đŸ’Ÿ Archived View for library.inu.red â€ș file â€ș rod-mehling-a-conversation-about-marxism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:41:01. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

âžĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: A Conversation About Marxism
Author: Rod Mehling
Date: December 9, 2015
Language: en
Topics: book review, marxism, critique of leftism, The Utopian
Source: Retrieved on 10th August 2021 from http://utopianmag.com/archives/tag-The%20Utopian%20Vol.%2014%20-%202015/a-conversation-about-marxism/
Notes: Published in The Utopian Vol. 14.

Rod Mehling

A Conversation About Marxism

Introduction

Ron Tabor, in his 2013 book, The Tyranny of Theory—A Contribution to the

Anarchist Critique of Marxism (Black Cat Press), presents an incisive

and provocative critique of Marxism. Ron’s central point is that Marxism

is totalitarian in its outlook, and a prescription for the establishment

and maintenance of totalitarian societies. Ron is not the first person

to see totalitarianism in Marxism; many others, before and after the

Bolshevik-led October 1917 Revolution, have ascribed this trait to Marx.

What makes Ron’s book particularly valuable and unique is that he comes

to his critique from the left, that is to say, from the perspective of

anti-capitalist revolutionary. Ron’s analysis grows out of his

experience with, and then gradual rejection of, first, Trotskyism, and

then Leninism, as revolutionary expressions of Marxism. The Tyranny of

Theory takes as its departure point Ron’s previous analyses of, first,

the state capitalist nature of the Soviet Union, and subsequently, Lenin

and the Bolsheviks’ theory and practice. Thus, unlike many people who

have abandoned left-wing perspectives and activities in favor of

liberal, pro-capitalist or even arch-conservative perspectives, Ron has

steadfastly maintained a commitment to what some (including this writer)

would refer to as the ideals of Marxism”—the creation of a cooperative,

democratic, egalitarian society, organized by and in the interests of

the immense majority of people. However, Ron argues that it is a

profound mistake to see socialism with a democratic and libertarian soul

as Marxist in any sense. In other words, Ron maintains that the single

most consistently accepted critique of capitalism and call for the

revolutionary alternative of socialism, is not merely useless but is, in

its very essence, a totalitarian worldview that leads to the creation of

totalitarian societies.

The aim of this conversation is to further explore the important

questions raised by Ron in The Tyranny of Theory. Is Marxism

totalitarian, or does it merely have totalitarian aspects? Which of

Ron’s arguments are fully convincing, and which are open to further

consideration? Is an analysis of the philosophical underpinnings of

Marxism sufficient to make the case for Marxism as totalitarianism? Or

does this conclusion rest in good measure on the actions and results of

movements led by self-proclaimed Marxists such as Lenin, Trotsky,

Stalin, Mao, or Castro? In other words, if these individuals had not

used Marxism as their banner, would a philosophical argument alone be

sufficient to label Marxism as totalitarian? Do these individuals and

movements represent the playing out of Marxist theory with predictable

results, or have these individuals so thoroughly distorted Marx’s views

that they should not be held up as proof of the totalitarian nature of

Marxist theory?

Why should we care about Marxism?

The answer to the question, “why should we care about Marxism?” lies in

another question: what is socialism? Ask 50 people; you will get 50

different answers. It is hard to think of a concept that has more varied

definitions—and more varied proponents and detractors. The “why” of this

is very much bound up in the compelling and provocative critique of

Marxism provided by Ron Tabor in his The Tyranny of Theory.

At its simplest level, socialism suggests a system in which the

decisions about the production and distribution of goods are not made

privately, but are determined by the people or society, rather than by

the owners and controllers of great wealth. The assumption behind

socialism is that a people-controlled economic system (and, therefore,

social and political system), would be far more just and democratic than

a private ownership/private-profit system. While many people who

consider themselves socialists, or who might be attracted to socialism,

might agree on the above definition, there is little agreement on what

socialism is beyond this definition. What does it mean to say that the

“people” or “society” will determine what is produced and distributed?

How will this be done? One way might be from the bottom up—that is to

say, through the organization of local cooperatives, councils, planning

organizations, that assess needs and productive capabilities in their

area, and then cooperate regionally, nationally, and internationally in

decision-making over the production and distribution of goods and

services. Another way might be from the top down—that is to say, the

national government, however defined or constituted, would assess needs

and productive capacities and make decisions over the production and

distribution of goods. And, of course, at least in theory, there might

be a mix of these two approaches.

The “from the bottom up” path has a decidedly participatory and

democratic feel to it— local people directly involved in discussion,

debate and decision-making over important aspects of their lives, and

ceding tasks (and therefore some power) to geographically wider bodies

as needed and determined locally. Control and authority rests in local

hands; power devolves upward only in the manner and to the degree local

committees desire it. A century of experience with societies describing

themselves as socialist, or Communist or Marxist has demonstrated that

when a centralized power establishes itself as the controller and

director of decisionmaking over production and distribution, the result

is neither participatory, nor democratic; quite the contrary, the

(apparent) elimination of private capital as the driving force of

production and distribution has merely resulted in the substitution of

state-controlled (and in this sense private) capital calling the shots.

Moreover, in the absence of the degree of pluralism that exists in

free-market capitalist societies, these state capitalist societies are

highly authoritarian at best, and (often in their Marxist-Leninist form)

brutal, totalitarian dictatorships at worst.

So, why should we care about Marxism? In my view, the value of Marxism

lies in its theories about and critique of capitalism, and its theories

about and advocacy of socialism, a radically different

economic/political/social system. Marxism is not, as Ron points out, the

only critique of capitalism, nor the only political framework that

advocates a radical transformation of capitalist society. However,

Marxism has been the predominant revolutionary anti-capitalist critique

for a century or more.

There are many reasons for this, but one significant factor is that

Marxism is highly compelling. Ron writes:

“...Marxism has many features that make it extremely attractive to

people angry at the injustices of capitalism and anxious to make the

world a better place. Perhaps most importantly in these times of

economic crisis, it offers a detailed analysis of capitalism that has

never been approached, let alone equaled in its cogency, breadth and

depth. In addition, Marxism provides a moral indictment of the

capitalist system, along with a vision of a just society and strategy

and set of tactics to achieve it. Finally, it offers a unified

conception of history and of human nature (while denying that such

nature exists) and seems to answer all the fundamental questions that

have consumed the minds of human beings for millennia.” (The Tyranny of

Theory, p. 8)

Thus, if we care about socialism, we need to care about

Marxism—certainly to understand it as theory, possibly to embrace parts

of it that are valid or, if we are rejecting it in its entirety, to be

crystal clear on the reasons why.

Is Marxism totalitarian? (Yes, but...)

In the first chapter of his book (“Marxism and its Historic

Responsibility”), Ron states his central thesis: “The main thesis of my

critique of Marxism is that it is, and must be held responsible for

Communism.” (The Tyranny of Theory, p. 11) Ron defends his thesis by

examining Marxism from several perspectives, but early on he states

Marxism is totalitarian because it “its underlying philosophical

assumptions imply it.” (The Tyranny of Theory, p. 25)

Ron devotes two chapters of his book to a detailed examination of

Marxist philosophy. Valuable as this discussion may be, I believe that

the “philosophical totalitarianism” of Marxism can be located at a less

complex level. In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels traced the

economic/social organization of humanity from its earliest times to the

young capitalist epoch in which they were writing. The key claims

were: 1) societies had passed through several distinct forms of

organization, each defined primarily by its dominant economic mode of

production (“primitive communism,” slave society, feudalism,

capitalism); 2) each of these societies was seen as an advance on the

previous society; 3) the “motor force” of change from one stage of

social organization to the next was identified as the class struggle; 4)

each new economic/social/political order was seen as revolutionary in

relation to the order that preceded it; 5) capitalism created conditions

in which a tiny minority (the bourgeoisie) owned and controlled the

means of finance, production and distribution, and a vast majority had a

common condition of being exploited by the owning and ruling class. This

majority-in-the-making was the working class; and, 6) as capitalism

developed, this proletariat would grow ever larger, recognize its

“property-less” condition, and thereby have both the compelling reasons

for, and the wherewithal to, overthrow capitalism and establish the

first society created by, organized by, and administrated by the

overwhelming majority—socialism.

If only Marx and Engels had left things there. But they didn’t. And this

gets to the essence of one key aspect of Ron’s argument in The Tyranny

of Theory. Writing in the 19^(th) century, at a time when science seemed

to explain “everything”—physics, nature, organization of work,

psychology of humans, etc.—Marx believed that he had discovered for

human society and its evolution, something parallel to what Darwin had

uncovered related to natural science. Thus, they labeled their theory of

socialism, scientific socialism. Their intention was to distinguish

themselves from the prevalent notion of socialism of the time, utopian

socialism, which often took the form of advocating various schemes to

organize communities around communal, working and living principles.

Marx and Engels viewed this approach as “utopian” because they

recognized that capitalism had replaced feudalism not as a good idea

emanating from a handful of forward-thinking social planners,

imaginative novelists or entrepreneurs, bur rather through a complex,

prolonged, and at times forceful overthrow of the then existing

relations of production and the class that profited from and defended

those relations. Thus, Marx and Engels argued that socialism would not

replace capitalism as the result of some utopian scheme, but rather

through a complex and prolonged struggle centered on deeply rooted class

antagonisms between the “old” and the “new.”

While Marx and Engels may have had understandable reasons for

proclaiming scientific validity for their theories, their claim to

scientific validity (of having discovered “truth”), turns advocacy of an

ethically desirable ideal into something quite different. For if Marx

and Engels had discovered the science of human history, if one stage of

society is destined to give way to the next, and then the next, and then

the next...then each new stage of history is inevitable. In other words,

the march of history is absolute and “Truth” has been revealed. This is

the cornerstone of Ron’s argument in The Tyranny of Theory: that the

Marxist view of history— the view that a known future exists within the

present—is a totalitarian outlook, philosophically, and leads to

totalitarian outcomes, practically. Why totalitarian? Because a given

group of individuals, leaders, political parties, movements—it doesn’t

matter who or what—acting “in the name of,” and “on behalf of,” or “in

concert with” the inevitable march of history, can do no wrong. Anything

they do is right. Anything they do is justified. Anything they do is

necessary. No matter how messy.

So there’s the yes (Marxism is arguably philosophically totalitarian),

but what about the “but?” Imagine this discussion was taking place in

the early 20^(th) century—no Lenin, no Bolsheviks, no October Revolution

(and no Stalin, Mao, Kim Il Sung or Pol Pot). I think it is fair to

argue that in such a context, we can imagine a reasonable person

arguing:

“Marx was overwhelmingly ‘right on’—he exposed the evils of capitalism;

he laid bare issues of base and superstructure that are highly

compelling; he recognized the revolutionary role of the bourgeoisie in

relation to feudalism, and its reactionary role as the purveyor and

defender of capitalism; he issued a clear call to toiling masses

everywhere (‘workers of the world unite’) to recognize their common,

property-less condition as well as the possibility of a common

collective future. Yes, he and that fellow Engels got a bit carried away

by the ‘science’ of the thing. They were writing at a time when science

seemed to explain ‘everything.’ They were wrong on that.”

My point is this: The philosophical analysis of totalitarian aspects of

Marx’s and Engels’ views would be an abstraction—a correct, but not

necessarily defining point—if it were not for the fact that subsequent

events (the outcomes of movements that called themselves Marxist), seem

to confirm that the totalitarian outlook in Marx’s philosophy actually

leads to concrete and specific totalitarian societies. In other words,

labeling Marxism as wholly totalitarian, purely on the basis of

philosophical aspects of Marxism that are rooted in Marx’s infatuation

with power and reach of 19^(th) century science, is a mistake.

Ron rejects this point of view and argues that it is impossible to

separate any one aspect of Marxism from another, and that all aspects

taken together constitute Marxism’s philosophy:

“...the entirety of Marxism, both theory and practice, including its

strategy (the organization of the workers as a class counterposed to

other classes, the proletarian revolution, the dictatorship of the

proletariat) and tactics, constitutes a unified view of the world, a

philosophy.” (The Tyranny of Theory, p. 22)

Nonetheless, I contend that Ron’s conclusions about Marxism rest to some

significant degree on the actual outcomes created by supposedly Marxist

movements beginning with the Bolshevik Revolution of October 1917.

Specifically, a close examination of whether Lenin and the Bolsheviks

meaningfully represent Marxism is highly relevant to assessing whether

Marxism itself is or is not totalitarian. Thus, the rest of this article

focuses on two key questions: 1) Were Lenin and the Bolsheviks (and, by

extension, subsequent Marxist-Leninists) truly Marxists? 2) Is the

Marxist conception of the state totalitarian? I believe that the

perspective one takes on these questions greatly influences a judgment

on whether Marxism is merely flawed, or is instead totalitarian at its

core.

Was Lenin a Marxist? (Well, he said he was...)

Lenin was the principal leader of a section of an avowedly Marxist

political party, (=the Bolshevik wing of the Russian Social Democratic

Labor Party—RSDLP; he wrote books on aspects of Marxist theory; he spoke

in Marxist terminology; and he claimed to be leading a Marxist-inspired

socialist revolution. In short, Lenin said he was a Marxist. However,

although Lenin considered himself a Marxist, over the course of his

political career he revised Marx’s views in significant ways (always

framing these revisions in terms of the conditions that were peculiar to

Russia). These changes to Marxist theory and practice were sufficiently

distinct that Stalin was easily able to re-label Marxism, as

“Marxism-Leninism.” Marxism-Leninism is not Marxism.

Ron expresses some ambivalence regarding whether Lenin was a Marxist. In

a series of articles that subsequently appeared as A Look At Leninism

(1988), Ron argues that Lenin and the Bolsheviks were not democratic,

libertarian socialists, but were instead authoritarian, state

capitalists (a point of view that I agree with). Ron begins his analysis

of Lenin’s outlook by suggesting that Lenin was a prisoner of a “Marxist

orthodoxy” that saw Russia as not sufficiently transformed from the

feudal/agrarian stage to the bourgeois/capitalist stage to be ready for

a working class-led socialist revolution. He goes on to argue, with

merit, that this may have deeply influenced what type of society Lenin

actually thought he was creating, and hence the authoritarian,

state-capitalist outcome. However, Ron seems to recognize at least the

possibility that Lenin may have broken with Marxism. He doesn’t say this

directly, but writes:

“Another argument against my hypothesis that the Bolsheviks were

(despite themselves) bourgeois revolutionaries is that they thought of

themselves as Marxists, studied Marxism, made it clear to the workers

that they were socialists, recruited people to be socialists, etc. But

calling yourself a Marxist doesn’t automatically make you one.” (A Look

at Leninism, p. 13)

Since A Look at Leninism was written several years prior to The Tyranny

of Theory it may not reflect later views. In Tyranny, Ron rejects any

argument that the Bolsheviks and their various successors were not

Marxists, and dismisses this argument on two grounds:

“In fact, almost every type of apologist for Marxism articulates a

variant of this argument. Trotskyists insist that Lenin was true to

Marx; Stalin distorted him. Maoists contend that Lenin and Stalin were

Marxists; ‘revisionism’ began with Khrushchev.... The very posing of the

argument (in whatever form) implies a critique of Marxism, for if the

historical process had developed as Marx predicted, all debate over what

is or isn’t Marxism would be irrelevant. The socialist revolution a la

Marx would have happened (or would be in the process of happening), and

there would be nothing to argue about.” (The Tyranny of Theory, p. 19)

These are not particularly strong arguments. As to the first, if one

believes that Lenin and the Bolsheviks (the inspirers of

MarxismLeninism, the ideology used by all of the subsequent so-called

Marxist movements/revolutions) were not Marxists, that is, had broken so

significantly with Marxism as to give it a totalitarian content, it is

not compelling for Ron to dismiss this view as “picking and choosing.”

It is not picking and choosing to see the entirety of the

20^(th)-century revolutionary leftist movements as non-Marxist. Ron’s

second argument is simply circular. It dismisses a discussion over

whether Lenin and the Bolsheviks were in fact Marxists by arguing that

there would be nothing to debate if socialism was, as Marx believed,

inevitable. But, of course, socialism is not inevitable. Marx believed

this, but he was wrong.

In my view, Lenin was not a Marxist, and, the Bolsheviks were not

Marxists, Stalin was not a Marxist, the Communist Party of the Soviet

Union was not Marxist and Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist Party

were not Marxists. All of these individuals and parties are at

fundamental odds with Marxism as defined by the core writings of Marx.

Admittedly, there have long been differences over what is or is not

Marxism. (Marx famously said in the early 1880s, after reading a

programmatic document written by French socialists, “If this is Marxism,

than I am not a Marxist.”) As a result, it is a challenge to prove that

Lenin was not a Marxist. What I will attempt to demonstrate is that the

differences between Lenin’s theory and practice and that expressed in

Marx’s writing are vast in relation to what I consider to be several key

defining issues of Marxism. Marxism will be represented by a single

work, The Communist Manifesto, written by Marx and Engels in late 1847

and published in 1848 as the programmatic expression of the newly formed

Communist League. While both Marx and Engels wrote many subsequent works

that further elaborated aspects of their views, these subsequent

writings did not fundamentally alter the core propositions presented in

The Communist Manifesto.

Two areas from the Manifesto are essential to this discussion: 1) class;

and, 2) consciousness and leadership. (A later section of this article

will examine Marx’s views on the nature and role of the state and Ron’s

critique of these views.)

1) Class

In Section 1 of The Communist Manifesto (“Bourgeois and Proletarians”)

Marx and Engels wrote:

Society as a whole is breaking up into two great hostile camps, into two

great classes directly facing each other— bourgeoisie and proletariat.

(p. 10)

Nothing about the context for the Russian Revolution remotely resembles

this expectation/prediction. Yet, these were the conditions under which

Marx foresaw, and championed, a socialist revolution.

Marx and Engels went on to say:

“The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to

all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn

asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural

superiors,’ and has left no other bond between man and man than naked

self-interest, than callous ‘cash payment.’” (p. 12)

Again, there was little in the Russian situation in 1917 that resembled

this description of the development of capitalism and the rule of the

bourgeoisie. It is true that the February Revolution had overthrown Tsar

Nicholas II and ushered in a bourgeois-democratic government (in the

form of the Provisional Government). However, the country as a whole

remained overwhelmingly peasant and agricultural, the Russian nobility

owned much of the land, and democratic institutions were weak or

non-existent. 1917 Russia was at the front end of a significant period

of industrial/capitalist development, which would likely include the

broad establishment of bourgeois-democratic political institutions, and

would almost certainly bring about the growth of a large industrial

working class. However, in 1917 these workers, conscious as they may

have been, made up less than 5% of the Russian population as a whole.

Marx and Engels stressed that the process of capitalist development

would be slow and uneven, but that over time it would give birth to a

modern working class that would grow numerically and mature politically.

Thus, they write in the Manifesto:

“The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its

birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie....At this stage the

laborers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country,

and broken up by their mutual competition....But with the development of

industry the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes

concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that

strength more....Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a

time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate

results, but in the ever-expanding union of the workers.” (pp. 18–19)

Here, Marx and Engels are describing the creation of a class, the

conditions that weld it into a class, and the processes that begin to

give that class identity and consciousness. These were not casual

observations, things to take or leave. Quite the contrary, they were

their central beliefs on the material basis for socialism, and how and

why it would come about. The conditions in 1917 Russia do not remotely

approximate the existence of such a class, ready to make in its own

name, by its own acts, in its own interests, a working class-led

socialist revolution.

The first section of The Communist Manifesto builds to the following

conclusion:

“All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in

the interests of minorities. The proletarian movement is the

self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the

interest of the immense majority.” (p. 21)

This is a straight up statement of the nature of the working class

movement that Marx and Engels foresaw, placed in the context of the

centuries-long process that led from feudalism to capitalism and was now

leading the way, in their view, to the development of capitalism in such

a way as to make socialism a possible and necessary next step. Marx and

Engels’ reference to this as “the self-conscious, independent movement

of the immense majority, in interests of the immense majority” is: 1) a

central, defining tenet of Marxism; and, 2) not remotely similar to the

revolution the Bolsheviks led and carried out. Twentieth century

self-proclaimed Marxists read this passage and found one pretext or

another to walk away from its meaning.

When Trotsky, in 1903, called for a workers’ government as an immediate

aim of the revolutionary movement in Russia, Lenin answered:

“That cannot be! It cannot be because a revolutionary dictatorship can

endure for a time only if it rests on the enormous majority of the

people ... The proletariat constitutes a minority ... Anyone who

attempts to achieve socialism by any other route without passing through

the stage of political democracy, will inevitably arrive at the most

absurd and reactionary conclusions, both economic and political.” (V. I.

Lenin, Sochinenya, ix, p.14, quoted from Tony Cliff, Trotsky on

Substitutionism)

Lenin, at least at this time, was well aware that a working class-led

socialist revolution in early 20^(th) century Russia would lead to

anti-democratic and, in his words, “reactionary conclusions.” He was

also aware that this was at odds with Marxism. Trotsky was aware of this

as well. At the Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic

Workers’ Party (London, 1903), he stated: “The rule of the working class

(is) inconceivable until the great mass of them (are) united in desiring

it. Then they would be an overwhelming majority. This would not be the

dictatorship of a little band of conspirators or a minority party, but

of the immense majority in the interests of the immense majority, to

prevent counter-revolution. In short, it would represent the victory of

true democracy.” (Quoted from Tony Cliff, Trotsky on Substitutionism)

Thus Trotsky, like Lenin, rules out the minority rule of the working

class as the “dictatorship of a little band of conspirators or a

minority party.” Each does this based on their understanding of Marxism.

Marx himself, writing in the mid-19^(th) century, drives home the point

that all 20^(th) century “vanguardists” have abandoned. Speaking to

German socialists who, in Marx’s words, “flattered” the German workers,

Marx declared:

“While we say to the workers: you have 15 or 20 years of bourgeois and

national wars to go through, not merely to alter conditions but to alter

yourselves and make yourselves fit to take political power, you tell

them on the contrary that they must take over political power at once or

abandon all hope.” (Quoted from Tony Cliff, Trotsky on Substitutionism)

2) Consciousness and leadership

The opening of Section 2 of The Communist Manifesto asks the

question:“In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians

as a whole?” Marx and Engels go on to answer:

“The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working

class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from the

proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of

their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement.” (p. 23)

No separate party to vie for leadership with other parties? No separate

interests from the working class as a whole? No sectarian principles

with which to lead the proletarian movement? This hardly sounds like

Leninist-inspired Bolshevism. To be fair, Marx and Engels do suggest two

programmatic points their movement ought to stand for. They write:

“The Communists are distinguished from other working class parties by

this only:

“1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different

countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of

the entire proletariat, independent of all nationality.

“2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the

working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always

and everywhere represent the interests of the movement a whole.” (p. 23)

These two points are striking. Each of them is designed to lend support

to the idea that the proletariat is a class. Point #1 seeks to overcome

the division of the working class into separate nationalities with

separate national interests, counter-posing to this the notion of a

common, international class interest (“Workers of the World Unite!).

Point #2 makes the same fundamental point; where sections of the working

class have, in one way or another, been pitted against each other, they

(Communists) “always and everywhere represent the interests of the

movement as a whole.” There is little or nothing in the description by

Marx and Engels of the role of Communists that matches that of Lenin and

the Bolsheviks. How can the call for “no separate party opposed to other

working class parties” be seen as remotely similar to the Bolshevik

outlook? How can Marx’s declaration that Communists “have no interests

separate and apart from the proletariat as a whole” be seen as Leninist?

How can the declaration of “no sectarian principles by which to shape

and mold the proletarian movement” be squared with Lenin’s views? The

entire history of the Bolshevik experience was to see the correctness

and purity of the Bolshevik program as requiring not merely discussion

and debate, but as demanding that a line in the sand be drawn. Standing

on the other side of that line stood “class traitors” or “class

enemies,” more dangerous than the bourgeoisie itself.

Lenin believed that: 1) workers were not capable of reaching socialist

consciousness on their own (this consciousness could only be brought to

them “from without,” by the revolutionary party; 2) the party was the

“representative” of the working class not only in the sense that its

“correct program” would provide “correct leadership,” but in the sense

that the party was more important than the class, that, in fact, it

could lead the working class against the real live workers. (And, so it

did, dispersing the Constituent Assembly, refusing virtually any

coalitions or alliances with other parties, persecuting Mensheviks, SR’s

and Anarchists, murdering the Kronstadt sailors, and jailing, exiling

and sometimes killing “backward workers.”) The vast disparity between

the Bolshevik notion of consciousness and leadership and that expressed

by Marx and Engels in The Communist Manifesto is evident. Does it make

sense to call Leninism Marxism? I do not think so.

This discussion leaves unanswered the following question: if Lenin fully

understood that it was a break with Marxism to believe that a working

class-led revolution in Russia was “on the agenda,” how did he (and

Trotsky and other Marxists) jettison these views? And, once doing so,

how did they manage to dress their new views up as Marxism? One answer

lies in the occasional statements by Marx that suggest that Russia, due

to its unique position in Europe, might have a “special path” to

communism. There are several reasons why, in my view these statements by

Marx do not support the actions of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. First, it

would be a mistake to stack a few random comments by Marx against the

thrust of his systematic writings. Second, in the most relevant of these

comments, Marx is not discussing the possibility that Russia could be

ripe for a working class-led socialist revolution. Quite the contrary,

Marx viewed Russia as an overwhelmingly peasant country with a virtually

non-existent modern working class. What he noted was the unique communal

traditions that existed among the Russian peasantry. In light of this

communal tradition, Marx suggested that, in concert with a worldwide

socialist revolution, Russia’s peasants might be able to skip over a

capitalist stage of development and move directly to a “Communist

communal peasant society.” In other words, Marx was speaking of a form

of uniquely Russian peasant communalism that might survive and grow in

an otherwise socialist world. Working class-led socialist revolution in

Russian workers did not even figure remotely into Marx’s thinking.

A second line of thought is more complicated. Leon Trotsky, writing in

the midst of the 1905 Russian Revolution, pointed to the extremely weak

nature of the Russian bourgeoisie and posited that, since this

bourgeoisie could not/would not carry out its “bourgeois-democratic”

tasks, this job would fall to the revolutionary Russian proletariat.

Further, once such a working classled revolution had begun, in certain

circumstances it might be possible to continue it directly through the

“bourgeois stage” to a “socialist stage.” Hence, the phrase “Permanent

Revolution.” Trotsky said that if the Russian revolution “sparked” a

world revolution,” thereby providing the “material base” for socialism

in Russia, the revolution could move from the bourgeois stage directly

to the socialist stage. Lenin rejected Trotsky’s view as un-Marxist

until World War I had broken out in 1914. Sometime between August 1914

and April 1917, Lenin recognized: 1) that war had created potentially

revolutionary conditions in Europe (including Russia); and, 2) that the

soviets (councils or committees) created by Russian workers in the midst

of the February Revolution, then by soldiers, sailors and peasants in

the revolution’s aftermath, provided an alternative form of government,

radically different from typical (bourgeois) parliaments. In these

circumstances, he changed his views on the possibility of a working

class-led socialist revolution in Russia. Able to return to Russia from

exile in Switzerland, Lenin unveiled his famous April Theses upon

arrival at Russia’s Finland Station. In this short, enumerated speech,

he called on the Bolsheviks to take steps to prepare for the overthrow

of the Provisional Government. Explicit in the April Theses was the need

for the class-conscious Russian workers, under the leadership of the

Bolsheviks, to overthrow the capitalist Provisional Government and

establish a government of the “workers and poor peasants.” Socialist

revolution was now on the agenda in Russia. Again, we need to challenge

ourselves to ask whether Lenin’s new outlook, and the subsequent course

of his and the Bolsheviks actions in the summer/fall of 1917 through to

the consolidation of the Bolshevik regime by the time of Lenin’s death

in 1924, is fundamentally contrary to the essence of Marxism. Marx

repeatedly emphasized that socialism would result from the activities of

a well-developed, highly conscious, independent, self-acting working

class movement that makes up the immense majority of the population and

acts as the immense majority, in the interests of the immense majority.

No such thing existed in Russia in 1917.

The third line of thought to explore is based on my own analysis and

conclusion that it is almost impossible to overestimate the

transformative change brought on by the 20^(th) century, a century some

historians have defined as beginning in 1914, with the outbreak of World

War One. The Great War, as it was known at the time, was a cataclysmic

event, one with an impact on the people and societies who experienced it

that is difficult to fully appreciate. That impact begins, of course,

with the war’s unprecedented level and scope of death and destruction.

Beyond this, the war, both during and after, resulted in the dislocation

of millions of people, either as refugees fleeing war-torn areas and the

raping and pillaging armies during the war, or as a result of redrawn

national boundaries. By the war’s end, four empires had collapsed—the

Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, The Russian Empire, and the

German Reich—and the British Empire was launched on its downward

trajectory. In addition, as we know, there were two revolutions in

Russia, as well as short-lived, aborted or failed revolutions in

Germany, Hungary and elsewhere. Beyond these straightforward facts, it

is important to emphasize the devastating impact the war had on people’s

basic outlook. As the 19^(th) century, a century of maturing bourgeois

capitalism, drew to a close, the predominant worldview was one of

profound optimism: humanity was making virtually uninterrupted progress

toward a better future based on the unending miracles and wonders of

science and technology. Anything was possible to achieve, and most

commentators, philosophers, writers, pundits, scientists and politicians

believed that it would be achieved. Including Marx. The Great War

shattered these illusions. Optimism was replaced by deep pessimism, even

profound cynicism. Technology had proved itself a monster; killing had

never taken place on such a scale, with such brutal efficiency. War had

lost all glory; governments had lost all credibility, and in the chaos

and dislocation (economic, social and political) of wartorn Europe,

bourgeois (parliamentary) democracy seemed incapable of addressing

people’s fundamental needs. In this context, radical solutions grew more

attractive and, as we know, radical extremists came to power in many

countries: Russia (Bolshevism); Italy (Fascism); Germany (Nazism); Spain

(Fascism/authoritarianism); along with authoritarian or semi-fascist

governments in other countries. These regimes proceeded to profoundly

alter the nature of the modern state and, of course, played key roles in

taking the world into an even more devastating Second World War.

The vastly different economic, political and social conditions of

post-WW I Europe, and the game-changing political options and choices

these conditions presented, offer an illuminating lens through which to

view the theory and practice of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, and the

relationship of that theory and practice to Marxism. The war mobilized

tens of millions of common citizens in a way no war had ever done

before. Elite, professional armies were replaced by mass conscription.

Incredibly large percentages of the young (and not so young) male

population were drafted into these armies; tens of millions of other

citizens were mobilized on the “home front.” Not only did this instill

in the common citizenry a notion of newly-found rights—political rights,

workers’ rights, women’s rights, national rights—but it also meant that

the masses would be players on the political stage as never before.

Thus, it is no accident that the distinctly 20^(th) century phenomenon

of fascism, used broadly to include the movements mobilized by both

Mussolini and Hitler, makes its appearance in a post-WW I context.

Fascism is not merely dictatorship; after all, kings, tsars and Kaisers

were dictators for the most part. Rather, if fascism has a single,

defining feature it is that it involves the organization and

mobilization of a mass movement to bring its leader and ideology to

power. Black Shirts, Brown Shirts, Storm Troopers, Squadristi, along

with pageantry and propaganda via mass media—these are the hallmarks of

Mussolini’s Fascism and Hitler’s Nazism. Their programs were designed to

appeal to the masses; The word “Nazi,” after all, is the abbreviation of

Nationalsocialiste (national socialist), and both Mussolini and Hitler

claimed their movements stood for a “third way,” an alternative to both

capitalism and socialism.

If we recognize that the 20^(th) century path to power for

non-traditional elites (people who were not industrialists, bankers, or

their political representatives) lay through the masses, we have some

greater context for why left-wing movements, including Leninists,

Stalinists, Maoists, and Fidelistas, adopted a program with “mass

appeal.” And what better program than Marxism? After all, Marx issued

one of the most compelling calls ever for the toiling masses to rise up

and take power into their own hands. Thus, I argue that we should give

greater consideration than Ron does to the proposition that determined

middle class intellectuals, with a burning desire to “make history,”

dressed their ambitions and actions in a necessary and effective set of

clothing. These individuals were “substitutionist” in every sense of the

word: No bourgeoisie sufficiently developed and strong enough to carry

out the democratic-capitalist revolution? Don’t worry, we’ve got it

covered. No working class sufficiently developed and strong enough to

carry out the socialist revolution? Don’t worry; we’ve got it covered.

No democratic means available to carry out our “mission?” Don’t worry;

we’ve got that covered too.

The strongest argument against this view lies in the following question:

What in Marxism enabled all of these leaders/movements to credibly claim

that they were Marxists? Or, as Ron puts it, “...is there something in

Marxism that makes it prone to being ‘misinterpreted’...that leads, in

other words, to totalitarianism?” (Tyranny of Theory, p. 20). In other

words, Ron and others may accept some or all of the above, but still

argue that it is precisely Marxism that gave Lenin and the Bolsheviks

(and those that followed them) the specific theoretical and programmatic

tools for their totalitarian actions. Since Marx claimed that he

recognized the “historic march of events,” Marxism provides perfect

“cover” for pretty much anything, including, as a case in point, the

brutal and dictatorial actions the Bolsheviks directed against those who

stood in the way of their all-knowing regime. There is logic to this

argument, and I do not seek to prove Ron wrong here. Rather, I have

tried to offer certain context—from Marx’s own writings, from the views

and actions of Lenin and other Bolshevik leaders, from the particular

context of the period in which “Marxism-Leninism” came to power—to

suggest that it is worth further considering the possibility that

Marxism did not lead to totalitarianism, but rather that it was

hijacked, and then thoroughly distorted and misused by fanatical

totalitarians who were seeking power.

As one example of this alternative view, let’s look briefly at Ron’s

argument in A Look at Leninism that Lenin was a state capitalist

because, among other things, he was an “orthodox Marxist” for much of

his life. Ron argues that, since Lenin’s Marxism led him to believe that

Russia had to pass through a significant bourgeois-democratic,

capitalist, phase of development, once in power he wound up acting like

a...bourgeois capitalist. I think Ron’s argument here stands matters on

its head. Marx was right about Russia; it did not have a working class

that could, in its own name and in its own interests, shape a

democratic, libertarian, socialist, future. Lenin broke with Marxism

and, with Trotsky, came up with many forceful arguments explaining why

the Bolsheviks were leading a revolution “of and for the workers,” or

alternatively, “of an alliance of the workers and poor peasants.” At

times, this revolution was said to be going over immediately to

socialism; at other times, it was passing through a short transitional

stage of further capitalist development that would then lead to

socialism. In the few short years (1917–24) that Lenin was alive

following the October overthrow of the Provisional Government, the

Bolsheviks issued “socialist” decrees, then drew back from some of them,

then turned to what they termed “War Communism” (during the Civil War,

1918–21). Following the disasters of War Communism, the Bolsheviks

veered yet again in a sharply different direction, and, at Lenin’s

insistence, adopted the “New Economic Policy,” a radical departure from

War Communism that injected significant elements of capitalism into the

Soviet economy. Whether Lenin believed each of these variants was

correct, from 1917–1924, Lenin and the other Bolshevik leaders

consolidated their single-party rule, carrying out the ruthless

suppression of any alternative parties or tendencies, claiming that the

mistaken views of these groups made them “class enemies.”

To restate my underlying contention: Marx’s “scientist” philosophy is

not sufficient by itself to label Marxism totalitarian. Such a

conclusion rests in some significant measure on the subsequent actions

of people who claimed that they were Marxists. If one sees these actions

as “Marxist,” then it becomes hard, if not impossible, to argue with the

contention that Marxism is totalitarian. If, on the other hand, one sees

the 20^(th) century left-wing movements as having abandoned Marxism,

then the conversation becomes a more open one.

Was Marx an advocate of a dictatorial state? (Well, isn’t that what

the dictatorship of the proletariat is?)

Two chapters of The Tyranny of Theory are devoted to a discussion of the

Marxist concept of the state. In the first chapter, Ron discusses the

views of Marx and Engels toward the state, both under capitalism and

under socialism. He then presents his own analysis of the state. In the

second chapter, Ron addresses the specific issue of the working class

taking over the state, and places this concept in the context of his

discussion of the state in general in the prior chapter. The issue of

the state is complex, and involves the following three questions: 1)

What is the state, and what is Marx’s view of the state? 2) What should

the role of the state be under socialism, and what is Marx’s view of

this role? 3) What did Marx mean (or not mean) by the term, “the

dictatorship of the proletariat”?

At the outset of Chapter 2 (“The Marxist Theory of the State”), Ron

makes clear the importance he attaches to Marxism’s attitude toward the

state: “...a given ideology may be totalitarian in its underlying logic,

but if it lacks a focus on using the state as a means of transforming

society, that is, of imposing its ideas, its totalitarianism will remain

implicit.” (The Tyranny of Theory, p. 29)

It is worth noting that in this passage, Ron has made one of my central

arguments: he writes that the “underlying logic” of an ideology (in this

case, Marxism) may be totalitarian, but if it lacks a practical form,

that is, “a means of imposing its ideas”, its totalitarianism will

remain, in Ron’s words, “implicit.” This is precisely my view of the

philosophic totalitarianism of Marxism—it was implicit until it was made

explicit by forces that had little in common with Marxism, other than

their claim to “represent the masses.”

That said, let us turn to the issue of the state more broadly. Ron

begins his discussion with a concise summary of Marx and Engels’ views

of the state under capitalism, which I paraphrase here:

it to control and exploit other subordinate classes.

under certain conditions it may be controlled by forces somewhat

independent of either the bourgeoisie or the working class.

(at the time Marx and Engels were writing), but its democracy is

illusory in the sense that the capitalist class dominates the state

through its wealth and power.

Ron then puts forward his central tenet:

“...the state in capitalist society is a capitalist institution; its

assumptions, structures, procedures, and everything else about it imply,

reinforce, and reproduce capitalist relations. The capitalist state does

not need to be controlled, directly or indirectly, by the capitalist

class for it to serve the interests of that class and to preserve

capitalist society as a whole; it does so because the state is at the

center of, and is essential to, the entire system.” (The Tyranny of

Theory, p. 42)

At first glance, this might seem like a passage straight out of The

Communist Manifesto. Not so. Ron is distinguishing his concept of the

state from that of Marx and Engels based on the extent to which the

state is seen as independent of the capitalist class. Ron maintains that

Marx and Engels viewed the state as independent entity, one that the

capitalist class controls and uses, but nonetheless remains separate

from capitalism itself. Ron offers an alternative view:

“...an essential element of the structure of class society, a kind of

skeleton around which ruling class and society as a whole are organized;

ruling class and state (and a web of hierarchies) are thoroughly

intertwined. They are part of—in a sense, the apex of—a more or less

unified hierarchical, authoritarian structure that dominates society.”

(The Tyranny of Theory, p.41)

I find the difference between these two views, at least at this level,

to be abstract, and without significance. We can agree that the

capitalist state is overwhelmingly oppressive; whether a non-capitalist

state, that is to say a state that not owned and controlled by the

capitalist class and used as a tool for its collective rule, would of

necessity be oppressive simply because it is “the state” depends on what

type of state it is, how it is organized, how it is controlled, and what

role it plays.

Ron sees it differently:

“...the Marxist view that the state is an instrument of the ruling class

implies that the state can be taken over by the working class, and

utilized for its own purposes.” (The Tyranny of Theory, p. 43)

However, Marx did not argue that the capitalist state could simply be

taken over and used by the working class for its own purposes. Ron

acknowledges that Marx and Engels often insisted that the

“...proletariat cannot simply take over the existing state machine...”

(Tyranny, p. 43) He further acknowledges that, following the experience

of the Paris Commune in 1871, Marx and Engels wrote that the failure of

the Commune was that it did not “smash” the “existing state apparatus,”

that is, it failed to recognize that the ruling capitalist class had

built into the very fiber of the state, institutions and mechanisms that

would undermine an egalitarian, working class majoritybased socialist

democracy. Ron dismisses these clear statements by arguing that “this

insistence (by Marx and Engels--RM) does not flow logically from the

theory.” (Tyranny, p. 43) In other words, other aspects of Marxist

theory, not Marx and Engels’ explicit writings on the state, dictate

that Marx and Engels must actually have believed that the working class

can simply take over and use the capitalist state. I don’t find this

convincing.

Ron next argues that Marx and Engels’ view that the state can exist in a

form independent of a specifically capitalist state implies that the

state could be used to build a form of socialism that the workers do not

control, specifically that a minority party might “misuse” the state in

the service of building socialism. This argument is not convincing

either. Could some minority, led by a party that claims to represent

somebody else, use the state to oppress people? Of course it could. More

to the point, of course it has. But this is not a telling argument about

the nature and role of the state. If a minority seizes power and rules

over the majority of people, bad things will happen. One theory of the

state or another will not change that fact. If, on the other hand, the

working class, as the immense majority, becomes conscious of itself as a

class, chooses to end a system of private profit, vast disparity in

wealth and power, and reorganize society in the interests of the “all,”

it is likely that good things will happen. I do not think that the

course—and ultimate success—of this unpredictable, uncharted development

will depend on the difference between Ron’s formulations on the nature

of the capitalist state and that of Marx and Engels. I do think that the

question of how such a “movement of the majority” might reorganize

society is important, and that Marx and Engels’ dismissal of this

“utopian” reorganization was mistaken. It is a rich discussion on its

own terms, and should be pursued. However, in its present form, the

discussion suffers from some confusion and distortion, resulting from

the fact that the underlying discussion that is taking place is actually

over whether any form of state—no matter how defined—is oppressive, and

therefore totalitarian. I would prefer to see this discussion in the

context of how the majority of people, freed from the dictates of

capitalism and the dictatorship of the capitalist class, might organize

production, distribution and other essential features of a cooperative,

pluralistic society. Where would direct, local planning and activity

leave off, and where might regional, national or international

cooperation and exchange begin? Is there any role whatsoever for

something we might term a government in this process, and to what

degree, and in what ways, is a government different than a “state”? Does

a state, any state, have certain properties that act apart from anything

human beings wish or desire, that is, is a state a living organism,

rather than a functional arrangement? These are just a few of the

questions that deserve full exploration. Yet, even if we agree that the

different formulations on the nature of the state discussed above have

less meaning than Ron suggests, we are still left with the fact that

Marx and Engels referred to socialism in terms of the “dictatorship of

the proletariat.”

In Chapter 3 of The Tyranny of Theory, Ron focuses on Marx and Engels’

call for the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” It is hard to think of

any more unfortunate words ever written. True, Marx was writing before

the advent of modern totalitarianism. The specific form of 20^(th)

century dictatorship—fascism and Nazism on the right, and Stalinist

“Communism” on the left—were still a half-century away. But the

Bourbons, Hapsburgs, Hannovers and Romanovs were certainly autocrats,

and even if dictatorial rule through the modern state was still being

fashioned, Napoleon had already taken significant steps along that road.

Why, then, did Marx and Engels use these words, and what did they mean?

Is this evidence that a dictatorial state is inherent to Marxism, or is

there another explanation?

As he does throughout the book, Ron presents an accurate summary of Marx

and Engels’ views on this issue. Ron states that Marx and Engels

believed that: 1) The proletariat would conquer political power, and

thereby become the ruling class; 2) It would then smash the capitalist

state machine and create its own state, the revolutionary dictatorship

of the proletariat; 3) This state would be “unlike other states in

history” (emphasis added) because it would be the instrument of the

immense majority to suppress the exploiting minority “in order to do

away with exploitation altogether;” and, 4) As this state wrested

capital from the bourgeoisie and increased society’s productive capacity

based on a “common plan,” the basis would be laid for the state to

“wither away.” (Tyranny, pp. 55–6) Ron’s central argument is that the

focus Marx and Engels put on the state, their emphasis on its repressive

tasks vis a vis the bourgeoisie, and their vagueness on how the state

would eventually wither away, means that “the establishment of extremely

repressive, brutal dictatorships by Marxists was not an historical

accident but the logical consequence of their worldview.” (Tyranny, p.

57)

Does this argument hold up, or does it rest to too great a degree on the

fact that various social force and leaders, using the Marxist banner,

created such states, irrespective of whether Marxist theory necessarily

leads to this outcome? In other words, can we separate Marxist theory

from the experience of 20^(th) century minority movements that, under an

anti-capitalist banner of one form or another, created radical

dictatorships that transformed society in their own interests? Since to

some degree this becomes a repetitive argument, my sole focus will be to

challenge commonly held assumptions about Marx and Engels’ use of and

views on the phrase, “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Richard Hunt, in the preface to his work, The Political Ideas of Marx

and Engels (Vol. 1: “Marxism and Totalitarian Democracy, 1818–1850”),

notes that Marx and Engels used the phrase “dictatorship of the

proletariat” infrequently. More significantly, he locates the use of the

term in a particular context, an effort to establish a united front with

forces led by Louis Blanqui. Hunt’s overall thesis is that “Marx and

Engels were neither totalitarians nor garden-variety parliamentary

democrats, neither ‘Communists’ nor ‘Social Democrats’.” Hunt argues

that what Marx and Engels “envisaged for the future society, from its

very beginning, was a kind of participatory democracy organized without

any professional leaders or administrators at all, which has nowhere

been established in a national government, and which requires some

effort of imagination and historical understanding....” (Political

Ideas, p. xiii-xiv)

Although Marx and Engels used the phrase “dictatorship of the

proletariat” as a bridge to the Blanquists, they went to great lengths

to distinguish the content they give to the phrase from the content

intended by the Blanquists. Hunt writes:

“The Blanquist conception of revolution involved a series of grim

deductions from the central postulate concerning the political

immaturity of the masses. Among these was the necessity of postponing

democratic elections until after a temporary educational dictatorship.

In diametric opposition to such views...Marx and Engels foresaw a prior

maturation of the populace and revolution whose first act would be the

establishment of universal suffrage and democratic institutors.”

(Political Ideas, p. 135)

During this period, Engels wrote:

“The working classes will have learned by experience that no lasting

benefit whatever can be obtained for them by others, but that they must

obtain it themselves by conquering, first of all political power.”

(Quoted from Political Ideas, p. 229)

Marx and Engels described a mature, self-conscious, self-acting working

class taking political power. Though they used the term “dictatorship”

(infrequently, and referring to the rule of a class), the argument here

is that this use had nothing in common with the present-day conception

of one-man, committee or minority party rule. Hunt argues that Marx and

Engels fully retained the meaning of a class dictatorship described

above, and in no sense adopted the Blanquist notion of the “educational

dictatorship” of a minority. Hunt points out that Marx and Engels

infrequently linked the term “dictatorship” to the working class (only a

total of sixteen times, in eleven separate writings). (Political Ideas,

p. 297) Not only were these uses infrequent, but according to a study by

Hal Draper, they are found in three distinct periods: 1850–52; 1871–75;

and 1890–93. Hunt argues the significance of this as follows:

“During the first two periods, and at no other time, Marx and Engels

worked in united fronts with the Blanquists. This double coincidence can

scarcely be accidental, and we will see that the final uses in the

nineties fall into line too as a ‘sort of echo of 1875.’” (Political

Ideas, p. 297)

Referencing Draper’s study, Hunt points out that over the course of the

two full decades between the period of the Communist League and that of

the second collaboration with Blanqui (the period following the

suppression of the Paris Commune in 1871), Marx and Engels never used

the phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat.” The phrase is only used

again in the aftermath of the suppression and is used in the direct

context of a dialogue with Blanqui and his followers. Hunt quotes Engels

as writing in 1874:

“Blanqui is essentially a political revolutionist. He is a socialist

only through his sympathy with the sufferings of the people, but he has

neither a socialist theory nor any concrete practical proposals for

social redress. In his political activity, he was mainly a ‘man of

action,’ who believed that a small, well organized minority, by

attempting a revolutionary surprise attack at the right moment, could

raise forth the masses of the people with a few initial successes and

thus make a successful revolution....From Blanqui’s conception that

every revolution is a surprise attack by a small revolutionary minority,

there follows of itself the necessity for a dictatorship after the

success of the venture. This would be, to be sure, a dictatorship not of

the entire revolutionary class, the proletariat, but of the small number

who have made the surprise attack, and who are themselves previously

organized under the dictatorship of one or several individuals.” (Quoted

from Political Ideas, p. 310–11, emphasis added)

Engels’ rejection of a minority seizure of power, carried out by a party

dominated by an elite group of leaders could not be more clearly stated.

Moreover, it would be easy to substitute the name V.I. Lenin for

Blanqui, and Bolsheviks for Blanquists in the highlighted portion of the

passage. This is so because Lenin and the Bolsheviks were Blanquist, not

Marxists.

Conclusion

It is fair to argue that this article has made too many excuses for

Marxism. In the end, there is no way to prove that Marxism is not the

cause of the horrors that have been done in its name. As I said at the

outset, the record of self-proclaimed Marxists presents the strongest

possible indictment of Marxism itself. Nonetheless, I have tried to show

that there are compelling reasons to reject the idea that there is

fundamental continuity between Marxist theory and the theory and

practice of Leninism (and Stalinism/Maoism/Castro-ism). Rather, it is

more compelling to recognize the sharp break with Marxism that is

embodied in the various 20^(th) century movements that have mobilized

masses for elitist, minority-based seizures of power, and that, of

necessity (and sometimes by design) have resulted in dictatorial

societies. These movements, left and right, are a hallmark of the

postWorld War I 20^(th) century. The defining feature of these movements

is their mobilization of masses to bring to power a radical minority,

armed with a transformational program and led by a party/individual

prepared to use dictatorial methods to impose that program on society.

This is widely accepted as the defining feature of fascism in its

varying forms. Our collective blindness—that is to say, the blindness of

the left, including this writer—has resulted in a profound failure to

recognize the extent to which Lenin’s Bolshevism, Mussolini’s Fascism,

and Hitler’s Nazism are, in many respects, one and the same. If this is

so, we need to ask if their roots are in 19^(th) century ideologies

(Marxism), or in unique and distinct 20^(th) century realities.

Of course the culprit may be Marxism, if one believes that Marxism, in

its essence—root and branch—is totalitarian. Ron believes this, based on

his assessment of Marxism as a philosophy as well as on his assessment

of Marxism’s attitude to the state. At the outset, I conceded that a

worldview (philosophy) that believes it alone represents “truth,” thinks

it knows the “march of history,” and posits that the outcomes it stands

for as “inevitable” is, philosophically, totalitarian. Here, I simply

re-state my belief that the 19^(th) century context in which Marx and

Engels wrote, combined with the overwhelmingly libertarian,

self-actualizing and democratic underpinnings of their outlook, raise

significant questions about whether what I have called the “scientism”

of Marx and Engels is too much of an abstraction, by itself, to damn the

whole.

Regarding the issue of the state: I feel the discussion initiated by Ron

is an important stating point, but that it is incomplete in the extreme.

Marx and Engels said the state was a tool of the capitalist class. Ron

says the state is part and parcel of capitalism... and hangs Marxism on

that difference. The fact is that there was a state before capitalism,

just not a modern state. And the state under capitalism has been

organized and controlled in vastly different ways—supposedly

democratically by the people (“bourgeois democracy” in Marxist terms),

more directly by the bourgeoisie in less democratic instances, and “on

behalf of the bourgeoisie” in more extreme situations, right and left.

In my view, this discussion would take on greater meaning if it centered

on how a post-capitalist society—majority governed, democratically

inspired, locally controlled, equality-driven, liberationist in is

soul—might organize itself. Those of the anarchist tradition find fault

with Marx on this score. Yet, those skeptical of the anarchist tradition

are correct, in my view, to think that there has been a notable absence

of compelling answers to this question from anarchist thought.