[Ixa]

What do you think are the chief flaws of orthodox Marxism?

[Fidel Nico]

The chief flaw I feel is the fact you consider marxism as being orthodox. The biggest failure I feel is that it has been used as a dogma, which it is not. Marxism is the only way forward perhaps, but like all ideas, they have to move forward to. Although Lenin attempted to make himself "orthodox" he was not, and it is for this very reason that he was so sucessfull.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

"Orthodox Marxism does not imply the uncritical acceptance of the results of Marx’s investigations. It is not the ‘belief’ in this or that thesis, nor the exegesis of a ‘sacred’ book. On the contrary, orthodoxy refers exclusively to method. It is the scientific conviction that dialectical materialism is the road to truth and that its methods can be developed, expanded and deepened only along the lines laid down by its founders. It is the conviction, moreover, that all attempts to surpass or ‘improve’ it have led and must lead to over-simplification, triviality and eclecticism."

- G. Lukacs; What is Orthodox Marxism

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I beg of you; do NOT confuse orthodoxy with sectarianism.

[briansmith]

[removed]

[Gothmog]

What do you think are the chief flaws of orthodox Marxism?

-The belief that the working class is revolutionary. This has proved to be completely false. The working class is actually reformist and its main objective is to achieve an accomodation with capitalism. History seems to prove that peasants and middle class are the truly revolutionary classes (but, depending on the circumstances, thay also can be reactionary classes). The communist manifesto, btw, mentioned this double character of the middle class, althought iy commited the mistake of underestimating the revolutionary potential of the peasantry. From my point, the building of socialism needs an alliance between the non owners classes, instead of relying only in the proletarians.

[jaakko]

One thing we all have to realize, and many do, is that Russia is absolutely not the ideal case for Marxism (or Communism, in this case the terms can be used more or less completely interchangeably).

'Marxism' and 'Communism' aren't interchangeable. Marxism is an ideology, not a social system. There can't be any "Marxist society", unless we consider all societies as 'Marxist' (which is also a misinterpretation). What one may say, is that Russia wasn't in all aspects ideal for socialism. On the other hand, some factors in Russia made conditions more ideal for socialism than in many other countries, including many small countries of highly developed capitalism. One example of such capitalist country is the one I'm living in (Finland). If the proletariat here took power, we'd have to do an awfull lot of things. At first we'd had to organise the defence against the highly possible (if not inevitable) imperialist intervention. Then we'd have to rebuild much of the industry that has been moved by our mini-imperialists to the opressed countries. Much of economical re-organising would have to be done (and not just replacing capitalist relations). Agriculture would have to be made self-sufficient again, as a necessary preparatory measure for the propable economic blockade. In itself it's not a bad thing and there are all that's reguired for its realisation. It however takes much efforts to re-structure the economy in such way.

About socialism in USA. When the revolution and establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat has become near possible, the people will already think ENTIRELY differently than they do now. For me it seems that the people there are quite succesfully indoctrinated and for most part fully support their imperialist bourgeoisie. The way people think will change only when the objective conditions have changed enough, most of all, when enough nations have rid themselves from the grip US monopoly capital.

USA has the most powerful capitalist class in the world (and also with the most faithful servants). There's no sensible reason to expect that class to be overthrown without an enormous shed of blood (both in and outside of US borders).

All in all, I think the biggest concern or qualm I have about Marxist rhetoric today is that ONE single concept has neven been truly hit hard on against the capitalists who like to attack Communism:

All property belonging to the state does NOT mean you are evicted from your home or business!

What exactly does this mean? If we're talking of an individual bourgeois, it depends on where he lives and what's his role in the "business".

The government isn't going to run your house or run your business for you under modern Communism.

That's not communism. There's no government in communism. Communism is a classless, stateless society. State can't wither away without the abolishing of the relations of production on which the social classes exist.

Everything is going to be virtually the same as it was before, except that the vast target of the income is not the pocket of the businessman. Instead, it's the government, which then redistributes the wealth according to those who deserve it and need it.

That, in addition to not being communism, isn't socialism either. Socialism is the transitional stage between capitalism and communism, which leads from the former to the latter. Modern revisionism served the purpose of interrupting this transitional process and changing its course backwards. If modern revisionism manages to take over the leadership already at the stage of the actual proletarian revolution, the transition stage won't even begin, and "everything would stay virtually the same as it was before". In fact, if it took leadership during the revolutionary situation, the revolution wouldn't even occur. The capitalists would certainly use this opportunity and voluntarily give up governmental power (NOT state power) to these "modern communists" in fear of a revolution. The new government would then make some reforms here and there, like making the taxation more heavily progressive. Then situation would settle down, and when time was ripe the "communist" government would peacefully step aside giving way to the more conventional parties of the capital (except in case of fascism).

[jaakko]

The belief that the working class is revolutionary. This has proved to be completely false.

I think there's a misunderstanding. When Marxism says the working class is the most revolutionary class, it refers to its objective position in the society. As there isn't any "capitalism gene" there isn't any "socialist revolution gene" in proletarians, either. Proletariat is, because of its objective interests and its position in economy, objectively revolutionary.

The working class is actually reformist and its main objective is to achieve an accomodation with capitalism.

If we talk of 'revolutionary' and 'reformist' as subjective terms, working class is neither revolutionary or reformist. When the working class was outside of political influence, its movement could only reach the level of economical class struggle. Different brands of socialism brought politics into this movement. Only when the theory of scientific socialism appeared, it became possible to wage ideological class struggle against the different opportunist trends (which were and continue to be influence of bourgeois ideology) in the labour movement, thus making it possible to bring up the revolutionary potential. This potential was already there, objectively.

History seems to prove that peasants and middle class are the truly revolutionary classes (but, depending on the circumstances, thay also can be reactionary classes).

Being rebellious doesn't make them revolutionary. Petty bourgeoisie feels sometimes threatened by the monopoly capitalists, sometimes by the labour movement. Peasants are divided into classes, and thus have varying objective interests. Middle-class (which includes large portion of peasantry) aka petty bourgeoisie, isn't a revolutionary class. However, large parts of it can be won on the side of the proletariat, depending on situation. Fascism (as in Italy and Germany), which represented the interests of monopoly bourgeoisie, drew its mass support mainly from the petty bourgeoisie and the lumpen proletarians (decadent criminal elements etc.).

Petty bourgeois people may easily get rebellious, but it takes a lot of effort from the proletarian movement to win it to the side of socialism instead of turning against it.

From my point, the building of socialism needs an alliance between the non owners classes, instead of relying only in the proletarians.

Basically, I agree. However, most of the non-owners belong to the proletariat. For example, those peasants who are without property, are rural proletarians. They belong to the strata of 'poor peasantry' (which includes tenants), which generally owns little or no means of production (or land).

The proletariat is the only class capable of leading the socialist revolution. This doesn't mean it shouldn't strive to win the support of poor peasants and that lower petty bourgeois strata which has lost its hopes in capitalism. Lenin dealt extensively with this matter (proletariat's potential allies).

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Please tell me, who here has gone farther then the merely topographical 'study' of Marxism (in some cases, not even that)?

[Gothmog]

I think there's a misunderstanding. When Marxism says the working class is the most revolutionary class, it refers to its objective position in the society. As there isn't any "capitalism gene" there isn't any "socialist revolution gene" in proletarians, either. Proletariat is, because of its objective interests and its position in economy, objectively revolutionary.

-If the working class is revolutionary, why there wasn´t any socialist revolution in which the working class took the leadership (even the Russian revolution was only won due to the peasant´s support for the Bolsheviks, althought it was an uneasy alliance). Why the majority of the working class choose to support their bosses and governments in WWI instead of turning its weapons against them? Why they usually vote for social democrats instead of communists? Are they unable to know what are their interests?

If we talk of 'revolutionary' and 'reformist' as subjective terms, working class is neither revolutionary or reformist. When the working class was outside of political influence, its movement could only reach the level of economical class struggle. Different brands of socialism brought politics into this movement. Only when the theory of scientific socialism appeared, it became possible to wage ideological class struggle against the different opportunist trends (which were and continue to be influence of bourgeois ideology) in the labour movement, thus making it possible to bring up the revolutionary potential. This potential was already there, objectively.

-Agree, but once the working class become revolutionary, the burgeoisie becomes scared and agrees with substantial reforms, thus appeasing the revolutionary feelings. This is an unpredicted consequence of marxism. By putting the bosses against the wall, they allow reformism to work. Of course, when reformism works, the threat to capitalism vanishes and reforms are rolled back again (a thing that is happening in the main capitalist countries, including yours). How to brak this cycle?

Being rebellious doesn't make them revolutionary. Petty bourgeoisie feels sometimes threatened by the monopoly capitalists, sometimes by the labour movement. Peasants are divided into classes, and thus have varying objective interests. Middle-class (which includes large portion of peasantry) aka petty bourgeoisie, isn't a revolutionary class. However, large parts of it can be won on the side of the proletariat, depending on situation. Fascism (as in Italy and Germany), which represented the interests of monopoly bourgeoisie, drew its mass support mainly from the petty bourgeoisie and the lumpen proletarians (decadent criminal elements etc.).

-So we agree in that those classes can be both reactionary and revolutionary? We can´t forget that the main burgeoise revolutions were made by the middle class, while many socialist revolutions (China, Vietnam, Korea, and even Russia) won largely due to peasant support.

Petty bourgeois people may easily get rebellious, but it takes a lot of effort from the proletarian movement to win it to the side of socialism instead of turning against it.

-Right

Basically, I agree. However, most of the non-owners belong to the proletariat.

-Not in your country, and other developed capitalist countries. In those, most of non workers are actually middle class people.

The proletariat is the only class capable of leading the socialist revolution. This doesn't mean it shouldn't strive to win the support of poor peasants and that lower petty bourgeois strata which has lost its hopes in capitalism. Lenin dealt extensively with this matter (proletariat's potential allies).

-That´s the main point we disagree, I don´t know if the proletariat is able to led the socialist revolution. Maybe history will prove you´re right

[briansmith]

[removed]

[jaakko]

-If the working class is revolutionary, why there wasn´t any socialist revolution in which the working class took the leadership (even the Russian revolution was only won due to the peasant´s support for the Bolsheviks, althought it was an uneasy alliance).

Peasants were not the class that lead the revolution. Active role was played by the proletariat in cities and towns. The revolution was executed under a proletarian leadership. The support for the bolsheviks was highest among the urban proletarians. Next came the poor peasants. Third came, in much smaller extence, the middle peasants (who owned some land and means of production). Kulaks (who had property + hired labour power) were all against the socialist revolution.

Why the majority of the working class choose to support their bosses and governments in WWI instead of turning its weapons against them? Why they usually vote for social democrats instead of communists? Are they unable to know what are their interests?

The point is, that the proletariat doesn't become aware of their interests instinctively. They were unable to be aware of their interests, because the social-democratic parties were under bourgeois influence. During the war, most of these parties appeared to be parties of the capital, which differed from bourgeois parties in that their role was to gather support among the working masses.

Agree, but once the working class become revolutionary, the burgeoisie becomes scared and agrees with substantial reforms, thus appeasing the revolutionary feelings. This is an unpredicted consequence of marxism. By putting the bosses against the wall, they allow reformism to work. Of course, when reformism works, the threat to capitalism vanishes and reforms are rolled back again (a thing that is happening in the main capitalist countries, including yours). How to brak this cycle?

I very much agree on this. How to break the cycle? Revolution can't occur (not even in the most revolutionary situation) before the reformists politicians and the opportunists in labour movement are pushed aside. If in a revolutionary situation a Marxist-Leninist party wins the support of the proletariat, and if the revisionist and social-democratic forces are marginalised, it becomes possible to raise the level of class-consciousness to such a high level that the proletarians understand that they can make permanent gains only if they crush the bourgeois state.

The cycle can't be broken without ideological-political struggle against right-opportunism in general and revisionism in particular, that is against the influence of bourgeois ideology in labour movement.

-So we agree in that those classes can be both reactionary and revolutionary? We can´t forget that the main burgeoise revolutions were made by the middle class, while many socialist revolutions (China, Vietnam, Korea, and even Russia) won largely due to peasant support.

The determining factor is leadership. Those main bourgeois revolutions were bourgeois because of their bourgeois leadership. And there's no contradiction in the revolution being bourgeois and by large executed by peasant masses. There's no such thing as peasant revolution. Whether there is or isn't peasant support, it doesn't determine the essence of a revolution.

-Not in your country, and other developed capitalist countries. In those, most of non workers are actually middle class people.

I thought we were talking about non owning classes. In the less developed capitalist countries, the petty bourgeoisie is actually much bigger (in the most under-developed they may comprise even the majority) than in the developed capitalist countries, where it's small and diminishing all the time.

As you said, most non workers are middle class people. But that is the case in all countries. Finland is not as developed as UK, but even here the percentage of the proletariat of the population is about a little over 70% (whereas in UK it's over 80%).

-That´s the main point we disagree, I don´t know if the proletariat is able to led the socialist revolution. Maybe history will prove you´re right

If not, Fukuyama was right. About the possibility of the proletariat leading a revolution. Just like any army, not without a leadership. The bourgeoisie is well organised, and the proletariat needs a superior organisation. Spontaneous action is not the key to success in warfare. And definitely not in class warfare.

[jaakko]

In my revisionist, as Tovarish Spetsnaz would call it, philosophy, I tend to believe that the success of the revolution depends completely on whether or not the petty bourgeois see the revolution to their benefit or their detriment.

I think the succes of the revolution depends more crucially on whether or not the labour aristocracy and trade union bureaucrats are defeated completely. Also, it's an undeniable fact that the objective interests of a significant (again, varies by situation) portion of the petty bourgeoisie are against the socialist revolution. Add to this the ideological domination of capitalist class, and you see it's kind of waste trying to convince all of the petty bourgeoisie. More productive, I think, is to concentrate on mobilising the working class. Others will follow then, if ever.

[Gothmog]

I thought we were talking about non owning classes. In the less developed capitalist countries, the petty bourgeoisie is actually much bigger (in the most under-developed they may comprise even the majority) than in the developed capitalist countries, where it's small and diminishing all the time.
As you said, most non workers are middle class people. But that is the case in all countries. Finland is not as developed as UK, but even here the percentage of the proletariat of the population is about a little over 70% (whereas in UK it's over 80%).

-Sorry, I wrote wrong. I wanted to wrote non owners instead of non workers. I wanted to say that in countries like yours, the majority of non owners are middle class. And I yhink your statistics are somewhat wrong. How do you define proletariat? Wage workers as a whole, or industrial workers? In Finland 80% of people are proletariat? Could you quote your souces (not that I´m doubting-maybe I´m too influenced by capitalist propaganda). I will answer your other remarks later, because my mistake could have confounded you.

[jaakko]

Sorry, I wrote wrong. I wanted to wrote non owners instead of non workers. I wanted to say that in countries like yours, the majority of non owners are middle class. And I yhink your statistics are somewhat wrong. How do you define proletariat? Wage workers as a whole, or industrial workers? In Finland 80% of people are proletariat? Could you quote your souces (not that I´m doubting-maybe I´m too influenced by capitalist propaganda). I will answer your other remarks later, because my mistake could have confounded you.

I don't think you're a person easily influenced by capitalist propaganda...

The industrial proletariat is indeed in the key position, I don't deny that. When I said that over 70% of the Finnish population belong to the class of proletariat, I'm basing this on the investigation by KTP (Communist Worker's Party), named "Working Class 2000" ("Työväenluokka 2000" / leading author being one Kai Kontturi). The document is very wide and profound, and is based on numerous previous investigations and on a large quantity of currently available facts. The class definitions and the basic counting methods are the same as in the previous investigations on the same issue (untill the release of this document, the last time was at the end of 1970's).

A minority (though a significant part) of Finnish proletariat consists of industrial workers. Along with the technological development, new strata have appeared in the working class. Largely because of the current state of labour movement, they have mostly adopted a petty bourgeois outlook, though the conditions are slowly forcing their consciousness in the opposite direction. Another considerable fact is the fact that as a result of the development of monopoly capitalism, much of basic production has been moved closer to world's raw-material resources and anywhere there is cheap labour reserves. That fact is what has shaped the trade division in Finland (and even more so in UK and other major imperialist powers) to what it is now (the workers directly engaged in the basic production being in minority).

Because the mentioned document is in Finnish only, I'll give you a link to another document. I said that the proletariat constitutes over 80% of the population in UK. I think it serves the same purpose, if we discuss this through the example of UK. I had hard time finding this again, as the original site (allianceML.com) isn't working completely. Here's the link:

THE MARXIST-LENINIST RESEARCH BUREAU REPORT 5 : THE PROLETARIAT IN BRITAIN

http://www.oneparty.co.uk/inload.html?h ... lbrit.html

Please read it, as I believe it clarifies my standpoint better than what I can do in a few sentences. 'Working class' and 'proletariat' are synonyms, of which neither refers to any particular trade or stratum in the class. There are however wage workers who are excluded from the proletariat because of their special position in either the production process or in the society as a whole (example: cops).

This is not the same document I meant. This is newer, and according to it 72% of the population belong to the class of proletariat in UK. The one I tried to find was from 1969, and I recall the number was then estimated as about 80%.

My main point remains. Middle class / petty bourgeoisie is smallest in the most developed countries (mainly because of monopolistic development). Petty bourgeoisie is largest in the least developed, agrarian countries (about 80% in Russia in 1917).

This article should also be of interest.

THE COMMUNIST REVOLUTION AND THE MIDDLE STRATA

http://www.oneparty.co.uk/inload.html?h ... /crms.html

[jaakko]

At last I found the document I failed to find earlier. Here it is:

CLASSES IN MODERN BRITAIN

[Gothmog]

At last I found the document I failed to find earlier. Here it is:

CLASSES IN MODERN BRITAIN

-Thank you for the sources you presented. I will take a look at them and reply latter. I´m going to travel right now, and will be back in a week.