that the vanguard-form of organization (meaning number two above) can make a communist revolution in the advanced capitalist world - especially in the 21st century! As Marx suggested, our consciousness and theoretical capabilities are significantly more advanced due to the development of our material conditions - especially the technological ones, which have given us the internet, the greatest medium of education man has ever conceived of. I think that we shouldn't cast away the Bolsheviks as being "evil" or being conscious and intentional capitalists - I think they played very vital and progressive roles in 20th century history, with a few fuckups here and there. But the result of their rule created significantly better living conditions for the working-class of Russia than czarism ever could, with less casualties than when market capitalism does. So I say good job - and support all the anti-imperialist struggles seeking to develop the underdeveloped and exploited "third"-world!

I just don't understand what use repeating that formula has for us in advanced and developed capitalist states. And it's most certainly not anything Marx or Engels ever envisioned when they urged the workers to break free of their chains.

Marx never emphasized the need for the immediate destruction of the state until after the Paris Commune. Until this point, his writings suggest that he thought a bourgeois state apparatus could be "taken" and socialism can be instituted "in pieces." After the Paris Commune, however, he made the famous quip that the proletariat cannot simply "lay hold" of the apparatus, but must destroy it and construct something new. And I fail to see how anyone can argue that the Paris Commune state wasn't exponentially more democratic than a vanguard-despotism.

I can't see why you would argue that Cuba isn't basically a workers' state (I'm making an assumption here based on your anti-lennie obsession)- it embraces far more of the class than the Paris Commune did (remember that the Commune counted many representatives of the petite bourgeoisie) and its mass governing bodies are more proletarian in nature.

But, regardless of what Marx advocated, what does historical materialism suggest for us today? Marx's rejection of the anarchists in the IWPA was smart - he realized that communism necessitates a material abundance (or capability for) from the forces of production. Without the forces being developed that far, socialism will inevitably deteriorate into capitalism, he suggested.

Marx actually argued that historical stages could be skipped in some instances, and clearly this has happened throughout history. Honestly if you're going to be this dogmatic, you're not going to seem very plausible.

POLITICAL PARTIES CANNOT BE OF USE FOR COMMUNIST REVOLUTIONS - THEY ARE A BOURGEOIS INVENTION!

if we applied this line of reasoning consistently, we'd be stuck in some rut, mate.

This just reaffirms my initial statement - socialism, historically, is a transitional stage between unindustrialized neo-colonialism and modern capitalism, borne out of anti-imperialist struggle. It is by all means "good", it improves the lives of the working-class, and is historically progressive. But it is of no use to revolutionaries in advanced capitalist countries for creating communist revolution.

I'm almost in agreement with you here- I think that Cuba's socialism is a good example of what can be achieved by proletarian socialism under very difficult conditions, but no, it is not a model for more advanced countries. However, a defeat or setback for imperialism in its colonies and neo-colonies can help make room for communist advances in the first world, so to insist dogmatically that socialism in less developed countries cannot help the first world is a fair bit off.

Cuba wasn't "feudal" as in "ruled by a king", but it wasn't "fully a part of the global capitalist chain". Perhaps my terminology should be more precise - the majority of the property-relations in Cuba were based on land ownership and agrarian production; an agrarian-based economy, pre-relative industrial revolution. This even exists today, in severely underdeveloped parts of the world, namely in the Middle East and Northern Africa; places where most property and law are now owned by warlords. Capital will sometimes hyper-develop small markets in these countries, in Cuba's case, with sugarcane (profits appropriated by United Fruit), while ignoring the rest of the environment. Again, we must understand that capitalism is a system of uneven geographic development.

This really is a question of uneven geographical development - and, upon this point, I think a new descriptive noun needs to be used.

The term you're looking for already exists, it's neo-colonial.

The first socialist states weren't failures - they preformed their historical roles of industrializing the economy, raising the living standards of the working-class, and paving the way for modern capitalism. They just never, and cannot, create communism - that's the historical role of the working-class in its entirety.

This is just stating the obvious. The problematic part is where we carry this to its logical conclusion: reject all existing socialist revolutions and struggle, cos they're not pure enough.

Um...they're not. Thought, tradition, culture, and behavior are social constructs, and thus, by their very definition, idealism.

'Theory becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.' -Marx, from the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law (if memory serves).

The "element" of "substitutionalism" isn't "accidental" - it's the result of the form of which the revolutions were made. Sure, no vanguard will openly admit to wanting to "run the show" after the revolution - but, if they don't, why do they take the form of a political party?

So it's down to the form the revolution is made- not the material conditions of the time? (civil war, mass illiteracy, famine...) And you call me idealist?