Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 05:25:29 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: Marxism: meat and potatoes questions




Dear List Members:

While I appreciate the replies so far provided, they seem to consist
primarily of book references.  No doubt some of these are excellent
and worthwhile books, but one cannot question a book, much less ask
follow up questions.  There is no give and take, you see, and besides,
some of the citations are decidedly historical.  I am here seeking
an interactive intellectual exploration of the central and major-
peripheral issues of Marxism.  I trust that there are Marxists who
understand their doctrine well enough to distill the wisdom of the
ages into direct responses.  I understand well enough that some of
my questions touch upon deep waters, and do not expect your answers
to be exhaustive and definitive.  Just give your own opinions as
Marxists (or informed students of Marxism).  All answers, long and 
short, will be read and carefully considered.

If it's asking too much to speak for "Marxists" in general -- if
Marxists are too varied a group -- then speak only for yourself.
By examining the individual opinions of different Marxists, I
should be able to gain some sense of these variations anyway.  All
of my questions, then, may be considered as intended to elicit
the personal opinions of the individuals considering them.

Ian Hunt (Ian.Hunt-AT-flinders.edu.au) wrote in part:

>It can be said that Marx himself did not think that communism would be
>a market socialism (with public ownership of enterprises or worker
>co-operatives) or an "economic democracy" (worker co-operatives with 
>public ownership of investment capital). 

What then did Marx envision?  Do modern Marxists deviate significantly
>from Marx's economic and social theories?  Do they view Marx's writings
as the product of a specific place and time, and do they believe the
doctrine of Marxism must be modified as the world changes?  If so,
which of Marx's most important economic/social tenets do modern Marxists
reject?  (Or just you, if that's too broad a question.  See above.)

You used the word "communism."  Is this synonymous with Marxism, and
how does the communism of Marx differ fundamentally from the Soviet
Communism with which many associate the term?  (Also see below.)


A list member replied to me by direct email.  As I said to him, "I do hope
that these issues are discussed primarily in the list, because redundant
parallel private/public discussions can grow tiresome and I think we lose
out on the opportunity for broader input."

On this basis, I reproduce below the comments of this person, along with
my replies.  I leave his quotes unattributed because they were initially
provided privately.  The author can claim them if comfortable to do so.

>From the questions you ask it sounds like you are intrested/getting in
>marxism and want to understand the major events of the 20th sentury 
>(USSR, etc.).  Is this true?

I'm interested in knowing what today's Marxists think about the issues
I raised.  As for the USSR, was that Marxism?  Do Marxists see a 
difference between Soviet style Communism and Marxism?  Did Lenin fulfill
Marx or pervert him?  Do today's Marxists significantly deviate from 
Marx's economic or social theories?

>How/why did you get intrested in marxism?
>I orginally approached marxism in the same way -- what are the differences
>amongst socialists, the different trends of marxism, what happened to the
>USSR & why, etc, etc.

I'm interested in left-leaning economics, including socialism.  I have
heard the term "Marxist" bandied about and used and/or abused by groups
across the political spectrum.  I decided to find out what Marxism is
all about from the people who should know best: Marxists.  

>Marxism attempts to differientiate itself from other schools of socialism
>by using the scientific method.  It trys to discover the laws of history
>and then apply them concretly to the present to best understand how to 
>change the world.  A basic explanation of this is Engels _Socialism: 
>Utopian & Scientific_ or _The Communist manefesto_.

What do modern Marxists consider to be the most important of these
"laws of history"?  Have they been successful in predicting future
historical outcomes as opposed to explaining past events (the true
test of any practical scientific law with current application)?
Please provide examples.  In what important ways (if any) did Marx's
"laws" fail to anticipate significant developments, either in the
world at large or in the as-practiced movements taking (accurately
or inaccurately) his name?  Do modern Marxists take this 
Marxism-as-science viewpoint as an accurate descriptor or as a
somewhat outmoded, cranky idiosyncracy of 19th century political
theory?

>Besides the study of history (historical materialism) it also has a
>philosophy of the world: Dialectical Materailism -- See Anti-Durhring By
>Engels for a good exposition.

Please provide a summary of this thesis.

>
>>What are the primary philosophical differences between democratic
>>socialism and Marxism?  
>
>I'm not sure I know what you mean.  You probably are refering to the
>differences btwn. Social Democrats (S-D) & marxists.  The S-D parties 
>were built during the period of the 2nd International from 1889-1914.
>They were mass workers parties founded in the tradition of Marx & 
>engels.  For reasons that we can go into longer & latter, most S-D
>parties capitulated in 1914 at the start of WW1.  Since then S-D could
>be classified as reformists, seeking to win reforms under capitalism for
>the working class (although in the current period the S-D parties are 
>going through a process of collapse, disintegration, swinging to the 
>right & becoming "reformists without reforms").

By democratic socialism, I mean genuine socialism which strategically 
works through political organizing and the election of socialists to 
positions of political power to achieve its goals, although nonstandard
tools of civil disobedience, strikes, occupations, etc. might be used 
tactically, just as they are in non-socialist political/social movements.
This can be contrasted with revolutionary socialism which views the 
political system as incorrigible and which expects socialism to be 
implemented by some catastrophic means.  How do modern Marxists view 
Marxism with respect to these alternatives?

>Genuine marxism would accept "democratic socialism".  Marxists fight for
>a socialist, planed economy AND workers democracy as opposed to 
>bourgeois democracy.  The dictatorship of the working class would be a
>much more democratic system them today -- All political power in workers
>councils (with all parties accepting the system of workers councils 
>participating), all elected officials on the avg. workers wage, right of
>recall of all elected officails, disbanding of teh army instead a armed
>peoples militia, etc, etc.  See Lenin _State & Revolution_ for a good 
>summery of workingclass democracy.  

How would the dictatorship of any class be more democratic, whether
this class consists of plutocrats or workers?  And please define this
term, "dictatorship of the working class."  Who are the working class?
Everyone except current owners of business assets?  Business assets
above a certain amount?  Factory workers only?  Factory workers
plus the lumpen proletariat?  What percentage of the population,
roughly, do you envision this "working class" to consist of?  And
what do you mean by "dictatorship" in this context?

Who will plan this economy?  How concentrated will it be?  Will some
group of people in Washington, D.C. plan the entire national economy?
What is the specific form of planned economy you have in mind?  To
what popular control will these plans be subject?  

Who will control this "armed people's militia"?  Or will it vote on
every action?  On the basis of whose information will such votes be
taken, and might this information come from different political
viewpoints or only from the organs of the ruling party?

These are very important questions requiring specific answers.  One 
cannot build an economic or political system out of sunshine and 
lollipops alone.

>Obviously this has not been the case in the regimes calling themselves
>"socialist".  In fact these regimes were stalinist, based on a planned
>economy, but with political power in the hands of the bueracracy.

Well, how would one avoid this in a "dictatorship of the working
class"?  What happens if a majority of the people decide, whether
correctly, or incorrectly because of impatience, that a return to 
capitalism is in order?  Is this considered counter-revolutionary
criminal behavior, subject to investigation and counter-measures
by the security service or people's militia?  

The problem with well meaning dictatorships, or their formal organs
of political control, is that by their very nature the most ruthless,
most selfish, and least idealistic people are the ones most likely to
rise to power through them.  We see this to a certain degree in the 
security services even of relatively democratic countries (e.g., United
States), where the significant abuses of power by the FBI and police 
intelligence squads are well known.  These organizations are at
least hampered by the need to reconcile their image with the
democratic ideals they are supposed to serve and with the (sometimes
nominal) public accountability they are subject to.

>The goals [of Marxism] are:  The Self Emanicipation of the working 
>class and therby man-kind.  This requires the building of a 
>revolutionary international fighting for world socislist revolution 
>(democraticly planned economy & workers democracy), paving the way for
>the era of communism.
>
>That is, in a very watered down sense, the ends.  What are the means?
>That is a purly tactical question which can only be answered concretly
>according to concrete situations.

Well, economic emancipation is a laudable goal, but you will forgive
me if I say that you are rather vague as to how this goal is to
be accomplished.  I do not consider the power structure of any
political system to be a purely tactical matter.  This is why I
have attempted to ask very specific questions, and hopefully will
receive more specific answers.

>In the US at this point the historical task being poised is the building
>of a mass working class party independent of the parties of big 
>bussiness.  This is the most fundemnetal step forward in the class 
>struggle...Unlike europe & other parts of the world, in the US this 
>unfortunatly does not exist.  Workers are in a pre-political state of
>conciousness.  

I thoroughly agree with this.

>As marxists (in the US) we have 2 fundemental, historical tasks infront
>of us in this period: 
>a) being the best fighters and builders of a mass working class party
>b) building the forces of marxism.

This is meaningful enough, as far as it goes.  What is to be the 
structure of this party?  And what is to be the structure of the
government once this party comes to power?  By which I mean, what are
the answers to my questions regarding economic strategy and political
power structures?  It is all very well to propose laudable general
goals, but accomplishing them may be difficult without a detailed 
understanding.  Critics will seize upon every ambiguity, every 
vaguery, and every flaw to discredit the movement.  Unless your
movement is well thought out you will be left with a small hard-core
group which can only fume impotently or further alienate itself
>from the masses by anti-social acts of violence.

Is the proletariat to have *faith* in the good will and wisdom of
a few party leaders developing plans they are unfamiliar with?  Is
this scientific or quasi-religious?  It seems to me that building a
party whose mass members are primarily held by vague slogans and
promises leaves a vacuum which the unethical may be tempted to
exploit.  Are you familiar with the capitalist tactic of 
bait-and-switch?  These details are of more than merely tactical
importance, not only for the implementation of final goals, but
because once political power is ceded, the disillusioned may have
little control over the process and may even be defined as political
enemies.

I am not subject to naive delusions about the actual working of
political systems, and it's clear that in the United States the
political system (and the interlocking socio-economic structures)
are corrupted by money and by the oligarchy which controls most of the
money and the money-generating institutions.  But, while I can 
sympathize with revolutionary movements in more oppressed countries,
I will take some convincing before I conclude that revolutionary 
socialism is either practical or desirable in the contemporary United
States.  Well?

--
"Smash the state + All power to the people = Smash all the people.  That's
 a compromise I think we can live with."  -- Dan Quayle

Mark Adkins (emerald-AT-aztec.asu.edu)


     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---