I am interested in having a serious discussion of Marxism. I thought the best place to start would be with what Engels referred to as the fundamental proposition of the Communist Manifesto, namely,
“*n every historical epoch the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange and the social organization necessarily following from it form the basis upon which is built up, and from which alone can be explained, the political and intellectual history of that epoch; that consequently the whole history of mankind (since the dissolution of primitive tribal society, holding land in common ownership) has been a history of class struggles, contests between exploiting and exploited, ruling and oppressed classes; that the history of these class struggles forms a series of evolutions in which, nowadays, a stage has been reached where the exploited and oppressed class–the proletariat–cannot attain its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling class–the bourgeoisie–without, at the same time, and once and for all, emancipating society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class distinctions, and class struggles.”
This proposition is an invaluable guide to understanding the world today. Without understanding the class interests behind public policies and the class nature of the state it is impossible to understand the world. Therefore, the issue of class is avoided by the ideological institutions, and every effort is made by the ruling capitalist classes to inculcate in the populace the idea that “we are all in this together,” regardless of class. But, the idea of a classless capitalist society was as much a lie in 1776 when the slaveholding founders of the U.S. wrote “we the people” as it is today when the capitalists proclaim “united we stand.”
If what Mr Engels says is true, than proletarian revolutions will stamp out opression, class destinctions, and the like once and for all!
But what about China and Russia? Russia has already moved to a Capitalist economy, and China is leaning in that direction. Also, Mao’s Cultural Revolution and Stalin’s purges occured post-revolution in those countries. Thus, for Mr Engel’s theory to hold true, than one of two things must be the case.
The aforementioned atrocities do not fall under the catergory of “exploitation, oppression,” etc. (Laughable.)
China and Russia have not undergone revolutions of the proletariat. (Patently false.)
Mr Engels is wrong, I believe. And, if this is the fundamental preposition of the Communist Manifesto, as you say it is, than Communism seems to be on quite shaky ground.
Well, it’s nice to get straight to the Russian question right off the bat…I guess. But, before we get into that, can we assume that you accept the other part of the proposition about class struggles? Is your only objection that you don’t think working people can take power and eliminate class oppression?
The first response I would have is regarding China. The Chinese Revolution was not a proletarian revolution, but a peasant uprising coinciding with a national liberation struggle led by Mao’s peasant guerilla army. The state that emerged was modelled on Stalinist USSR, the working class never had political power in China. Thus, the state was severely deformed from the start, although, I would submit, a huge advance over capitalism.
On the USSR. The October 1917 Revolution was the first, and so far only, revolution made by the working class, leaving aside the brief but heroic struggle of the Parisian Communards in 1871. The Russian workers rose up against war, oppression and exploitation and expropriated the capitalists and landlords, and started on the task of building a new society. This society was the most democratic that has ever existed. Power was directly in the hands of the workers through the institutions of workers’ councils (soviets), the workers controlled industry, laws against homosexuality were eradicated, women were given full equality of rights (prompting the U.S. to grant women the right to vote in 1920), and all nations under the sway of the former Tsarist empire granted complete and immediate self-determination, to mention but a few of the progressive steps taken that would be unthinkable in a capitalist state.
However, the revolution was not made just for Russia, but was the opening shot of the world-wide proletarian revolution, “breaking the imperialist chain at its weakest link,” as Lenin put it. Every Bolshevik understood that socialism could not be built in one country alone, let alone a backward country like Russia. Socialism can only be built on the highest level of technological development, as it is predicated on raising the material level of existence so that scarcity is no longer an issue. Isolated by embargo and the intervention of 14 capitalist states aiding counter-revolutionary forces, the imperialists attempted to strangle the infant state in its crib. Still, the Soviets held out as a revolutionary center for five years, doing everything possible to aid the international revolution that alone could save the state from destruction or degeneration.
In 1923 the German revolution was crushed by the Social Democrats, which closed the door for the immediate future on international revolution. This was hugely demoralizing to the soviet workers. In this atmosphere of isolation in a backward state and capitalist encirclement a conservative bureaucracy headed by Stalin was able to usurp political power from the workers. The following decade saw the consolidation of this new force. All of the old Bolsheviks were physically annhilated as the bureaucracy became more and more self-aware. Leon Trotsky, the co-leader of the revolution, was the last of the old Bolsheviks to carry the revolutionary banner. Trotsky fought within the USSR for a return to the proletarian democracy and internationalism of the Bolsheviks, but he was exiled from the USSR in 1929, and assassinated by a Stalinist agent in Mexico in 1940.
The USSR remained under the rule of the Stalinist bureaucracy until its undoing in 1992. However, despite this degeneration, the USSR remained a workers state due to the fact that its property forms were proletarian, that is, it had a planned, collectivized economy.
The central problem was isolation in a backward state. No Marxist had ever thought that socialism could be built in isolation. It requires an international revolution, and in particular revolutions in several of the advanced capitalist states. As Engels wrote in “Principles of Communism” (1847):
“Question 19: Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?
“Answer: No. Large-scale industry, already by creating the world market, has so linked up all the peoples of the earth, and especially the civilised peoples, that each people is dependent on what happens to another. Further, in all civilised countries large-scale industry has so levelled social development that in all these countries the bourgeoisie and the proletariat have become the two decisive classes of society and the struggle between them the main struggle of the day. The communist revolution will therefore be no merely national one… It is a worldwide revolution and will therefore be worldwide in scope.”
The degeneration and isolation of the USSR resulted in its final undoing in 1992. But, there are several important lessons to be learned:
(1) The working class is capable of making a revolution, and
(2) The planned, collectivized economy is superior to anarchic capitalism. The USSR was able to rip itself out of third-world misery in the space of a genration to become a world power second only to the U.S.
So, the short answer to your post is that proletarian revolution can wipe out class oppression and class divisions, and put an end to poverty, war and racism once and for all, but it must be an international revolution. As Marx and Engels put it,
One more thing about the USSR I forgot to mention, about its demise. The collapse of the USSR in 1992 precipitated the worst economic collapse in history, an economic implosion that has no precedent outside of countries that have lost devastating wars. The economy contracted by something like 60% in the first five years after 1992, and by every measure you can think of the society has been devastated: life expectance has declined by 10 years, AIDS is exploding, tuberculosis, eradicated when the USSR existed, is on a frightening rise, workers are starving, the sex-slave trade is booming, and generally the whole region has been thrown back into third world misery.
That was the whole point, though, and is exactly what the imperialists were trying to achieve. They wanted to destroy utterly the society spawned from the October Revolution, because they want to erase the October Revolution from history.
The October Revolution struck fear in the hearts of the imperialists, and it still haunts them. We Marxists fight for new Octobers, to put an end to this vile system of exploitation once and for all.
The terms “bourgeoisie” and “proletariat” have a precise, and moreover scientifically restricted, meaning for a Marxist. They don’t mean just “rich” and “poor,” but are designations of class relations to property in the means of production. The bourgeoisie is that class of capitalists that owns the means of production, that buys and sells labor power in order to make a profit. The proletariat is the working class, those who have nothing to sell but their own labor power, which they must sell continuously in order to live. The bourgeoisie is a tiny minority of the population, while the proletariat is the majority in most countries, the overwhelming majority in the advanced capitalist states.
Furthermore, it is not the case that only 10-15% of the population lives in poverty. Would that it were true! In fact, if it were true, if it could ever be true, then there wouldn’t be any Marxists. The fact is that the vast majority of the planet lives in utter, soul-crushing poverty. This mass of human misery has increased dramatically since the collapse of the USSR, not only due to the fact that the workers of the ex-Soviet bloc themselves have been thrown back into third world poverty, but because the imperialists, ever since the collapse, have had a free hand to run roughshod over the world. Without Soviet military might to stay the hand of the bloody, rapacious imperialists, the world is wide open for their subjugation.
Even in the advanced capitalist states living standards have been getting worse, much worse since the collapse of the USSR. The mean real wages in the U.S. have fallen since 1973 when they peaked. In Europe the attack on workers is even more dramatic, as the social safety net that was in place as a bulwark against communism is being shredded as inter-imperialist rivalries intensify.
While the USSR existed the international labor market was distorted just due to the fact of the existence of the world’s first workers’ state. Third world states had some room to maneuver between the two super-powers and keep some of their national wealth inside their own borders. Without the staying power of Soviet power, this too is gone. It is a partial return to the pre-WWI state of affairs, and the specter of a new world war is raising its head as the “united front” of all the capitalists against the USSR has been dismantled. The scramble over the spoils in Iraq is a pre-sentiment of larger, and much more deadly, fights to come.
Your thread title mentions ‘Marxism’, but you seem to want to talk about communism, or possibly marxism-leninism. Could you specify which should be the subject of this thread?
The problem with any attempt at Communism or Socialism is that once power is taken... instead of having X or Y class... now you have a new Bureaucrat or Political class. Any class once in power will attempt to remains there. Using the same "we are all in this together".
Ideally of course a communist society of equality and more balanced prosperity is great... humankind is the problem. Greed and competition are part of us... as is dominance and lust for power.
The subject of the thread was intended to be the proposition in the first post. Frederick Engels, in the 1888 preface to the Communist Manifesto, said that it was the fundamental proposition of the manifesto, and that it was due to Marx. It is the most basic proposition of Marxism. My intention was not to argue over the Russian question, but I will take on all comers.
Marxism is a science, a way of looking at the world, and a guide to action. Being a communist means dedicating yourself to the cause of the working class as a whole, actively seeking to unite the working class, instead of dividing them across imaginary boundaries of nationality, religion, race, gender, sexuality, etc. Communism is a state-less, class-less society. The website www.marxists.org is a good place to go to learn about Marxism.
I reread your OP. I agree that the notion of class is important and is often neglected in political analysis. I also sympathize with the effort of improving the lot of the ‘proletariat’ (assuming for the sake of argument that this is co-extensive with the lower classes).
However, I doubt whether the promise of “once and for all, emancipating society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class distinctions, and class struggles” can ever be made good. It is good to strive to this end, but the promise that it will be reached seems to be based more in hope than in fact. I’m critical about the so-called scientific basis of marxism, especially the theory of cycles in societal development. While there is some basis in fact, I don’t believe history is so rigid in it’s development. I may misunderstand marxism at this point, though.
I’m still not too sure what you think marxism is. What are the defining characteristics of marxism? Classless society? Revolution by the proletariat? Abolishment of capitalism? Common ownership of the means of production? IIRC Marx himself is rather vague about it.
Furthermore, do you think marxism has been implemented to some extent in practice? What do you feel about socialism? Does that fit within marxism as a theory?
**Furthermore, it is not the case that only 10-15% of the population lives in poverty. Would that it were true! In fact, if it were true, if it could ever be true, then there wouldn’t be any Marxists. The fact is that the vast majority of the planet lives in utter, soul-crushing poverty. **
I’m talking about the US and other advanced nations. The worst poverty today exists in nations that are either currently Marxist or were Marxist when it was more fashionable, such as Tanzania.
Ideally of course a communist society of equality and more balanced prosperity is great… humankind is the problem. Greed and competition are part of us… as is dominance and lust for power
Nah. Even if it was possible, it still wouldn’t be right, except as a situation where a bunch of people go somewhere and set up a commune. THe crux of the Communist problem has always been about what to do with the 10% of the population that absolutely cannot go along with the program. In most nations, the method of dealing with that 10% is to kill them. Communism can never be moral in a nation state, only as a voluntary social compact where 100% agree to it.
Marxism is a science, a way of looking at the world, and a guide to action
Actually it’s a religion, but then all religions think they are sciences of a sort.
I sure hope Sandino is just joking, or having a mental exercise or something trying to defend this stuff. I had thought Communism went the way of Nazism. You’d think 100,000,000 dead and the setting back of 50% of the world’s population economically by maybe a century would create just as much of a backlash against Communism as Nazism.
I don’t agree with Engel’s thesis at all. He neglects that people struggle on their own behalf against everyone else - though some surplus time may be spent struggling for others. Marx and Engels were writing about Victorian Europe - Marx largely about Britain, and in that era money bought repectability. And then there’s the USA, which really sinks both of them.
The means of production and consumption is going to be a function of the current technology.
Marx wrote before Freudian psychology and television. Therefore to do an accurate Marxist analysis of society today you must take into account psychologial manipulation via television. Call it:
Techno-Marxism
Religion is an ideology that claims to have something to do with God. Calling Marxism a religion is an undeserved complement to religion.
Marx was a typical utopian philosopher of the period. The things he was saying were not radically different from what was said by many of his peers, it’s just that he was pitching for workers against bosses. This gave him a large target audience and a widely sympathetic message. In the end, Marxism is all about advertising.
What utopians like Marx missed out on is the fact that humans are not glowing beings of light, seperate from all other creation. We’re mildly evolved primates. No human society will function built on purely rational principles, because humans are not purely rational. No human society will ever overcome innate human tendencies like greed, violence, and superstition.
So cross your fingers for the day when AI arrives and wipes out the talking monkeys, because the world will be a much better place.
The problem with your definition of ‘proletariat’ vs ‘bourgeoisie’ is that in most modern socialist/capitalist states (read the US, Japan, most of the European powers, South Korea, etc etc) the line between the two tend to blur. The definitions you are using were written by people in a different era. In todays society the ‘bourgeoisie’ and the ‘proletariat’ tend to merge back and forth in the middle.
Many of the people you would consider to be ‘bourgeoisie’ in fact have nothing to sell by their own ‘labor’, be it physical or intellectual. Many of the people you would consider the core of the ‘proletariat’ in fact DO have a stake in the means of production…we call this the stock market, mutual funds market, etc. In addition, there is a whole techno class that floats in the middle (such as myself), where I certainly worked for a company (until I founded my own business to become a REAL capitalist), getting paid for my labors. However, I ALSO recieved stock in the company I worked for (thus giving me the benifits of the company doing well, and to a limited extent putting some of the fruits of the means of production into my hands).
This kind of thing would be unheard of in Marx or Engels day. The reason is that ‘capitalism’ has been and continues to be heavily modified by the socialist movement. Capitalism would be unrecognizable to the folks in Victorian times.
Unfortunately for you, and for any other hold overs of the Marxist/Lenninist philosophy (its NOT a science…lol), is that this blending of Capitalism and Socialism, while flawed, is the best, most flexable economic system yet devised by human beings, and by and large, those countries that are using the system, and more importantly the CITIZENS of those countries, are, in the majority, at the least content with the system as a whole. No doubt that there are people on the left or the right of the system that would like to TWEEK it, but I seriously doubt that any but the smallest percentage want to junk the whole system and try out the ideas of Marx, Lennin, and Engels.
It trades power by owning the means of production for power by controlling the political machine which controls the means of production. That’s a point against it, because it doesn’t remove class.
Secondly, class relationships aren’t just a matter of controlling property physical property. If I am the only man in town that knows how to make leather, or if more people demand leather than currently make it, my worth as a person with capabilities naturally increases. Apparently, scarcity of resources, and its natural effect of their unequal distribution, never occur under “real” communism, else classes of varying power will always develop. “Intellectual elite” versus “the rest of us schmucks”, or “the politicians” versus “the citizenry”, or “the property owners” versus “the renters”, or… or…
Sandino, leaving aside the old communism debates, I would have to point out that you’re playing fast and loose with cause and effect here.
The notion that the U.S. granted women the right to vote because of the Soviet Union is absolutely preposterous; women’s suffrage was the product of decades of work and political maneuvring throughout the Western world, from Wollstonecraft on up. The fact that the USSR did the same thing at the very same time as almost every Western nation does not establish that they were all copying the USSR. Surely you do not expect us to buy this?
Heck, the USSR wasn’t even the leader in this. New Zealand instituted women’s suffrage in 1893; Canada, and the United Kingdom instituted it in 1918. It’s far likelier than women’s suffrage in the USA was influenced by the British adopting it than by the Soviets.
Y’know, with all the problems in the world, all the critical decisions that need to be made, all the suffering and poverty, and the best you can come up with is Marxism?
The inability of people to learn from the events of the 20th century will never cease to amaze me.