Obra de Jozef Walczak

El voluntarismo criminal y el anti-Marxismo de Mao Zedong

Mao Zedong used his Confucianist demagoguery to pay lip service to Marxist theory but contradicted it in reality at almost every important respect through his theory and actions; Maoism is not an adaptation of Marxism to Chinese reality but an eclectic mixture of nationalism, Confucianism and Stalinism; This disregard for Marxist theory necessarily conducted the Chinese Communist Party to class collaborationism, nationalism and to a complete break with historical materialism in its extreme voluntarism.
After the destruction of the proletarian Chinese Communist Party in 1925-1927 by the nationalist-bourgeois Guomingdang, to which the CCP was subjected by the orders of Stalin-Bukharin the party was forced to go to the countryside and there it filled its ranks with the peasantry. This anti-Marxist substitution of the proletariat as the vanguard of the revolution was to have important repercussions in the deformation of Marxist theory by these self-styled “communists”. It may come as a surprise that the new leadership of the CCP not only failed to recognize the responsibility of the bureaucratic leadership that had usurped power in the Soviet Union from the Bolsheviks in the massacre of the Chinese Party, and most of all that Mao continued to pay homage to Stalin (Reform our Study pg. 201). Mao was truly a Stalinist, and as a Stalinist he only knew how to implement this anti-working class deformation of Marxism, what we see in his notion of “New Democracy” which meant a joint dictatorship of several classes (On New Democracy pg. 256). But if Marxism has always held that the state is a special body created for the enforcement of the rule of a single class over the rest of society, there can be no such “joint dictatorship”; this is class collaborationism, class treason. What brought about the acceptance of Marxism in countries like China was its anti-imperialist or anti-colonialist character and that the leadership of the CCP was looking to produce a
bourgeois-democratic revolution. Of course in the “anti-colonialist” and “anti-imperialist” bandwagon we can find all shades of opportunist scum, like bourgeois-nationalists, national-socialist right wingers, and of course, Stalinists and Maoists. The fact that the most conscious members of the proletariat were destroyed by Stalinist class collaboration left the doors open to the CCP Maoists leading the peasantry to military victory, what produced a deformed worker state from its inception, overthrowing feudal and capitalist class relations (most of the bourgeoisie left to Taiwan or the U.S.). Lenin had pointed out that the peasantry is not an independent force but must either follow the bourgeoisie or the proletariat. The way forward to socialism in colonies was developed as a strategy by Lenin in 1917, and it was the recognition that the proletariat was the only revolutionary class and that it would need to lean on the peasantry to gain power because of the many strings that tied the weak domestic bourgeoisie to imperialism (April Theses pg. 3-15). We can also find absurd and extreme voluntarism and negation of Marxism in Mao with his complete disregard for the development of productive forces, having the nerve to declare possible the construction of socialism in one country which was also a very backward agrarian society. Maoism has proved to be an extremely voluntaristic, class-collaborationist, nationalist and anti-working class theory and practice that has little to do with Marxism; Marxists should unmask it at every moment, showing it as it is a self-serving program that serves to protect the interests of the conservative bureaucracy over the backs of the working masses. Marxist theory will call against the bureaucratic usurpation of political power and will always take into account the development of productive forces, and defend the class independence of the proletariat.

"Determinismo" o "voluntarismo"? La obra de Antonio Gramsci

Gramsci lived in another time and in another place from Marx and Engels; The fact that he wrote most of his works imprisoned by a qualitatively new phenomenon of capitalism which was fascist totalitarianism, gives us a clearer picture of this situation. What Gramsci did was to use the weapon of Marxist theory to understanding the Italian situation in particular and the world situation in the imperialist epoch in general, trying to give it an addition but not in any way giving it a counter-revolutionary revision.
Antonio Gramsci was to suffer in his own flesh the effects of the advocacy of deterministic passivity by a supposed Marxist party, the Italian Socialist Party did not put up a fierce fight against the bourgeoisie and left the doors open to the ascension of fascism in Italy. Gramsci emphasized more than any other Marxist the importance of ideological persuasion as a form of control over society by the bourgeoisie that does not require the direct use of force; He makes an important distinction between this straightforward use of force to control society which he called “domination”, what he acknowledged as the first line of defense of bourgeois interests, through the actions of the police, military and the bureaucracy, what is more in line with what is considered “classic Marxist analysis”; and what he sees as a second line of defense of the bourgeoisie, what he calls “hegemony”, meaning a more subtle control of the lives of the people through the use of ideology, culture and education by the ruling class. To Gramsci the people do not realize that they are being controlled thinking that they are willingly consenting to the demands of the bourgeois order. Gramsci moves to push aside determinism through the development of his idea of the “modern prince”, which is similar to Lenin’s “vanguard party”, also having the task of leading the proletariat into power. To Gramsci the “modern prince” should combat the ideological hold that the bourgeoisie has over the masses in a protracted “war of position”, which meant giving ideological coherence to the needs of the proletarian class and disseminating this among the population before deciding to take the decisive and final step of waging the “war of maneuver” which would mean the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie (Prison Notebooks, pgs. 339-347). Gramsci revises Marxism because he believed that ideas, myths, and hegemony had a power and a life of its own, needing to be struggled against because it would not fall when the economic system changes as Marxists had said before; But this ideas of Gramsci do not seem to contradict Marxism because he is not saying that it is possible to change the hegemony of bourgeois ideas without overthrowing the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Marxists have to consider if “revision” means to contradict the fundamental precepts of Marxism. It may be that because of the fact that Marx and Engels lived in a different era from Gramsci in this case, that they did not have the opportunity to foresee every type of political, sociological or technological phenomenon that would take place in the future after their deaths; But they never pretended to do so; Very poor Marxists indeed would be those that reject any serious attempt to enrich Marxist theory because it would be an affront to their orthodoxy; This is the work of dogmatic charlatans that belong in a church and not in the ranks of Marxism.
Gramsci did revise some fundamentals of Marxism but they were not contradictions to Marxist theory, they were more additions than anything else. Because of the censorship that his writings were subjected to in prison he produced what seemed like very ambiguous works, what has left open the possibility for subjective interpretation to the liberal intelligentsia and to pseudo-Marxists of all kinds. It should be made clear that there are some things that cannot be negotiated in any way because it would truly act against the spirit of Marxism; and the spirit of Marxism is nothing more, but also nothing less than the essence of the proletarian communist revolution.

Is Leninism too "voluntaristic"?


According to Schwartz Lenin would have trouble relating Marxism to “new realities”, those which were presented to the Russian revolutionists at the end of the nineteenth and at the beginning of the twentieth centuries. But the conundrum is not that of the religious man that finds that his bible is a mere book and not the work of the omniscient god; Lenin always pointed out that Marxism is not a dogma but a guide to action, because this was precisely what Marx and Engels thought of their writings, they never sought to make themselves divinities, they wanted to give the revolutionary working class tools for their liberation from capitalist exploitation. So when the “high priests” of Marxist orthodoxy come out and point to contradictions between the writings of Marx and those of Lenin we many times find that they just want to put obstacles in the way of revolution. The conscious working class will never forget that it was Lenin and the Bolshevik Party that first overthrew the autocracy and the bourgeoisie finally establishing a proletarian state. It is true that Lenin adapted certain fundamentals of Marxism, but this did not distort or reframe it for some opportunistic self-serving reason; he adapted it to Russian reality which was quite different from nineteenth century Germany or England, and through this he gave continuity and actuality to its revolutionary character.
A true Marxist is preoccupied with making possible the proletarian revolution, because Marxism is precisely that, the theory of communist revolution; to worry about memorizing every word in a book is the job of a theologian. This does not mean in any way that theory has no importance, on the contrary, Lenin pointed out: “Without revolutionary theory there is no revolutionary practice” he then ads: the role of the vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory”; and he later quotes Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Program that mentions: ‘do not allow any bargaining over principles, do not make “concessions” in questions of theory’ (What is to be done? pg.28-29). It is precisely in the question of the vanguard party, which is central to Leninism that reside the differences that many of its critics have pointed out as differing from Marxist theory. Marx had pointed out that through “praxis”, every day work exploited by the capitalist class, the working class would become conscious of the contradictions inherent to the capitalist system and of the exploitation that they are subjected to, leading inevitably to the struggle of the working class for its liberation. But for Lenin this spontaneity can only amount to trade-union consciousness, to economic struggle. This is so because in the struggle for economic gains the worker does not fundamentally change the capitalist system and therefore he continues to be exploited and oppressed. For Lenin revolutionary class consciousness which comes from Marxism has to be brought to the working class through the instrumentality of the vanguard party that would make possible the struggle against the whole capitalist class and for taking political power. As Lenin writes: “The spontaneous development of the working class movement leads to its becoming subordinated to bourgeois ideology” (What is to be done? pgs. 12-43). This is not different or a contradiction of what Marx wrote: “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas…the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it” (The German Ideology, pg 154); Some have argued that the idea of the “vanguard party” presents other difficulties like
“substitutionism”, meaning that the party replaces itself as “the working class”, and acts independently of it; To this Lenin wrote: “To become a power the class-conscious workers must win the majority to their side…we are not Blancists, we do not stand for the seizure of power by a minority The Dual Power, pg 2). And continues now alluding to the class traitors in the pseudo-Marxist parties: “We are Marxists and we stand for proletarian class struggle against petty-bourgeois intoxication, against chauvinism-defencism, phrase mongering and dependence on the bourgeoisie” (ibid). The Bolsheviks led by Lenin truly did not act until they obtained the majority in the Soviets in October 25 [November 7 of the new calendar] 1917. It should be also considered that a “deterministic” part of Marxism has been overemphasized by its critics, the same that seem very willing to forget the activities of Marx and Engels in revolutionary organizations; they never said “sit down and wait for revolution”. Since early 1847 we can find Karl Marx arguing for proletarian revolution as the act that would bring an egalitarian and just society (Poverty of Philosophy, pg. 136). Lenin was accused of many things by those that wanted to make of Marxism a harmless philosophy, and against this he rightly wrote: “[a]attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names…while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it” (The State and Revolution). What these detractors of Leninism are truly advocating is “tailism”, to react to what the working class might spontaneously do, but proletarian consciousness is not equally gained by the class, and it should never be forgotten that the proletariat is subjected daily to the propaganda of the bourgeoisie that own the means of disseminating it. To wait indefinitely for the acquirement of such consciousness by the proletariat would mean to postpone revolution forever. Other critics of Marxism have pointed out that Lenin advocated proletarian revolution in a country where the capitalist mode of production was not fully developed and that therefore, the first necessary stage would be to support the bourgeois
revolution that could destroy the autocratic society and its feudal remnants; To them Lenin answered that after studying economic situation of the country from a Marxist perspective he found that capitalist relations had been developing a strong proletariat, but because this was done from above, from the autocracy, and with the participation of foreign capital, the domestic bourgeoisie was too weak to carry out the tasks of the democratic revolution, and that because of this, these tasks were to be carried out necessarily by the proletariat because this class had grown to a staggering level by 1917. It should be noted that Lenin never advocated for the possibility of creating a socialist society in one country; he saw that the Russian Revolution would be the spark that would ignite the proletarian revolution in Europe and across the globe. Of course anyone can criticize Leninism and every revolutionary theory and action that may exist; The Russian Revolution was not carried out “by the book” as many have pointed out, simply because there are things that escape the control of human beings, every Marxist understands this, as Marx wrote: “Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted from the past” (The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte pg. 595).
Leninism is not “too voluntaristic” with respect to Marxist theory, because Marxism, more than anything else is the theory of communist revolution, a guide to action. What is absurd is to find someone trying to justify their criticisms of Leninism selling themselves as the “champions” of Marxism while sitting in their comfortable chairs in their petty-bourgeois job. What Lenin accomplished to learn from Marx better than anyone else was that the proletariat has a historic mission, that of overthrowing the bourgeoisie and its rule, eradicating all forms of exploitation and oppression, not as a moral imperative, but rather deriving from the very workings of the capitalist system.

Esta es la opinion de una camarada sobre la represion de la que fui objeto en la Universidad y sobre los ataques que los comunistas e izquierdistas en general padecen en la ciudad de San Diego en particular.

Even though it
ignites many of my frustrations about red-baiting.
There was nothing disrespectful about any of your
comments, unless disrespectful has become redefined
to mean falling to the left of the “left-of-center”
safe-zone. I wonder if the same rules apply to our
right-wing friend who calls us “dumbasses” or, in my
case, “book-burning, left-wing dictators”.
McCarthyism is still thriving in the university system
only now more covertly because free speech is
supposedly so fundamental (only so far as you’re free
to parrot the ideas of the ruling class).

I’m not so sure that the right is dominant in numbers.
It probably has more to do with their level of
confidence and aggressiveness. The more far-right
elements tend to try to make themselves more salient
and are readily organized for attacks on the left.
After all, they do have the whole system working in
their favor. The March 19th protest had over a
thousand people, yet a small, ultra-right group called
the “protest warriors” confidently brought their
counter-protest that was protected by the
peacekeepers from any intervention from our side (we
still managed to use our numbers to get them on the
other side of the street). Three guys from the Koala
also showed up to make a “mockumentary” about the
protest and tried to dominate our march even though
they were clearly outnumbered. These, like the
personal attacks against you in class, are the tactics
of the organized right. Meanwhile, the supposed
left in the U.S. adopts McCarthyism to rid itself of
any stigma or militancy that might be associated
with radical politics and tailors its arguments to the
framework set out by the right. That’s the
acceptable left people are used to and that’s what
makes your comments out-of-line. A confident right
is the norm, but a confident left is persecuted.

I’m really glad that you did speak up (though I’m not
happy with all of the crap you were given in return).
Having at least one like-minded student willing to
voice an alternative viewpoint made me more confident
with expressing my own in class.

J.

REPRESION EN LA UNIVERSIDAD: Imposicion del silencio

Me doy cuenta que los Estados Unidos es un pais mas derechista y reaccionario de lo que pensaba, por supuesto que los gobiernos y las personas son cosas muy distintas, pero la adopcion de la ideologia de los explotadores por los alumnos y profesores de la universidad a la que asisto realmente me dejaron sorprendidos.
En unos salones de clase de alrededor de 100 personas unas cuatro personas me agradecieron mis intervenciones ya que daba una posicion verdaderamente Marxista en el debate y me invitaron a participar con sus organizaciones, pero la inmensa mayoria de los alumnos repetian estupidamente argumentos dados por la propaganda imperialista. Cuando se les mostraba lo absurdo de su postura los mejores guardaban silencio otros no se contentaron con eso. En un debate que se mantenia atraves de "yahoo groups" recibi una serie de amenazas, y virus de computadoras, eso realmente me tiene sin cuidado ya que a estas alturas no me asusto tan facilmente. Lo que me sorprendio es que la profesora que se dice "izquierdista" me desconecto del grupo, alega demencia y que no sabe que paso pero despues me dijo que fuera mas "respetuoso", y "menos rudo" con los alumnos porque estan "jovenes", como si fuera una especie de corruptor de menores que me la pasara mentandoles la madre, yo lo que hice unicamente fue debatir con argumentos, a los que me escribian groserias simplemente no les contestaba, es simplemente una perdida de tiempo. Lo que veo yo aqui es un atentado directo en contra de la libertad de expresion y en especial de acabar con todo lo que tenga que ver con el Marxismo revolucionario, para ellos la Revolucion Rusa y el Marxismo estan muy bien en los libros de historia y buscan castrar su caracter revolucionario, su relacion con el presente y necesidad futura.

Continuando el debate Marxista pero ahora sobre la cuestion "determinista" o "voluntarista" que algunos resaltan.


MARX AND ENGELS

Marx and Engels dedicated their lives to studying the inner workings of the capitalist system and to its revolutionary overthrow. Many have tried to discover that there are irreconcilable contradictions between the voluntaristic and the deterministic aspects of their writings, but What Marxist theory has accomplished better than any other theory of revolution before or after it, is pointing out that which is “determined” –today and in the past- by the inner workings of the socio-economic and political system and that which requires the intervention of a conscious and revolutionary class to change existing realities. What is ultimately the conciliation between will and the material conditions presented by social systems of production and distribution.
Benjamin I. Schwartz pointed out that founders of philosophical systems are not as troubled by the contradictions of their writings as their followers might be. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were the founders of the philosophical and scientific doctrine known as Marxism; therefore they were not following any pre-established philosophical system of ideas. In it we truly find a conscious and ruthless criticism of everything existing, as Marx wrote to his friend Arnold Ruge: “The criticism must not be afraid of its own conclusions, nor of conflict with the powers that be” (Karl Marx, For a Ruthless Criticism of Everything existing, pg. 13). And they were not afraid to put the world upside down, to challenge the existing reign of Hegelian philosophy and of what they considered to be its timid critics. Marx and Engels took what they thought was necessary to learn from Hegel and adapted it to a materialist conception of history, thereby destroying the conservatism of Hegel’s philosophy in its idealism and in its support the status quo. Marx wrote: “My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but its direct opposite…the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind and into forms of thought” (Afterword to the 2nd German Ed. of Capital Volume One gg.301). But what was most revolutionary was their interpretation of history, of capitalist society, and their direct challenge to the existing state of things. They pointed out that societies were not stable entities, that many had come and gone through their own inner contradictions, -resembling the actual debates in academia- therefore capitalism is not the end of history, but on the contrary it has a fleeting existence and already has created the elements for its own downfall, as Marx wrote: “The present society is no solid crystal, but an organism capable of change and is constantly changing” (Preface to the 1st German Ed. of Capital, Volume One, pg. 298). Marx and Engels found that the liberation of society from the capitalist system of exploitation would come through the establishment of the Communist system. It is in this search for finding a way forward to arriving to such a society that there arises a debate that points out to a series of contradictions in the thought of Marx and Engels. Critics of Marxism find an inconsistency between a supposed voluntaristic and a deterministic side of it; Marx thought that through the practice of participation in the labor process, known as “praxis” the working class would become conscious of the contradictions of the system and of the exploitation that they are subjected to, leading inevitably to the struggle of the working class to become a class “for itself” instead of continuing to be a class “in itself”. Continuing with what has been interpreted as voluntarism Marx wrote: “It is a question of these laws themselves, of these tendencies working with iron necessity towards inevitable results (Preface to the 1st German Ed. of Capital Volume One, pg 296). Coming from the right of the political spectrum we can find and we can expect to come across the conservative and liberal intelligentsia trying to point out to “inconsistencies” in Marxism to declare it just another philosophy, but this is expected from the enemies of the working class that have always demanded revolutionaries to repent and accept the superiority of those that exploit them; But what can come as a surprise is that also from within the working class movement a series of pseudo-Marxists “ideologues” have tried to deprive Marxism of its revolutionary character, looking to confuse the inexperienced readers and to hide their own capitulation to the bourgeoisie by pointing out that communism is inevitable, and that it will come one day through evolution, or through the development of productive forces, therefore making revolutionary action unnecessary. But this cowardly reformism and call for inaction has nothing to do with Marxism or with what was written and done by Marx and Engels. They did not just sit down and wait for the revolution; on the contrary, they acted and tried to intervene in the working class movement of their time to further the cause of communism, like in their direct participation in the “Communist League” and in the “International Workingmen’s Association”. They did not just want to create a philosophy; that was already done many times before, their revolutionary approach is summarized by what Marx pointed out: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it” (Theses on Feuerbach, pg. 145). Marxism is a call and a guide to revolutionary action, always taking into consideration the material basis for the triumph of such deeds. But an important part of what distinguishes Marxism from utopian socialism is its understanding of material reality, that if socialism is defined as the “end of material want”, the end of scarcity, than it can only be possible trough the development of productive forces which have taken place in the capitalist system of production, that which has created the proletariat, the class which, because of its position in the means of productions, its form of organization and its number, is the only revolutionary class capable of overthrowing the class that now holds power. It does not only require for someone to have a “good idea” and desire the coming to existence of socialism, but a series of pre-conditions are also necessary. As Marx and Engels pointed out in The Communist Manifesto: “What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own gravediggers” (pg 497-498). And regarding the material conditions for socialism Marx writes: “Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development which this determines” (Critique of the Gotha Program, pg 534-535). If there are revolts or an overturn of the social structure in an underdeveloped society they can not come to end scarcity, and therefore this is not socialism. Marxism does not seek to create an artificial contradiction within society, but points out that the interests of the classes are directly opposite. The bourgeoisie is compelled by competition everyday to generate more profits for itself, and therefore it is pushed to exploit the labor of the proletariat more and more; The proletariat comes to understand –in a different level and at different times- that this is not in their interest so it begins to struggle against their exploiters. In this recognition of the irreconcilable differences of interests within the classes lies the Marxist demand for a complete political independence of the working class from all other classes, i.e. against class collaboration. Marxism is the theory of revolution, of the violent overthrow of the capitalist system of exploitation: “Material force must be overthrown by material force” (Karl Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, pg. 144). As Marx later points out in The Communist Manifesto: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (pg.473). There is no hint of evolutionism, pacifism or call for lethargic inaction here.
Marxism has pointed out that what exists today and what will exist in the future is the product of the past, of historical development. In materialist dialectics we find that it is precisely in the contradictions within past and present societies that the seeds for a different future reside. But to bring it about requires the conscious action and will of the most revolutionary class of that specific society. Marxism, as a scientific doctrine, requires from the conscious element of society to consider the importance not only that which is under his control, like revolutionary action, but
also what escapes him, that which has been brought about by the development of productive forces independent of him. This gives a coup de grâce to those that hold that there is an irreconcilable contradiction between the voluntaristic and the deterministic aspects of Marxist theory, because Marxism is precisely the conciliation of the two, that which comes about by taking into consideration the will of human beings and that which exists outside of him, the material conditions presented by society.

Fotografia tomada por Lewis Carroll


El burócrata postmoderno


El burócrata postmoderno se despierta día a día y al verse en el espejo se afila las antenas, a diferencia de Gregorio Samsa el no se espanta, se convence a si mismo que le gusta lo que ve, el “es bello”, el puede llegar a ser ¡El único! ¡El máximo! ¡El mejor limpia botas que un jefe puede tener! El burócrata post-moderno todavía sueña, no es ningún mediocre, no señor, el se prepara porque busca ser para sus amos el mas perfecto, y el mas servil de los lacayos. Si alguien protesta el se pone al frente y dice: “tu con que derecho hablas por nosotros.” Parece tener el síndrome de la mujer golpeada que se abalanza para defender a su macho si alguien lo reprende.
Con orgullo el se sabe postmoderno, si su trabajo le costó, no por nada -dice el- lee las mejores revistas de debate, las mejores porque en ellas escriben grandes escritores, esto el lo sabe porque llevan nombres que le parecen extranjeros y porque están a la vanguardia de la moda, lo mas nuevo, el defender las ideas de vasallo. El es un timorato en caída libre, cada día más y más –el no es un mediocre- con mayor ahínco defiende las ideas de su dueño. Disfraza su cobardía de cinismo, orgulloso escupe ahora a quienes un día lo conocieron, diferente, portando mascara de rebelde. El pronto llega, ya esta cerca, ya pronto obtendrá su oficina de ayudante en alguna dependencia de gobierno

Hey Kevin,

It seems to me that the political beliefs of Aronson, like his liberal-bourgeois hate for Bolshevism seems to destroy any attempt to a serious study of the Russian Revolution and Trotsky. The political line of “The Nation” is to campaign for the so-called Democratic Party, the other party of war and racism. On the past presidential elections they demanded Nader to quit the race so that the Democrats could win. It should be noted that this party voted to approve the “Patriot Act” (I and II) and every other repressive action of the Bush administration. We all know what the Democrats stand for so I do not think that Aronson’s article could provide anything to the Marxist debate.
He tries to crown Martov and the Mensheviks as the champions of “sober Marxist analysis”. It would be interesting to find out what he means by that, what is so appealing to him of Menshevism, it most probably is their opportunist adaptation to the bourgeoisie, its innocuous –to the oppressors- centrism that produced only revolutionary words that stopped in just that, mere words. Their actions unmasked them as reformist traitors to the working class, seeking an “extended period of capitalism” for an indefinite amount of time.
I would like to know what is this “Marxism’s insistence on democracy” that he so bellows to his uninformed readers. Aronson than continues to point out that the Bolsheviks dropped “’Democratic from their name becoming the Communist Party.” Anyone who knows anything about Marxism would point out that the Dictatorship of the proletariat is “the very essence of Marx’s doctrine” as Lenin pointed out: “It is natural for a liberal to speak of ‘democracy’ in general but a Marxist will never forget to ask: “for what class?” The liberals simply advocate bourgeois democracy, that is, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. As Lenin wrote: “We cannot speak of ‘pure democracy’ so long as different classes exist; we can only speak of class democracy”. The Nation seems to forget, or decides not to point out that the reason why the Bolsheviks threw out the “Social-Democratic” name of the party was because they wanted to make a clear distinction between Revolutionary Marxists and the betrayal of International Social Democracy that capitulated to “their own” bourgeoisie, voting for war credits in the first inter-imperialist world war. Lenin pointed out the tasks of international Marxism by 1914:
“The second international is dead, overcome by opportunism…to the Third International falls the task of organizing the proletarian forces for a revolutionary onslaught against the capitalist governments, for civil war against the bourgeoisie of all countries for the capture of political power, for the triumph of socialism!” It is known that Leninism as a qualitative extension of Marxism arose precisely between 1914-1917.
Aronson’s article stretches itself quite absurdly by relating the present imperialist war of plunder in Iraq with the right to rebel against injustice, stating: “We have learned that force cannot create a humane society. It is a lesson that the neo-conservative architects of the Iraq war and their liberal hawk fellow travelers have yet to absorb.”
Does anyone in their right mind really think that the U.S. government and corporations are in Iraq trying to “create a humane society”, this is absurdly ludicrous. Marxists know that the bourgeoisie hold power by force and as Gramsci pointed out, “through the actions of traditional intellectuals that support capitalist ideology”, -like writers of “The Nation”- people that peddle democracy as having two undistinguishable capitalist parties taking turns to see which one is going to exploit us this time. If we take Aronson’s words than what options do the exploited of the world have? The violence that comes from the oppressors is not the same as the one that comes from the oppressed that looks to liberate itself. Lack of action means to uphold the status quo. Peace is not “not to fight” but not having any reasons to fight. What options did the Russian working class have regarding the Czarist autocracy? To lower their heads and die in the trenches? To calmly accept orders while their families died of hunger?
I am sorry but I do not take Marxism classes from enemies of the working class, as Lenin wrote: [they] take from Marxism what is acceptable to the liberals, to the bourgeoisie…discards, passes in silence, glosses over all in Marxism which is unacceptable to the bourgeoisie (the revolutionary violence of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie for the latter’s destruction).”
Kevin, you wrote: “I found the idealism of the pre-revolutionary party quite appealing”, but Marxism is not idealism, it is materialism. Marxism is the theory of revolution to be put into practice. It is historical materialism, Marx wrote: “Philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it.” This is exactly what the Bolsheviks did. I assure you that without October we would not have heard of the Bolsheviks. Without putting into practice Marxist theory of revolution the bourgeoisie and their many apologists would not have any one pointing out that revolution is possible and not only necessary. Without October the Bolsheviks would have only been a bunch of nagging intellectuals remembered by no one. Idealists point out that it did not materialize as it was written in paper, but there are forces that escape the power of human beings, it is easy to criticize from our distance in time. Trotsky and the International Left Opposition fought against the parasitical bureaucracy, trying to organize a political revolution that would uphold the proletarian property forms, and then seeking to organize Socialist World Revolution because he understood that October, the revolution, was a great step for the liberation of the proletariat. In spite of the bureaucracy the Soviet Union played a very progressive role for the world. October produced the Red Army and it was this army that stopped the Nazis. The Soviet Union gave material support to the liberation of the colonies around the world. There are innumerable examples of this progressive role in history of the USSR. It is precisely because of its fall that we live in such reactionary times where the U.S. runs roughshod all over the world, where we see the growth of religious obscurantism and the alienation and backwardness of the working class.
Of course the final destruction of the Bolshevik Revolution was a great defeat for the international working class, but this revolution was only the first serious attempt towards proletarian liberation, others should and will follow (as I pointed out before) Marx wrote:
“Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted from the past” (The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte). And he later adds:“Proletarian revolutions…criticize themselves continually in their own course, come back to the apparently accomplished in order to begin it afresh, deride with unmerciful thoroughness the inadequacies, weaknesses and paltrinesses of their first attempts, seem to throw down their adversary only in order that he may draw new strength from the earth and rise again more gigantic before them, recoil ever and anon from the indefinite prodigiousness of their own aims, until the situation has been created which makes all turning back impossible…(ibid)


Obra de Picasso

“During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the "consolation" of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it.”

V.I. Lenin, The State and Revolution

This is a college Russian Revolution class not Sunday school, this topic is controversial, and it is open to debate. We should not, in Lenin’s words “blunt its revolutionary edge” to obtain the approval of everyone or anyone.
An important subject was brought up by a student of this class, the subject of the U.S. government’s occupation of Iraq. This is related to the class because it is about modern imperialism. What is this occupation if not as Lenin wrote: “a predatory war of plunder”? (Imperialism). I know that it is very easy to condemn the past, now almost every one wants to look sensible and condemns for example the U.S. government’s war on Vietnam, only right wing war-mongers seem to stand by the decision to go into war over there. But I would like to point out that the same imperialist logic is behind the war in Iraq, I do not want to discuss if it’s a geopolitical decision to control the oil spigot or not but I just want to emphasize on the broader picture; To think that U.S. troops are not murdering innocent people there every day is to deny reality. Or should we be so blind as to believe what an army officer said in Vietnam: “we are burning down the village in order to save it”. We should just take the example of Falluja, like “My Lai” in Vietnam it should be recognized as a monstrous U.S. war crime. This city was flattened; mosques were bombed and then stormed by troops. Most of us saw a video of a Marine murdering a wounded unarmed man. It is clear that this type of murderous behavior is not an anomaly but the norm. How many lives have been destroyed? Do we need more examples? Remember Abu Grahib? The U.S. government has always tried to hide the truth saying that it is “propaganda”. They do not even count the Iraqi dead. Reliable estimates put the number of civilian deaths at more than 100,000. I know that for many people that are just a number, they probably seem to them as subhuman, “they are only Arabs.” Lieutenant General James Mattis puts it very clearly: “It is a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people.” What else is there? Well cutting water supplies to cities, starving civilians, deliberately killing the unarmed and wounded, all these are war crimes stipulated by the Geneva Conventions to which the U.S. is signatory. This can not be called any other way but murder. Let’s leave the hypocrisy to the politicians in Washington.
I want to make it clear that the deaths of American soldiers are a very sad thing. Most of them were forced by circumstances to join. One of my best friends is a tank driver at the reserves, he did not understand the political situation of the country and just wanted to get some money for college, and now regrets his decision to join every day. He stands firmly against the war and has participated in many anti-war protests, and has vowed that he will not go to Iraq to kill innocent people. There are always options.
But again, this is a Russian Revolution class and has to do with Leninist theory. So what is the Marxist position in this war? I am interested to hear some opinions. To me it would call for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all U.S. and allied forces. And insofar as the forces on the ground aim their blows against the imperialist occupiers and the mercenaries, they would call for their defense. A Marxist stance would point out that every blow struck against the U.S. military and allied powers in Iraq is a blow in the interests of the international proletariat because it is a direct response against imperialism.

“History is made by men, but men do not always make history consciously, not even their own”
Trotsky

I do not agree with what was implied in yesterday’s class, that Bukharin was closer to representing the Bolshevik line after Lenin’s death. History has pointed where each leading member of the party really stood. Bukharin’s writings were severely criticized by Lenin, pointing out that he did not even understood dialectics. When Lenin wrote his “April Theses” he closed the door to any type of class collaborationism, agreeing with Trotsky’s “Permanent Revolution” (1905). At the most important moment in proletarian history, at the time of the Revolution Kamenev and Zinoviev stood against Lenin, opposing the insurrection. Stalin stood for the Provisional Government before Lenin arrived in Russia, and at the decisive moment, in October 25 (November 7), he hid somewhere outside the line of fire.
It was Trotsky who stood by Lenin, as Ulam pointed out: “The man of the hour, with Lenin still hiding, was Trotsky” (pg. 366). Bukharin was in Moscow and not in the capital, Petrograd overthrowing the bourgeois-led Provisional Government. Kamenev, Zinoviev and Bukharin were not even in the original government after October.
Kamenev, Zinoviev and Stalin with there unending zig-zags seemed to lack firm principles. Bukharin, with his theory of “socialism in one country” and support for the kulaks and the emerging bourgeoisie is a very comfortable “revolutionary” for liberals, he seemed to represent the faction of the party that put in gravest danger the proletarian state, wrapping in a theory a program for the counterrevolutionary reestablishment of capitalism. Of course no one dares to say that Stalin was a theoretician, he was only a bureaucrat, a man with no principles who destroyed the Bolshevik party. He was, in Trotsky’s words, the “gravedigger of the Revolution”.
The fact that Bukharin’s writings had more influence in the party after Lenin’s death was because he coherently represented the interests of the bureaucratic caste that was deforming the proletarian state, and that was becoming more conscious of their own interests, not because of the strength of his ideas. A simple comparison of the amount and content of the writings of Bukharin in relation to those of Trotsky can give us a more complete idea of this (You can find them at the Marxist Internet Archive. Bukharin http://http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/index.htm, and for Trotsky).
One seems to be too harsh with the leaders of the first party that brought the working class to power (although briefly), but we should always point out the mistakes if we want to learn from them. And of course it is really easy to do it from such a distance in space and time. Lenin was the soul of the party, but he saw that only through debate and discussion the party could arrive at a correct line. He did not force his ideas on others but tried to convince them and accept his mistakes when they were pointed out. Trotsky also stood for democracy in the party. He came to recognize his many mistakes and fought the bureaucratic degeneration of the party with more strength in 1927 that is why he was expelled from it. It is said that a letter from his friend Adolf Joffe (who was forced to commit suicide by the Stalinists) helped him take a firmer stand for Leninism against those that were destroying the party:
“I have always believed that you lacked Lenin’s unbending will, his unwillingness to yield, his readiness even to remain alone on the path that he thought right in the anticipation of a future majority…Politically you were always right, beginning with 1905, and I told you repeatedly that with my own ears I had heard Lenin admit that even in 1905, you and not he, were right. One does not lie before his death, and now I repeat this again to you…
“But you have often abandoned your rightness for the sake of an overvalued agreement or compromise. This is a mistake…You are right, but the guarantee of the victory of your rightness lies in nothing but the extreme unwillingness to yield, the strictest straightforwardness, the absolute rejection of all compromise: in this very thing lay the secret of Lenin’s victories. Many a time I have wanted to tell you this, but only now have I brought myself to do so, as a last farewell.”
Adolf Joffe, Letter to Trotsky, 16 November 1927
While living in exile he knew that the struggle for world socialist revolution was more important than ever as well as a proletarian political revolution in the Soviet Union to oust the parasitic bureaucracy that usurped power. That is why his last words after receiving the mortal blow by a Stalinist henchman were to push forward the actions of the Fourth International, the World Party of Socialist Revolution.

You must conquer and rule,
Or lose and serve,
Suffer or triumph,
Be anvil or be hammer.

Goethe