Go and fuck yourself
Is Reading Marx Necessary?
- Thread starter Toast Rider
- Start date
I listened to some Bakunin from Audible Anarchist while running yesterday. In between the traffic noise there some interesting stuff about the red bureacracy. I think he may be more relevant for me right now. is there a good, and not stupidly £££, book that covers his ideas?
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Toast Rider said:
I can’t remember a single instance of Marx using the words “vanguard” or “vanguard party”. In fact, just to be sure, I checked the index of each of the Marx volumes I have on my shelves (Capital vols 1,2, & 3; Grundrisse; the Manifesto; Kamenka’s Portable Karl Marx; & CJ Arthur’s edited selection from the German Ideology). No mention of vanguards or vanguard parties.
This is not surprising. The vast majority of what Marx published in his lifetime was analysis of capitalism. He had very little to say about the transition to communism.
In fact, the term vanguard is introduced by Lenin, who tells us he relies heavily on the Critique of the Gotha Programme. This is a letter written by Marx to some German comrades. It’s really a series of notes and wasn’t intended for publication. Engels had it published after Marx’s death.
It’s said to be the most comprehensive exposition by Marx on what he meant by “dictatorship of the proletariat”. But you’re probably going to be disappointed. The relevant passage is just a few short sentences in this section: Critique of the Gotha Programme-- IV
To my mind, far more illuminating are Marx’s thoughts on the Paris Commune. Harry Cleaver agrees. “For Marx, his understanding of working-class autonomy vis-à-vis other classes was spurred by his participation in the revolutions of 1848 and by his studies of the Commune in 1871 and confirmed in his detailed studies of the historical development of capitalism. We find many striking examples of this understanding in Capital, for example, his analysis of worker struggles to shorten the working day.” (Cleaver, Reading Capital Politically, p58)
Here is Marx on the Commune:
“The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible, and revocable at short terms. “The majority of its members were naturally workers, or acknowledged representatives of the working class.” The Civil War in France
We know that Marx considered this a model for the dictatorship of the proletariat. And it seems like a type of ad hoc direct democracy, and far less like the disciplined direction of a formal party vanguard that Lenin would have us believe Marx favoured. It seems far more like Gombin’s explanation that:
“in the course of its struggle, the proletariat spontaneously creates the organization it needs. To the leftists, this can only be a non-centralized form like the works committee or the workers' council” (Richard Gombin, Origins of Modern Leftism, The Origins of Modern Leftism - Richard Gombin ).
Indeed, Cleaver again reminds us that after Lenin, from the Bolshevik point of view, we were supposed to be reading Marx through the filter of Lenin’s interpretations. If we read him at all.
“In the Soviet Union itself, following the defeat of the 1917 revolution, the study of Capital in all forms, political economy or otherwise, was rapidly sterilized. […]
The study of Marx’s works was replaced by the recitation of his major interpreters: Lenin and Stalin. As the Bolshevik party turned from the seizure of state power to the development of the socialist solution to revolution— the planned orchestration of accumulation — it moved to dismantle any independence of the worker soviets and to impose a new discipline of work and maximized production. In this movement the Leninism of centralized party power was emphasized over their Marxist analysis of the nature of exploitation in class society. Marx’s works, especially Capital, were after all an analysis of capitalism and had not capitalism been overthrown in the Soviet Union and later in China? What relevance could Capital have for the development of socialism? Better to focus on the writings of the new architects of socialism. Stalin, for one, explicitly argued that Leninism was the fullest development of Marxism and that the study of Marx’s texts could be dispensed with.” (Cleaver, pp34/35).
So Let’s look at what’s actually said in the Manifesto:
“The Communists, therefore, are, on the one hand, practically the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.” ( The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels )
First, we should note that there is some ambiguity about the term “party” during this era. It did not necessarily mean a particular organisation. He and Engels here may just have meant “communists”. And while it clearly does say the communists are the “most advanced and resolute section of the working-class” and “theoretically advantaged” (and I admit there is the kernel of something troubling there), he clearly goes on to say the aim is conquest of power by the proletariat.
As Steve Wright puts it, “while groups of revolutionaries should do all they could 'to foster self-initiative and self-action' in the class, spontaneous actions of dissatisfied masses will, in the process of their rebellion, create their own organisations, and that these organisations, arising out of the social conditions, alone can end the present social arrangement” (Steve Wright, (1991), Revolutionary Traditions: Council Communism Steve Wright: Revolutionary Traditions - Council Communism (1991) ). Compare this to Marx’s description of the Paris Commune. And contrast it with Lenin’s vanguardism.
The aim is not vanguard party leadership (of which there is no mention); not party power as proxy for the class; but workers’ power.
Paul Mattick puts it like this:
“First is the question of the seizure of power by the workers. The principle of the masses (not party or vanguard) retaining power must be emphasized. Communism cannot be introduced or realized by a party. Only the proletariat as a whole can do that. Communism means that the workers have taken their destiny into their own hands; that they have abolished wages; that they have, with the suppression of the bureaucratic apparatus, combined the legislative and executive powers. The unity of the workers lies not in the sacrosanct merger of parties or trade unions, but in the similarity of their needs and in the expression of needs in mass action. All the problems of the workers must therefore be viewed in relation to the developing self-action of the masses.” (Paul Mattick, The Masses & The Vanguard, The Masses and The Vanguard by Paul Mattick 1938 ).
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
(Cont.) Look back at Marx on the Paris Commune:
This is not the cadres of the vanguard party keeping the masses true to doctrine. This is:
“spontaneous actions of dissatisfied masses will, in the process of their rebellion, create their own organisations, and that these organisations, arising out of the social conditions, alone can end the present social arrangement”. (Paul Mattick, 1939, Council Communism, Council Communism by Paul Mattick 1939 ).
From the perspective of many, like Bookchin, these bodies of working class power can only arise from working class self activity.
“The assembly and community cannot be legislated or decreed into existence. To be sure, a revolutionary group can purposively and consciously seek to promote the creation of these forms; but if assembly and community are not allowed to emerge organically, if their growth is not instigated, developed and matured by the social processes at work, they will not be really popular forms. Assembly and community must arise from within the revolutionary process itself; indeed, the revolutionary process must be the formation of assembly and community, and with it, the destruction of power. Assembly and community must become "fighting words," not distant panaceas. They must be created as modes of struggle against the existing society, not as theoretical or programmatic abstractions.” (Bookchin, Post-Scarcity Anarchism, pp189/190)
So, of course, activist exist. Of course they have a role to play. But they are not the assembly-in-waiting. And they need to take care not to overstep their role. The role of the communist, the activist, is in Cleaver’s words, to "Seek out and understand the desires and self-activity of the people, and then to articulate them in ways which contribute both to their circulation and to their empowerment”. - Harry Cleaver, “Kropotkin, Self-valorization and the Crisis of Marxism”, (1993).
“The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible, and revocable at short terms. “The majority of its members were naturally workers, or acknowledged representatives of the working class.” The Civil War in France
This is not the cadres of the vanguard party keeping the masses true to doctrine. This is:
“spontaneous actions of dissatisfied masses will, in the process of their rebellion, create their own organisations, and that these organisations, arising out of the social conditions, alone can end the present social arrangement”. (Paul Mattick, 1939, Council Communism, Council Communism by Paul Mattick 1939 ).
From the perspective of many, like Bookchin, these bodies of working class power can only arise from working class self activity.
“The assembly and community cannot be legislated or decreed into existence. To be sure, a revolutionary group can purposively and consciously seek to promote the creation of these forms; but if assembly and community are not allowed to emerge organically, if their growth is not instigated, developed and matured by the social processes at work, they will not be really popular forms. Assembly and community must arise from within the revolutionary process itself; indeed, the revolutionary process must be the formation of assembly and community, and with it, the destruction of power. Assembly and community must become "fighting words," not distant panaceas. They must be created as modes of struggle against the existing society, not as theoretical or programmatic abstractions.” (Bookchin, Post-Scarcity Anarchism, pp189/190)
So, of course, activist exist. Of course they have a role to play. But they are not the assembly-in-waiting. And they need to take care not to overstep their role. The role of the communist, the activist, is in Cleaver’s words, to "Seek out and understand the desires and self-activity of the people, and then to articulate them in ways which contribute both to their circulation and to their empowerment”. - Harry Cleaver, “Kropotkin, Self-valorization and the Crisis of Marxism”, (1993).
ManchesterBeth
Well-Known Member
95% proof speed
95% proof
95%
lmao bullshit.
in future total output and the praxis label are better than stay up forever.
ManchesterBeth
Well-Known Member
im surprised people ain't woken up to password lists that aircrack uses yet.
I know it was 95% because... somebody got busted.
air-crack can use any password list
and these days there are a lot faster ways to hack WPA .(wps pins)
Call me a cheesy git but i like my tb303. I dont think i have ever made a track without one.
so shut it
air-crack can use any password list
and these days there are a lot faster ways to hack WPA .(wps pins)Call me a cheesy git but i like my tb303. I dont think i have ever made a track without one.
so shut it
Last edited:
ManchesterBeth
Well-Known Member
i like tb303 but the real shit is on drop bass network.
ManchesterBeth
Well-Known Member
I know it was 95% because... somebody got busted.
air-crack can use any password list
Call me a cheesy git but i like my tb303. I dont think i have ever made a track without one.
so shut it
i use randomly generated 64 character key. i thought everyone was doing this?
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Can we do this in the music forum?
Don`t matter if you can hack the wps pins(reaver-pixiedust) but if not, that will secure your system 
(apart from RL infiltration... a key logger deposited)
(apart from RL infiltration... a key logger deposited)
Last edited:
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Fuck off with your IT geekspeak.
There's sections of Capital I would recommend everyone reads even if, like most people, they don't want to sacrifice the time it takes to get your head around it. The last section on Primitive Accumulation is great and IMO not difficult at all to understand. A lot of it is straightforward history.
There's sections of Capital I would recommend everyone reads even if, like most people, they don't want to sacrifice the time it takes to get your head around it. The last section on Primitive Accumulation is great and IMO not difficult at all to understand. A lot of it is straightforward history.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
You're welcome.
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
At the risk of stating the obvious, I think a reason for some people's rejection of a Marxist analysis is rooted in activism, its culture, and the analysis it often proposes in place of a structural analysis.
This activism of the 1980s and '90s emerged partly in response to the established left wing 'revolutionary' parties, and in its rejection of that form of politics it also rejected what it perceived as it's ideology - Marxism. In its place of a structural analysis of capitalism and class it usually substituted moralist positions. This was against a background of alternative political culture (like the anarcho-punk of the '80s which often encouraged this moral position) and the Cold War where anything connected to that branch of 'Marxist politics' was continually criticized in the media and political institutions, and then internalized widely across society, including in the 'alternative political' scenes.
The politics that then became dominant from the '80s onwards were 'single issue' things like animal rights, environmental, and peace campaigns, often easier to motivate (certain types of) people around through appealing to their personal actions and choice, and reinforcing the move away from a Marxist analysis.
I think that's changed in the last years, and there's a growing return to looking for a structural and revolutionary analysis of capitalism that makes sense, and Marxism best fits that bill despite the years since it was written.
E2A: Full disclosure (for Ralph Llama especially), I'm an anarchist (if I had to nail my colours to the mast of a one word only position), but I think what passes for much of anarchism and anarchist activity is much enriched by a Marxist analysis. And it came to me quite late after being immersed in the activism of the '90s as my first political engagement. There were people like Aufheben about then that really were the first people I met that had decent politics from that position, but it took me a while to 'get it' as it were.
Nicking what a friend said recently, we should be, 'Anarchists of the heart and communists of the head.' (They also then said 'with the dress sense of the bourgeoisie' but I'll ignore that bit.)
This activism of the 1980s and '90s emerged partly in response to the established left wing 'revolutionary' parties, and in its rejection of that form of politics it also rejected what it perceived as it's ideology - Marxism. In its place of a structural analysis of capitalism and class it usually substituted moralist positions. This was against a background of alternative political culture (like the anarcho-punk of the '80s which often encouraged this moral position) and the Cold War where anything connected to that branch of 'Marxist politics' was continually criticized in the media and political institutions, and then internalized widely across society, including in the 'alternative political' scenes.
The politics that then became dominant from the '80s onwards were 'single issue' things like animal rights, environmental, and peace campaigns, often easier to motivate (certain types of) people around through appealing to their personal actions and choice, and reinforcing the move away from a Marxist analysis.
I think that's changed in the last years, and there's a growing return to looking for a structural and revolutionary analysis of capitalism that makes sense, and Marxism best fits that bill despite the years since it was written.
E2A: Full disclosure (for Ralph Llama especially), I'm an anarchist (if I had to nail my colours to the mast of a one word only position), but I think what passes for much of anarchism and anarchist activity is much enriched by a Marxist analysis. And it came to me quite late after being immersed in the activism of the '90s as my first political engagement. There were people like Aufheben about then that really were the first people I met that had decent politics from that position, but it took me a while to 'get it' as it were.
Nicking what a friend said recently, we should be, 'Anarchists of the heart and communists of the head.' (They also then said 'with the dress sense of the bourgeoisie' but I'll ignore that bit.)
Last edited:
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
from my pov, there's a great gaping hole in anarchism which certain works of marx can fill. for example, there's no equivalent to marx's careful analysis of capitalism. there is no rule which says 'if you're an anarchist you can't pinch ideas from marx' - the world would be a very boring place if people didn't, indeed refused to, learn from each other. while many so-called thinkers add little if anything to one's toolbox of ideas, marx certainly does add to your arsenal of thought.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Once more: Marx, Theoretician of Anarchism.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Yeah. More of that type of stuff is what this forum needs. Thanks danny
Very good points.
Also I think that ,especially with the appearance of the internet, the information which Marx and co. present to the working classes and the bourgeois has been `translated` into formats that are far easier to digest.
Marx`s work is fantastic, without a doubt, but the incredible accuracy of his analysis and descriptions seems to confuse the hell out of a lot of people. They find it really hard work.
Yes I agree... if they had any level of commitment to truly understanding capitalism then it would be a good idea to get it from the horses mouth to counter any co-option since it was first written ..but unfortunately people have been dumbed down and their world views oversimplified and are far more likely to pick up some bullet points from a dodgy source on youtube than get the thesaurus out and get stuck in.
Luckily there are reliable sources out there which cover the basic points.
And god yes I hate all this fashionable single issue bollocks too ....but I have always reacted against larger movements with suspicion/paranoia... probably due to the reasons you stated.(90`s)
Last edited:
Edited down for brevity
I would agree with most of what you have said here.
However, there is often a simple point/trap/propaganda of those to the left of Marx to conflate/confuse Lenin with Stalin.
To use the old phrase "Lenin inevitably led to Stalin", which I do not agree with.
Marx did not discuss a vanguard party, or much on the future after capitalism, however, in my personal opinion, to suggest Lenin and Stalin are one and the same is both a historical, and more importantly a theoretical injustice.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I don't think I either said or implied they were the same.
However I go further than Kropotkin when he wrote in 1919:
"I owe it to you to say frankly that, according to my view, this effort to build a communist republic on the basis of a strongly centralized state communism under the iron law of party dictatorship is bound to end in failure. We are learning to know in Russia how not to introduce communism" The Russian Revolution and the Soviet Government
Instead I agree with Cleaver: Lenin overthrew the revolution. Simple as that.
Point taken, however the particularities of Russian empire (as was) should probably be taken into consideration?
Russia, and previously, it's satellites/colonies have never truly been liberal democracies.
seventh bullet
sovietwave
Stalin can't be so easily dismissed from Leninist politics, either.
no shit 
sunnysidedown
caput mortuum
What was the apparatus around Lenin before 1917? I'm aware he travelled from Germany back to Russia but is there any writings on what he was doing/who he was knocking about with in Germany?
Considering Germany/UK had a far larger proletarian poulation, why, if he had read Marx, did he think revolution in Russia would succeed?
Pointers to any articles/books on this appreciated.
ManchesterBeth
Well-Known Member
And global communist politics as well.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
The idea, put as simply and briefly as possible, was that Russia was one of the weaker parts of a chain, a chain made up of the colonised counties, the semi capitalist ones like Russia and the fully capitalist ones . Weakening or breaking the chain at the weakest point would set off a reaction that would end up taking down the fully capitalist countries. The idea wasn't that victory could be achieved in Russia alone. It was theorised as part of a much wider process.
sunnysidedown
caput mortuum
Thanks for the reply butchersapron . Hopefully I'm not derailing the thread with these questions, but could you elaborate on the theorising as part of a much wider process that you mention. Was this theorising done by Lenin alone or are you refering to some more commonly held internationalist position of the time ? I suppose i'm interested in what led to Leninism, what it was born out of.
Also, was there a marxist position critical of Lenin prior to 1917 (ie, his belief that Russia would make a suitable bed for proletarian revolt)
Sorry for my simplistic questions and if this is all well known stuff, as usual I need to find the time to read more!
Also, was there a marxist position critical of Lenin prior to 1917 (ie, his belief that Russia would make a suitable bed for proletarian revolt)
Sorry for my simplistic questions and if this is all well known stuff, as usual I need to find the time to read more!
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I'll have to come back on this later, if belboid or someone doesn't in the meanwhile. Briegly though, it's the fairly standard Bolshevik theory of world revolution that goes global uneven development (diff states being at diff stages of development) leading to unstable conditions at specific places in this chain (russia with its mix of peasant production and ultra-modern capitalism in the cities ruled by a near feudal power structure for example) that would lead to classic revolutionary situations - which would then outgrow the demands of basic bourgeois democracy through timidity/fear of w/c on the part of the bourgeois and would be pushed onto the terrain of social revolution proper by the w/c. Once successful this would both inspire and allow material support to other places with similar conditions (the 3rd internationals heavy emphasis on stirring up trouble in colonial territories for example) to go through the same process with each step weakening the major capitalist powers until it is their turn.
Most of this was theorised by Trotsky - at least in the forms that come down to us today. With now near forgotten or deliberately hidden input from Parvus.
Similar threads
