Sunday, June 28, 2009

Revisiting the Steiner and Brenner polemics

I would like to revisit the Steiner and Brenner polemics once again. The issues they raise are of critical importance to the socialist movement.

While it is known among Marxists that the socialist revolution is necessary, that it represents the solution to the objective contradictions of capitalism, this does not mean that the socialist revolution is inevitable. The 20th century provides many examples of revolutionary situations that failed to result in the dictatorship of the proletariat. In Russia, it was only through the Bolsheviks that workers were able to secure power after the failed revolution of 1905, and the February revolution of 1917 which resulted in a government of shared power with the liberal bourgeoisie. The case of Russia proves Marx’s theory of socialist revolution, but it also shows that leadership is decisive.

The International Committee is a descendant of Trotsky’s Fourth International with Socialist Equality Party (SEP) sections in the US, Canada, Europe, Australia, and Sri Lanka. Due to its historical legacy it is arguably the most relevant of the Trotskyist and Marxist parties, even given its minimal political influence today. Historically Trotskyism represented the continuity of the socialist movement after the Stalinist domination of the Third International represented by reactionary Communist parties in various countries.

While the members of IC and SEP invoke this heritage occasionally, the SEP has traveled very far from the traditions of Trotskyism and Bolshevism. This can be confusing to members of the SEP, because on superficial appearances they are doing everything right. They continually publish articles of analysis and criticism, issue orthodox sounding statements, give lectures on history and economics; they show up to picket lines and strikes and talk to workers. What is the problem exactly? The problem is that these activities are not revolutionary unless they are imbued with revolutionary content. In all these activities the SEP adopts a contemplative stance, that of contemplating the situation instead of working to change it.

Of course the objective situation needs to be accurately contemplated in order to change it, but to adopt a contemplative stance is to look at the situation one-sidedly, to see it as a finished product, as the inevitable result of blind ‘objective forces’. A revolutionary looks at the objective situation and sees something quite different; he sees social reality as living, as contradictory, as full of different possible outcomes. He understands the difference that a revolutionary party can make in changing that situation, in realizing the different potentialities that objectively exist.

While this should seem like common knowledge to socialists, it is not. The Steiner and Brenner polemics arose from what both see as objectivist and abstensionist tendencies within the SEP. Both worked with the party writing for the WSWS primary on philosophical issues. Both became concerned by the party’s increasingly contemplative mode and its neglect of theoretical issues. The result was two documents; Brenner’s “To Know a Thing Is to Know its End”[1], and Steiner’s “The Dialectical Path of Cognition and Revolutionary Practice.”[2]

Brenner’s document argues for programmatic clarity and a renewal of socialist idealism, the visionary aspect that was common to all great socialist movements. Steiner’s document warns of the consequences of neglecting Marxist dialectics and concludes with an analysis of the political trajectory of the IC/SEP.

After three years of waiting for a response from North and SEP, after empty promises were made by North to include Steiner and Brenner in an internal discussion of the issues, Steiner and Brenner finally decided to make the documents available on their web site, and wrote a summary of the issues raised in a letter of protest entitled “Objectivism or Marxism.”[3]

At that point North felt compelled to respond, but not on the account of theoretical clarity, instead North brushes aside the issues, his aim is to distract members of the SEP from content of their polemics. The result was “Marxism, History, and Socialist Consciousness.”[4]

Throughout the book North adopts the methods of a demagogue, appealing to the prejudice and ignorance of his audience. For example, a passing reference to the Wilhelm Reich in Brenner’s document receives 16 pages from North all devoted to discrediting Reich and by implication anyone who would choose to quote him, even in passing. In actual fact, Reich is contradictory figure who did valuable work while he was associated with the Communist Party in Germany, but underwent a degeneration after a number of unfavorable circumstances[5].

The bulk of Steiner’s material is simply ignored. North complains about the lack of analysis of the IC’s political line when in fact Steiner devoted 13 pages to such an analysis in the section “Where is the International Committee Going?” North pretends as if Steiner’s document didn’t exist. In the cases where North actually addresses the material of Steiner and Brenner, his manner of presentation is highly distorted, in effect he accuses Steiner and Brenner of trying to resurrect the conceptions of utopian socialism, completely missing the substance of Brenner’s arguments.

On the whole I think North has been successful in his attempt to obscure the issues, at least within the narrow confines of his party. However, it is apparent that North still feels threatened by the criticisms of Steiner and Brenner. Almost a year after the publication of “Marxism Without it Head or its Heart,”[6] Steiner and Brenner’s follow up response, North felt compelled to write “The Frankfurt vs. Marxism.”[7] Here North takes his dishonest and false methods a step further, ignoring entirely the contents of “Marxism Without its Head or its Heart.” Instead he attempts to discredit Alex Steiner in a series of personal attacks. Again feeling this is not enough, he enlists the help of Chris and Ann Talbot [8], and a relatively unknown writer on the WSWS, Adam Haig[9], to attack in much the same fashion.

These later documents by North and company deserve a careful reply, at least to correct the record and further expose the political and theoretical degeneration of North and the SEP. I may comment on these documents in the future, but in the mean time I would like to bring to light some of the more important theoretical issues raised in the Steiner and Brenner polemics.

Dialectics as a guide to revolutionary practice

Marx considers the development of economic production to be the motor force in historical change. The mode of production determines the way of life for the members of society, and corresponding to this way of life, various forms of social consciousness emerge.[10] Hence society has both a material component and an ideal component. Within the economic base of society these components are tightly coupled.[11] Here, the ideal component consists of social forms of thought shared collectively and needed by those involved in the material production of society. The forces of production, the real existing factories, raw materials, machines, workers, are immediately cognized as such. However, in the case of the relations of production, the social forms of organization involved in production, their true nature is often concealed in its ideal reflection.[12]

The work of Marx’s three volumes of Capital is primarily to theoretically investigate the social relations corresponding to the capitalist mode of production, to show their origin and development, to uncover their social content, and to discover and explain their laws.

In course of society’s development, as the forces of production advance materially, the relations of production become a fetter on the advancement of society. Where there was once harmony between the productive forces and relations of production, there is now conflict. The relations of production can be said to be contradictory, they are accepted in so far as they necessary for the continuation for society, but they are also rejected in so far as they are recognized as a hindrance to the functioning of society. In the place of the old relations, new relations emerge that correspond with the higher stage of material development. This is the essence of Marx’s conception of societal development. Marx’s employs the dialectical method to show the temporary, self-contradictory nature of capitalist relations, to show the inevitability of economic crises, and hence, to show the objective necessity of socialism.

For Marxist revolutionaries an analysis of the economic base and its reflection in consciousness of masses of people is the starting point for the practical intervention of the party. In practice most of the social forms we encounter today were analyzed in detail by Marx. In this sense Marx has made things easy for us. But even to employ to Marx’s analysis demands a careful study of the objective situation, and in some cases new forms must be analyzed.

In the case of the Russian revolution in 1905, it was only Trotsky among the Social Democrats who foresaw the leading role of the working class.[13] Plekanov formulated a schematic conception of development through stages. This assumed that Russia would develop in isolation, and missed out on the implications of the introduction of foreign capital and the introduction of large scale capitalism which occurred at the turn of the century. Plekanov thought that the working class must support a revolution of the liberal bourgeoisie, and that Russia must endure a period of capitalist development to ensure a sufficient material base for the proletariat revolution. Lenin too, at the time, thought the coming revolution would be bourgeois in character, but at least recognized that one the main tasks of revolution would be land reform and recognized important role of the peasantry.

In the case of the SEP, the lack of training in Marxist dialectics is apparent. For all their talk about the study of objective conditions, when situations arise that demand a revolutionary party to define the independent standpoint of the working class, to put forward a perspective, to put forward a program of action, the SEP is left helpless.[14] Social reality is treated as a finished product, there is no assessment of the revolutionary potentialities existing within the working class, or how a revolutionary party could possibly intervene to change the objective situation.[15] For the SEP, the study of the objective situation as a finished product becomes an end in itself; it is a practice which is in essence contemplative and not revolutionary.

Mass psychology and the development of socialist consciousness

An important consequence of the fact that the social relations are in part embodied in thought is that the maintenance of those relations depends on their collective acceptance by those involved production insofar as other modes of production are possible (e.g. socialist production). The bourgeoisie is very conscious of this fact, perhaps more so than any other ruling class, and its methods are of corresponding sophistication. Of course, the bourgeoisie is not above using force or the threat of violence to maintain its rule but on whole it found methods of persuasion to more be effective. Thus, the bourgeois expends a great deal of resources in media and other forms of ideology to convince society as a whole that the capitalist mode of production is the only form that can satisfy its needs and desires. Marx was conscious of this fact too when he wrote German ideology, Marx writes: “The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance.”[16]

It should be clear therefore that the study of class psychology is very much part of the work of Marxist revolutionaries. What is the appeal of the ruling class ideology for the working class? How does it help cement the capitalist relations of production even in spite of very powerful objective contradictions? On what basis should socialists make an appeal? How does socialist consciousness arise within the working class?

It is true, as Steiner and Brenner point out, that Marx and Engels did not spend very much time on these questions, but they clearly understood the importance of conceptions of a socialist future and programmatic demands, as can be seen in the Communist Manifesto and Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme.

The work of Lenin and Trotsky represented an advance in the understanding of how to develop socialist consciousness within the working class. In “What is to be done?,” Lenin formulated the concept of political exposures to connect with the consciousness of the workers, to help them see life from a Social Democratic view point. Trotsky’s The History of the Russian Revolution is a rich source of material on relationship between the party and the masses, and demonstrates a masterful understanding of class psychology on the part of Lenin and Trotsky. Trotsky explains, that: “What distinguished Bolshevism was that it subordinated the subjective goal, the defense of the interests of the popular masses, to the laws of revolution as an objectively conditioned process.”[17] Trotsky also explains that: “The toilers are guided their struggle not only by their demands, not only by their needs, but by their life experiences. Bolshevism had absolutely no taint of any aristocratic scorn for the independent experience of the masses. On the contrary, the Bolsheviks took this for their point of departure and built upon it. That was one of their great points of superiority.”

A further refinement in Trotsky’s conception of the development of socialist consciousness came with the development the Transitional Program.[18] A transitional program is a system of demands intended to bridge the gap between the present consciousness of workers and that of socialist consciousness. The transitional program replaces the minimum and maximum of program of the Second International; it is a bridge between the demands for minimal reforms under capitalism and the demand for the complete overthrow of capitalism. To employ such a program necessarily requires an understanding of class psychology, an understanding of the experiences, needs and desires of workers, and above all a real engagement with the working class and its struggles. In short, the employment of a transitional program requires both an understanding of what the working class will fight for and socialists who are willing to lead that fight.

To the extent the SEP addresses the problem of socialist consciousness it is in the publication of political exposures on the WSWS. The SEP has cataloged a great deal of the problems and inadequacies of the capitalist system. Indeed, someone reading the WSWS daily could quite well become disgusted with the capitalist system and see the need for change. The problem is that such political exposures are only meaningful in so far as they are followed up by a realistic course of action. Inevitably, the energy generated by such articles, the outrage felt, is dissipated or channeled into reformist avenues. Of course, the party can garner a small number of recruits on the basis of such activity, but unless those recruits are satisfied with a purely contemplative existence they will not last long within the party.

Utopia or the concept of a socialist future

What Steiner and Brenner are referring to by ‘utopia’ is the concept of a socialist future. ‘Utopia’ has the double meaning of both “a good place” and “no place”. While they have emphasized the former meaning of term and have connected it with the visionary aspect of the Utopian socialists, it could be argued that the term is inadequate given its double meaning and the common understanding of the term as some thought or conception that is unrealizable. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels explain that Utopian socialism arose at a time when class antagonisms were just beginning to appear and the material conditions were not yet ripe for the realization of socialism. They acknowledge the Utopians as their predecessors, but are apt to point out the Utopians theoretical limitations. The difference between scientific socialism and Utopian socialism is primarily one of means and not ends. In any case, no one is arguing for a return to the theoretical conceptions of the Utopian socialists so most of North’s material on the subject is beside the point.

Terminological issues aside, the question remains what role does the conception of socialist society play in the political work of socialists?

Firstly, it should be noted that every socialist has a concept of a socialist future whether or not they acknowledge it. In a party that suppresses socialist idealism, that condemns such thinking as “utopianism,” that refuses to adopt a program or specify what socialists would do upon taking power, that concept of a socialist future will necessarily acquire an abstract and formless quality. Without a clear plan for the socialist reconstruction of society, such a party can not be taken seriously and, deep down; members of such a party can not take the work of the party seriously either.

Another consequence, as Brenner notes, without a clear concept of what socialists would do, one acquires a “vision by default,” a view of the problems and solutions of society inherited from the Greens other would be capitalist reformers, instead of a distinctly Marxist view. From the perspective of socialism, the capitalist system is in need of a complete overhaul. Everything from transportation to health care, the work place, environmental problems, education and the raising of children needs to be rethought as an integrated whole. No one is going to think through these problems for us, it is up to socialists to put forward a realistic alternative. Therefore, the concept of a socialist future, the working out of a conscious plan for the socialist reconstruction of society is indispensable to a revolutionary party.

Brenner also raises the importance of a socialist concept in connection with the present state of bourgeois ideology today which conflates socialism and communism with the crimes of Stalinism, and does every thing in its power to suggest that “There Is No Alternative” to the domination of capitalism. Therefore, the emphasis placed on the socialist concept as propaganda is a direct response to the specific problems of this epoch, it is not a once and for all answer to the problem of socialist consciousness nor does it deny the role of economic circumstances in providing an objective impulse to the development of socialist consciousness.

The response by North and the SEP is contradictory. On one level, they recognize the necessity of a program and programmatic demands, but the party itself does not have program as permanent fixture of the party. Demands are made in a makeshift fashion in response to this or that election, this or that news story, and as Steiner pointed out the demands tend to blur the distinction between revolutionary socialism and liberalism.[19] Furthermore, there is a reluctance to spell out what socialism means for everyday life, this is shown in Beams timid response to questions about life under socialism.

Marx and Engels did not have the same reluctance as the SEP in spelling out what a socialist future means. In “The Principles of Communism,”[20] Engels writes clearly on measures that socialists would take upon taking power, the implications of the abolition of private property, and the obsolescence of the bourgeois family form. This document as well as Communist Manifesto refutes the view of North, that Marx and Engels’s rejected the visionary aspect of the utopian socialists.

What accounts for this reluctance to spell out the conception of a socialist future? A clue to this reluctance is contained in the discussion of “socialists and the masses.”[21] Due to their own isolation from the working class over a period of decades, Beams and North conceive of socialists as some alien power standing above workers instead of socialists as the most conscious section of the working class, its political vanguard.

Conclusion

I hope I have brought to light some of the main issues contained in the Steiner and Brenner polemics. Of course, I did not intend for this summary to be replacement for their material. They respond to North comprehensively, which I can’t do here given the nature of writing a summary.

It is amazing to me that North can maintain that Steiner and Brenner are undertaking a “campaign to infiltrate the disoriented anti-Marxist pseudo-utopianism of Wilhelm, Ernst Bloch and Herbert Marcuse into The Fourth International.” It is even more amazing that the bulk of the party can accept such a conception. Opportunism is clearly at work here, both within the leadership and those aspiring to leadership positions. This is not to say that the whole party consists of opportunists, but who in the party has the theoretical knowledge or will to challenge North, who is the defacto theoretical leader of the group?

I have few illusions about the possibility for a reorientation of the IC/SEP, in any case, these polemics have a broader significance. Any revolutionary party that emerges, whether it comes from the IC or elsewhere will have be grounded in the principles of Marxism, and will have learn the main lessons of Bolshevism and Trotskyism.




[1] Frank Brenner, “To Know a Thing is To Know its End: On Why Utopia is Crucial to a Revival of Socialist Consciousness,” May, 2003, http://www.permanent-revolution.org/polemics/to_know.pdf

[2] Alex Steiner, “The Dialectical Path of Cognition and Revolutionizing Practice,” March, 2004, http://www.permanent-revolution.org/polemics/dialectical_path.pdf

[3] Alex Steiner and Frank Brenner, “Objectivism or Marxism,”  May, 2006, http://www.permanent-revolution.org/polemics/objectivism_marxism.pdf

[4] David North, “Marxism, History and Socialist Consciousness: A Reply by David North to Alex Steiner and Frank Brenner,” June, 2006, http://www.permanent-revolution.org/polemics/mhsc.pdf

[5] For a more balanced view of Reich, see “Marxism Without its Head or its Heart,” Chapter 10, “Marxism and Mass Psychology,” http://www.permanent-revolution.org/polemics/mwhh_ch10.pdf

[6] Alex Steiner and Frank Brenner, “Marxism Without its Head or its Heart,” September, 2007, http://www.permanent-revolution.org/polemics/mwhh_ch01.pdf

[7] David North, “The Frankfurt School vs. Marxism: The Political and Intellectual Odyssey of Alex Steiner,” http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/fran-o22.shtml

[8] Ann Talbot and Chris Talbot, “Marxism and Science: An addendum to “The Frankfurt School vs. Marxism”,” http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/scie-o28.shtml

[9] Adam Haig, “Steiner, Brenner and Neo-Marxism: The Marcusean Component,” http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/bren-j02.shtml

[10] It should be noted however, contrary to those that hold a mechanical viewpoint, that the relationship between social being and social consciousness is not simply a one way street, with particular conditions always producing the same consciousness in different individuals. Marx himself considered conscious thought a reflex, and in his own case the results were quite individual and unique in comparison with his peers.

[11] Marx wrote: “In the succession of the economic categories, as in any other historical, social science, it must not be forgotten that their subject – here, modern bourgeois society – is always what is given, in the head as well as in reality, and that these categories therefore express the forms of being, the characteristics of existence, and often only individual sides of this specific society, this subject, and that therefore this society by no means begins only at the point where one can speak of it as such; this holds for science as well.”, “(3) The Method of Political Economy,” Grundrisse, http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#3

[12] See Marx’s discussion in Chapter 1, Section 4 of Capital, “The Fetishism of Commodities,” http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S4

[13] For an excellent analysis of the situation in Russia, see Trotsky’s “Results and Prospects,” http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/rp-index.htm

[14] In the case of the Iraq war, the situation was far worse, here the WSWS championed the bourgeois nationalist movement led by Sadr, see Marxism Without its Head or its Heart, Chapter 2, “The WSWS as a Left Apologist for Bourgeois Nationalism in Iraq,” http://www.permanent-revolution.org/polemics/mwhh_ch02.pdf

[15] See Marxism Without its Head or its Heart, Chapter 1, “Latin America: A Case Study in Objectivist Theory and Abstentionist Practice,” http://www.permanent-revolution.org/polemics/mwhh_ch01.pdf

[16] Marx and Engels, The German Ideology, Chapter 1B, “The Ruling Class and Ruling Ideas,” http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm#b3

[17] Leon Trotsky, “The History of the Russian Revolution”, Volume 2, Chapter 36: “The Bolsheviks and the Soviets,” http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch36.htm

[18] Leon Trotsky, “The Transitional Program: The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International”, http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/index.htm

[19] See “Where is the International Committee going?” from “The Dialectical Path of Cognition and Revolutionary Practice”

[20] Frederic Engels, The Principles of Communism, http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

[21] See “Chapter 8: Objectivism and Socialist Consciousness – Part 2” from “Marxism Without its Head or its Heart”, http://www.permanent-revolution.org/polemics/mwhh_ch08.pdf

13 comments:

Thomas Cain said...

Dear Mark,

I've been following you blog for quite some time now. I hope someday to call myself a true Marxist, but I am too confused on Marx's dialectics and the history of the Russian Revolution to understand the moral implications of revolutionary violence. Specifically, I mean the Red Terror. Every time I ask the WSWS about it, I am ignored (except by David Walsh), or turned away. How can I understand this chapter of human history, and finally progress in solidifying my political perspective once and for all? I guess in a reductionist sense, I'd like to be able to mentally refute all negative reviews of Marxist and Trotskyist literature on Amazon.com. But seriously, I hope this reaches you well.

Thanks,
T. Cain

Mark said...

Dear Thomas,

Thanks for your comment. Trotsky has dealt with the subject of the Red Terror in various writings, for example, Chapter 4 of "Terrorism and Communism." I would recommend starting with Trotsky, since he is the most consistent defender of the Russian Revolution against its opponents. This should provide a basis for refuting many of the common arguments supplied by bourgeois ideologists. If you have any specific questions we can continue the discussion from there.

Best,
Mark

Thomas Cain said...

Dear Mark,

Thank you again for your quick response to my misguidance regarding Marxism, and supplying a link to the proper text.

I know it has been a while, but I return seeking more guidance. Out of all Trotsky's works that I've read (barely making a dent in the process) I believe that I have come to realize the ultimate hurdle toward a solid theoretical founding: Theory, or dialectic.

I first realized the deficiency after I read Trotsky's criticism of Max Eastman via "In Defense of Marxism". For Eastman to dispense of dialectic, indeed, seemed to have left him open to petty-bourgeois influence, marking the first signs of his political degeneration. I do not want to make the same mistake.

I apologize for troubling you with my intellectual misunderstandings. I only wish to be considered, in the end, a reliable advocate of the proleterian revolution.

Thanks,
T. Cain

Mark said...

Dear Thomas,

No apology is necessary. With regard to Marxist theory, there is no easy path. Some aspects, especially dialectics, suffer from mystification. I think this was what Eastman, Burnham and others were rebelling against. I did not understand Trotsky's argument at first, but I now see that their rejection of dialectics could only lead to a rejection of Marxism, and hence revolutionary socialism. This is because Marx's conception of societal development is inseparable from the dialectical methodology. Likewise, the consistent application of this method has decisive practical consequences for socialist politics.

Unfortunately, I think Trostky left some major gaps in his explanation of dialectics. My attempt to resolve this question of what dialectics is and how it is applied is what led to my expulsion from the SEP. I think Trotsky's warning is just as applicable here. Their neglect and actual refusal to examine dialectics, or the core of the science of Marxism, signals their departure from revolutionary politics.

Short of having available an easy handbook for you study, I would suggest the best place for a serious study of dialectics is reading Marx's Capital. I can think of no better way of studying dialectics then to approach logical structure of society as Marx does in Capital. Feel free to write here with any questions you have, I would like this blog to be forum for questions surrounding Marxist theory.

Best regards,
Mark

Thomas Cain said...

Dear Mark,

Thanks again for your prompt reply. Though I am well aware that Marx's Capital is available online, I despise reading computer screens, and possessing entire works in volume installments even more. Is there a copy of Capital that is comprised in one tome as opposed to three?

On a more serious matter:
As I've researched the Fourth International's apparent decline, I've immediately thought of the possibility of a Fifth International, with a heavy focus on dialectic and revolutionary politics. Of course, I am willing to concede that such thoughts are wholly premature. It only seems that there is little room to move forward without a dissenting party to oppose the SEP's current petty-bourgeois leaning.

A further thought. I have read Trotsky's views on Black Nationalism and Self-Determination, but I am unclear as to Trotsky's basic attitude to pursue the Black question, other than that he agreed that it needed to be addressed. What would the difference be between black workers making their own home, and Israel's creation? The only difference I can find is that the revolutionary party would be assisting instead of British imperialism.

Thanks,
T. Cain

Mark said...

Thomas,

I am not aware of an edition of Capital that includes all three volumes.

I agree about the need for new political formations. Presently we have deteriorating economic and social conditions and signs of opposition within the working class, but the socialist impulse does not find its expression in any current political formation. What is it implied by the material of WSWS, is that they are not going to play any leading role. Their political statements mostly take form of warnings issued to the working class. But how can the working class act except through a political organization? A vanguard party, if it is to have any meaning, must have a real connection to the working class.

I have read the exchanges between Trotsky and members of the American SWP. For reference, this is the material I have read:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1940/negro1.htm

I think Trotsky's position was if anything tentative. It appears that Trotsky did not fully appreciate the degree to which black workers had been assimilated into American society. For example, Trotsky conjectures that blacks in South have their own language. In other parts he talks about the irreconcilable racism of the white workers. Toward the end of discussion it appears that Trotsky has weakened his position to support for 'self-determination' only to extent that black workers want their own separate state. In any case, whatever credibility Trotsky's argument had at this time, it certainly has none today.

Mark said...

I don't want to oversimplify the issue of the need for new political organizations. The decline of the fourth international is a major obstacle, to extent people still identify it as a Marxist organization. But even if today we to start a new party, one which took dialectics and revolutionary socialism seriously, we would face major challenges. For masses the people socialism still means the system of soviet union, with all the negative connotations that go along with it. Some people will still be attracted to this as system better than our own, and see the positive attributes that were part of the soviet system. And indeed, there were benefits that came with public ownership, but overall the issue is divisive. In either case, what is involved here is a false conception of what socialism means.

The Steiner/Brenner polemic began with this problem of the revival of socialist consciousness, which represents the conscious striving toward socialism as a great ideal by masses of people. The development of socialist consciousness is inseparable from movement toward socialism. It is not enough for people to be simply dissatisfied with the way things are. This dissatisfaction and the search for alternatives can be frustrated or pacified in innumerable ways, or it can be channeled into reformist avenues.

Aside from overtly political work, or political activism, what is needed at present are popularizations of Marxist and socialist ideas, and also of the further development of Marxism. Through much of its early history, Marxism attracted the brightest and most original thinkers of its time who contributed both to its theoretical development and popularization. This not so today. Both the academic and so called 'orthordox' Marxism are sterile varieties, with the SEP version of orthodoxy being representative of the thinking of Second international.

I can think of many works that could written. The materialist dialectic of Marx is most certainty one subject that demands popularization. It is a real shame that this knowledge almost closed off only to a few specialists. And even here, the specialists disagree, you can read countless books and articles about such disagreements. I really don't think the matter is that complicated, it is just poorly understood with too many misunderstandings retained by Marxists over generations.

We also need conceptions of what socialism will be like, to capture the imagination of workers and youth in order for them to make socialism a reality. Contrary to the thinking the SEP, socialism is not a utopia, it is a concrete and possible reality. Its main features can be known in advance, as they represent the most logical and humane solution to contradictions inherent in the capitalist social relations.

Contrast this approach with that of the SEP/IC, whose World Socialist Web Site functions mostly as a leftist wire service. They denounce all attempts to conceive of a future socialist society as utopianism. This not only reveals their conception of socialism to be nothing more than a propaganda term, but also shows the extent of their attachment to capitalist order. Their conception of socialist consciousness, is that of accurately contemplating the world and events, in other words it is the transformation of Marxism from a revolutionary doctrine into a contemplative positivist science.

Thomas Cain said...

I believe I agree with your conclusion, that the root of the problem involves a misunderstanding of socialism's meaning. Certainly, starting a party even now would likely be fruitless, due to the International Committee constantly posturing as the defender of Trotskyism. They'd likely denounce any misgivings beyond Steiner and Brenner as the Frankfurt School's Manchurian Candidate.

As for what socialism would be like, popularization of Trotsky's writings on the October revolution might serve to bridge the gap, since beyond his exile he wrote largely about how to 'not' bring about international socialism, using Stalin's bureaucracy as the control group.

As to the misunderstandings of dialectic that have been left unaddressed over the years, I can't understand why they're even still around. Could it be that resolving these contradictions are key to a true successor to Trotskyism? Mind you, I'm merely thinking aloud.

I think a solution, at least in the short term, is to correct the myths that have been allowed to run rampant, namely that of China.

I believe it's clear to the masses that China was never really socialist (at least here at my school), or at least not now. A republication of Harold Isaacs' 'Tragedy of the Chinese Revolution' would do wonders for the population looking to understand the bankruptcy of the Chinese state and eventually that of Maoism and Stalinism's own crimes.

Perhaps exceeding even that subject is a Marxist understanding of the Second World War, specifically the Nazi holocaust. So many myths, so little time....

-T. Cain

Mark said...

I do think that historical clarification is an important aspect of the development of socialist consciousness, especially in regard to the Soviet Union and China. Though I would not go so far as to say that the misunderstanding socialism is root of the problem concerning the development of socialist consciousness. You have to consider in a country like the US, that it held a dominant economic position within the world economy and generally offered a higher standard of living. This fact helps to understand the anti-communist orientation within the large labor unions.

Today in the US their can be no alliance between capital labor. Globalization is helping to level wage standards between different countries. I think that is what you see recent union contracts is the gutting of any privilege that had previously been obtained by the American worker. With this leveling you have the growth of class antagonisms to a greater extent than existed. Meanwhile in the political sphere politicians are clearly doing very little help the situation of American workers, while at same time they have gone to extraordinary lengths to help the large corporations, banks, and wall street. These conditions will most certainly prompt political change. Many had believed, and many still do, the Obama was to bring about the necessary changes. The American political system has functioned very well in frustrating the growth of political alternatives, and diverting popular will. Nevertheless, I do believe alternatives will emerge, the natural alternative being, of course, of the reformist variety.

This why I agree with the emphasis that Steiner and Brenner have placed on the revival of socialist culture as preparation for the movement toward socialism. The promotion of Marxist and socialist ideas is very important in this regard. The attempts by, for example, David Walsh, to engage readers on cultural questions may be done in earnest, but very rarely in this body of film commentary do the ideas of socialism come into play. We have to engage workers directly with the ideas of Marxist and socialist theory. Modern versions of Engels's nice pamphlet, "The Principles of Communism", would be very helpful in this regard. If you haven't read this, I would recommend it.

Thomas Cain said...

Dear Mark,

I'm sorry that I haven't posted in a while. Much has happened, lessons may have been learned. Conclusions regarding Marxism have come to me. I'm still trying to work these out, mainly by trying to incorporate historical materialism into my writing, and to deal an intellectual deathblow to the bourgeois conception of history.

In order to do this, I feel very strongly that a Marxist history of the Nazi holocaust must be written. By myself, if necessary. I want to start gathering information, but I don't have a clear idea of where to start. Can you recommend some literature to start me off?

Please tell me if you believe that I'm following a red herring. Either way, I am determined to be of use to socialist internationalism.

Mark said...

Thomas,

MIA has a whole section dealing with this issue and other related issues, I would suggest that it is a good place to start.

http://www.marxists.org/subject/jewish/index.htm

In particular, a friend recommended to me the article of Abram Leon as a comprehensive statement from the perspective of classical Marxism. I myself, have not had a chance to read it, but it should be of use to you whether your intention is to gain a better understanding of the Holocaust, or develop a Marxist approach to this issue.

Thomas Cain said...

Dear Mark,

I have been experiencing doubt as to my findings on the Nazi holocaust, perhaps even the entire base of my Marxism.

I was accused by a friend a while back of being a dilettante after I criticized Obama. Since I have no firsthand experiences with the proletariat and receive my information from secondary sources (Marx, Trotsky Guerin, WSWS), I am not credible by default. Apparently I am already compromised from the outset I make my argument.

To be sure, these arguments have shaken me to my roots. I cannot seem to argue against them. It is true that I have very little political experience. I have no friends from the oppressed classes, and friends mainly rooted in bourgeois to petty-bourgeois. I myself am of the bourgeois class. I have no firsthand experience with capitalist oppression (save some health insurance annoyances), never lived in a ghetto.

In essence, I am torn. To prove their point, I cannot find answers for these criticisms myself. Have you ever experienced this?

Mark said...

Thomas,

There is no requirement that to be socialist you must be a member of the working class, or be among the most oppressed sections of the population. Being a socialist means that you recognize that class oppression does objectively exist, and that you work toward the establishment of socialism. It doesn't matter whether you obtained the knowledge of class oppression first hand as member of the working class, or learned of this from a secondary source, as long as that source is based upon verifiable facts.

That being said, if you move beyond the stage of recognizing that class oppression exists, and work toward establishment of socialism, enevitably that will change who you associate with, and who your friends are. I don't think it is possible to really fight for socialism and at the same time maintain associations primarily with members of the petty-bourgeoisie, and bourgeoisie class. To have primarily such relations means either, you are either still at the contemplative stage, or you are fooling yourself with regard to your political work.