The Swamp logo

A Socialist Argument Against Marxist Orthodoxy

Originally published on Medium.com, March 7th, 2018.

By Johnny RingoPublished 3 years ago 9 min read
Like

For new socialists, Marxism, and its most popular schools of thought; Maoism, strict Bolshevik-Leninist (Trotskyist), and Marxist-Leninist (Stalinist) arguments are among the least accessible, most difficult to understand ideas in socialist and communist thought. This may be why Trotskyists, Stalinists, and other Marxists in general are considered, or perhaps consider themselves, to be the most intelligent, crème de la crème of socialism. Is this perception valid? Largely, this is debatable. The most frustrating aspect of this school of thought for new, young socialists, those just starting out in their socialist thought after leaving neoliberalism, is the inaccessible, ivory tower reputation of orthodox Marxism. Orthodox Marxists of all stripes may view this as an unfair criticism, or an inaccurate analysis, but it pays off to maintain perspective regarding the new socialists, to have an eye for the new “recruits” to socialism, in an effort to grow socialist thought in the United States and elsewhere.

When one enters socialist thought, a great deal is said about “materialism”, specifically historical materialism, and dialectical materialism. This is not an analysis of those ideas, indeed those ideas have their benefits and are not necessarily “incorrect” in a way, but they say much of the arguments often used by Marxists to justify their materialist analysis, and it is in the opinion of this author that to focus solely on the materialist conditions of the state is philosophically lacking. Marxists would have all of us understand that the idea of communism is to liberate labor from capital. Society is divided into two classes, proletariat and bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie own private property and capital, doing little to no work, whereas the proletariat working class is forced to work themselves as hard as the bourgeoisie demand, having no control of industrial means of production. The commodification of labor and the privatization of property maintains the means of production under private control, rendering the proletariat unable to liberate themselves or take control of the means of production.

Such is immoral, unacceptable, and by definition, socialism is about the liberation of the proletariat from the oppression of the bourgeoisie, and that in order to free ourselves, we must wrest the means of production from the bourgeoisie, separate them from their capital wealth, and destroy their oppression of the workers. Socialists of all stripes by definition understand and agree with this, but where the Marxists differ from other socialists is that while other socialists may incorporate other philosophies and schools of thought, a Marxist prescribes only materialism as the sole philosophical thought necessary, or required. This can lead many Marxists to be hostile to other schools of thought. Humanism, existentialism, ethics, epistemology; none of these are necessary to a Marxist, and thus it could be argued, unnecessary to study, leading Marxists to discard them, and prescribe that others discard them as well. This ignores the fact that such philosophies can be vital to our understanding of ourselves, our identities, the world around us, our place in that world, our relationship to the state, to our labor. Why would a Marxist have us ignore all of this, in favor of one view and one only?

This author is of the mind that when one has only a hammer, then everything starts to look like a nail. A socialist coming to politics from a humanist, or any other philosophical background is not at a disadvantage to understanding materialism, and in fact having a background in philosophy can enable one to better understand materialism, and other philosophies. But not if one’s perspective on philosophy is approached narrow-mindedly, and dogmatically. Why discard thousands of other tools in favor of one’s favorite? Is this not limiting? This is the conflict between ivory tower Marxists, and the rest of us; from the Marxist perspective they are privy to an understanding, a truth, which they seek to impart onto all of us. From the outside perspective, this seems dogmatic, even religious. How can it be that they, and they alone, are the ones who truly understand socialism above all others, and that by the writings of Marx, Hegel, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Trotsky, they alone hold the key to proletariat revolution? Is this true? From a “materialist” analysis of history and historical socialist and communist states and their parties and regimes, a Marxist would argue yes, but in reality this is only to a certain extent. An overwhelming number of socialist and communist states that have sprung up in history have been of this orthodox Marxist, usually Marxist-Leninist, variety.

But does this mean that Marxism, or Marxist-Leninism specifically, are the only viable philosophies? Of course not. Not only have left wing anarchist states revolted as well, they too have their own philosophers worthy of study, consideration and understanding. Where the Marxist has Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Trotsky, and others, the anarchist has Goldman, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Bookchin, Luxemburg in the middle between them all, and others as well. Is one view of socialism correct? Philosophically, this author feels compelled to make an argument against dogmatism of any kind, against a narrow view, and against a solely materialist view in light of its philosophical limitations. It is not that the materialist view is necessarily incorrect, in fact there is a benefit to young socialists in learning how to think and interpret history in a materialist way. But it is not the “only way”. We must confront this reality, philosophically, as critically thinking, philosophically and politically minded members of society who advocate for the liberation of workers and the destruction of capital power.

By working against a singular view of philosophy, we can incorporate other ideas, continue to grow socialism, attract new thinkers to our ideas, and become politically viable though the growth of socialist numbers in the most powerful of societies. To remain shackled to the limitations of one view, and only one view, will destroy us. And yet, this is exactly what Marxists advocate. Many of us advocate for socialism under the auspices of liberating the individual worker, and thus all workers, from economic oppression. But there is no room for the individual in Marxism. Marxists often believe that the social and economic are inseparable, that to advocate for individualism is either unacceptably fascist, or anarchist in nature, or perhaps the Marxist’s favorite slur: liberal. Why? Because Marxists often believe that to advocate for the individual in any way is to ignore or deny the needs of the collective, to throw the collective to the wayside, and that one cannot separate from society, that to do so is to ignore the materialist relationship between the state and its economic realities.

The Marxist ends up, even from their own arguments and analysis, far more interested in the state than the worker. This may explain why the entirety of Marxist-Leninist states in history have focused on wresting capital from capitalists, growing the wealth and power of the state and party to unimaginable heights. North Korea is a complete military junta, and the Communist Party of China is busy imprisoning and stripping the wealth of the capitalists, nationalizing as much industry as possible. The latter this author theoretically has no problem with, but the former? Very much so. The Communist Party of China has promised socialism by 2030, but it seems counter to everything they have done to get where they are. Imagine for a moment that it is the eve of January 1st, 2030, and the Communist Party controls 100% of industry, wealth and power in the Chinese state. Will the Party simply hand over everything it has been building to the workers? It must in order to bring socialism, but in reality this does not seem likely, and that is the problem.

A worker’s state must become a reality. If the Chinese communists do not hand over the state to the workers, then the opportunity to grow socialism by having a truly socialist state swings the other way, into yet another totalitarian state where the Party, and its leader, are supreme. Already the Chinese Communist Party supplants and replaces any God, and from the material reality of the Communist Party’s war on Christianity in rural China, its banning of certain ideas, censorship of the internet, the suppression of hip-hop and LGBT cultures, the State and its Party is more important than the freedoms of workers. Especially considering that the workers do not own the means of production, and the Chinese Communists say that the oppressed workers will continue to not own them for another 12 years as of this writing, the prospects for “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” do not seem bright. And as is the case with so many including Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao and now Xi Jingping, the workers’ material needs, their need for freedom by the ownership and operation of the industrial means of production, are secondary to the Party and its Leader. Thus, from the material conditions of history, this author can only conclude that a Marxist state is less concerned with the workers, and more concerned with itself.

And this is where the Marxist conception of the state falls apart. It is not enough, as in the case of both North Korea and China, to call their state a worker’s state despite the workers owning and controlling none of the means of production. State control and ownership of industrial means of production is wholly insufficient; it may be Marxist, but it is not socialist. It is not enough to make the claim, ironically one must prove the fact through the material conditions of the state. If the workers do not own and control the industrial means of production, it is not socialism, and no amount of claiming it to be so will make it so. Can we attribute this to the philosophical limitations of materialism? Perhaps. Or we can simply attribute it to power, and the desperate clawing for it. Frank Herbert wrote, in Dune, that “it is not that power corrupts, merely that power is magnetic to the corruptible.” What does it say about a Marxist state that grasps for power? The Marxist state has, instead of separating the worker from desperate dependence upon capital, through the Marxist state’s oppression of the capitalist, simply taken the place of the capitalist. The Marxist State and Party are God, and instead of bringing freedom, they bring oppression colored red, where it was previously colored yellow.

This is the failure of Marxism, and the states who have failed to bring socialism in the name of Marxism. All they have brought is the concentration of power to one State, one Party, and one Leader, and this is not socialism, this is not freedom to the workers. This is not the liberation of the working class. By the time 2030 rolls around, it is very likely that the Chinese Communist Party will not bring socialism, and its endless Marxist defenders will have to come up with some excuse as to why the change is still coming. Maybe by 2050, 2500, or even the year 3000, China will bring socialism; assuming the Chinese state or the world will last that long.

WRITTEN BY

Johnny Ringo

Disabled, bisexual American socialist and political activist. Student of politics, aspiring journalist, and academic. Bachelor’s of Science in Criminal Justice.

politics
Like

About the Creator

Johnny Ringo

Disabled, bisexual American socialist and political activist. Student of politics, aspiring journalist, and academic. Bachelor’s of Science in Criminal Justice.

Reader insights

Be the first to share your insights about this piece.

How does it work?

Add your insights

Comments

There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Sign in to comment

    Find us on social media

    Miscellaneous links

    • Explore
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Support

    © 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.