đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș 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
âĄïž 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.
Ron Tabor, in his 2013 book, The Tyranny of TheoryâA Contribution to the
Anarchist Critique of Marxism (Black Cat Press), presents an incisive
and provocative critique of Marxism. Ronâs 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 Ronâs 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. Ronâs 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 Ronâs previous analyses of, first,
the state capitalist nature of the Soviet Union, and subsequently, Lenin
and the Bolsheviksâ 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 Marxismââthe 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
Ronâs 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 Marxâs views
that they should not be held up as proof of the totalitarian nature of
Marxist theory?
The answer to the question, âwhy should we care about Marxism?â 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
definitionsâand more varied proponents and detractors. The âwhyâ 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
âpeopleâ or âsocietyâ will determine what is produced and distributed?
How will this be done? One way might be from the bottom upâthat 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 downâthat 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 âfrom the bottom upâ path has a decidedly participatory and
democratic feel to itâ 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:
â...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.â (The Tyranny of
Theory, p. 8)
Thus, if we care about socialism, we need to care about
Marxismâcertainly 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.
In the first chapter of his book (âMarxism and its Historic
Responsibilityâ), Ron states his central thesis: âThe main thesis of my
critique of Marxism is that it is, and must be held responsible for
Communism.â (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 âits underlying philosophical
assumptions imply it.â (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 âphilosophical totalitarianismâ 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 (âprimitive communism,â slave society, feudalism,
capitalism); 2) each of these societies was seen as an advance on the
previous society; 3) the âmotor forceâ 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
âproperty-lessâ 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 majorityâsocialism.
If only Marx and Engels had left things there. But they didnât. And this
gets to the essence of one key aspect of Ronâs argument in The Tyranny
of Theory. Writing in the 19^(th) century, at a time when science seemed
to explain âeverythingââphysics, nature, organization of work,
psychology of humans, etc.âMarx 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 âutopianâ 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 âoldâ and the ânew.â
While Marx and Engels may have had understandable reasons for
proclaiming scientific validity for their theories, their claim to
scientific validity (of having discovered âtruthâ), 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 âTruthâ has been revealed. This is
the cornerstone of Ronâs argument in The Tyranny of Theory: that the
Marxist view of historyâ the view that a known future exists within the
presentâis a totalitarian outlook, philosophically, and leads to
totalitarian outcomes, practically. Why totalitarian? Because a given
group of individuals, leaders, political parties, movementsâit doesnât
matter who or whatâacting âin the name of,â and âon behalf of,â or âin
concert withâ 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 thereâs the yes (Marxism is arguably philosophically totalitarian),
but what about the âbut?â Imagine this discussion was taking place in
the early 20^(th) centuryâno 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:
âMarx was overwhelmingly âright onââhe 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 (âworkers of the world uniteâ) 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 âscienceâ of the thing. They were writing at a time when science
seemed to explain âeverything.â They were wrong on that.â
My point is this: The philosophical analysis of totalitarian aspects of
Marxâs and Engelsâ views would be an abstractionâa correct, but not
necessarily defining pointâif 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 Marxâs 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 Marxâs 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 Marxismâs philosophy:
â...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.â (The Tyranny of Theory, p. 22)
Nonetheless, I contend that Ronâs 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.
Lenin was the principal leader of a section of an avowedly Marxist
political party, (=the Bolshevik wing of the Russian Social Democratic
Labor PartyâRSDLP; 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 Marxâs 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
âMarxism-Leninism.â 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 Leninâs outlook by suggesting that Lenin was a prisoner of a âMarxist
orthodoxyâ 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 doesnât say this
directly, but writes:
âAnother 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 doesnât automatically make you one.â (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:
âIn 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; ârevisionismâ 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 isnât 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.â (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 âpicking and choosing.â
It is not picking and choosing to see the entirety of the
20^(th)-century revolutionary leftist movements as non-Marxist. Ronâs
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, âIf this is Marxism,
than I am not a Marxist.â) 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 Leninâs theory and practice and that expressed in
Marxâs 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 Marxâs views on the nature and role of the state and Ronâs
critique of these views.)
In Section 1 of The Communist Manifesto (âBourgeois and Proletariansâ)
Marx and Engels wrote:
Society as a whole is breaking up into two great hostile camps, into two
great classes directly facing each otherâ 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:
âThe 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 ânatural
superiors,â and has left no other bond between man and man than naked
self-interest, than callous âcash payment.ââ (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:
âThe 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.â (pp. 18â19)
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:
âAll 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.â (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
Engelsâ reference to this as âthe self-conscious, independent movement
of the immense majority, in interests of the immense majorityâ 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 workersâ government as an immediate
aim of the revolutionary movement in Russia, Lenin answered:
âThat 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.â (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, âreactionary conclusions.â 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
Workersâ Party (London, 1903), he stated: âThe 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.â (Quoted from Tony Cliff, Trotsky on Substitutionism)
Thus Trotsky, like Lenin, rules out the minority rule of the working
class as the âdictatorship of a little band of conspirators or a
minority party.â 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 âvanguardistsâ have abandoned. Speaking to
German socialists who, in Marxâs words, âflatteredâ the German workers,
Marx declared:
âWhile 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.â (Quoted from Tony Cliff, Trotsky on Substitutionism)
The opening of Section 2 of The Communist Manifesto asks the
question:âIn what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians
as a whole?â Marx and Engels go on to answer:
âThe 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.â (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:
âThe Communists are distinguished from other working class parties by
this only:
â1. 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.
â2. 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.â (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 (âWorkers 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) âalways and everywhere represent the interests of the
movement as a whole.â 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 âno separate party opposed to other
working class partiesâ be seen as remotely similar to the Bolshevik
outlook? How can Marxâs declaration that Communists âhave no interests
separate and apart from the proletariat as a wholeâ be seen as Leninist?
How can the declaration of âno sectarian principles by which to shape
and mold the proletarian movementâ be squared with Leninâs 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 âclass traitorsâ or âclass
enemies,â 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 âfrom without,â by the revolutionary party; 2) the party was the
ârepresentativeâ of the working class not only in the sense that its
âcorrect programâ would provide âcorrect leadership,â 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, SRâs
and Anarchists, murdering the Kronstadt sailors, and jailing, exiling
and sometimes killing âbackward workers.â) 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 âon the agenda,â 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 âspecial pathâ 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, Russiaâs peasants might be able to skip over a
capitalist stage of development and move directly to a âCommunist
communal peasant society.â 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 Marxâs 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 âbourgeois-democraticâ
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
âbourgeois stageâ to a âsocialist stage.â Hence, the phrase âPermanent
Revolution.â Trotsky said that if the Russian revolution âsparkedâ a
world revolution,â thereby providing the âmaterial baseâ for socialism
in Russia, the revolution could move from the bourgeois stage directly
to the socialist stage. Lenin rejected Trotskyâs 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 revolutionâs 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 Russiaâs 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 âworkers and poor peasants.â Socialist
revolution was now on the agenda in Russia. Again, we need to challenge
ourselves to ask whether Leninâs 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 Leninâs 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 warâs 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 warâs end, four empires had collapsedâthe
Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, The Russian Empire, and the
German Reichâand 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 peopleâs
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
peopleâs 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 âhome front.â Not only did this instill
in the common citizenry a notion of newly-found rightsâpolitical rights,
workersâ rights, womenâs rights, national rightsâbut 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 mediaâthese are the hallmarks of
Mussoliniâs Fascism and Hitlerâs Nazism. Their programs were designed to
appeal to the masses; The word âNazi,â after all, is the abbreviation of
Nationalsocialiste (national socialist), and both Mussolini and Hitler
claimed their movements stood for a âthird way,â 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 âmass
appeal.â 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 âmake history,â
dressed their ambitions and actions in a necessary and effective set of
clothing. These individuals were âsubstitutionistâ in every sense of the
word: No bourgeoisie sufficiently developed and strong enough to carry
out the democratic-capitalist revolution? Donât worry, weâve got it
covered. No working class sufficiently developed and strong enough to
carry out the socialist revolution? Donât worry; weâve got it covered.
No democratic means available to carry out our âmission?â Donât worry;
weâve 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, â...is there something in
Marxism that makes it prone to being âmisinterpretedâ...that leads, in
other words, to totalitarianism?â (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 âhistoric march of events,â Marxism provides perfect
âcoverâ 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 contextâfrom Marxâs own writings, from the views
and actions of Lenin and other Bolshevik leaders, from the particular
context of the period in which âMarxism-Leninismâ came to powerâto
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, letâs look briefly at Ronâs
argument in A Look at Leninism that Lenin was a state capitalist
because, among other things, he was an âorthodox Marxistâ for much of
his life. Ron argues that, since Leninâs 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 Ronâs 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 âof and for the workers,â or
alternatively, âof an alliance of the workers and poor peasants.â 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 (1917â24) that Lenin was alive
following the October overthrow of the Provisional Government, the
Bolsheviks issued âsocialistâ decrees, then drew back from some of them,
then turned to what they termed âWar Communismâ (during the Civil War,
1918â21). Following the disasters of War Communism, the Bolsheviks
veered yet again in a sharply different direction, and, at Leninâs
insistence, adopted the âNew Economic Policy,â 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 1917â1924, 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 âclass enemies.â
To restate my underlying contention: Marxâs âscientistâ 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 âMarxist,â 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.
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 Marxâs view of the state? 2) What should
the role of the state be under socialism, and what is Marxâs view of
this role? 3) What did Marx mean (or not mean) by the term, âthe
dictatorship of the proletariatâ?
At the outset of Chapter 2 (âThe Marxist Theory of the Stateâ), Ron
makes clear the importance he attaches to Marxismâs attitude toward the
state: â...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.â (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 âunderlying logicâ of an ideology (in this
case, Marxism) may be totalitarian, but if it lacks a practical form,
that is, âa means of imposing its ideasâ, its totalitarianism will
remain, in Ronâs words, âimplicit.â This is precisely my view of the
philosophic totalitarianism of Marxismâit was implicit until it was made
explicit by forces that had little in common with Marxism, other than
their claim to ârepresent the masses.â
That said, let us turn to the issue of the state more broadly. Ron
begins his discussion with a concise summary of Marx and Engelsâ 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:
â...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.â (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:
â...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 ofâin a sense, the apex ofâa more or less
unified hierarchical, authoritarian structure that dominates society.â
(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 âthe stateâ 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:
â...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.â (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
â...proletariat cannot simply take over the existing state machine...â
(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 âsmashâ the âexisting state apparatus,â
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 âthis
insistence (by Marx and Engels--RM) does not flow logically from the
theory.â (Tyranny, p. 43) In other words, other aspects of Marxist
theory, not Marx and Engelsâ 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 donât find this
convincing.
Ron next argues that Marx and Engelsâ 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 âmisuseâ 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 âall,â
it is likely that good things will happen. I do not think that the
courseâand ultimate successâof this unpredictable, uncharted development
will depend on the difference between Ronâs formulations on the nature
of the capitalist state and that of Marx and Engels. I do think that the
question of how such a âmovement of the majorityâ might reorganize
society is important, and that Marx and Engelsâ dismissal of this
âutopianâ 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 stateâno matter how definedâis 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 âstateâ? 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 âdictatorship of
the proletariat.â
In Chapter 3 of The Tyranny of Theory, Ron focuses on Marx and Engelsâ
call for the âdictatorship of the proletariat.â 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 dictatorshipâfascism and Nazism on the right, and Stalinist
âCommunismâ on the leftâwere 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 Engelsâ 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 âunlike other states in
historyâ (emphasis added) because it would be the instrument of the
immense majority to suppress the exploiting minority âin order to do
away with exploitation altogether;â and, 4) As this state wrested
capital from the bourgeoisie and increased societyâs productive capacity
based on a âcommon plan,â the basis would be laid for the state to
âwither away.â (Tyranny, pp. 55â6) Ronâs 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 âthe establishment of extremely
repressive, brutal dictatorships by Marxists was not an historical
accident but the logical consequence of their worldview.â (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 Engelsâ use of and
views on the phrase, âdictatorship of the proletariat.â
Richard Hunt, in the preface to his work, The Political Ideas of Marx
and Engels (Vol. 1: âMarxism and Totalitarian Democracy, 1818â1850â),
notes that Marx and Engels used the phrase âdictatorship of the
proletariatâ 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. Huntâs overall thesis is that âMarx and
Engels were neither totalitarians nor garden-variety parliamentary
democrats, neither âCommunistsâ nor âSocial Democratsâ.â Hunt argues
that what Marx and Engels âenvisaged 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....â (Political
Ideas, p. xiii-xiv)
Although Marx and Engels used the phrase âdictatorship of the
proletariatâ 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:
âThe 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.â
(Political Ideas, p. 135)
During this period, Engels wrote:
âThe 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.â
(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 âdictatorshipâ
(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 âeducational
dictatorshipâ of a minority. Hunt points out that Marx and Engels
infrequently linked the term âdictatorshipâ 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: 1850â52; 1871â75;
and 1890â93. Hunt argues the significance of this as follows:
âDuring 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 âsort of echo of 1875.ââ (Political
Ideas, p. 297)
Referencing Draperâs 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 âdictatorship of the proletariat.â 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:
âBlanqui 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 âman of
action,â 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 Blanquiâs 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.â (Quoted
from Political Ideas, p. 310â11, emphasis added)
Engelsâ 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.
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 blindnessâthat is to say, the blindness of
the left, including this writerâhas resulted in a profound failure to
recognize the extent to which Leninâs Bolshevism, Mussoliniâs Fascism,
and Hitlerâs 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 essenceâroot and branchâis totalitarian. Ron believes this, based on
his assessment of Marxism as a philosophy as well as on his assessment
of Marxismâs attitude to the state. At the outset, I conceded that a
worldview (philosophy) that believes it alone represents âtruth,â thinks
it knows the âmarch of history,â and posits that the outcomes it stands
for as âinevitableâ 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 âscientismâ
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 waysâsupposedly
democratically by the people (âbourgeois democracyâ in Marxist terms),
more directly by the bourgeoisie in less democratic instances, and âon
behalf of the bourgeoisieâ 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 societyâmajority governed, democratically
inspired, locally controlled, equality-driven, liberationist in is
soulâmight 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.