Political Affairs Editors Blog - Latest Comments in Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism

Re: Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism

warrengreer — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 03:31:14 -0000

Warren Greer added you as a friend on MyLife.(TM)
Please confirm you know Warren so we can connect you.

Do You Know Warren?

YES - Connect with Warren, and see who's searching for you
http://www.mylife.com/showI...

NO - I don't know Warren
http://www.mylife.com/showI...

Tell us, and see Who's Searching for YOU!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MyLife - Find everyone. All in one place.(TM)

You have received this email because a MyLife member sent an invitation to
this email address. You can stop receiving follow-up invitations by clicking here:
http://smtp26.mail.reunion.com:80/track?t=u&mid=154632&sn=1228211319&msgid=9900&did=3800&eid=&uid=17334&extra=&&&http://www.mylife.com/pub/i...

For assistance, please refer to our FAQ or Contact Us:
http://help.mylife.com/self...

2118 Wilshire Blvd., Box 1008, Santa Monica, CA 90403-5784
Copyright (c) 2009 MyLife.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Re: Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism

Guest — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 18:07:15 -0000

Warren Greer added you as a friend on MyLife(TM).
Please confirm you know Warren so we can connect you.

Do You Know Warren?

YES - Connect with Warren, and see who's searching for you
http://smtp26.mail.reunion.com:80/track?type=click&mailingid=69000&messageid=9300&databaseid=1238061915&serial=1228209695&emailid=&userid=48823&extra=&&&2002&&&http://www.mylife.com/showI...

NO - I don't know Warren http://smtp26.mail.reunion.com:80/track?type=click&mailingid=69000&messageid=9300&databaseid=1238061915&serial=1228209695&emailid=&userid=48823&extra=&&&2000&&&http://www.mylife.com/showI...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MyLife - Find everyone. All in one place.(TM)

You have received this email because a MyLife member sent an invitation to
this email address. For assistance, please refer to our FAQ or Contact Us:
http://smtp26.mail.reunion.com:80/track?type=click&mailingid=69000&messageid=9300&databaseid=1238061915&serial=1228209695&emailid=&userid=48823&extra=&&&2001&&&http://help.mylife.com/

Our Address: 2118 Wilshire Blvd., Box 1008, Santa Monica, CA 90403-5784

Re: Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism

Peter Gale — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:50:29 -0000

"dictatorship of the proletariat"
I believe in democracy. If the majority of people want a socialist state, the state should be socialist. However, big business has most of the money, enabling them to subsidize enormously the political parties that advocate capitalism and smear socialism. To gather a majority of people to back and vote for a political party that espouses socialism requires an enormous amount of money, because the socialists are mostly working families that don't have that much money to spare. This is wrong, because it so one-sided. Big business should not be able to weigh in with its big bucks to skew political campaigns and elections. In short, capital's money should be outlawed to spread capitalist theories and fund capitalist parties. This is dictatorship of the proletariat, because the voice of capitalism is effectively silenced, in that big business' money should not be permitted to spread big business' propaganda. The way I define "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a very democratic system. Nonetheless, "dictatorship of the proletariat" is not a term I use, because it sounds anti-democratic. I believe that those who advocate capitalism should not be thrown in jail. I do believe that those who advocate capitalism should not be subsidized by big business.

Re: Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism

Don — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:17:05 -0000

Terrific article. Next you should go after Renegade Lenin and his disastrous revision of Marxism. When the USSR collapsed, it was not American cold war pressure that caused it, American triumphalism notwithstanding. No society collapses that suddenly and that massively unless it is structurally rotten from the foundations to the rafters. The collapse of the USSR was in fact collapse of the Leninist project. Let me give you a clue to follow up on. When Lenin outlawed factions in the CPUSSR, and then outlawed other competing socialist parties, Rosa Luxemburg said that with these measures the Party had substituted itself for the working class, and it will not be long before the Central Committee substitutes itself for the Party, and then a leading individual will substitute himself for the Central Committee. Everything that went wrong in the USSR, and its ultimate collapse, stemmed from these Leninist measures. Have you never wondered where the working class was during the events of the collapse? Leninism had rendered them utterly passive and impotent, incapable of any initiative defending what was supposedly their State.

Re: Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism

mulligas — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 03:54:52 -0000

The only point that I agree wtih is Market Socialism. The Opium of the Masses quote has been commonly taken out of context. The Comintern condition was actually to defend any Soviet State from counter revolution. Scientific Socialism has as many syllables as Marxist-Leninism. Also, many political groups in American History have been named after dead or living people. Jeffersonians, Hamiltonians, and Jacksonians for example. Also, the followers of Lassale in Marx's time were called Lassalians. The book The Dictatorship of the Proletariat by John Ehrenberg shows what the concept means and its relation to socialist democracy. The term dictatorship is used in its older Roman meaning that does not imply tyranny. The books Is the Red Flag still Flying and Human Rights in the Soviet Union by Albert Szymanski explain single-party rule and the state of civil liberties in the Socialist bloc and exposes cold war propaganda on the subject. I really don't know what the purpose of this list is. i also disagree with LJ Albright. I think the responses to this list were thoughtful and the people who wrote them were merely trying to put Sims suggestions to scrutiny just like he is trying to put traditional Marxist ideas to scrutiny.

Re: Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism

rogerkeeran — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:15:32 -0000

Joe, has the theoretical level of discussion by the editor of Political Affairs now sunk to the level of a David Letterman top ten list? Ideas can now just be identified and dismissed with a smirk

If it is not too old-fashioned and un-hip, I would actually like to discuss one of your “Ten Worst” ideas of Marxism, number 6: “’Art is a hammer with which to shape reality.’ First articulated by Brecht, primitive and almost obscene. Oh when will we learn to appreciate and engage something so gentle and so moving and so profound as our creative selves.”

Even if Brecht did say this (as far as I know, it is not in his written work), he certainly did not say it first, and it is not the complete quotation. The remark probably originated with the Russian poet Vladimir Mayakovsky and the full idea is: “Art is not a mirror held up to reality, but a hammer with which to shape it.”

Whatever the origins of this idea, what precisely about it do you find primitive and obscene?

The quotation counterposes two metaphors. The metaphors suggest that art (is, can be, or should be) active, not passive, a tool not a vanity, a shaper of perception and reality, not merely a reflection of it. This seems pretty astute to me.

If you prefer another metaphor, propose it. From your remarks, I infer that you would prefer a metaphor of art as a mystery, a daydream or self-gratification.

If you are offended by the hammer metaphor, you would probably get apoplectic over the Picasso’s metaphor that art is a weapon. Picasso, who besides being a Communist Party member from 1944 until his death, was no slouch in the “moving,” “profound,” and “creative” departments, said,

“What do you think an artist is? An imbecile who only as eyes if he is a painter, or ears if he’s a musician, or a lyre at every level of his heart if he’s a poet, or even, if he’s a boxer, just his muscle? On the contrary, he is at the same time a political being, constantly alive to heart-rending, fiery or happy events to which he responds in every way. How could it be possible to feel no interest in other people and by virtue of an ivory indifference to detach yourself from the life which they so copiously bring you? No, painting is not made to decorate apartments, it’s an offensive and defensive weapon against the enemy.”

As an artist and Marxist editor, you have a responsibility to think more deeply about your ideas on art.

Re: Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism

hoser — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 10:03:31 -0000

This analysis is hopelessly mired in a petty bourgeois idealization of the past. It ain't 1871; it's 2008. And pretending that millions of people were moved by the idea of something called the dictatorship of the proletariat is suggestive of wearing the blinders of dogmatism. And why obsession with this single point of 10 listed above anyway?

I also think if one is going to make bold denunciations of individuals, the denouncer should have command of all the facts. The point of this blog is to promote discussion, and respondents should not be afraid to discuss.

I think reimagining the both how we describe the new form of government, how it comes into being, how it operates, and its aim is a worthy task.

I think the lesson of Venezuela, though I don't want to hold up any country as a model, a major error that I sense in many of these responses, is that a national democratic movement, a multi-class, multi-sectoral coalition, can win power without violence and with different strategic aims than a capitalist dominated party.

It also can win broader popular support by not making the error of imposing the dominance of a single party on the state or on the people, and by leaving the decisions of major transformation up to the people, even when leftists with the truly inspired written word of Lenin at their command have different goals and agendas.

The movement for socialism in Venezuela may become an enduring political coalition there, much like the left front in India, the communist party in Japan, and so on.

But its willingness to abide by decisions of the people, instead of imposing its will through dictatorship, is a major advance for the world movement.

I also appreciate how the venezuelan movement relies on its lived experience, not on borrowed experience from Europeans more than 100 years ago.

Re: Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism

LJAlbright — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 23:00:05 -0000

Before addressing myself to some of Joe's posts, let me ask a question of my own: Are we social scientists, or are we seeking to create some form of quasi-religious sect or cult? I pose the question in this way because, based on at least some of the responses here one would think that Joe is guilty of the rankest heresy, or that he took a bone away from a favored dog. But instead of using the archaic religious term of "heretic," some choose to use the more "Marxist" term of "revisionist."

Well, you cannot have things both ways. Either the body of work that has come to be known as Marxism or Marxism-Leninism is a social science, or it is sacred dogma. These terms are mutually exclusive. If it is a social science then it, like any other form of science, is subject to the testing of the data and to the accumulation of knowledge. If this were not the case, we might still believe the earth is flat, that gravity is a philosophically contested concept, and that any number of physical and emotional illnesses are best treated by leeches.

How many of us were drawn to the Communist Party because we were moved to challenge "conventional wisdom," to rebel against racism and reaction, to dissent and take a stand for what we believe to be a more humane system we call socialism? Since when did that spirit of intellectual challenge and rebellion end the moment we decided to be communists?

That said, let me share some of my thoughts.

1. Dictatorship of the proletariat. Yes, Joe is right that it is an awful formulation. It was used by Marx in the early years of his writing (he was, I think, 30 years old when he collaborated with Engels in the writing of the Manifesto). And Joe is equally correct that it hasn't been part of the communist movement -- unless you want to count the RCP and Progressive Labor Party, for instance, since both these groups use that phrase prominently -- for many years.

Nowhere in his post does Joe suggest that the working class is irrelevant, or that class struggle doesn't exist (see his "ten best" list). He's saying "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a terrible phrase and he's correct.

Gee whiz, Marx made a formulation in 1848 that the historical experience doesn't support and doesn't translate well to 2008. Go figure. That makes Marx human. To take issue with Joe for "revisionism" for raising this crosses the line from social science into idolatry, in my opinion.

2. Single party state. There is more to this than I could possibly address. But a couple of points. I tend to believe mainstream journalism in the US was better when there was more than one daily newspaper in a city. When there was only one daily paper, there was an arrogance and really poor reportage was the rule rather than the exception. I think the single party state became a mechanism for bureaucracy and careerism. I knew Russians who were CPSU members one day, and then embraced Yeltsin the next day, and that was a real eye opener for me.

3. Defending the Soviet Union as a precondition for joining the Comintern. I am sure that had I been a communist and been living when this was put in, I would have supported it. In the 80 or so years since then, I think we can objectively say that the CPUSA and much of the international movement was ill served by making international working class solidarity synonymous with the policy of a state.

I am not sure whether I would agree with Joe that this is one of the worst ideas of Marxism as much as it is one of the worst things consented to by a large number of people who considered themselves to be Marxists.

3. Marxism/Marxism-Leninism. Let's accept that Marx didn't call himself a Marxist and that Lenin didn't call himself a Leninist. Jesus Christ didn't call himself a Christian -- nor did the Apostles -- all of whom lived their lives as Jews. What occurs to me is that there is a pretty wide gulf between those who call themselves Christians, Marxists and Marxist-Leninists, and those who would so identify themselves and really have a clue as to what those terms mean.

On the other hand, its become a tradition. People are accustomed to seeing those terms if they've been around the communist movement for any length of time. It's rather like the fact that Paul McCartney would appear with his famous Hofner violin bass guitar for Beatles concerts, while in the studio he used a Rickenbacker 4001. He did it solely, he said, because people were used to seeing it.

Whether or not we use the terms doesn't, ipso facto, change who were are as communists any more than my deciding to call myself "Sid" would change who I am. The Pentagon could call something a "manually driven implosion device" and an "agricultural defoliation tool" and it would still be a hammer and sickle.

4. I won't comment on the Brecht terminology because I would like to take a hammer to the television set based on some of the stuff on TV, like the Lohan show (I agree with Anderson Cooper!) or the Fox network.

5. I like both Gramsci and granola, so I am not objective on this point.

6. You can add me to list of people who aren't sure what "negation of the negation" means. If you negate something that's negative, wouldn't you call that "positive," a "remedy" or a "cure?"

7. Religion as the opiate of the masses. Yes, something we don't really need. I've always taken it to mean people use religion like an opiate -- which is to say, it takes away their pain. It can also be used to keep people from questioning, challenging, or seeking to make things better. I think this was Marx's point -- also made by the rebel minister portrayed by Gene Hackman in the Poseidon Adventure. :-) But Joe is right: God isn't our enemy, capitalism is.

I agree with all Joe's "best" points, but would move his #4 on that side to #1. One of the strengths of the CPUSA throughout its history has been the recognition of the toxic role of racism. This is something that the "Marxist" parties predating the CPUSA, the Socialist Party and Socialist Labor Party, were slow to recognize and act upon.

And the SLP, by the way, is the perfect example of a political organization that has become a kind of secular church, printing endless passages from Daniel DeLeon (whose ideas, apparently, Lenin viewed as "not at all bad") but completely uninvolved with day-to-day struggles. In this discussion, let's not forget that this involvement in the real-life issues confronting us today is one of our great strengths.

Re: Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism

David Sugar — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 20:57:01 -0000

The "battle of ideas" and Bush seem a kind of oxymoron, but even the immediate "post Bush" era seems to lack a level of intellectual function that would substantially change this. Of course, your point is more correct than you may perceive. There actually is, and will remain, a "vacuum of ideas, waiting desperately to be filled. This I think is where the opportuny is. But it is good to try and understand the past. I will have to initially comment on some of these points raised here, I might comment on other ones raised later.

I personally think the idea of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is fundamentally a paternalistic fallacy. It is true we cannot simply declare our brothers and sisters "free" by decree and expect them to immediately know what real freedom is. But by equal measure they will never learn it or perceive it if someone says since they do not yet know, we, whether one says of party or "leader", will "know" what it is for the masses.

I think the idea of the single party state was largely the result of historical accident, when the peasant party chose to walk away from the Russian revolution. It then became a pattern, and I happen to think a rather bad one. This should not be confused however with the importance of having a united front when facing the exploiter.

Of course, I personally believe rather than thinking of a compulsorily state, which I feel empowers a separate political class, whether in the sense of a party with a "special social role", or so called democratic "electoral" forms which accomplishes much the same, that political power should be held directly by the people, and expressed on a voluntary basis in participatory forms of democratic expression.

With respect to the "opiate of the masses", the one question that often is lost is how one applies socialism to an existing society already in place, with it's existing imperfections, rather than the ideal one which we may wish to see emerge. I remember when I first visited Minep (in Caracas), in 2005, where the motto of the building is "no capitalism takes place inside", they had christmas decorations up. Here we have an example of socialism applied with a social connection to the existing society it was being practiced in.

Also, we have to recognize the common nature of struggle, whether we speak of worker and human freedom or those who seek freedom of expression and thought that is unpopular and rejected by a hostile capitalist society. At times this certainly includes religious ideas and expression as well. Not all forms of such expression are tools used for control of the masses.

"Scientific Socialism" to me seems rather redundant, almost like saying "Scientific Science", and what would "unscientific socialism" then be?? I think, however, for different reasons, it might appear presumptuous to label oneself Marxist. Too many try to invoke his name for their own interpretation of what Socialism is to give their version a "genuine" label, and presume they know precisely what Marx thought and knew. Indeed, given how many have invoked his name for so many things, it would be interesting to have the "real" Karl Marx stand up and explain it one last time. Alas, the coffin is too short...

However, I think rather than using it as an individual label, when we refer to legacy of Marx, and the scientific ideas of historical materialism, one could rightly and appropriately apply the name Marxism to these ideas, just as one refers to Darwin's theory of evolution, or Einstein's theory of relativity. It's just that we do not have people calling themselves "Darwinists" and "Einsteinians" :)...

From the best....

The best of the best, certain, "from each according to ability, to each according to need". Revolutions have been fought seeking this ideal in places least ready even by Marx's thinking for such revolutionary change. Many came to the path of socialism not from scientific reasoning, but rather from the promise and desire to seek true social justice this very idea invokes. Definitely #1 :)

Class (and the necessity of class struggle) is the disease and cancer of civilization. Was the very initial emergence of class itself also a natural (and evolutionary) consequence of civilization, which Marx seemed to believe, or only a social consequence of the particular civilizations that came to dominate, we do not know. Anthropology and archeology might be the best way to examine that.

We do however know something of what a communistic society might look like, at least ones that have culturally internalized this. The best examples are found among surviving indigenous cultures, such as the American Indian. I recall Marx choose to study the Haudenosaunee near the end of his life, and I happen to believe there is much that can be still learned here.

Point 4 is a logical consequence of recognizing all people as human beings and divisions used to repress and exploit, whether purely class, race, gender, etc, as fundamental blights on this and as such an intolerable injustice.

I would extend point 5. No people can be free, and no form of political freedom and political equality can endure, without economic freedom and economic democracy. By extension economics trumps politics for individuals. Put in a more human context, the factory worker who is told he will be fired if he votes for the wrong candidate has experienced this reality directly. Those who vote in rigged elections with "candidates" pre-vetted by the capitalist class have experienced the very same thing.

Point 8 references a problematic one. "Mastering nature", actually is a judeo-christian meme, "in dominion over nature", rather than living "in communion with nature". One speaks to exploiting the natural world to exhaustion, something that capitalists are particularly good at, while the other speaks of a sustainable human society. Many people these days, I have observed, have come to socialism from the perspective of seeking the latter.

But those are my own thoughts in reading this article. I do not choose a label for myself or a specific affiliation. I am simply concerned with the broader questions of human freedom.

--
Capitalism - sacrificing the needs of the many for the greed of a few

Re: Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism

Eric_Brooks_1956 — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 13:11:48 -0000

I share Joe Sims' interest in participating in the broad discussion on the "great opportunity" of the post-Bush era. How we tactically move forward to win concrete changes to address our needs as a class and to advance the struggle for socialism is a major question of the day.

Any effort to review the basic precepts of the science of Marxism/Leninism, also called dialectical and historical materialism, in this context may be useful if it aids in better understanding the moment, and provides some guidance on how to seize the "opportunity".

Dialectical and historical materialism is not a popularization, it is a science like physics is a science. In that sense there is a technical language with precise meanings in the context of the science that may or may not translate easily into popular terminology. One example is the term "dictatorship of the proletariat". Rather than seeing this as "Probably the worst phrase uttered by a political theorist ever", I think it is a very useful concept in understanding what working people must win and the role of the state in our struggle. If we understand that the state is an instrument of oppression, is biased toward a dominating class in both capitalist and socialist systems then the "dictatorship of the proletariat" makes sense. On whose behalf is the state apparatus applied? Today the state is used to facilitate the extraction of profit by limiting workers ability to organize, to further the exploitation of workers by transferring worker's tax funds from state tax coffers to capitalists through bailouts like that going on right now for the mortgage industry, and to further the long term imperialist goals of the capitalist class such as in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The state is not used to meet the housing, health care, food, infrastructure, or education needs of workers. Integrating an understanding of the bias that must underlie the actions of the state in a society with a ruling class would be a useful addition to the discussion about the role of the state post-Bush. The term "dictatorship of the proletariat" describes a change in bias in how the state apparatus is used, from supporting the aims of the capitalists to supporting the aims of workers. This is a change that I would very much like to see, and which bills like Employee Free Choice and HR-676 take small steps toward implementing.

The term Marxism/Leninism as useful in putting a human face to the science of dialectical and historical materialism in much the same way as Newton and Einstein are used to put a human face to the science of physics or Darwin for evolution. I celebrate the founders of dialectical and historical materialism and think that their legacy should be recognized. I think that whether one sees Marx and Lenin as linked to "bad stories and nightmares" or not is a matter of point of view. I associate them both with great strides forward for working people; theoretically in Marx's case and practically in Lenin's. I also reject the concept of "working-class sounding" as part of a larger issue: are working people in the USA able intellectually to grapple with sometimes difficult ideas or does the world have to be spoon fed to us in sound bite format. In my experience, workers are hungry for and more than capable of learning and understanding concepts that help us to fight better for our lives, our communities, and our class brothers and sisters. The Fox News style of dumbing down discourse facilitates subjective responses to difficult issues like immigration or the environment. Popularization should be a window through which an interested person can be introduced to an area, and then the materials should be there to continue exploring to an arbitrary level of depth of interest. The needs of popularization should not be the limit of exploration or of the language used in scientific discussion.

One last point: "The point is to change reality", which I believe may be what appears on Marx's grave, was stated specifically in contrast to metaphysical theories that existed then and now. The focus of a social science today should not be to understand for understanding's sake, it should be to understand in order to change the world. The context for this statement was clear from the focus of Marx's life. The result of the attempt to understand is totally different when the focus is on changing something rather than academic description. This is a core difference between bourgeoisie capitalist academic apologies for the current situation under the guise of the social sciences and dialectical and historical materialism. Marx said, in "Theses on Feuerbach":

"Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it."

I think this is true of both the fundamentally opposing forces. Capitalists have vast resources available to manage and exploit our social structures, though they mask the class struggle component behind concepts of human nature and ahistorical universals (i.e., its always been like this and always will be like this). Our understanding as workers is derived from the struggle to modify society to meet our own needs.

I'll stop here as I've already run on for too long. I am glad to see this type of discussion being invited and hope to see more discussion in the future.

Thanks for this very interesting blog discussion.

Eric Brooks

Re: Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism

charles_nonroi — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:37:44 -0000

Gee, the communists who changed my outlook told me I was living under the dictatorship of the capitalists, and they proved it with case after case of experience I had lived through and was living through. Then those crafty communists explained the dictatorship of the workers. Can you believe how they suckered me with the worst of the ten worst ideas of Marxism?

Re: Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism

waldo509 — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:34:06 -0000

going back a few days here... On the the question of the fight being with capitalism and not god... Doug - I have many evangelical types in my extended family, and I think it is important how we engage even those who think god wants them to vote Republican. If your approach is to confront their religious underpinnings, you'll get nowhere. Better to engage on the so called "bread and butter" issues, i.e. capitalism, rather than god - that gets the gears turning. I read what Joe was getting at as this: the opiate of the masses quote may not be untrue, but it is certainly a gross oversimplification of what is a multi-faceted and complex social force.

Re: Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism

Dan_Margolis — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 21:11:23 -0000

I noticed that some dogmatist calling themself "Proud Marxist-Leninist" listed me, along with Joe and Joel, as people not fit to be called a Marxist. So, I figured I should at least point out what I had written on here--mine are the comments listed under the name "Dan."

I have to say that I think that, while I disagree with much of what Joe said, I can't help but be pleased with the spirit in which it was written, and, conversely, apalled with a number of the comments here (like those of "Proud Marxist-Leninist"). Nothing is more harmful to the Communist movement than turning its ideology into a religion, a bunch of dead ideas in old texts, not to be tampered with.

The spirit of science, and indeed of Marxism, is the spirit of inquiry, of always reexamining and re-evaluating new and older ideas, holding them up to the light of reality and seeing whether or not they hold up to it.

Joe raised the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and said he didn't accept it. Well, is he right or wrong? A real Marxist--really, anyone who's logical--should say why or why not they think he's right or wrong. What they should not do is say that the reason that Joe is or isn't wrong is because of a quote that they've pulled out of an old text--even if that text is written by Lenin (who certainly never used the term Marxism-Leninism).

This idea that an open discussion of ideas, where theoretical cows aren't sacred, will somehow destroy the Communist Party, or lead to a loss of membership, couldn't be more wrong. Actually, the idea that the Communist Party itself is becoming smaller and smaller, is factually incorrect. For the first time in many, many years, the party is growing in both influence and in numbers. And also notice that the Communist Parties currently in power—the ones that haven’t been overthrown and had their countries collapse—were the ones that threw off dogmatic ideas and began to experiment. (Think China and Vietnam, especially).

I want to add to the list of best things that have come out of Marxism:

“Seek truth from facts.”

Re: Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism

hoser — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:27:05 -0000

You're going to have to make a choice between whether you believe the decline in membership (which is your claim not mine) is due to revisionist leadership and thus bad, or that liquidation has nothing to do with the number of members.

I say clinging to silly notions because a book says too and watching the party slip into irrelevance is liquidationist.

Today, the party has avoided irrelevance because of its strategic policy of defeating the ultra right and the effective work it does.

Re: Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism

hoser — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:34:38 -0000

Now you're catching on. I don't think Joe is rejecting the idea of a working-class led government. That isn't the point, I think. The point is to modify ways we talk about concepts. Right?

Re: Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism

David Lethbridge — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:15:16 -0000

Dear Mr Sims,

An interesting list of 10 worst / 10 best.

Here are some of my own thoughts. I never cared for the term "Marxist-Leninist," it's an invention of Stalin with no real content. But I think the term "Marxist" is much more appropriate than "scientific socialism."

Religion can indeed be the opium of the masses. It certainly has a long history of oppresion, and in the USA and Canada is, in general, a right-wing force. What's more all religions are lies and superstition, and no serious Marxist can be religious.

Organic intellectual and Negation of the Negation are not particularly difficult concepts. All sciences use unfamiliar terms and learning them is not so hard.

"Art is a hammer ..." Perhaps you just object to the word "hammer." Try "tool" instead and I think you will grasp Brecht's point.

As for the idea and practice of the "one-party" state, I entirely agree with you; but if in the end there is to be no "working class hegemony" I don't see how capitalism will ever be surpassed and a socialist state come to be.

David Lethbridge

Re: Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism

nutmeg_socialist — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:38:09 -0000

Because that's unbelievably cumbersome. And fine, don't use the exact phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" for P.R. purposes or whatever. Follow your heart. But then you're just quibbling over words, and there's no reason to go on about rejecting the ideas behind the dictatorship of the proletariat itself as opposed to just rejecting awkward phrasing.

Re: Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism

hoser — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:27:41 -0000

Why not just say we advocate "working class dominance of power that will defend to the end the interests of the vast majority of working people against any subversion of working class interests by other classes." How many people have you recruited to the party by using an argument about the dictatorship of the proletariat? (honest question)

Re: Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism

Greg Godels — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:01:31 -0000

Unlike PA editor, Joe Sims, many of us are not embarrassed by the thinking of the past leaders of the Communist movement from Marx and Engels to Fidel Castro. Nor do we think the interests of working people in the US are served by a flippant, dismissive People Magazine approach to these same ideas. While there is room to debate, there is no debate with those who have decided offhandedly to "shed some of the ideological baggage" that have served as a cornerstone of working class, revolutionary action for over a century and a half. Clearly, such an attitude marks a desire to remove oneself as a partisan for Communism in "the battle of ideas in the post-Bush era". So be it. Sims is not the first to find a more comfortable perch in that difficult and thankless battle.

For some time, many on the left have been troubled with the direction of the CPUSA. Now with this unambiguous statement from the editor of the Party's theoretical journal, we see a candid statement of the road map favored by the Party's leadership. It is not a journey that revolutionaries would wish to take.

It would require an extensive, detailed essay to answer, point by point, Sims' cavalier "Ten Worst" list, but maybe the most serious error is his easy dismissal of the idea behind the often misunderstood expression "dictatorship of the proletariat"

If "dictatorship of the proletariat" is indeed, according to Sims, the "worst phrase uttered by a political theorist ever" he must live in a world vastly different from the one inhabited by 99% of working people. In a world cursed with "collateral damage", "illegal aliens", and "racial profiling", surely he has exaggerated in order to distance himself from the Marxist tradition.

When Cold Warriors adopted the term "dictatorship" to apply to every socialist state and movement in the world, Communists everywhere felt some uneasiness with the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" for fear that it be misunderstood. Nonetheless, Marxists sought to patiently explain the concept in a way that would put to rest the ugly connotation of "dictatorship" that arose, especially among anti-Communist intellectuals.

Sims, however, makes it clear that his quarrel is not merely with words, but with the concept. His argument is worthy of grade school debates: "Who wants to live under a dictatorship?"

But the fact of the matter is that the dictatorship of the proletariat is a concept that arose from the cauldron of working class struggle. Since history demonstrates that every ruling class imposes its interests upon the state, socialist thinkers concluded that capitalist dominance produced a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the capitalist ownership class. Marx recognized this dictatorship when he saw how determined and united the bourgeoisie was in brutally suppressing the Paris Commune of 1871, the first workers' government. Of course, this class-based concept had been demonstrated throughout history, from the slave revolts in Rome to the peasant rebellions throughout Europe and, in our time, to the counter-revolutionary movements in Venezuela, Bolivia, and other socialist-oriented countries. In every case, the socio-economic classes in power, regardless of the formal structure of government, imposes their will upon other social classes - a kind of dictatorship – until other classes are able establish their own dominance. Does twenty-first century monopoly capitalism in the US leave any stone unturned in furthering the interests of the rich and privileged? With Cuba, Venezuela, and Iraq in mind, is there any doubt that the US ruling class would, when pressed to the wall, unleash a brutal, death dealing repression against forces that threaten its rule - a veritable dictatorship? I would be surprised if those who rail against the fascist danger of the ultra-right would disagree with me.

For Marxists – those who are not ashamed to defend concepts against word-mongering – the only viable political answer is the dictatorship of the proletariat – a working class dominance of power that will defend to the end the interests of the vast majority of working people against any subversion of working class interests by other classes. The specific form of government – a parliament, Soviets, councils, a working class party, or whatever creative form would be suggested by the balance of forces - is best left to the people and not ideologues or lawyers.

Surely this idea – an idea that resonated with millions of working class activists - deserves a discussion and not a contemptuous dismissal.

One senses a frustration, a personal disappointment, with the ideas that have nourished the Communist movement in Sims' frivolous treatment. This is disappointing, especially from one who has given much to that movement. But it is no excuse for public ridicule.

Greg Godels

Re: Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism

Joel Wendland — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 09:08:18 -0000

Posting guidelines: User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site.

Re: Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism

Jaded Prole — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:52:29 -0000

Is the single, or non-party state doomed? I don't think so. While I believe both non-party, unitary states (like Cuba) and multi-party states can both be effective the question is not the necessity of parties but the necessity of representation. Once the working class becomes ascendant and creates Working Class Democracy (the best term for the dictatorship of the Proletariat) in a post capitalist system, the need for parties may be replaced by local and regional committees with direct input.

I don't believe in dogmatic applications of theory as much as in dynamic development based on Socialist principles but neither do I believe that we can write off the non-party state as a possibility. Instead we must learn from the successes and mistakes of the past.

Re: Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism

hoser — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:46:32 -0000

Why not just say we advocate the working class coming to power through democratic means?

Re: Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism

D. Mathews — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:01:20 -0000

The world that Marx inhabited (and Lenin, for that matter) is not the same world we inhabit today. It resembles more the world of the sweatshop than the world of the knowledge worker. In short, my observation centers around the fact that the working class today is not homogeneous. Ignore this to your peril. Furthermore, while I recognize this is the exception as opposed to the rule, what about "flat organizations" (as opposed to hierarchical ones) like Semler?

Re: Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism

D. Mathews — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 07:47:21 -0000

May I suggest you are conflating a "theocratic" or fundamentalist agenda with religion. What about liberation theology? ...Or have you considered an "atypical" religion, one that is not monotheistic, with a much more personal relationship between the faithful and the "supernatural", such as candomble?

Re: Ten Worst and Best Ideas of Marxism

joe sims — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 07:10:32 -0000

PS. I didn't respond to the comments on organic intellectuals, "hegemony" negation of negation and religion.

The problem here are the terms used and the inability of the socialist and communist left to find substitutes. Generally we have a problem with language and use if far less creatively than the working class itself. Language, like the communist idea, is alive, its time to stop treating it like a dead thing.

Michael P is correct. More, the arrival of working-class intellectuals as a result of public education is the best thing that has happened to the left since the writing of the Manifesto.

"Organic" like "hegemony" where terms used with an eye toward censors. After 80 years we can do better.

So too with negation of negation.

Finally on "opiates" religious people find the phrase offensive and one can understand why. More, the church, mosque, synagogue and temple have been sites of important resistance and struggle. Yes there has been reaction there as well, but so long as we confront the reality of death, humanity will seek answers in religious explanations.