The Marxist Paradox: An Anarchist Critique

12 Pages·2017·0.09 MB·English

by  Wayne Price

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
ThePhilosophyofMarxism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
AnarchistConclusionsabouttheParadoxofMarxism . . 18
3

pression.” Proletarian Revolution. No. 82. Pp. 48, 35—45. http://lrp- ReviewofRonaldD.Tabor,TheTyrannyofTheory:AContribu-
cofi.org/pdf.html tiontotheAnarchistCritiqueofMarxism(2013).349pages.
Draper,Hal(1986).KarlMarx’sTheoryofRevolution:Vol.III;“The
DictatorshipoftheProletariat.” NY:MonthlyReviewPress. ThisisareviewofRonaldD.Tabor,TheTyrannyofThe-
Draper, Hal (1987). The “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”: From ory: A Contribution to the Anarchist Critique of Marx-
MarxtoLenin.NY:MonthlyReviewPress. ism(2013).
Engels,Friedrich(1954).Anti-Duhring:HerrEugenDuhring’sRev- Marxism, like anarchism, came out of movements for
olutioninScience.Moscow:ForeignLanguagesPublishing. democracy,socialism,andworkingclassliberation.Its
Foster,JohnBellamy(2000).Marx’sEcology:MaterialismandNa- goals were for a free, cooperative, classless, stateless,
ture.NY:MonthlyReviewPress. and nonoppressive society. Yet Marxism ended up es-
Kropotkin, Peter (1975). The Essential Kropotkin. (Eds.: Emile tablishing totalitarian, mass murdering, state capital-
Capouya&KeithaTompkins.)NY:Liveright. ist,regimes.ThisistheparadoxofMarxism.Whydid
Marx, Karl (1967). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy: Vol. thishappen?Anattempttoanalyzethisismadeinthis
III.(ed.:F.Engels).NY:InternationalPublishers. newbookbyRonTabor,aformerMarxistandnowan
Mattick, Paul, Sr. (1972). Critique of Marcuse. NY: Herder and anarchist.waynediscussesRon’sideas.
Herder.
price, wayne (2013). The Value of Radical Theory; An Anarchist ThereisaparadoxtoMarxism,acentralcontradiction.Likeanar-
Introduction to Marx’s Critique of Political Economy. Oakland CA: chism,itoriginatedinthe19th centurymovementsfordemocracy,
AKPress. socialism, and working class liberation. Its stated goals were the
Taber,Ron(1980).CapitalisminCrisis.NY:RevolutionarySocial- end of capitalism, of classes, of the state, and of all other oppres-
istLeaguePamphlet. sions.Hundredsofmillionsofworkers,peasants,andothershave
Tabor, Ronald D. (2013). The Tyranny of Theory: A Contribution mobilizedunderitsprogram,aimingforabetterworld.
to the Anarchist Critique of Marxism. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: But what was the result? The first Marxist movement resulted
BlackCatPress. in the social-democratic parties of Europe and elsewhere. These
Wood, Ellen Meiksins (1998). The Retreat From Class: A New ended up supporting capitalism and opposing revolutions. They
“True”Socialism.London/NY:Verso. supported the existing state, bourgeois democracy, and Western
Wood, Ellen Meiksins (1995). Democracy Against Capitalism. imperialism and its wars. Currently they have abandoned all pre-
Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress. tenseofadvocatinganewsocialsystem.
*writtenforwww.Anarkismo.net Lenin, Trotsky, and others sought to return to revolutionary
Marxism. Their activities resulted in “Stalinism”: a series of mon-
strous,statecapitalist,tyrannies,whichkilledmillionsofworkers
and peasants (and thousands of Communists). Currently these
havecollapsedintotraditionalcapitalism.
20 5
How did Marxism start off so well and end so badly? No doubt to this is a philosophical outlook which leads to belief that we
there have been “objective forces,” as the capitalist system pres- can know the Absolute Truth, as a guide to action. These are
suresanddistortseventhemostliberatorydoctrine.Butisn’tthis fundamental aspects of Marx’s Marxism and lead in a totalitarian
tobeexpectedundercapitalism?WhichaspectsofMarxismmade direction.
itmostvulnerabletothesepressures?Whatwasthereintheorigi- Yet there is also another side of Marx’s work, which, while not
nalMarxismofMarxandEngelswhichlentitselftotheseterrible dominant,maybemadeuseofbylibertariansocialists—andsome-
results? timeshavebeen.Hedidagreewithanarchiststhatthestateisare-
Ron Tabor is a good theorist to examine this vital question. pressiveclassinstrumentwhichshouldbedoneawaywith.Hedid
For most of his adult life he was a Marxist. He was the leader sincerely believe in democratic working class rule, not a narrow
of the unorthodox-Trotskyist Revolutionary Socialist League dictatorship.Ifwechose,wecaninterprethisphilosophicalviews
(1973—1989). Unlike most ex-Marxists, he has not turned to the in a contingent, open-ended, multi-factoral fashion. Even Ron ad-
right (to liberalism or neoconservatism) but to the left, becoming mits that much of his economic theory is useful; although I think
an anarchist. (Note: I was also a member of the RSL and knew thatRonunderestimatesthevalidityofthistheoryoverall.
Ronformanyyears.Personally,Iwentfromanarchist-pacifismto Ron writes little here about Marx’s view of the working class.
unorthodox Trotskyism to revolutionary anarchism. Sometimes I Yet, if anything was central to Marx’s view of capitalism, it was
refertomyselfasa“Marxist-informedanarchist.”) his concept of the working class and its class struggle. And the
mostimportantoverlapbetweenMarxismandrevolutionary,class-
struggle, anarchism is their joint belief in the importance of the
Conclusions
workers’classstruggle,togetherwiththeworkers’potentialallies
among all the oppressed. These are the people who have the po-
Ron’s conclusion is “Marxism, as I now see it, is a totalitarian
tential to make revolutions which will save the world (see Wood
doctrineandeveryattempttoimplementtheMarxianprogram,no
1998).Itisnotinevitablethatsuchrevolutionswillhappen,before
matter how well-intentioned, will lead to the creation of authori-
capitalism causes economic collapse, ecological catastrophe, and/
tarian and state-dominated, if not totalitarian, societies” (pp. 9—
ornuclearwar.ButMarxdemonstratedthatthereareforcespush-
10).Marxism’sbasictotalitarianism,heclaims,isespeciallyrooted
inginthatdirectionintheveryoperationofcapitalism.Willthey
in its program to use the state to establish socialism, and in its
succeed in time? We do not know. It is a matter of commitment,
Hegelian-derivedphilosophy.
notofabsoluteknowledge.
“Totalitarian” is a somewhat controversial term. What I think
References
Ron means by it is a capitalist system, such as Nazi Germany or
Burkett,Paul(1999).MarxandNature:ARedandGreenPerspec-
Stalinist Russia, in which the state is ruled by a single party with
tive.NY:St.Martin’sPress.
a set ideology, which seeks to (totally) dominate every aspect of
Caffentzis,George(2013).InLettersofFireandBlood:Work,Ma-
society.Itisunlikepreviousmonarchiesorpolicestateswhichhad
chines,andtheCrisisofCapitalism.OaklandCA:PMPress.
letpeoplealoneiftheydidnotchallengethegovernment.
Daum, Walter, & Richardson, Matthew (2010). “Marxist Analy-
sis of the Capitalist Crisis: Bankrupt System Drives Toward De-
6 19
Engels also wrote, in his Anti-Duhring, that for the capitalist EssentiallyIaminagreementwithRon’sargument,atleastsome
class, “its own productive forces have grown beyond its control, ofwhichIwillattempttosummarizeinthisreview(despiteRon’s
and…aredrivingthewholeofbourgeoissocietytowardruinorrev- clearstyle,thisisabiganddensebook,butIwilldomybest).How-
olution” (1956; p. 228). When the capitalist system turns peasants ever,Ifeelhisargumenthastwolimitations.
intoproletarians,“itcreatesthepowerwhich,underpenaltyofits ThefirstcomesearlyonwhenhepointsoutthatsomeMarxists
owndestruction,isforcedtoaccomplishthisrevolution”(same,p. try to defend their doctrine by arguing that there are valuable as-
388).Andsimilarstatements.Thisrejectsthepossibility(or,rather, pectsofMarxism,suchas“theclassanalysisofsociety,theanalysis
probability) of capitalism surviving indefinitely, but it raises two ofcapitalism,…thenotionsof‘fetishism’and‘reification’…”(p.20).
possible paths, “socialism orbarbarism,”“ruin or revolution.”Sim- RonarguesthatevenifpartsofMarxismaretrue,thisdoesnotvali-
ilarly,MurrayBookchinwrotethatthealternativenow,giventhe dateMarxismasawhole,asatotalworldviewwhichencompasses
loomingecologicalcatastrophe,is“anarchismorannihilation.” allaspectsofsocialandnaturalexistence.“Theapparentvalidityof
Ron blames Marx and Marxists for trying to have it both ways. many of these ideas does not mean that Marxism itself is correct,
Marxism“combinestwodifferentstandpointsthatarephilosophi- orisnotatbottomtotalitarian”(p.20).
callydistinct,evenopposed—aninterpretive,contingent,one,and This is true (that is, I agree with it). But he does not go on to
a predictive, deterministic, one — between which Marxists shift statetheobverse,whichisalsotrue:tosaythatMarxismasawhole
when applying or defending their outlook” (p. 235). But instead world-viewisincorrectandtotalitariandoesnotmeanthat“many
of acting like a shifty Marxist, why not chose one or the other of these ideas” are not valid in themselves (that is, useful in prac-
standpoint?TheofficialMarxismofthesocialdemocratsandStal- tice for anarchists and others). In particular, I believe that Marx’s
inists was heavily on the deterministic, inevitablistic, standpoint. critiqueofpoliticaleconomycanbeveryusefulforanarchists(and
ButpeopleinfluencedbyMarxcanrejectthatviewandchoosethe wroteabooksayingso;price2013).Actually,Ronrepeatedlycomes
open-ended,contingent,standpointwithLuxemburg. closetoadmittingthisinsectionsofthebook(asIwillshow),but
hedoesnotsayitclearly;hisfocusisondiscreditingMarxism.
Asacomparison,revolutionaryanarchistsrejectliberalismasa
Anarchist Conclusions about the Paradox of
total political philosophy. From John Stewart Mill to John Dewey,
Marxism
liberalismhasadvocatedgraduallyworkingwithintheestablished
system,neverchallengingthestateorcapitalism,ineffectrational-
ReadingRonTabor’sbookhasledmetothinkthroughquestions
izing an exploitative society. Anarchists strongly reject this. But
aboutMarx’stheoryandprogram.EvenwhenIdisagreedwithRon,
liberalism has also advocated freedom of speech and association,
Ifoundreadinghisbooktobearewardingexperience.
politicaldemocracy,equalityofracesandgenders,andotherrights
Why has Marxism ended up in authoritarianism or totalitar-
andfreedoms.These,weanarchistshavealwaysagreedwith.The
ianism? Plainly, there are totalitarian aspects of Marx’s basic
failureofliberalismasatotalprogramdoesnotcauseustoreject
views. This especially includes his belief that socialism can be
the good parts of its program (as many Marxists have, sneering
implemented through the state — a centralized, repressive, state
at “bourgeois democratic rights”). Neither do the virtues of these
supposedlyoftheworkers,whichnationalizestheeconomy.Tied
positiveideasleadustoacceptliberalismasawhole.
18 7
A second, related, problem is that Ron does not recognize that bymoralfeelings,heneverwrotethatpeopleshouldbeforsocial-
thereisaradicallydemocraticsidetoMarxism,asexpressedinits ism,letalonewhy.Insteadhedenouncedanarchistsandothersfor
originalgoalsofaclassless,stateless,society.Otherwise,Ronand raisingmoralreasonsfortheproletarianstruggle.
IwouldneverhavebeenattractedtoMarxisminthefirstplace.If Further, if someone knows what will “inevitably” and “inex-
thiswerenottrue,therewouldbeno“paradox”toMarxism.After orably”happen,nomatterwhat,thenthatperson(Marx)ineffect
all, Ron would not bother to write a big book demonstrating that knows the Absolute Truth. As Ron argues, thinking that you
Nazism,say,wasreallytotalitarian!TheNazisopenly,proudly,an- knowtheAbsoluteTruthleadstoatotalitarianmindset(however
nouncedit. democraticMarxwassubjectively).Ifyouthinkyouknowwhatis
From William Morris to Rosa Luxemburg and onwards, there inevitable, then you can feel justified in trying to force everyone
has been a distinct minority (but only a minority) which inter- around you to follow your policies. Lenin certainly had this
preted Marxism in a way which was libertarian, democratic, hu- consciousness.
manistic,andworkingclass.Thisincludedthecouncilcommunists, However,Ithinkthatthereisthedangerofgoingtotheopposite
the “Johnson-Forrest Tendency,” the early Socialisme ou Barbarie, extreme, of believing that everything is accidental, uncaused, and
autonomousMarxists,and“LeftCommunists.”Idonotbelievethat unpredictable. Anything can happen because there are no trends
thistendencyisMarxistically“correct”whiletheauthoritarianso- pushing history in any direction at all. This is fundamental to the
cialdemocratsandMarxist-Leninistsare“wrong”.Yetitisempiri- liberalperspective.Timeandagain,ithasbeenshownthatthecap-
calrealitythatsomepeoplehaveregardedthemselvesasMarxists italistclasswillnotgiveupasignificantpartofitspowerwithout
while holding a politics very close to anarchism. As an anarchist, beingforcedto.Yetliberalsactasifthishistoryismeaningless.Per-
I would argue that the libertarian and the authoritarian Marxists hapsthistime,theythink,thecapitalistswillabandontheirprofits
eachbasethemselvesinreal,ifcontradictory,aspectsofMarxism. forthegoodofthepeople!
More philosophically, if social development is completely arbi-
trary and accidental, then there can be no freedom either. Unless
The State, the Commune, and the
wecanknowinglymakeadecisionwhichwillhaveforeseeablecon-
Dictatorship
sequences, there are no choices and no freedom. (Which is why I
findmuchofRon’sdiscussionofdeterminismandcontingencyto
Marx agreed with the anarchists that the state was essentially
beirrelevant;theissueiswhetherwecanmakerealchoices.)
arepressiveinstitutionwhichservedarulingclass,andoppressed
WhileMarxandEngelsoftenwroteof“inevitability,”etc.,“there
the rest of society. A cooperative, free and equal, society would
are passages in Marx and Engels’ writings which imply a contin-
haveabandonedthestatealtogether.Fromtheretheydiffer.
gentviewofhistory”(p.299).(Iaddthat,throughouthiseconomic
Marx held that the working class and its allies would seize the
writings,Marxmadeclearthatheregardshisstated“laws”as“ten-
state, or would abolish the existing state and create its own state.
dencies.” He said they are constantly modified, mediated, and in-
The state would repress the capitalists and their supporters. The
terferedwithbyvariousfactors.)RonquotesfromtheCommunist
state of the workers would take over the economy, building on
Manifesto as well as Luxemburg’s famous phrase of “socialism or
theconcentration,centralization,andstatificationofcapitalism.It
barbarism.”
8 17
(IamgoingtoskipoverRon’sattackonphilosophicalmaterial- wouldnationalizeallormostoftheeconomyintoacentralizedsys-
ism.Hedevelopshisownversionofphilosophicalidealism–which tem(centralizationimpliesafewatthecenterandmostpeopleat
is yet non-supernaturalist. As a naturalist, I do not find his argu- theperiphery).Overtime,thiscentralizedstatewouldsupposedly
mentsconvincingnorhisdiscussionreallyrelevant.) cease to be a “state.” It would become a noncoercive, benevolent,
On“dialectics,”asonothermatters,Roncanseetwosides.Itcan institution, doing “the administration of things, not people” (as if
be,hefeels,ausefulheuristic,awayoflookingattheworld,seeing thingscouldbeadministeredwithoutdominatingpeople).
natureandsocietyason-goingprocesses,ratherthanstaticobjects. Itisnotsurprisingthatsuchaprogram,whenputintopractice,
It can be a way of seeing connections among apparently distinct has repeatedly resulted in totalitarianism. As Ron says, if a revo-
thingsandseeingantagonisticconflictsevenwithinthings,andof lutionarypartyputsallitseffortsintobuildinganewstate,while
seeing the unity of thought and objective reality through human expecting that state to eventually dissolve automatically (without
activity(“praxis”). anyone working at dissolving it), then what will result will be…a
But he rightly rejects an attempt to make up “laws of dialec- state.Instead,anarchistsproposedthefederationofself-managed
tics” which explain how all of reality works. I would add that the industries,cooperatives,andcommunes.
Hegelian(andEngelsian)dialecticleavesouttheconceptofstruc- Kropotkin warned in 1910, “…To hand over to the state all the
ture(gestalt).Itassertsthattheonlywaytogofromonequalityto main sources of economic life…as also the management of all the
a new quality is through an increase in quantity. Actually a new main branches of industry…would mean to create a new instru-
qualitycanbecreatedbyreorganizingtheexistingmaterial,with- ment of tyranny. State capitalism would only increase the power
outachangeinquantity(asapileofbricksisturnedintoahouse, ofbureaucracyandcapitalism”(1975;pp109—110).
orarestructuringofatomschangesamolecule’schemistry). Ron comments on Marx’s writings about the uprising of the
What Ron really objects to is the determinism and teleology of ParisCommunein1871.MarxendorsedtheCommune’sradically
Hegelian-Marxistdialecticsandheisrighttodoso.Herejectsthe democraticstructureasaforerunnerofthecommunistrevolution.
ideathathistorymovesonautomatically,forcedbythelawsofdi- Engelscalleditanexampleofthe“dictatorshipoftheproletariat.”
alectic and matter, toward an inevitable culmination in workers’ Thisisfrequentlycitedasalibertarian-democraticaspectofMarx’s
revolution, a “workers’ state,” and communism. By this account, Marxism.
historyisnotsomethingpeopledobutsomethingwhichhappens Like other anarchists, Ron downplays the significance of the
to them. Social understanding means accepting what we have to Commune for Marxism. “Marx slides over the contradiction
do. Then there is no freedom if the workers make a socialist rev- between his and Engels commitment to centralization and the
olution, because there is no choice, Ron says; they are merely do- Commune’s commitment to decentralization….Marx and Engels’
ing what they must. He points out that “Marx and Engels use the attempt to amalgamate the Commune with their idea of the
terms ‘inevitable,’ ‘inexorable,’ ‘necessary,’ and ‘historical neces- dictatorshipoftheproletariatisquestionable,atbest”(pp.73—74).
sity’throughouttheirwritings”(p.298). Unlike Ron and many other anarchists, I do not doubt Marx’s
I would add, if the future is inevitable, then morality is irrele- sincerity in his praise of the very democratic Paris Commune, or
vant.Whatwillbewillbe.Theworkerswillfightforsocialismbe- the Marxists who base their politics on it. But I think that there
causetheywillfightforsocialism.WhileMarxwasclearlydriven arelimitationstoMarx’sinterpretation.IwouldaddtoRon’scrit-
16 9
icism, that Marx praised it only as an extremely democratic ver- timeandspacearetoolimited.Severalofhistopicsarefurtherdis-
sion of representative democracy (election and recall of officials cussed in my book (price 2013). For his discussion of science-and-
byneighborhoodsections;workers’wagesforofficials;etc.).Atno technology(whichheholdsrefutesthelabortheoryofvalue),see
time (ever) did Marx or Engels raise the value of face-to-face, lo- Mattick (1972) and Caffentzis (2013). For the relation between the
cal, direct democracy (in the sections or in the worker-managed forcesofnatureandthelawofvalue,seeBurkett(1999).
industries). Anarchists are not necessarily against the election of Marx’s economic theory is usually placed within the broader
representatives or delegates, but insist that this be limited and be conceptof“historicalmaterialism”(orthe“materialistconception
rootedinathrivingdirectdemocracyatthelocallevel. of history”). Here again, Ron makes a distinction which lets him
Further,nosoonerwastheCommunecrushed,thenMarxredou- havetwoopinions.Heacceptsthat“economic”factors(relationsof
bled his efforts to get the First International to promote workers’ production,classes,technology,etc.)haveanenormousimpacton
electoralpartiesthroughoutEurope,toruninelectionsandtryto allareasofsociallife:individualandgroupconsciousness,politics
take over existing states. This seems to me to be the opposite of andthestate,familyrelations,andreligion,art,andculture.Class
therevolutionary-libertarianmeaningoftheParisCommune.Sev- structureandproductiveprocessesinteractwithallotherareas,in-
eral times Marx and Engels said that it was possible for current fluencing and being influenced by them. But he rejects (rightfully
states (of England, the US, or France) to be peacefully and legally inmyopinion)thenotionthat“economic”factorsaretheonlyim-
takenoverbytheworkersthroughelections(althoughtheysome- portantfactors,andthesoledeterminant(eveninthelongrun)of
timesmodifiedthisbysayingthatthebourgeoisiewouldprobably everythingelse.
respond with a violent attempt at counterrevolution). Like anar- Hedeniesthatrelationsofproductionarethe“base”ofsocietyto
chists,libertarianMarxistsgenerallyrejectelectoralstrategies. whicheverythingelseismerelythe“superstructure.”Iagreewith
RonattacksMarxandEngelsuseoftheterm“dictatorshipofthe theMarxisthistorian,EllenMeiksinsWood,“Thebase/superstruc-
proletariat”asadvocacyof“adictatorialstate”(p.286).HereImust ture metaphor has always been more trouble than it is worth….It
disagreewithRon.Marxlivedatatimewhenitwasnotuncommon has been made to bear a theoretical weight far beyond its limited
torefertothe“dictatorship”ofaparliament,orof“thepeople”or capacities…”(1995;p.49—50).
“the Democracy.” The term did not necessarily mean the tyranny
ofonepersonorofaparty.HalDraper(1986)hascheckedeachof
The Philosophy of Marxism
the12timesMarxorEngelsusedtheterm,andheconcludedthat
theymeantessentially“theruleoftheworkingclass,”neithermore
Many Marxists, especially libertarian Marxists, believe that the
norless.Theydidnotmeananyspecific(despotic)formofstate.In
solution to Marxism’s totalitarian tendencies is to return to the
factMarxraisedtheideaofthe“dictatorship”(rule)ofawholeclass
Hegelian roots of Marx’s thought. Ron fundamentally disagrees.
preciselyinoppositiontotheBlanquists’goalofadictatorshipby
He sees Hegelian philosophy as a major cause of Marxist totali-
theirminorityrevolutionaryparty.
tarianism.Herejectswhathascometobecalledthephilosophyof
However,astimewenton,theoriginaltermchangeditsmeaning
“dialecticalmaterialism”(orthe“materialistdialectic”).
(eventhoughEngelshadspecificallytiedthetermtotheradically-
democraticParisCommune).Ifnotaone-partydictatorship,Marx
10 15