This letter is in response to Steve Bloom’s February 17th article, ‘For a 21st Century Marxism.’ I’ll share responses to his piece and conclude by discussing a project I’m involved in that, hopefully, is working to address some of the concerns he identifies regarding contemporary Marxism.
First, I appreciate Steve’s article. Critical analysis is especially difficult when the object of critique is deeply cherished. Holding onto established ideas for dear life, especially from a position of relative weakness and fragility (as the left is today), is understandable but risky. One shouldn’t embrace something so tightly as to lose the ability to step back and reflect. And, as Steve mentions regarding the ‘Rethinking Marxism’ journal of the 1980s, matters are made trickier because not everyone critiques Marxism in good faith or with the same goal of proletarian liberation. I think of Lenin’s discussion in What is to be Done? about ‘freedom of criticism’.1 This criticism – couched in appealing language like ‘freedom’ – was non-Marxist and non-social democratic (of the pre-1914 Second International variety). Anyone can think or say what they’d like, but it’s necessary to call a spade a spade.
I agree with Steve when he suggested we “embrace the fundamentals of revolutionary Marxist ideology while remaining sufficiently self-critical to revise elements that have proven to be outmoded or mistaken.” I agree that we should work to “demystify jargon, making our ideas accessible to the overwhelming majority of those who possess an average intelligence.” I’ll explain more about how we can recover some of the long-lost and more approachable terminologies of the Marxist canon (‘social republic’ instead of ‘dictatorship of the proletariat,’ for example). At the same time, we encourage and assist people in broadening their knowledge as much as possible. People hunger for ideas for how to make the world a better place.
Operating under the explicit or tacit assumption that quantity will change into quality – we just need to keep doing more of the same until a critical mass is reached – isn’t a receipe for success.
Economic crises and general immiseration won’t create the political structures needed to take power. It’s in that frame of mind I read Engels’ quote as incorrect; capitalism may be ripe for transformation into socialism, but that ripeness or understanding of ripeness doesn’t lead to a political solution. There are no get-rich-quick schemes when it comes to revolution. We must patiently build the party and win the masses to our ideas. I also wonder to what extent “armchair” conceptions of justice and injustice (as Engels refers to them) can, if properly taken advantage of by the socialist party, be used to spread the ‘good news’ of socialism and the working class’ ability to create a new world (though the slogan is co-optable enough to make me cringe, another world is indeed possible). It remains true that, as Lenin said in 1901,2 every abuse – police killings, political scandals, uproarious elections, military budgets, corruptions cover-ups – can and must be taken advantage of to expose the current regime as undemocratic. Every instance of arbitrary domination can be used to demand a new constitution and a democratic republic.
I agree wholeheartedly that splits have been a problem on the left. To that end, I see Mike Macnair as broadly correct in stating that unity based on theory is a problem, and I hope something like the post-unity snowball effect he describes in ‘Revolutionary Strategy’3 can take place. People might say that winning others to socialism will take too long, or that others will never be won by our ideas. My response remains: what other option do we have? Coming to power in coalition with forces that uphold the existing constitution and the sanctity of private property is a tactical mistake. So is coming to power in a coup behind the backs of the working class before winning majority support. The movement must be of the masses in the interests of the masses. We are not doing a good job if people are not won over to our ideas. The present regime provides us with numerous instances, every day, to expose the undemocratic state for what it is: the rule of one class over another.
Steve questions the place of certain struggles over others, with the emphasis often placed on so-called “anticapitalist” struggles. I agree that it’s important to consider how we communicate our ideas to others. Alex Gourevitch4 has written provocatively on the centrality of ‘freedom’ as a demand capable of galvanizing millions. The reality of being unfree – of living under undemocratic states and lacking control in the workplace – is an eminently relatable experience. Getting free, furthermore, is a collective project that involves masses of people. The centrality of radical republicanism to Marxism has made something of a comeback over the past several years5 and more work can be done to explore how these demands for freedom, democracy, and a democratic republic can be used effectively by the socialist movement.
I’ll start to wind down by touching on areas where Steve and I don’t see eye to eye. The power of the working class lies not primarily in its ability to “cripple society through a general strike” but to organize itself into mass organizations and provide political leadership. Ultimately, the working class understands more readily than other sections of society that its problems are solvable only in collectives. The working class is forced to band together to stay afloat. All too often, the conception of the general strike (without any discussion on what happens after the workers’ freeze society) becomes another get-rich-quick scheme. Say the working class does cripple society – what next? People will gravitate towards whatever political party can provide law and order. Without an organized political alternative, the same political forces (or the military) will step in to fill the vacuum that power abhors.
Additionally, I don’t look at the Bolsheviks as theoretical inspiration for the party we need. I’d argue we need something more akin to the mass parties built around a program of the 2nd International, in particular, the German SPD. Lenin’s theory of a vanguard party was appropriate for a particular place at a particular time, and the entire theory is complicated by the fact that Lenin’s party model was the SPD. Steve is undoubtedly correct that a mass party will attract different forces – some looking to overthrow the existing constitutional order and realize the social republic, others to reform the existing state in various ways and ultimately betray the working class. Fierce ideological battles will have to be waged within the mass party. The revolutionary faction will work hard to win over reformist or otherwise nonrevolutionary forces by arguing for the greatest possible democracy (including freedom of criticism and free speech) within the mass party so that all positions can be expressed. Splitting is something the revolutionary faction of the party should do hesitantly and not with relish; it’s a defensive, not an offensive move. Presently, the Marxist Unity Group (described below) takes the approach of arguing our position within the larger reformist organization at every possible opportunity. We argue within the existing left and will leave only when kicked out (assuming we are unable, in the meantime, to win over enough comrades to become the majority).
I’ll conclude by talking about the project I’m currently involved in that, I hope, is working towards solving some of the problems outlined in the previous sections. The Marxist Unity Group (MUG) is a faction in the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Unlike most sectarian organizations on the left, factions are allowed in the DSA. Some factions are explicitly communist, libertarian, anarchist, or something else. As it presently exists, the DSA is far from a mass socialist party and suffers from a lack of a clear political perspective. MUG’s goal is to unite the existing Marxist tendencies within the DSA in a common project of changing the organization from the inside. To this end, MUG is united not around theory or tactics but around the overall goal of creating a mass party of working people to lead the struggle for socialism.
Recently, I’ve come to a newfound appreciation for the immense difficulty of learning the correct history of the socialist movement. Two obstacles stand out: the amount of work untranslated into English (I suppose a more responsible way of phrasing this problem would be my need to learn German or Russian); and the distortions committed both from the right (so-called ‘bourgeois’ historians, Cold Warriors, Marxologists, Leninologists) and the left (‘official’ Communism found it useful to retroactively rewrite its history to justify later tactics and behaviors). Perhaps Steve would agree that one of the most pernicious myths of 20th-century Marxism has been the ‘flexibility’ of internal party democracy. Internal democracy, so long as the socialist movement remains legal, is a non-negotiable matter. Non-democratic parties suffer an inner rot that destroys them or keeps them eternally small. With this in mind, MUG’s greatest strength is its commitment to internal and external democracy.
At the end of the day, perhaps I remain less a believer in refounding Marxism than in refounding the popular conception of a Marxist party.
Kindly,
Luke Pickrell
- See chapter one for Lenin’s discussion of “freedom of criticism.”
- See chapter three for Lenin’s discussion of the party’s response to every “manifestation of police tyranny…”
- See Mike Macnair, ‘Revolutionary Strategy’ (2006), especially p. 31.
- See Alex Gourevtich, ‘Freedom Now’ (2020).
- See Bruno Leipold, ‘Citizen Marx’ (2017); Alex Gourevitch, ‘From Slavery to Cooperative Commonwealth’ (2015); William Clare Roberts, Marx’s Inferno (2018); Sean Monahan, ‘ The American Workingmen’s Parties, Universal Suffrage, and Marx’s Democratic Communism’ (2020).