There are many people from leftists, communists , socialists and some of the anarchists believe that Marxism and Leninism are two different things . They think that Lenin has distorted Marxism. My article here explains with evidence that whatever Lenin said and did have been originated from Marx . It tells you that Marxism has contributed greatly in damaging the socialist/ anarchist movement as much as the rightwing did.
The article analysis the role of technology, Proletariate , political party, bourgeoisie, nature and environment , revolution and nation question in view of Marx and connecting Lenin to him.
Leftists and Communists have damaged the Socialist movement as much as the right-wing did
By: Zaher Baher
Sep 2016
The last century has seen a couple of historical catastrophes that continue to present day and the world still suffers from their fallout. The first one was so-called the Bolshevik revolution (Bolshevism) and the second was the “Iranian revolution”. While none of them was revolution, in fact both stopped the revolution in the half way.
The first catastrophe has lasted almost for 80 years, it engaged nearly half of the world and its shade still looms over our heads. The second one helped to build religion political parties and their militia in the region, especially in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Afghanistan. This has caused deepest fear and wariness for its main rival, Saudi Arabia. To the Iran/Iraq war, incoming of Mujahidin, Taliban, al-Qaeda in Afghanistan then Isis and the current wars between Sunni and Shia, Sunni and Sunni and Sunni and the “infidels”, the “Iranian revolution” contributed greatly. Dark time triggered by this movement is here to stay and nobody knows for how long.
Both of them were recognised and defined by many people, including the leftists and Communists themselves, as two different events/directions. The first one as a left and the second as a right-wing, while both of them were the enemy of socialism/anarchism. Both of them were the main obstacles to reach the socialism destination. While both of them built upon their own principles, in practice both are being hostile to socialism, so recognising them by left or right for me in that aspect does not make a sense. In addition both have a common principal “Ideology” that has given them strength and power.
In this article I mainly elaborate and highlight the communists and its ideology’s base, Marxism. Here I want to explain briefly the source of hostility to socialism that the leftists and Communists have relied on and the affected realms.
1 Left in the past and present:
Leftists, from social democrats, the socialist political parties, green parties to the working class/labour parties throughout the world never could become revolutionary forces to take the society towards major changes. Their slogans and demands, like freedom, social justice and equality have vanished as soon as they reached power. The Leftists’ struggle in non industrialised countries was represented the guerrilla’s war. In a sense of analyzing radical struggle, they never got anywhere or just simply built something, what in many cases was worse than the previous one.
In industrialised countries their struggle was the parliamentary election system. Once they reached power, they were unable to fulfil what they promised to people, so they betrayed those who voted for them. There is no doubt that among them there were faithful and dedicated people that their actual motivation to involve politics was to serve people, especially among the social democrats or labour parties. There were Marxist-Leninist people within these groups and most of the time they have/had more radical manifesto than their own party.
The power of people in political parties is very limited and they only project the illusion of changes, eventually disappointing their own supporters.
The socialist, the very radical people inside these political parties, in reality have left no doubt that, whether deliberately or not, they serve this system much better than their right-wing colleagues. They do that by prolonging the system; by deceiving people that their life can be improved step by step through the historical lie of election. They tell them this is the only way to make improvement, so there is no another way, no third way.
The experience and the realities proved while the leftist or socialists are in power, they are not only quelling the spirit of revolution among people, in fact they demoralise them, even killing their normal drive for resistance. In Europe, especially in UK, the period when Labour Party has been in power the number of the protests and strikes decreased compared to when Tory Party were in power.
The link below shows how the strikes in UK since 1970s are decreasing and becoming less effective as well. Since 1990 each year the number of the strike actions and their effectiveness dropped apart from 2011 as it was slightly different. The link also shows the reasons why there are fewer strikes every year although I personally disagree with the author’s reasoning. http://isj.org.uk/why-are-there-so-few-strikes/
For many of the leftists, especially the Communists, distorting of the socialist movement for not achieving socialism go back to ‘Stalin’. A minority thinks Stalin has done nothing except prolonging Lenin’s period and his theory.
However, if we look at the history and reality properly, we reach a conclusion that we cannot blame Stalin and Lenin for that because all of what Lenin did was originated from Marx and Engels.
Let’s briefly look at the excuses of those who believe Lenin and Marx were different from one another as if Lenin has distorted Marx’s theory and idea:
Organisation and working class party:
One of the factors pushed Lenin to build a political party was transferring a class consciousness to working class. He did not believe that the class consciousness emerges from external conditions and their actual impact on working class itself. He also believed in controlling the working class through the strict discipline of political party as he did not believe in the spontaneous movement of working class. He thought the spontaneous movement is chaotic and does not get the working class anywhere.
For victory of the revolution Lenin believed building a revolutionary political party is essential and also believed the communists are the most conscious people. This was the reason for him to build his party outside of the workers. So the Vanguard party is the best tool of the revolution and to build the Dictatorships of Proletariat. In his famous book “what can be done?” he lied down the plans and principles for Bolshevik Party and made it as main guideline for the party members to work on and go by it.
Lenin has got the idea of building the working class party form Marx. Marx in the Manifesto of the Communist Party said “The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working class parties “
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
Clearly in this short line Marx tells us: a) the communists and the workers are different. b) The working class can have their own political parties.
John Molyneux, academic, writer and one of the former leading SWP in Britain and now in Ireland has written various articles about Lenin and his theory. I regard him as one of the best people who has excellent knowledge about Lenin, Trotsky and Marx and can connecting them in respect of analyzing many issues. I refer here to him in some of his writings about the working class political party. In the link below he said “But when one speaks of Marx’s theory of the party, the subject is not political parties in general, but the revolutionary party which has as its aim the overthrow of capitalism – specifically one is talking about Marx’s concept of a proletarian political party, because, of course, it was his view that ‘the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class ..” He continuous writing and says “...Indeed Marx often suggests that the workers cannot be regarded as a class in the full sense of the word until they have created their own distinct party. Thus we find in The Communist Manifesto that ‘the organization of the proletarians into a class, and consequently into a political party, is continually being upset Again by the competition between the workers themselves’ [11], and in the decision of the London Conference (1871) of the First International that ‘the proletariat can act as a class only by constituting itself a distinct political party’. [12] This basic idea remained central to the theory and practice of both Marx and Engels from the mid-1840s to the end of their lives” in the same writing Molyneux carry on, he refers to Marx who said “This constitution of the proletariat into a political party is indispensable to ensure the triumph of the Social Revolution and of its ultimate goal: the abolition of classes. [45]”
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/molyneux/1978/party/ch01.htm
Lenin and Marxists-Leninists wanted to share their idea and principles with the working class to debate the working class struggles and transferring them the socialist consciousness, but as the history since then shows in practice they have controlled them and while they were in power they exploited and suppressed them.
2 State, Centralism and Authority
In regard to the above, there are leftists and Communists again who believe that what Lenin did was not originated from Marx and Engels. In my opinion that is not true. In fact Marx and Engels persisted on centralism and authority. In the first and second International Workers’ Organisation as the central and authoritarian organisation, the messages sent out and order the working class was “ Workers of the world, unite!“. Marx himself was on the top position in this organisation. It was then when Marx insisted on having a central authority in the organisation which was rejected by Bakunin. Bakunin believed that centralism in organisation suppresses the spontaneous action and revolutionary enthusiasm. This was one of the reasons that made Marx remove Bakunin and his comrades from the organisation.
Marx believed after taking over control of the means of production there will be a temporary period of transition from the socialist society to Communism. Marx made his theory about that very clear in 1870 in his book, Critique of the Gotha Programme “The transitional period is essentially a period of revolutionary change. “Between capitalist and communist society,” wrote Marx, “lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other.”24.. Although Marx in this book clearly talked about the authority but the foundation of this ideas has back to 1843 “In fact, in The German Ideology itself, the theory of proletarian dictatorship (not yet given this name) is presented rather clearly: ”. . . every class which is aiming at domination, even when its domination, as is the case with the proletariat, leads to the abolition of the old form of society in its entirety and of domination in general, must first conquer political power in order to represent its interest in turn as the general interest, which in the first moment it is forced to do.”18 Marx and Engels, The German Ideology, 52-53. Please see the link below.
In fact the type and the reason of state that Marx and his successors wanted to establish are really not important at all. Any type of state whether is small or big, proletariat or bourgeois state; all of them need bureaucratic administrations, police, military, courts and law and the spies’ network or institutions.
In reply to Marx, Bakunin said in his book: Statehood and Anarchy, “If there is a state, then there is domination and consequent slavery. A state without slavery, open or camouflaged, is inconceivable—that is why we are enemies of the state. What does it mean, ‘the proletariat raised to a governing class?’”26. Marx responded, “It means that the proletariat, instead of fighting in individual instances against the economically privileged classes, has gained sufficient strength and organisation to use general means of coercion in its struggle against them…”27. Then Bakunin asks, “Will all 40 million [German workers] be members of the government?”28 Marx’s response, “Certainly! For the system starts with the self-government of the communities.”29
When Marx writes about the proletarian power and the peasantry he says “the proletariat... must, as the government, take the measures needed... “30, see the link below
http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.html
However, from very beginning Bakunin idea and attitudes towards state were clear and never hidden; he made the following caustic remark about Communism “I detest communism, because it is the negation of liberty and because I can conceive nothing human without liberty. I am not a communist because communism concentrates and’ absorbs all the powers of society into state, because it necessarily ends the centralization of property in the hand of the state, while I want the abolition of state”
http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/political-ideas/comparison-between-karl-marx-and-michael-bakunin/1207
Alas what Bakunin predicted about Marx’s state, after almost a half century the Communist and the Bolshevik party proved to be true.
Many Marxists deny that what came in Critique of the Gotha Programme, has anything to do with state. However, both Marx and Engels in other statements or correspondences were insisting on power and centralism. Even for some countries or places Marx accepted election as the Parliamentary system can be a peaceful period to exchange the power “Did they not advocate participation in bourgeois elections, and the election of workers’ candidates into parliament? In fact, in certain countries, they even thought that a working class parliamentary majority could be used for a peaceful transition to socialism”62
http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.htm
A couple of issues were very important for Marx: centralism and industrialisation. He was very keen on having them. He always thought these two are main foundations for establishing socialism. That is why both Marx and Engels became a great advocate of centralism in the politics and in working places as well. They never denied this fact; I have already mentioned centralism in regards of their politics above.
They believed that working in factory is good for the workers. Engels praised the factory “as a school for hierarchy, for obedience and command” (Ecology or Catastrophe, the life o Murray Bookchin, By Janet Biehl), P 190.
In another book, Bookchin says “Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were centralists – not only politically but socially and economically. They never denied this fact, and their writings are studied with glowing encomiums to political, organisational, and economic centralisation. As early as March 1850 in the ‘Address of the Central Council to the Communist League’, they called upon the workers to strive not only for ‘the single and indivisible German republic, but also strive in it for the most decisive centralisation of power in the hands of the state authority ‘ lest the demand be taken lightly , it was repeated continually in the same paragraph, which concludes: ‘As in France in 1793, so today in Germany the carrying through of the strictest centralisation is the task of the really revolutionary party’.” The Murray Bookchin Reader Edited By Janet Biehl, P140.
On the same page Janet wrote: The same theme reappeared continually in later years. With the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War, for example, Marx wrote to Engels “The French need a thrashing. If the Prussians win, the centralisation of state power will be useful for the centralisation of the German working class”
On the personal level, Marx also was arrogant and authoritarian. He has not made much effort and was not ready to unite with those who differed with him, even they if they did not have significant differences. Anybody who reads his correspondences with his opponent, like Proudhon, Bakunin, Max Stirner and the others realises that.
3 Working class and Technology
Marx was very concerned about the revolution and insisted that it was the task of working class only. He, in other words, thought the advanced technology and industrialisation creates a strong working class that will be ready for the revolution. This was the reason why we see almost his main writings and studding being about industrialisation, capital, added value, working class and its class struggle with bourgeoisie to prove that the future of socialism can only be in the hand of Proletariat. This means that any society must go through the advanced capitalism before heading to socialism. This is the reason for Marx to be very hopeful about Proletariat to the point “Marx had written that if the working class ever accepted capitalism as natural, then all hopes for revolution would be lost” Ecology or Catastrophe, Edited By Janet Biehl, P285.
While Marx connected the strengths of Proletariat to advanced technology, he did not hide his feeling and happiness even if that would happen through destroying many people’s life, displacing many thousands more, the environment, causing starvation and unemployed. The best example was East India Company, while this company in the end became an empire on its own and ruled a very large area of India.
Janet Billie in the same book on page 60 drawing our attention to what Bookchin remarkably said about Marx’s idea and thought “Marx had considered it capitalism ‘historical mission to develop technology to the point where it could provide for humanity’s material needs” In the same book on page 190 she wrote what Bookchin says “Marx had even thought capitalism, by destroying earlier economic forms and developing technology, had played a historically progressive role. He thought class society had been historically necessary to achieve humanity’s ultimate liberation. Such notions, Bookchin wrote, made Marxism, all appearance to the contrary, ‘the most sophisticated ideology of advance capitalism’.”
David Graeber in his new book: The Utopia of Rules on page 121 and 122 talks about Marx’s idea of technology and profit that actually did not come out true especially if it concerns revolution in the area of means of production. He says “ Marx’s specific argument was that, for certain technical reasons, value, and therefore profits, can only be extracted from human labour. Competition forces factory owners to mechanise production, so as to reduce labour costs, but while this is to the short-term advantage of the individual firm, the overall effect of such mechanization is actually to drive the overall rate of profit of all firm down. For almost two centuries now, economists have debated whether all this is really true. But if it is true the otherwise mysterious decision by industrialist not to pour research funds into the invention of the robot factories that everyone was anticipating in the sixties , and instead to begin to relocate their factories to more labour-intensive, low-tech facilities in Chain or the Global South, makes perfect sense”
Graeber in the same book on page 143 says “...that capitalism is in its nature technologically progressive. It would seem that Marx and Engels in their giddy enthusiasm for the industrial revolution of their day were simply wrong about this. Or to be more precise: they were right to insist that the mechanisation of industrial production would eventually destroy capitalism, they were wrong to production market competition would compel factory owners to go on with mechanisation anyway”
Even knowing that Proletariat was a minority within the society, Marx put a huge task on it. Not just fulfilling the revolution and even not controlling the state only; in fact he believed that the workers should have and set up their own committees in the factories and the other places of work to control the production and other issues. This means giving the authority to a minority of people to overrule the majority; in other words, power to minority on the expense of majority. The power and authority, whatever its size anywhere that means there is no social justice, no equality and no freedom.
Murray Bookchin in his interview with Janet Billie explained this point very well “ ...Well unless the worker in an enterprise really begin to see themselves primarily as citizens rather than workers, then we are opening up the very strong possibility that they will claim at the expense of the popular assembly. To the extent that you withdraw power from the popular assembly and give to work place, to that extent you open cracks in the unity of the popular assembly and increase the possibility that the workplaces itself will act as subversive element in relation to the popular assembly. let me put it simply: The more power the workplace has, the less power the popular assembly has - and the less power the workplace has, the more power the popular assembly has.” The politics of Social Ecology, Libertarian Municipalism, Edited by Janet Billie, Page162.
In regards to the definition of Proletariat for Marxist today, especially the Marxists in Middle East they need to clarify themselves. If they accept the same definition as Marx had in his day of Proletariat then that is quite far from the reality and they will be disappointed about the revolution. If they agree that everybody wherever they work and whatever they do including students, pensioners and disabled people are workers, and then in this case they should review their understanding of Proletariat.
However, it might not be very important really how they define proletariat. What important is we know and very clear is the working class is much weaker and the hope of the revolution by them very slim than the time was Marx alive. Here, we can say that Marx’s prediction by increasing the quantity and quality of proletariat along side of advance technology, strong capitalism and getting frequent economic crisis that for him as coming a sign of the revolution did not happen.
If we look at the reality considering working class even the people’s movement are in a very low level, except in France and Greece. Even the actual struggles in these two countries are not to achieve anything new, in fact to maintain, to keep what they had before. This made me for the last 10 years to think that the economic crisis has not been capitalism crisis, it was our crisis. To clarify my point I wrote a long article in Oct of 2015 under the title: Is Capitalism in Crisis, or Are We?
http://zaherbaher.com/2015/12/14/is-capitalism-in-crisis-or-are-we/
Technology and its Role:
As I mentioned above technology and its advances were very important for Marx and Marxists in building socialism. For them advanced technology was a historical development and condition to tackle scarcity of production and also to create dynamic revolutionary force, proletariat. If we look into this topic closely we can make several points. First: Marx had no doubt that a strong proletariat emerge from an advanced technology and advanced technology is necessary for industrialising society; finally full industrialisation creates socialism. This was how Marx has seen his final goal and that was also the reason as to why Marx thought the bourgeois is a revolutionary class and recommended the proletariat to offer its support. Even now many of the Marxists think the bourgeois is revolutionary. Second: this analysis by Marx became the foundation for Lenin, Stalin and their successors to work on to clarify Marx’s point better and put it in practice in real world. With help of Marx’s theory they have divided the history of human beings society in respect to arriving of socialism into 5 to 6 stages. It started from primitive society, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism and then communism. This division clarified the role of proletariat and technology as even more important. They insist on that talking about building socialism in the non advanced economy countries was dream and not practical.
Technology and the quantity and quality of proletariat in fact are not even a secondary condition for emerging revolution and reaching socialism/anarchism society. The grounds for this revolution are existing classes and hierarchical society dominated by the tiny minority of elites. This condition has left the majority of people either having nothing or very little and the elites having everything. This kind of societies existed throughout the history since the class society appeared, so it is really not important whether that tiny minority in that society was named feudal, bourgeois or capitalist. It is very true the societies have been changed through the means of production but the exploitation, suppression, class and hierarchy society were always there. The above was the main ground for emerging revolutions regardless of the type of the society that people lived in.
In general the Communist, Bolshevik parties in the world struggled to make bourgeois more stronger and to work on industrialising the society, even if their slogans praised socialism. This was the reason for those parties to cooperate with the so called “patriotic bourgeois” to establish different kind of powers: socialist state, patriotic democracy state, popular democratic state, communist state. In few pre-capitalist countries, like Iraq, the Communists even participated in governments. They were trying to transform the society into socialist one, skipping the capitalist phase (the non- Capitalist path of development). In Iraq the Iraqi Communist Party, ICP, had a pact with Ba’ath party over 5 years between 1973 to end of 1978.
So whatever happened in Lenin period and after him, we will see its root in Marx’s theory and idea.
In my opinion this thinking of proletariat and advanced technology as necessary for the society to go through capitalism in order to reach socialism/anarchism greatly damaged our movement for the last 170 years. It is also quite obvious this idea has made the Marxists ideologist blind, as they cannot see the realities, pen their mind, think on their own rather than following someone who died 133 years ago. They now need to ask themselves if Marx’s revolution theory connects to the role of proletariat and industrialisation that means the revolution in the none industrialising countries will not be happening. More questions here are how this revolution can happen even in the industrialised countries? Is it through vanguards, even if history proved they are the suppressors of the revolutions rather than liberators? Let’s say it will be happened through them; but how do you transfer the society into full power through the Dictatorships of Proletariat, to Communism, classless society? The Marxists can only respond to these questions quoting Marx’s bible, not through the reality.
4 Technology, Nature, Environment and Ecology:
Marx and Engels exceptionally highly valued technology, for their own purpose. No doubt it was on the expense of environment, nature and whatever creatures live on the planet. Marx saw human beings precious and valuable to the extent of subduing the nature and dominating it by the human beings for their interests. In this point Marx shares his interest with Qur’an because both of them believe that the nature has been created to serve human being. This was the reason for Marx to produce his infamous line when he says “Human being is the most valuable capital in the world” According to this statement the other creatures are not very important, In other words, we can sacrifice them for the sake of human being’s interests.
I cannot recall Lenin writing a lot about ecology or environment like how Marx did. Even Marx has not written as much as Peter Kropotkin and Murray Bookchin have. However, whatever Marx wrote about this issue, showing his concern, in practice he was very hostile to nature by praising and advocating technology so much. Marx wanted the nature to be dominated by the human being and this can only happened in his view by having advanced technology. He did not pay any attention to damage and destruction of natural environment. He did not mind killing animals, birds and other creatures with displacing many more. He missed the need of balance between technology and nature. He ignored the fact that while nature in many ways serves people and the society and then in return it should be served by the Human being as well.
What is clear today is the whole natural disasters including raising global temperature are being created by mankind through the advanced technology for more money and profit. I believe many of us agree that this is a clear hostility towards nature.
5 Self-Determination and Nation State:
Marx and Engels talked and wrote a lot about various issues. As the nationalism and national movements at their time were a hot issue they tried to link it to proletariat question so that they could not avoid discussing it.
At the time there was Poland issue back to 1795 and Ireland that for a few centuries was a colony of Great Britain and from 1801 became a part of it. There was also the Jewish question, in addition to Hungary, Slovaks, and Czech and Bulgarian issues as well.
When the Bourgeois revolution in France in Feb 1848 happened, it pushed Marx and Engels towards giving more attention to national question and their expectation from Bourgeois class. Their definition for Bourgeois revolution was Democratic Bourgeois Revolution, struggling for nation’s freedom. So we should not be surprise to hear their opinion of the Bourgeois “At this time, Marx and Engels believed the bourgeoisie could play a historically progressive role by sweeping away feudalism, despite clear signals that it was prepared to compromise with the old order because it feared the power of the growing working class that allied itself to the anti-feudal struggle”. Marx and Engels did not pause here, when they spoke about Germany and its connection with Poland, they clarified their attitude about the National issue and laid down a duty for the Proletariat “Referring to the struggle in Germany at the time, Marx and Engels explained that this meant the working class must "fight [together] with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty bourgeoisie".3
http://links.org.au/node/164
Of course they believed that support or even union of proletariat and bourgeoisie in the anti-feudal struggle would be in the interest of working class, creating next step towards socialism
In Poland question, Marx and Engels were very much in favor of the Polish after seeing a clear exploitation and suppression; they supported them in their right of Self-Determination. In Nov 1847 in commemorating the 1831 Polish revolt in London meeting, Engels had a speech about the liberating Poland. He said “We Germans have a particular interest in the liberation of Poland. German princes have profited from the partition of Poland and German soldiers are still exercising oppression in Galicia and Posen [parts of Poland]. It must be the concern of us Germans, above all, of us German democrats, to remove this stain from our nation. A nation cannot be free and at the same time continue to oppress other nations. Thus Germany cannot be liberated without the liberation of Poland from oppression by Germans. And for this reason Poland and Germany have a common interest, for this reason Polish and German democrats can work together for the liberation of both nations”.5 (see: the previous link)
What is amazing here although above was Engels’ opinion about Poland as one of the “great historic nations" but in the meantime he did not approve the same right for some of other nation, like, Southern Slavs. His justification was “ Engels' view was based on the firm materialist reasoning that the various southern Slav peoples were not yet nations — were not oppressed as nations — and therefore could not exercise a self-determination independent of the reactionary Prussia-Austria-Russia axis (...) Apart from the Poles, the Russians and at most the Turkish Slavs, no Slav people has a future, for the simple reason that all the other Slavs lack the primary historical, geographical, political and industrial conditions for independence and viability. (...) While Engels noted the capitalist tendency towards centralization and the establishment of large states, he underestimated the countervailing tendency for small nations to fight against national oppression and for independent states of their own — that the path to the elimination of national boundaries might first have to go through a proliferation of them — a fact that Lenin was later to recognize” (The same previous link.)
In regards to Ireland Marx had different opinions. In a letter to Engels in 1867, Marx said "I used to regard Ireland's separation from England as impossible (...) I now think it inevitable, although federation may follow separation." He continued and said “I long believed it was possible to overthrow the Irish regime by way of the English working class ascendancy. A deeper study has now convinced me of the opposite. The English working class will never achieve anything before it has got rid of Ireland”.
I quoted Marx and Engels in respect of National Question to draw the reader’s attention to the fact that Lenin has got his opinions and principles from Marx. It is not his own theory; however, we should acknowledge that Lenin has done this in practice. The statement of “Self-Determination” became an article in the plan and program of Bolshevik alike parties in the world. He has written a lot about this issue in very detail especially in his famous book, Lenin and National Liberation in the East. This book has become a guide for the Communist people although in many countries the Communist parties have sacrificed the principle of Self-Determination to diplomatic relation between Russia at the time with the “Patriotic Government”. In some of the countries the Communist Parties have sacrificed this principle because they got on very well with the Ruler Bourgeois. Obviously in this circumstances the only interest the Communist party was concerned was the old Russia’s interest and clearly it was at the expense of their own people.
Conclusion:
Lenin followed Marx in whatever he has done and said. Some of the analyzing from Marx for the Marxists became a Bible, but this is not right because many of Marx’s writings and predictions have not come out truth, in fact they damaged the socialist movement badly. The Marxists should have reviewed Marx rather than sacred him. Marx’s times in term of Proletariat and technology were very much different from now. Many of Max’s writings and predictions were wrong for his time and are still wrong now. Marx had a great fear about the scarcity of necessary production to sustain the life of people, this was one of his reasons of defending the technology and also technology for him has a great role in coming revolution. The life proved that this was not true as well. His definition for proletariat as only a revolutionary class might for his period was right, but certainly now have been proved wrong. Not only they cannot unite in one day action even they cannot unite in one office, in one section, department (of course there are reasons for this). Working class like the rest in the society are the main protectors of this system, it is them who hold the system tied and keep it intact. What important for them are their jobs even if that comes at the expense of killing innocent people in other countries and destroying their lands. We can see this fact today very clearly; any of us can bring up many examples. Again setting up committees and assemblies only from the working class and them to be in control is wrong. We want everybody should have a power not just the workers alone.
Marx and Marxists have been believing in political revolution and taking power from the top, while the revolution should be social revolution starts from the bottom of the society and should cover every single area. The ecology issue is very important too; to certain extent if the revolution does not cover that area then the revolution will be failed. We also cannot talk only about class issue without addressing the hierarchy issue seriously.
In dividing history of human beings in respect of arriving socialism, like how Lenin and Stalin developed later, Marxists are wrong. This theory has caused a lot of problems for the countries in which the Communist parties betrayed the socialism by cooperation with the Bourgeois Ruler in the country and take a part in the dictator government or setting up their own one.
Comments
So it's strange but some in
So it's strange but some in our political milieu who still value much of Marx's basic analysis and that of other 'Marxists' who have continued to develop and apply that analysis to the modern world could agree with at least some aspects of what zaher says despite it's crude a-historical and overtly anarchist ideological bias. In the end this text is really just another attempt by zaher to exercise his obsession with opposing the notion of 'the people' with that of 'the working class' .
One of the best I have ever…
One of the best. So Great
More work should have been…
More work should have been put toward making sure this essay was perfectly clear and concise before being published. I noticed the author also published a more refined booklet expanding on his arguments presented here but that was no reason to leave this piece in the state it is in. Nevertheless, it is a very old piece by now, and as far as I am able to understand it, I am sympathetic to its general thrust.
The author is correct that Marxism and Leninism are indeed part of the same project or tradition. It is not hard to see how the latter is really a development of the former, where the differences are only slight from the point of view of anarchists and syndicalists. Quite frankly, Marxism as a whole has been a disaster for socialism. I’m not sure how one can rationalize the existence of such a thing, as if any bit of it has been positive for socialism.
I do disagree with flatly stating that “leftists” and “Communists” have damaged the socialist movement. So is it really just Marxism that is the target? Or is it all “leftists,” including anarchists, whose crime is to have wrongly considered Marxism and Leninism as separate things? I don’t think anarchists and syndicalists have done such a thing.
Marx had the foresight to…
Marx had the foresight to disassociate himself from Marxism, i.e. social-democracy, which includes the ideological cover, Leninism, that legitimised the seizure of political power by the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party.
In a letter about peculiar 'Marxism'
Marx articulates this clearly:
Marx had the foresight to…
You seem to miss the reality that Marx spent most of his political life, in writings and activities, championing social democracy. That is where Orthodox Marxists find fuel for their own advocacy of social democracy, claiming they are being most faithful to Marx. You don’t really have much of a counter to that as you insert the same quote over and over again in numerous threads.
So Marx disapproved of “Marxism” as he saw it at the time, and offered a critique of social democracy at one point. So what? The point of the essay above is that much of those Marxists, and later Leninists, can point to Marx as the source for their politics. Even further, I would say they are right to do so.
Agent of the International…
They're literally not (i.e. in the sense of Leninism having much in common with what Marx wrote about), but you don't seem to care about actually quoting people or referencing actual sources to support your arguments, so why even bother? Lenin argued for a vanguard party to "lead the masses," whereas Marx emphasized the rule of the entire working class itself while also citing contemporary examples like the Commune government. How is that the same?? I could go step-by-step showing you how what Marx praised in the Commune had nothing in common with what was put into practice in Bolshevik Russia (e.g. the democratic rule of the working class through their own elected and revocable representatives, along with other stuff like the relatively equal pay among the Communards—both of which were absent in Russia), but I think such an effort would be wasted on you.
What a ridiculous article…
What a ridiculous article suggesting that all non-anarchist revolutionaries (including people like Pankhurst, Miasnikov, Luxemburg, Haywood, and others) "have damaged the Socialist movement as much as the right-wing did." Does the author really want us to believe that revolutionaries like Miasnikov were on the same level as Mussolini (I'm not sure which "right" he's referring to) when Miasinkov directly confronted Lenin over issues like workers' self-rule and the lifting of restrictions on what people could say and publish? I mean you can only laugh at this article, along with anyone who finds any merit in such claims. This article also looks more like a draft rather than a polished piece. I'm not sure why the author even posted it when so many passages are just completely indecipherable or invite misunderstanding.
Assuming Zaher hasn't matured from these views, it's also worth pointing out, for the thousandth time, that Marx (and Engels) never advocated a strict progression of historical stages that all countries were obliged to pass through regardless of their particular circumstances (e.g. see Marx's comments on the possibility of Russia avoiding capitalist development through the Russian peasantry/commune; see also Marx's and Engels' support of peasant-based groups like the People's Will). The author, much like the people praising him in this thread, is just making stuff up without ever consulting what Marx actually wrote.
Marx... championing social…
However different the means proposed for the attainment of this end [social-democracy] may be, however much it may be trimmed with more or less revolutionary notions, the content remains the same. This content is the transformation of society in a democratic way, but a transformation within the bounds of the petty bourgeoisie.
.
Agent of the International…
Correctamundo.
They're literally not (i.e…
Both argue for political parties to conquer the State. And regardless of whether or not those parties encompass the entire working class, centralized organization of those parties is key to both. And let’s not forget that the goal is to establish a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” or as you put it, “rule of the entire working class itself,” between capitalism and communism. The difference is that Leninism does not require majority approval as measured and verified through government elections.
First, the “rule of the entire working class” is a nonsensical idea, a total farce. I don’t think I have to repeat here what anarchists and syndicalists have against it. Second, you’re trying to spin Marx’s advocacy of such an idea as if it is so far from what run-of-the-mill social democrats and Leninists have in mind. Third, you keep referring to Marx’s positive appraisal of the Commune, which occupied such a brief period in his lifetime, as if that changes anything.
So Marx’s vision is only revealed in his positive comments on the Paris Commune; there is no where else in his writings that we can point to his true vision? His comments on the Paris Commune is the only thing you constantly refer to in such discussions.
westartfromhere wrote: Marx…
If your really outta here like Goff, just take comfort in knowing we won’t be missing much, as this comment proves. And your supposed to be a group of half a dozen people, and that is the best you lot can come up with.
Agent of the International…
Once again, Marx never advocated a single, one-size-fits-all strategy for how all workers and peasants throughout the world in the nineteenth century should have acted to emancipate themselves.
Meaning what exactly?? Provide a source from Marx for what you're referring to and explain how this supposed "centralization" is the same as what was implemented in Bolshevik Russia. Do you even know what sources are and how to engage with them? It's a skill that you should probably try working on.
Neither Marx nor Engels ever argued for the total concentration of decision-making into the hands of party officials. Why on earth would Marx praise the democratic aspects of the Paris Commune (e.g. the revocable nature of the Communard officials) if he were instead in favor of a small group of "professional revolutionaries" making all the decisions? Why would Marx write about working-class self-emancipation if he instead meant a tiny group of party officials "emancipating" the masses for them? In fact, if you ever bother to actually read Marx and Engels, which you don't—you just spout whatever nonsense—you'd see that Engels criticized Blanquists precisely for their centralizing tendencies. See for example Engels' criticisms of the Blanquists in his Refugee Literature series of articles:
I don't know how much more of a condemnation of "so-called 'professional revolutionaries' leading and acting on behalf of the masses" you need than statements like the ones from Engels above.
I've also already provided you with all the sources for this information in other discussions, but you just completely ignore me, as you will probably do again.
Are you seriously arguing that Marx and Engels meant an actual dictatorship (in the sense of an oppressive regime) when they argued for a "dictatorship of the proletariat"?? I mean for fuck's sake, it's like arguing with a right-winger.
The reason why you don't want to talk about the Commune is because you haven't read anything about it. Otherwise you'd recognize its importance (like everyone worth taking seriously does by the way) in terms of understanding Marx's views on things like the revolutionary period. Here's Marx's famous passage from the Civil War in France:
Perhaps the work where Marx wrote about what his conception of a "working class government" actually was and praised the Commune itself as "the political form at last discovered under which to work out the economical emancipation of labor"—perhaps that work is something worth engaging with when trying to understand Marx's views on the revolutionary period.
Once again, Marx never…
So what alternative to social democracy did he ever advocate, in other circumstances where social democracy could not apply? Why is it that generations of his most faithful followers pursued social democracy, supplied with stock phrases and formulas inspired by him?
We can see for example in his conduct in the First International; he completely rejected that organization functioning as a kind of workers’ federation. He was opposed to the politics of the anti-authoritarian sections of that organization; he opposed his social democracy to any kind of federalist socialist approach. And when he didn’t get his way, he maneuvered to impose authoritarianism, or ultimately undermine the whole International.
Since your such the Marx expert, what did they truly argue for an organization of workers in terms of distribution of decision making power? Or are you just going to keep referring to Marx’s positive appraisal of the Commune?
What Marx saw worthwhile in the Commune is pretty problematic. He is looking for an affirmation of a revolutionary government, albeit one with elected representatives and equal pay. That sounds nice and all, not exactly like Bolshevik practice, but libertarian socialists do not espouse such a thing as a way forward beyond capitalism. And no one was arguing that Marx, Orthodox Marxists, and Bolsheviks are all the same.
Regarding “working class self emancipation,” that is a phrase shared by almost all socialists of all stripes. What you're trying to do is somehow prove that Marx is in good company with libertarian socialists, and put some distance between him and Bolsheviks. But you have failed to substantiate his supposedly true meaning of “working class self emancipation” that deserves such level of defense on your part, and your constant referral to the Commune does not even go a long way toward that.
I did not argue that but I do argue that any notion of the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” or the “rule of the entire working class,” is inherently problematic. These are farcical notions. They prove that they are not on the same grounds as libertarian socialists.
I’m glad you enjoy those quotes but they do not reveal anything worthy of defending in Marx. You bolded his reference to “working class government”; I already argued in prior discussions that Marx, his followers, and libertarian socialists all have different ideas of the how the process of revolutionary change is supposed to happen. The critique of Marx is not that his is the same as Bolsheviks, which you seem to straw man. You recommend The Civil War in France as a work that is worth engaging if trying to understand Marx’s views on the revolutionary period. Perhaps you meant to say that is the only work you have in mind worth recommending.
If you're not going to…
If you're not going to actually quote and engage with sources, then this is a completely pointless conversation. For the love of fuck, could you please start referencing actual sources??
I can definitely explain why you're wrong. For starters, there were no state-sanctioned democratic institutions in tsarist Russia when Marx and Engels were around. The Duma only emerged following the 1905 Revolution and was a complete farce mostly serving tsarist and ruling-class interests (e.g. the tsar had the power to veto any decision made by the Duma). There were certainly clandestine, illegal parties that sprang up prior to the 1905 Revolution (e.g. the General Jewish Labor Bund and the Socialist Revolutionary Party), but these parties never participated in a Russian parliament or a Russian equivalent to the German Reichstag since such a parliamentary body didn't even exist yet in Russia. Marx and Engels instead supported revolutionary groups like the People's Will which aimed at inspiring a revolution among the peasantry and urban proletariat to directly overthrow the tsarist order.
As one example of Marx's support for the People's Will, here's Marx in a letter to Adolph Sorge from 5 November 1880 where Marx praised the People's Will for (violently) struggling against tsarist despotism inside Russia, in contrast to Plekhanov's group Black Repartition that relocated to Switzerland:
Both Marx and Engels in fact thought that Russia was on the verge of revolution in the late 1870s and early 1880s.
In light of the fact that there were no state-sanctioned democratic institutions in Russia to speak of prior to the 1905 Revolution, it makes absolutely no sense to claim that Marx and Engels supported social-democratic parties' participation in parliament in Russia since such a parliamentary body didn't even exist yet. Marx and Engels instead supported groups like the People's Will that agitated for the overthrow of the oppressive tsarist regime and employed violent means (means which both Marx and Engels were sympathetic to within a Russian context) to achieve that goal.
It is also worth mentioning, as I already have in other threads, that "social democracy" did not carry the same reformist connotations back then as it does today. Rosa Luxemburg, for instance, was a self-described social democrat and a fierce opponent of a gradualist approach or simply humanizing rather than overthrowing capitalism (humanizing capitalism—which is the goal of most self-described social-democratic parties today). Marx and Engels lent their support to the social-democratic movement in Germany but consistently criticized the bourgeois-reformist elements within that movement. As one example, see Marx's and Engels' "Circular Letter" to the leaders of the social-democratic movement in Germany:
Are you seriously going to sit there and argue that Stalin and Lenin were "faithful followers" of Marx? Are you seriously asking this question?? Why did a sizable number of Proudhon's admirers later endorse fascism? Why do Ukrainian fascists support anarcho-communists like Makhno and hail him as a national hero? People find things in a thinker that they like, discard other things that conflict with their portrayals, and try claiming them as their own. That doesn't mean that these people faithfully embody the ideas of these thinkers just because they admire their intellectual contributions or other activities. This is just such basic stuff that it amazes me that you're even arguing like this.
"He was opposed to the politics of the anti-authoritarian sections of that organization"—the "anti-authoritarian" followers of Proudhon were goose-stepping Nazis when it came to their reactionary views on women and keeping them chained to the hearth. Please spare me this anti-authoritarian bullshit.
Also, oh no! Marx and Engels were "opposed to the politics of the [so-called] anti-authoritarian sections of" the International! Yes, alas, 'tis true—Marx and Engels opposed those vile, misogynistic Proudhonists who were against things like women's emancipation, strikes, collective ownership, and generally any kind of political action. Prior to splitting, Marx and Engels in fact at first tried cooperating with Proudhon and each wrote him a letter asking him to join forces, but Proudhon brushed them off. It's also worth mentioning that Bakunin actually supported Marx and Engels early on against the Proudhonists when it came to certain issues (e.g. the collective ownership of land at the 1869 Basel Congress, which the Proudhonists opposed in favor of small-scale peasant ownership).
Bakunin and his lot similarly maneuvered and struggled to assert their influence within the International as well, so the claim that only Marx and Engels strove to advance their ideas is just complete nonsense. Bakunin, for example, retained his secret International Alliance of Socialist Democracy despite the fact that it went against the International's rules and claimed to have officially (though not de facto) disbanded in 1869.
Marx and Engels had also always played a greater role in the First International than the Bakuninists who only emerged as a faction later on. Marx, for example, had been a member of the General Council since the organization's founding in 1864 (with Engels later joining in 1870) and wrote both the International's "Inaugural Address" and "General Rules." The First International was by no means solely founded by Marx and Engels (as some people erroneously claim), but the greater influence Marx and Engels exerted as compared to the Bakuninists was partly a result of Marx and Engels having been involved with the organization since its establishment. This is a more likely explanation for Marx's and Engels' successes and greater influence, together with various forms of maneuvering that other factions also engaged in, than the whining antisemitic conspiracies advanced by Bakunin.
Before he started railing against Marx as an "authoritarian," Bakunin also recognized, in a letter to Marx dated 22 December 1868, how Marx had always played a pivotal role within the First International since its founding:
If you're not going to…
Your posts are nothing more than repetitious propaganda on behalf of the legacy of Marx and Marxism. You are not even on the same page as to the posts you are responding to. You resort to quotes or sources as if that strengthens your arguments, when your arguments are pretty shallow or misguided to begin with. This post in particular reeks of pathetic desperation, so much so that it is a waste of my time. No one else even bothers with the nonsense you produce to defend Marx’s legacy.
You said that Marx never advocated a “single, one-size-fits-all strategy” for how workers and peasants throughout the world should act. Admittedly, I posed the wrong question in response. But notice I did not assert that Marx did not support any thing other than social democracy where that is not viable. So how am I wrong? I’m well aware of Tsarist Russia, and I remember you mentioning in prior discussions his support for such groups that do not follow social democracy. But can you say for sure those approaches fit with libertarian socialism? After all, you are on libcom.org defending Marx as if he is in good company.
The real question: can Marx ever be credited as embracing a libertarian approach to socialism as his own politics, as an alternative to social democracy, even in countries with electoral systems and where he generally pushed social democracy? Why do you think he is forever strongly associated with only social democracy?
Your explanation of the People’s Will is nothing more than a mission statement. And what does “support” mean beyond voicing approval in letters? What exactly is to Marx’s credit you think you are granting?
No one made such a claim.
Repeating yourself.
Reformism just means that the end goal sought, e.g. the transformation from capitalism to socialism, can be achieved through a series of reforms. Social democracy is not always reformist in this sense. If the end goal of a movement is a humanized capitalism, that just makes it not socialist; whether or not it is reformist is beside the point. Not sure why you felt the need to make such a digression. Everyone in this forum is well aware of the difference between past and present social democratic politics. The problem is not that it is reformist.
I never specifically had Stalin and Lenin in mind as the faithful followers of Marx. Now you are just becoming laughable. Quite frankly, this comment as well as the rest of your post shows you think of socialism as the product of a limited number of contributing individuals whom have to be sorted through.
The fact that you can comfortably reduce the anti-authoritarians to “vile, misogynistic Proudhonists” reveal you know nothing about the history of the First International. And that you still resort to referring to different factions as “Proudhonists,” or as in later in your post, “Bakuninists” reveals your antiquated brand of socialism. I mention the anti-authoritarian sections, and your thinking “followers of Proudhon,” in your Great Man approach to history and socialism.
The “Proudhonists” were mutualists, and yes, they were wrong on the question of land ownership, as well as strategy. It is comical how you frame it as Bakunin supporting Marx and Engels in regard to that issue. Collective ownership in land, as well as the means of production, emerged as a consensus, and once that happened, the mutualists were sidelined or left the International entirely. Almost everyone came out as a collectivist, out of which emerged an anti-authoritarian faction, that yes, supported collective ownership but more importantly, a bottom up, anti-statist labor movement approach. Marx was flat out opposed to these anti-authoritarians, even when they eventually became a majority of the International.
Your assertions are pretty baseless and petty. We are not talking about mere influence, but of imposing one’s preferred political program on the whole, which Marx is more easily guilty of. What is the other side guilty of? Bakunin was not even some central authority of the opposite side.
Your Great Man approach to socialism is revealed here. You’re insisting that Marx and Engels are greater than the countless workers who made up the International in their sections and federations. You are comparing two men, whom no doubt were important in the early proceedings of the International, to a faction that articulated a clear and viable path to socialism, and eventually became the majority. Oh, but they only “emerged later on.”
Your brand of socialism is so antiquated. If someone pushes back against Marx, or social democracy, you respond by going after Proudhon as a means to take a shot at anarchism, as if Proudhon is so instrumental to the anarchism of most here on libcom.org. Or you highlight the individual failings of some other Great Anarchist thinker. You fill your posts with quotes or sources to trick people into thinking you have read widely, but the opposite is the truth. You reveal yourself to have a very narrow distorted view of anarchism, of the International’s history, or of socialism in general.
If you're not going to…
If you're not going to actually quote and engage with sources, then this is a completely pointless conversation. For the love of fuck, could you please start referencing actual sources??
Instead of expressing your dissatisfaction in these vague and excitable terms, how about you specifically point to what you disagree with and explain yourself? You're still not quoting and engaging with sources like I asked.
I am also absolutely addressing the points you brought up. What information have I shared that is irrelevant to the topic at hand? Stuff like the absence of a parliamentary system in tsarist Russia before the 1905 Revolution is entirely pertinent to understanding what sort of strategies Marx and Engels thought that Russian peasants and workers should have pursued. You also specifically asked: "what alternative to social democracy did he ever advocate, in other circumstances where social democracy could not apply?" One of your motifs has similarly been that Marx and Engels only advocated a social-democratic strategy, which is not true at all and is what I was responding to. The absence of a parliamentary system in Russia prior to the 1905 Revolution might seem like irrelevant information to you because you were simply unaware of it (and you dismiss what you're unfamiliar with as irrelevant), but it is certainly relevant to the topic at hand.
First of all, libcom is not an anarchist-only website and is sympathetic to Marx, Engels, and Marxists.
Second of all, while some members of the People's Will may have been supportive of certain anarchist thinkers or ideas, they were not an anarchist group. They published manifestos, articles, and other documents that had little in common with the anarchist tradition. They were narodnik socialists who thought that the Russian mir/peasantry was inherently socialistic and had revolutionary potential. As one can see from some of their published pieces, they were in favor of setting up a temporary/revolutionary democratic government in Russia after overthrowing the tsarist order, in addition to pursuing other non-anarchist measures and strategies.
Third of all, being part of the "libertarian socialist tradition" is not the standard for measuring whether a person, group, or strategy is emancipatory or compatible with ideas like freedom; "libertarian socialism" is just a school of thought or political tradition. You should get the idea out of your head that anything that isn't explicitly connected with this tradition is somehow bad or wrong. In works like his Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, for example, Engels praised Indigenous groups like the Iroquois for their egalitarian way of life, absence of commodity production, and greater respect for women when compared to bourgeois society. Engels didn't dismiss them simply because they weren't self-described communists or communists of the Marxist persuasion, which would have been anachronistic terminology in any case. Many of the ideas associated with the early libertarian socialist tradition, such as those by Proudhon, were in fact anything but emancipatory or compatible with ideas like freedom, especially when regarding women.
No idea what you're asking here. Besides repeatedly voicing their support for the People's Will throughout various letters, both Marx and Engels were also sympathetic to a peasant-based revolution in Russia and saw potential in the Russian mir to avoid capitalist development (i.e. Marx and Engels did not think that Russia was destined to go through capitalist development or that revolutionaries should only focus their energy on the much smaller urban proletariat), which were beliefs shared by the People's Will and other narodniks as well. For example, see Marx's and Engels' 1882 preface to the Russian edition of the Manifesto:
In addition to these shared views, Marx also welcomed the People's Will member Lev Hartmann into his London home in the 1880s, following up on the request in the letter the People's Will had sent to Marx, and assisted him in various ways. Both Marx and Engels also described Hartmann as a dear friend in multiple letters. See Marx's letter to the Scottish-American journalist John Swinton, for example, to whom Hartmann personally delivered the letter when he traveled to America:
Following Marx's death, Engels, it's worth pointing out, did become slightly more pessimistic about Russia's chances to avoid capitalist development on the basis of the Russian peasantry/mir, especially in light of how such a revolutionary development had yet to come about and how Russia was increasingly becoming more industrialized like Western Europe.
I never reduced the so-called "anti-authoritarians" in the First International to the Proudhonists; I dealt with the Bakunininsts, for example, right after I got done discussing the Proudhonists. The Proudhonists were also the major anarchist faction within the International during its early years. I'm sorry that you're uncomfortable with the unsavory history of the libertarian socialist or so-called "anti-authoritarian" tradition, but it would be a gross omission if I were to just completely ignore Proudhon's followers and the role they played in the First International and anarchism in general.
I'm not quite sure what leads you to believe that I support some "Great Man approach to socialism" just because I am engaging with sources and demonstrating how you're wrong about many of your central claims regarding Marx and Engels. Honestly I'm not quite sure that you even know what you're saying either.