"Orthodox" Marxists and "Materialism"

Introduction: The Crisis of Theory

I've notice a phenomenon recently on this site:

There are a number of "orthodox" Marxists running around calling me and other "idealists" for posing theoretical question about what a world without bourgeois rule might look like.

The entire point of posing such question is to resolve the crisis of theory, which can be summed up in this way:

"If a better world is possible, why can't we describe it in a way that makes sense?"

The failures of the USSR and other "communist" regimes has left the Left (pardon the cheesy word usage) in a state of complete confusion, and since the USSR ended up so bad, and Marxists cannot (on the whole) describe what future society might look like, most fall into reformism or sectarianism.

In short, people are either unsure of whether a world without bourgeois rule is possible, or they have misconceptions about the October Revolution of 1917 (or various other attempts at workers' rule) and its result, and they make the situation worse. There are a number of people who do not suffer from either of these problems, but on the whole, they're not speaking up.

To clear of the misconceptions and ensure the masses that a better world is possible, Marxists will have to dare to take about their goal: a world without bourgeois rule. How will it work? Will people have democratic rights? How will the media function? Approximately how will a transitional economy work?

These are all questions that need to be discussed before we can resolve the crisis of theory, and for these discussions to be meaningful, we need revolutionary organization, where thousands (eventually millions) of people will be able to see the internal struggles within the Marxist movement that will inevitably produce the principles deserving the support of the working class. When the crisis of theory is resolved, the working class will be a powerful force capable of ending bourgeois rule and establishing genuine workers' rule.

[NOTE: For my critics, I'm not suggesting we come up with blueprints for the future; we can't predict the future and we don't pretend to be able to. But to solve the crisis of theory, it's important to have principles.]

However, there is a group of "Marxists" who, consciously or not, are effectively opposed to the resolution of the crisis of theory. We will call them "Orthodox Marxists."

Materialism as a Philosophy; Not a Doctrine

"Orthodox Marxists" tend to claim that it is "idealist" and "Utopian" to try to resolve the crisis of theory because:

a) There is no crisis of theory; the workers will spontaneously realize that a better world is possible, and that an attempt at workers' rule won't end up like the USSR or China, without needing any evidence

b) The notion that "the Idea does not make man" somehow means that we can't have principles that will help us reach victory and that we can't talk about our goal.

This position stems from the tendency of these "Orthodox Marxists" to see materialism as a doctrine, rather than a philosophy. As Marxists, materialism is the philosophy that we generally use to reach conclusions, and of course, materialism holds that the consciousness of the masses is a result of material conditions. This is the argument used by these "Orthodox Marxists" to claim that having principles that helps us reach victory is "idealist."

But Marx himself warned never to mistake philosophy with actual understand of the world:

One has to ‘leave philosophy aside’ (Wigand, p. 187, cf. Hess, Die letzten Philosophen, p. 8), one has to leap out of it and devote oneself like an ordinary man to the study of actuality, for which there exists also an enormous amount of literary material, unknown, of course, to the philosophers… Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relation to one another as masturbation and sexual love. (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology, International Publishers, ed. Chris Arthur, p. 103)

It is our understanding of "the actual world" that classes, no matter what the conditions see to be, don't just spontaneously become conscious when there are piles of conditions (i.e. the crisis of theory, and the possibility of capitalism existing indefinitely) keeping them docile. There has never been a revolution that has resulted from "waiting for the world to change," or waiting for spontaneous action of the masses.

While it is clear that conditions create consciousness, these "Orthodox Marxists" take it far too literally, and they ignore "the actual world" which clearly shows that people don't work like "Orthodox Marxists" would like to believe: they don't spontaneously become aware and overthrow governments without revolutionary organization that raises consciousness.

Yet these "Orthodox Marxists" claim that the very notion of an organization that raises consciousness is an "idealist" one, because it supposedly counts on the philosophy that "the Idea makes man." But this position looks at the problem from a very simple perspective.

They do not consider that the action of a revolutionary organization attempting to raise consciousness is a product of the conditions of the time. Materialism isn't a doctrine, and it isn't a "strategy." It's a philosophy. It's a description of how the world works. So as will be clearly demonstrated here, revolutionary organization that works to raise consciousness (i.e. by confronting the crisis of theory) does not "violate" the philosophy of materialism.

Luxemburg on the Party of the Working Class

These "Orthodox Marxists" claim that their position is not "let's sit on our hand until capitalism collapses," but since they refuse to confront the crisis of theory and to acknowledge the necessity of revolutionary organization, that is effectively their position.

“the task of social democracy does not consist in the technical preparation and direction of mass strikes, but in the political leadership of the whole movement. We cannot and dare not wait, in a fatalist fashion, with folded arms for the advent of the revolutionary situation” (Rosa Luxemburg, from Chapter 6 of "The Mass Strike")

Here, Luxembourg clearly states that we can't wait for spontaneous action of the masses; we can't wait for the magical conditions that will cause the masses to suddenly become completely conscious and overthrow bourgeois rule. Instead, we need revolutionary organization that functions as the leadership for the working class and works to raise consciousness.

Luxemburg again on revolutionary organization:

The working classes in every country only learn to fight in the course of their struggles ... Social democracy ... is only the advance guard of the proletariat, a small piece of the total working masses; blood from their blood, and flesh from their flesh. Social democracy seeks and finds the ways, and particular slogans, of the workers' struggle only in the course of the development of this struggle, and gains directions for the way forward through this struggle alone. (In a Revolutionary Hour: What Next?, Collected Works 1.2, p.554)

Social democracy is simply the embodiment of the modern proletariat's class struggle, a struggle which is driven by a consciousness of its own historic consequences. The masses are in reality their own leaders, dialectically creating their own development process. The more that social democracy develops, grows, and becomes stronger, the more the enlightened masses of workers will take their own destinies, the leadership of their movement, and the determination of its direction into their own hands. And as the entire social democracy movement is only the conscious advance guard of the proletarian class movement, which in the words of the Communist Manifesto represent in every single moment of the struggle the permanent interests of liberation and the partial group interests of the workforce vis à vis the interests of the movement as whole, so within the social democracy its leaders are the more powerful, the more influential, the more clearly and consciously they make themselves merely the mouthpiece of the will and striving of the enlightened masses, merely the agents of the objective laws of the class movement. (The Political Leader of the German Working Classes, Collected Works 2, p.280)

In other words, a revolutionary mass organization leads the class and comes up with the principles, slogans, etc. capable of guiding the masses to victory. But it does so only through the experience of class struggle, i.e. as a result of the conditions in which we live.

This is not a strategy; it is simply how the revolutionary organization will work. Thus, it does not "violate" materialism (how does one "violate" a philosophy?).

Conclusion: The Real Motives Behind "Orthodox Marxism"

In word, our goal needs to be the creation of a revolutionary mass organization capable of resolving the crisis of theory and guiding the masses to victory.

But why do "Orthodox Marxists" stand so opposed to this. They claim it is because such revolutionary organizations have historically imposed themselves on the working class and created "dictatorships over the proletariat." However, the Bolsheviks did not "impose" themselves on the working class, and anyone with half a brain should be able to figure out that revolutionary organization does not necessarily imply that a small group of people "imposes" themselves upon the class.

[NOTE: If you want more specifics on how this organization will develop, look at the post "How to Build the Party of the Working Class."]

I believe the real reason behind the "Orthodox Marxists'" opposition to revolutionary organization and resolution of the crisis of theory is because it gives them an excuse not to think. If you deny that the crisis of theory is a problem and instead count on magical conditions that lead to spontaneous action of the masses, you don't really have to do anything. This is appealing to many, as thinking critically about theoretical questions takes time and it can be uncomfortable. But this laziness leads us down the road to nowhere.

^^^ Most (not all) modern "orthodox Marxists" are little more than neo-Mensheviks, in my opinion.

The entire point of posing such question is to resolve the crisis of theory, which can be summed up in this way:

"If a better world is possible, why can't we describe it in a way that makes sense?"

Actually, that's only a small part of the crises of theory.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/merge-marx...141/index.html

This post in the thread above:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...4&postcount=15



My upcoming paper, The Class Struggle Revisited, will tackle two of the crises, including what you've said.

DrFreeman09:

[NOTE: For my critics, I'm not suggesting we come up with blueprints for the future; we can't predict the future and we don't pretend to be able to. But to solve the crisis of theory, it's important to have principles.]

The above illustrates an ambiguity in your post, comrade. On the one hand, you do seem to be demanding blueprints for the future. On the other hand, how do our "principles" help us to answer the question:

"If a better world is possible, why can't we describe it in a way that makes sense?"

with the degree of technical detail you seem to be demanding?

It would help if you could define the word "principle" and how you are using it.

To [be] clear of the misconceptions and ensure the masses that a better world is possible, Marxists will have to dare to take about their goal: a world without bourgeois rule. How will it work? Will people have democratic rights? How will the media function? Approximately how will a transitional economy work?

Of course, we talk about our objectives all the time: a world without bosses; a world where human need is prioritised over profit; a world where democracy is "made actual", the basis of social life. Meanwhile some of these questions you ask are of a different order. The question of full workers democracy has to be an absolute principle. How the media works will be contingent, like all things, on the extent of the democratic rule of the working class. We cannot have a principle about the latter which is separate from the former.

This position stems from the tendency of these "Orthodox Marxists" to see materialism as a doctrine, rather than a philosophy. As Marxists, materialism is the philosophy that we generally use to reach conclusions, and of course, materialism holds that the consciousness of the masses is a result of material conditions. This is the argument used by these "Orthodox Marxists" to claim that having principles that helps us reach victory is "idealist."

I tend to disagree with this. I think the problem of these so-called "Orthodox" Marxists is that they reject the dialectical connection between the material and the ideological. They correctly see how the developing material conditions of a society determine social consciousness, but not how consciousness acts back, through praxis, and produces change in the material conditions which develop again, as they are modified by human activity. In effect, they separate the material from the ideological, except in a one-way causality, and fail to see human social being in its totality.

It is a form of mechanical materialism which mirrors the real development in the antagonism between physical and intellectual labour in human history, as outlined by Marx in the German Ideology. It rests on one side of this antagonism.

In turn, I think the emphasis being placed here on the crisis of theory rests on the other side of the antagonism. In think it over-estimates the intellectual task and promotes it over the material relations of the moment:

These are all questions that need to be discussed before we can resolve the crisis of theory, and for these discussions to be meaningful, we need revolutionary organization, where thousands (eventually millions) of people will be able to see the internal struggles within the Marxist movement that will inevitably produce the principles deserving the support of the working class. When the crisis of theory is resolved, the working class will be a powerful force capable of ending bourgeois rule and establishing genuine workers' rule. (My emphasis)

You talk as if the paralysis of our class is only a matter of theory. But even conceding that theory may play a role in class consciousness, it is not a one-sided deal. The greatest jumps in revolutionary theory are usually the direct result of heightened waves of class struggle. So it is not correct to say that the crisis of theory is the solution to the crisis of practice. The two are inseparable - although it probably more accurate to see things the other way around.

Finally:

I believe the real reason behind the "Orthodox Marxists'" opposition to revolutionary organization and resolution of the crisis of theory is because it gives them an excuse not to think. If you deny that the crisis of theory is a problem and instead count on magical conditions that lead to spontaneous action of the masses, you don't really have to do anything. This is appealing to many, as thinking critically about theoretical questions takes time and it can be uncomfortable. But this laziness leads us down the road to nowhere.

I don't think accusing comrades with the obvious intellectual rigor of ComradeRed of not being interested in thinking is a very convincing argument. I think you need to look elsewhere to locate the source of their apparent fatalism.

^^^ The crisis of practice is a crisis of theory, as well. In the "Merge Marxism" thread, Hopscotch noted his crisis of theory, I noted mine, then he added another (so there's at least three, two of which will be addressed in my paper).

The crisis of strategy vs. tactics is a crisis of theory, as well, because over time communists lost the original, "pre-renegade" (hint ) meaning of merging Marxism with the workers' movement.

Citizen Zero:

Your comments are useful and believe it or not, I actually agree with you mostly. I don't have a lot of time right now, but I will make a couple of comments.

You talk as if the paralysis of our class is only a matter of theory. But even conceding that theory may play a role in class consciousness, it is not a one-sided deal. The greatest jumps in revolutionary theory are usually the direct result of heightened waves of class struggle. So it is not correct to say that the crisis of theory is the solution to the crisis of practice. The two are inseparable - although it probably more accurate to see things the other way around.

I agree. I tried to articulate that, but apparently, I failed. The crisis of theory will be resolved by the creation of a revolutionary organization that raises consciousness through its experience in class struggle, i.e. based on the material conditions of the time.

The most important task of our time is to direct our efforts to the creation of a genuinely revolutionary organization. The problem now is that there is a lot of practice, but it is not very useful practice. Many groups try to emulate Lenin's party, but they fail because they do not replicate the process by which Lenin's party was created.

Most groups today start with a programme and then attempt to recruit people into their legion of thinking. But this is not how the Bolsheviks emerged as the party of the working class in Russia. They began as a revolutionary trend within the RSDLP. Upon the creation of the RSDLP, it became clear very quickly that there were two trends within it: a revolutionary trend and a more reformist trend (i.e. the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks). Initially, most members of the RSDLP were undecided in which trend to support, so they demanded that the two cooperate. And they did.

But over time, after a long process of open struggle between the two trends, the majority of people in the RSDLP supported the Bolsheviks, and thus the Bolsheviks no longer needed the Mensheviks, and there was eventually a split.

A revolutionary party today will have to develop in a similar way. You cannot, in today's age, circumvent this process of open struggle.

So in short, there will have to be initially a fairly loosely based organization where various trends are allowed to "butt heads." The open struggle between these trends plus the experience of the masses with class struggle will eventually reveal the principles capable of guiding the masses to victory. [NOTE: By principles I mean ideas that help us understand things. Blueprint implies that you plan everything in advance, whereas principles are more general. Some are more specific than others, but the construction of blueprints is basically useless.]

So yes, the crisis of theory will be resolved by a resolution in the crisis of practice. But people have no reason to work to resolve the crisis of practice of they do not see anything wrong with how things are currently being done. If we don't acknowledge the crisis of theory, we have no reason to resolve the crisis of practice and create a revolutionary organization capable of resolving the crisis of theory.

Either way, it is my experience and the experience of others that two primary factors have to come into play:

1. We have to be able to demonstrate that a better world is possible before people will be willing to dismantle the current order

2. The conditions have to be right.

These "Orthodox Marxists" seem only to acknowledge the second half, and they don't realize that our ability to ensure the masses that a better world is possible will be a result of class struggle and material conditions. As Luxemburg put it, revolutionary organization works to raise consciousness by finding the correct principles and slogans, and it does so through the experience of class struggle.

This is how the Bolsheviks emerged out of the RSDP, and this is how the party of the working class will have to be built in the 21st century.

I think the problem of these so-called "Orthodox" Marxists is that they reject the dialectical connection between the material and the ideological. They correctly see how the developing material conditions of a society determine social consciousness, but not how consciousness acts back, through praxis, and produces change in the material conditions which develop again, as they are modified by human activity. In effect, they separate the material from the ideological, except in a one-way causality, and fail to see human social being in its totality.

Good point. I believe you are correct.

I don't think accusing comrades with the obvious intellectual rigor of ComradeRed of not being interested in thinking is a very convincing argument. I think you need to look elsewhere to locate the source of their apparent fatalism.

Perhaps a more accurate argument would be that "Orthodox Marxists" don't have a lot of experience in the workers' movement, or at least not a lot of useful experience.

I wasn't talking about ComradeRed specifically. I recognize that he's extremely intelligent.

However, he did make several comments that clued me in to the fact that he probably doesn't have much real experience in the workers' movement, as when I mentioned the problem of reformism, he claimed that the Democratic Party was not a threat.

The Democratic Party is a threat in the sense that their progressive wing exploits the anti-war movement and gives false hope to demoralized workers. Workers have seen the failures of working class movements before, and on top of this, there are a plethora of groups who make the situation worse by promoting wrong or fucked up ideas in the name of "Marxism," "Leninism," etc. (these are the reductionist or "cargo-cult Leninists").

So people become demoralized. And when an energetic Democratic Party candidate comes along claiming that if activists just lay down their militancy and start kissing ass, the Democratic Party can be fundamentally changed, many activists eat it up. History has shown time and again that when there isn't leadership and when the theoretical universe that surrounds the Left is murky at best, people fall into reformism.

The worst part is that most anti-war organizations and other "Leftist" groups are still tied with a thousand threads to the Democratic Party. These groups are full of activists who think they are doing something important, but in fact, they are not, as they essentially act as puppets for the Democratic Party, making them seem legitimate, and thus keeping the ruling class safely in power.

If ComradeRed does not see this as a legitimate threat, than I think that he does not have very much meaningful experience in the workers' movement. I've experienced the effects of the crisis of theory first hand, and so have many other people.

So perhaps the problem is lack of experience, rather than an unwillingness to think.