The Marxist Paradox: An Anarchist Critique

12 Pages·2012·0.08 MB·English

TheAnarchistLibrary
Anti-Copyright
The Marxist Paradox: An
Anarchist Critique
Wayne Price
WaynePrice
TheMarxistParadox:AnAnarchistCritique
December2013
RetrievedonJuly2,2014fromhttp://anarkismo.net/article/
26583?search_text=wayne%20price&print_page=true
theanarchistlibrary.org December 2013

Contents
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
TheState,theCommune,andtheDictatorship . . . 8
TheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy . . . . . . . . . . 12
ThePhilosophyofMarxism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
AnarchistConclusionsabouttheParadoxofMarxism 19
3
Kropotkin,Peter(1975).TheEssentialKropotkin.(Eds.:Emile
Capouya&KeithaTompkins.)NY:Liveright.
Marx, Karl (1967). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy:
Vol.III.(ed.:F.Engels).NY:InternationalPublishers.
Mattick,Paul,Sr.(1972).CritiqueofMarcuse.NY:Herderand
Herder.
price,wayne(2013).TheValueofRadicalTheory;AnAnarchist
Introduction to Marx’s Critique of Political Economy. Oakland
CA:AKPress.
Taber, Ron (1980). Capitalism in Crisis. NY: Revolutionary
SocialistLeaguePamphlet.
Tabor, Ronald D. (2013). The Tyranny of Theory: A Contribu-
tion to the Anarchist Critique of Marxism. Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada:BlackCatPress.
Wood,EllenMeiksins(1998).TheRetreatFromClass:ANew
“True”Socialism.London/NY:Verso.
Wood,EllenMeiksins(1995).DemocracyAgainstCapitalism.
Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.
*writtenforwww.Anarkismo.net
21
theoryisuseful;althoughIthinkthatRonunderestimatesthe Review of Ronald D. Tabor, The Tyranny of Theory: A
validityofthistheoryoverall. ContributiontotheAnarchistCritiqueofMarxism(2013).349
RonwriteslittlehereaboutMarx’sviewoftheworkingclass. pages.
Yet,ifanythingwascentraltoMarx’sviewofcapitalism,itwas
his concept of the working class and its class struggle. And ThisisareviewofRonaldD.Tabor,TheTyrannyof
themostimportantoverlapbetweenMarxismandrevolution- Theory:AContributiontotheAnarchistCritiqueof
ary,class-struggle,anarchismistheirjointbeliefintheimpor- Marxism(2013).
tanceoftheworkers’classstruggle,togetherwiththeworkers’ Marxism,likeanarchism,cameoutofmovements
potential allies among all the oppressed. These are the people fordemocracy,socialism,andworkingclasslibera-
who have the potential to make revolutions which will save tion.Itsgoalswereforafree,cooperative,classless,
theworld(seeWood1998).Itisnotinevitablethatsuchrevolu- stateless,andnonoppressivesociety.YetMarxism
tionswillhappen,beforecapitalismcauseseconomiccollapse, ended up establishing totalitarian, mass murder-
ecological catastrophe, and/or nuclear war. But Marx demon- ing,statecapitalist,regimes.Thisistheparadoxof
strated that there are forces pushing in that direction in the Marxism.Whydidthishappen?Anattempttoan-
veryoperationofcapitalism.Willtheysucceedintime?Wedo alyzethisismadeinthisnewbookbyRonTabor,
notknow.Itisamatterofcommitment,notofabsoluteknowl- aformerMarxistandnowananarchist.waynedis-
edge. cussesRon’sideas.
References
Burkett,Paul(1999).MarxandNature:ARedandGreenPer- ThereisaparadoxtoMarxism,acentralcontradiction.Like
spective.NY:St.Martin’sPress. anarchism, it originated in the 19th century movements for
Caffentzis, George (2013). In Letters of Fire and Blood: Work, democracy, socialism, and working class liberation. Its stated
Machines,andtheCrisisofCapitalism.OaklandCA:PMPress. goals were the end of capitalism, of classes, of the state, and
Daum, Walter, & Richardson, Matthew (2010). “Marxist of all other oppressions. Hundreds of millions of workers,
Analysis of the Capitalist Crisis: Bankrupt System Drives peasants,andothershavemobilizedunderitsprogram,aiming
Toward Depression.” Proletarian Revolution. No. 82. Pp. 48, forabetterworld.
35—45.http://lrp-cofi.org/pdf.html But what was the result? The first Marxist movement re-
Draper,Hal(1986).KarlMarx’sTheoryofRevolution:Vol.III; sultedinthesocial-democraticpartiesofEuropeandelsewhere.
“TheDictatorshipoftheProletariat.” NY:MonthlyReviewPress. These ended up supporting capitalism and opposing revolu-
Draper,Hal(1987).The“DictatorshipoftheProletariat”:From tions.Theysupportedtheexistingstate,bourgeoisdemocracy,
MarxtoLenin.NY:MonthlyReviewPress. and Western imperialism and its wars. Currently they have
Engels,Friedrich(1954).Anti-Duhring:HerrEugenDuhring’s abandonedallpretenseofadvocatinganewsocialsystem.
RevolutioninScience.Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishing. Lenin, Trotsky, and others sought to return to revolution-
Foster,JohnBellamy(2000).Marx’sEcology:Materialismand ary Marxism. Their activities resulted in “Stalinism”: a series
Nature.NY:MonthlyReviewPress. ofmonstrous,statecapitalist,tyrannies,whichkilledmillions
20 5
ofworkersandpeasants(andthousandsofCommunists).Cur- philosophically distinct, even opposed — an interpretive, con-
rentlythesehavecollapsedintotraditionalcapitalism. tingent, one, and a predictive, deterministic, one — between
How did Marxism start off so well and end so badly? No which Marxists shift when applying or defending their out-
doubt there have been “objective forces,” as the capitalist sys- look” (p. 235). But instead of acting like a shifty Marxist, why
tem pressures and distorts even the most liberatory doctrine. not chose one or the other standpoint? The official Marxism
Butisn’t this tobe expected undercapitalism? Which aspects of the social democrats and Stalinists was heavily on the de-
ofMarxismmadeitmostvulnerabletothesepressures?What terministic,inevitablistic,standpoint.Butpeopleinfluencedby
was there in the original Marxism of Marx and Engels which Marxcanrejectthatviewandchoosetheopen-ended,contin-
lentitselftotheseterribleresults? gent,standpointwithLuxemburg.
Ron Tabor is a good theorist to examine this vital question.
For most of his adult life he was a Marxist. He was the leader
Anarchist Conclusions about the Paradox
of the unorthodox-Trotskyist Revolutionary Socialist League
of Marxism
(1973—1989). Unlike most ex-Marxists, he has not turned to
the right (to liberalism or neoconservatism) but to the left,
ReadingRonTabor’sbookhasledmetothinkthroughques-
becoming an anarchist. (Note: I was also a member of the
tionsaboutMarx’stheoryandprogram.EvenwhenIdisagreed
RSL and knew Ron for many years. Personally, I went from
with Ron, I found reading his book to be a rewarding experi-
anarchist-pacifismtounorthodoxTrotskyismtorevolutionary
ence.
anarchism.SometimesIrefertomyselfasa“Marxist-informed
Why has Marxism ended up in authoritarianism or totali-
anarchist.”)
tarianism? Plainly, there are totalitarian aspects of Marx’s ba-
sicviews.Thisespeciallyincludeshisbeliefthatsocialismcan
Conclusions
be implemented through the state — a centralized, repressive,
state supposedly of the workers, which nationalizes the econ-
Ron’s conclusion is “Marxism, as I now see it, is a totalitar-
omy.Tiedtothisisaphilosophicaloutlookwhichleadstobe-
iandoctrineandeveryattempttoimplementtheMarxianpro-
liefthatwecanknowtheAbsoluteTruth,asaguidetoaction.
gram,nomatterhowwell-intentioned,willleadtothecreation
ThesearefundamentalaspectsofMarx’sMarxismandleadin
of authoritarian and state-dominated, if not totalitarian, soci-
atotalitariandirection.
eties”(pp.9—10).Marxism’sbasictotalitarianism,heclaims,is
Yet there is also another side of Marx’s work, which, while
especially rooted in its program to use the state to establish
not dominant, may be made use of by libertarian socialists —
socialism,andinitsHegelian-derivedphilosophy.
and sometimes have been. He did agree with anarchists that
“Totalitarian” is a somewhat controversial term. What I
thestateisarepressiveclassinstrumentwhichshouldbedone
think Ron means by it is a capitalist system, such as Nazi
away with. He did sincerely believe in democratic working
Germany or Stalinist Russia, in which the state is ruled by a
classrule,notanarrowdictatorship.Ifwechose,wecaninter-
singlepartywithasetideology,whichseeksto(totally)domi-
prethisphilosophicalviewsinacontingent,open-ended,multi-
nate every aspect of society. It is unlike previous monarchies
factoral fashion. Even Ron admits that much of his economic
6 19
arenotrendspushinghistoryinanydirectionatall.Thisisfun- or police states which had let people alone if they did not
damentaltotheliberalperspective.Timeandagain,ithasbeen challengethegovernment.
shownthatthecapitalistclasswillnotgiveupasignificantpart EssentiallyIaminagreementwithRon’sargument,atleast
of its power without being forced to. Yet liberals act as if this some of which I will attempt to summarize in this review (de-
historyismeaningless.Perhapsthistime,theythink,thecapi- spite Ron’s clear style, this is a big and dense book, but I will
talistswillabandontheirprofitsforthegoodofthepeople! domybest).However,Ifeelhisargumenthastwolimitations.
Morephilosophically,ifsocialdevelopmentiscompletelyar- ThefirstcomesearlyonwhenhepointsoutthatsomeMarx-
bitraryandaccidental,thentherecanbenofreedomeither.Un- iststrytodefendtheirdoctrinebyarguingthattherearevalu-
less we can knowingly make a decision which will have fore- ableaspectsofMarxism,suchas“theclassanalysisofsociety,
seeable consequences, there are no choices and no freedom. theanalysisofcapitalism,…thenotionsof‘fetishism’and‘reifi-
(Which is why I find much of Ron’s discussion of determin- cation’…”(p.20).RonarguesthatevenifpartsofMarxismare
ismandcontingencytobeirrelevant;theissueiswhetherwe true,thisdoesnotvalidateMarxismasawhole,asatotalworld
canmakerealchoices.) viewwhichencompassesallaspectsofsocialandnaturalexis-
While Marx and Engels often wrote of “inevitability,” etc., tence. “The apparent validity of many of these ideas does not
“therearepassagesinMarxandEngels’writingswhichimplya mean that Marxism itself is correct, or is not at bottom totali-
contingentviewofhistory”(p.299).(Iaddthat,throughouthis tarian”(p.20).
economicwritings,Marxmadeclearthatheregardshisstated This is true (that is, I agree with it). But he does not go on
“laws” as “tendencies.” He said they are constantly modified, to state the obverse, which is also true: to say that Marxism
mediated, and interfered with by various factors.) Ron quotes as a whole world-view is incorrect and totalitarian does not
fromtheCommunistManifestoaswellasLuxemburg’sfamous mean that “many of these ideas” are not valid in themselves
phraseof“socialismorbarbarism.” (thatis,usefulinpracticeforanarchistsandothers).Inpartic-
Engelsalsowrote,inhisAnti-Duhring,thatforthecapitalist ular,IbelievethatMarx’scritiqueofpoliticaleconomycanbe
class, “its own productive forces have grown beyond its con- very useful for anarchists (and wrote a book saying so; price
trol, and…are driving the whole of bourgeois society toward 2013). Actually, Ron repeatedly comes close to admitting this
ruin or revolution” (1956; p. 228). When the capitalist system in sections of the book (as I will show), but he does not say it
turns peasants into proletarians, “it creates the power which, clearly;hisfocusisondiscreditingMarxism.
under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish As a comparison, revolutionary anarchists reject liberalism
thisrevolution”(same,p.388).Andsimilarstatements.Thisre- asatotalpoliticalphilosophy.FromJohnStewartMilltoJohn
jects the possibility (or, rather, probability) of capitalism sur- Dewey,liberalismhasadvocatedgraduallyworkingwithinthe
vivingindefinitely,butit raisestwopossiblepaths, “socialism established system, never challenging the state or capitalism,
orbarbarism,”“ruinorrevolution.”Similarly,MurrayBookchin in effect rationalizing an exploitative society. Anarchists
wrote that the alternative now, given the looming ecological stronglyrejectthis.Butliberalismhasalsoadvocatedfreedom
catastrophe,is“anarchismorannihilation.” of speech and association, political democracy, equality of
Ron blames Marx and Marxists for trying to have it both races and genders, and other rights and freedoms. These, we
ways. Marxism “combines two different standpoints that are anarchists have always agreed with. The failure of liberalism
18 7
as a total program does not cause us to reject the good parts Actually a new quality can be created by reorganizing the ex-
ofitsprogram(asmanyMarxistshave,sneeringat“bourgeois istingmaterial,withoutachangeinquantity(asapileofbricks
democratic rights”). Neither do the virtues of these positive is turned into a house, or a restructuring of atoms changes a
ideasleadustoacceptliberalismasawhole. molecule’schemistry).
A second, related, problem is that Ron does not recognize What Ron really objects to is the determinism and teleol-
that there is a radically democratic side to Marxism, as ex- ogyofHegelian-Marxistdialecticsandheisrighttodoso.He
pressed in its original goals of a classless, stateless, society. rejects the idea that history moves on automatically, forced
Otherwise, Ron and I would never have been attracted to by the laws of dialectic and matter, toward an inevitable cul-
Marxism in the first place. If this were not true, there would mination in workers’ revolution, a “workers’ state,” and com-
be no “paradox” to Marxism. After all, Ron would not bother munism. By this account, history is not something people do
towriteabigbookdemonstratingthatNazism,say,wasreally but something which happens to them. Social understanding
totalitarian!TheNazisopenly,proudly,announcedit. means accepting what we have to do. Then there is no free-
From William Morris to Rosa Luxemburg and onwards, dom if the workers make a socialist revolution, because there
there has been a distinct minority (but only a minority) isnochoice,Ronsays;theyaremerelydoingwhattheymust.
which interpreted Marxism in a way which was libertarian, Hepointsoutthat“MarxandEngelsusetheterms‘inevitable,’
democratic, humanistic, and working class. This included ‘inexorable,’ ‘necessary,’ and ‘historical necessity’ throughout
the council communists, the “Johnson-Forrest Tendency,” the theirwritings”(p.298).
early Socialisme ou Barbarie,autonomous Marxists, and “Left Iwouldadd,ifthefutureisinevitable,thenmoralityisirrele-
Communists.” I do not believe that this tendency is Marxisti- vant.Whatwillbewillbe.Theworkerswillfightforsocialism
cally “correct” while the authoritarian social democrats and because they will fight for socialism. While Marx was clearly
Marxist-Leninists are “wrong”. Yet it is empirical reality that drivenbymoralfeelings,heneverwrotethatpeopleshouldbe
somepeoplehaveregardedthemselvesasMarxistswhilehold- for socialism, let alone why. Instead he denounced anarchists
ingapoliticsveryclosetoanarchism.Asananarchist,Iwould andothersforraisingmoralreasonsfortheproletarianstrug-
arguethatthelibertarianandtheauthoritarianMarxistseach gle.
basethemselvesinreal,ifcontradictory,aspectsofMarxism. Further,ifsomeoneknowswhatwill“inevitably”and“inex-
orably” happen, no matter what, then that person (Marx) in
effectknowstheAbsoluteTruth.AsRonargues,thinkingthat
The State, the Commune, and the
you know the Absolute Truth leads to a totalitarian mindset
Dictatorship
(howeverdemocraticMarxwassubjectively).Ifyouthinkyou
know what is inevitable, then you can feel justified in trying
Marx agreed with the anarchists that the state was essen-
to force everyone around you to follow your policies. Lenin
tially a repressive institution which served a ruling class, and
certainlyhadthisconsciousness.
oppressedtherestofsociety.Acooperative,freeandequal,so-
However,Ithinkthatthereisthedangerofgoingtotheop-
ciety would have abandoned the state altogether. From there
posite extreme, of believing that everything is accidental, un-
theydiffer.
caused,andunpredictable.Anythingcanhappenbecausethere
8 17
that“economic”factorsaretheonlyimportantfactors,andthe Marx held that the working class and its allies would seize
soledeterminant(eveninthelongrun)ofeverythingelse. thestate,orwouldabolishtheexistingstateandcreateitsown
He denies that relations of production are the “base” of so- state.Thestatewouldrepressthecapitalistsandtheirsupport-
ciety to which everything else is merely the “superstructure.” ers. The state of the workers would take over the economy,
IagreewiththeMarxisthistorian,EllenMeiksinsWood,“The buildingontheconcentration,centralization,andstatification
base/superstructure metaphor has always been more trouble ofcapitalism.Itwouldnationalizeallormostoftheeconomy
thanitisworth….Ithasbeenmadetobearatheoreticalweight into a centralized system (centralization implies a few at the
farbeyonditslimitedcapacities…”(1995;p.49—50). center and most people at the periphery). Overtime,this cen-
tralized state would supposedly cease to be a “state.” It would
become a noncoercive, benevolent, institution, doing “the ad-
The Philosophy of Marxism
ministrationofthings,notpeople”(asifthingscouldbeadmin-
isteredwithoutdominatingpeople).
ManyMarxists,especiallylibertarianMarxists,believethat
Itisnotsurprisingthatsuchaprogram,whenputintoprac-
thesolutiontoMarxism’stotalitariantendenciesistoreturnto
tice,hasrepeatedlyresultedintotalitarianism.AsRonsays,ifa
the Hegelian roots of Marx’s thought. Ron fundamentally dis-
revolutionarypartyputsallitseffortsintobuildinganewstate,
agrees.HeseesHegelianphilosophyasamajorcauseofMarx-
whileexpectingthatstatetoeventuallydissolveautomatically
ist totalitarianism. He rejects what has come to be called the
(withoutanyoneworkingatdissolvingit),thenwhatwillresult
philosophy of “dialectical materialism” (or the “materialist di-
willbe…astate.Instead,anarchistsproposedthefederationof
alectic”).
self-managedindustries,cooperatives,andcommunes.
(IamgoingtoskipoverRon’sattackonphilosophicalmate-
Kropotkinwarnedin1910,“…Tohandovertothestateallthe
rialism.Hedevelopshisownversionofphilosophicalidealism–
main sources of economic life…as also the management of all
whichisyetnon-supernaturalist.Asanaturalist,Idonotfind
the main branches of industry…would mean to create a new
hisargumentsconvincingnorhisdiscussionreallyrelevant.)
instrument of tyranny. State capitalism would only increase
On“dialectics,”asonothermatters,Roncanseetwosides.It
thepowerofbureaucracyandcapitalism”(1975;pp109—110).
canbe,hefeels,ausefulheuristic,awayoflookingattheworld,
Ron comments on Marx’s writings about the uprising
seeing nature and society as on-going processes, rather than
of the Paris Commune in 1871. Marx endorsed the Com-
staticobjects.Itcanbeawayofseeingconnectionsamongap-
mune’s radically democratic structure as a forerunner of the
parentlydistinctthingsandseeingantagonisticconflictseven
communist revolution. Engels called it an example of the
withinthings,andofseeingtheunityofthoughtandobjective
“dictatorship of the proletariat.” This is frequently cited as a
realitythroughhumanactivity(“praxis”).
libertarian-democraticaspectofMarx’sMarxism.
Butherightlyrejectsanattempttomakeup“lawsofdialec-
Likeotheranarchists,Rondownplaysthesignificanceofthe
tics” which explain how all of reality works. I would add that
CommuneforMarxism.“Marxslidesoverthecontradictionbe-
the Hegelian (and Engelsian) dialectic leaves out the concept
tween his and Engels commitment to centralization and the
of structure (gestalt). It asserts that the only way to go from
Commune’s commitment to decentralization….Marx and En-
onequalitytoanewqualityisthroughanincreaseinquantity.
gels’ attempt to amalgamate the Commune with their idea of
16 9
thedictatorshipoftheproletariatisquestionable,atbest”(pp. in successful revolutions cannot be known, but history is not
73—74). yetover.
UnlikeRonandmanyotheranarchists,IdonotdoubtMarx’s ItwasbecauseofMarxisteconomicanalysisthatRonTabor
sincerityinhispraiseoftheverydemocraticParisCommune, wasable,inthe1970s,tosaythatthepost-warprosperitywas
or the Marxists who base their politics on it. But I think that over and not returning. “As we’ve discussed for six years, the
there are limitations to Marx’s interpretation. I would add to political,economic,andsocialstructureofpost-warcapitalism
Ron’scriticism,thatMarxpraiseditonlyasanextremelydemo- is unraveling and at an increasingly rapid rate… We will ex-
craticversionofrepresentativedemocracy(electionandrecall perience a wave-like downward motion toward a 1930s-type
of officials by neighborhood sections; workers’ wages for offi- depression”(1980;pp.1&3).Thetruthofthisanalysisisclear
cials;etc.).Atnotime(ever)didMarxorEngelsraisethevalue for all to see, in what Ron refers to as “the current global cri-
of face-to-face, local, direct democracy (in the sections or in sis of capitalism.” (An updated version of Ron’s original anal-
the worker-managed industries). Anarchists are not necessar- ysis, applied to current conditions, may be found at Daum &
ily against the election of representatives or delegates, but in- Richardson2010.)
sistthatthisbelimitedandberootedinathrivingdirectdemoc- Marx’seconomictheory—hiscritiqueofpoliticaleconomy
racyatthelocallevel. — has proven itself as an overall analysis of how capitalism
Further, no sooner was the Commune crushed, then Marx functions (although how well the theory works always de-
redoubled his efforts to get the First International to promote pends on the skill of the theorist using it). Aside from this, I
workers’ electoral parties throughout Europe, to run in elec- am tempted to go over Ron’s criticisms of several aspects of
tions and try to take over existing states. This seems to me to Marx’s theory, but time and space are too limited. Several of
betheoppositeoftherevolutionary-libertarianmeaningofthe histopicsarefurtherdiscussedinmybook(price2013).Forhis
ParisCommune.SeveraltimesMarxandEngelssaidthatitwas discussion of science-and-technology (which he holds refutes
possibleforcurrentstates(ofEngland,theUS,orFrance)tobe the labor theory of value), see Mattick (1972) and Caffentzis
peacefullyandlegallytakenoverbytheworkersthroughelec- (2013). For the relation between the forces of nature and the
tions (although they sometimes modified this by saying that lawofvalue,seeBurkett(1999).
thebourgeoisiewouldprobablyrespondwithaviolentattempt Marx’seconomictheoryisusuallyplacedwithinthebroader
atcounterrevolution).Likeanarchists,libertarianMarxistsgen- conceptof“historicalmaterialism”(orthe“materialistconcep-
erallyrejectelectoralstrategies. tion of history”). Here again, Ron makes a distinction which
Ron attacks Marx and Engels use of the term “dictatorship letshimhavetwoopinions.Heacceptsthat“economic”factors
of the proletariat” as advocacy of “a dictatorial state” (p. 286). (relationsofproduction,classes,technology,etc.)haveanenor-
Here I must disagree with Ron. Marx lived at a time when it mous impact on all areas of social life: individual and group
was not uncommon to refer to the “dictatorship” of a parlia- consciousness,politicsandthestate,familyrelations,andreli-
ment,orof“thepeople”or“theDemocracy.”Thetermdidnot gion,art,andculture.Classstructureandproductiveprocesses
necessarilymeanthetyrannyofonepersonorofaparty.Hal interactwithallotherareas,influencingandbeinginfluenced
Draper(1986)hascheckedeachofthe12timesMarxorEngels by them. But he rejects (rightfully in my opinion) the notion
used the term, and he concluded that they meant essentially
10 15