[Marxism] (Why didn't Lenin) - Marxism in America and what Marx wrote

Waistline2 at aol.com Waistline2 at aol.com
Tue Jun 8 02:37:32 MDT 2004


When everyone tend to make the same error - especially in the realm of 
theoretical Marxism, one is dealing with a historical error. A historical error 
means that we have hit a material barrier in society that prevents us from 
disclosing the end result of a social process as it goes through transition and 
reconfigure itself at a qualitatively new level. 

Each stage of development of the industrial system produces it own unique 
challenges to Marxists and communists. Marx does not write about "socialist 
relations of production." Marx writes about bourgeois property relations and 
industrial relations of production. In the Soviet Union what many communists "saw" 
were "socialist relations of production" and this vision more than less 
conformed to their boundary of development of the industrial system. What these 
communists "saw" was a historical illusion that has been shattered on the basis of 
the technological revolution. What existed in the former Soviet Union was an 
industrial system, with industrial relations of production - with the property 
relations within. 

The property relations were socialist in distinction to the bourgeois 
property relation. This meant that nothing other than means of consumption could pass 
into the hands of the individual. Building socialism from the 15th Congress 
of the CPSU (B) until the 20th Congress (1956) meant building an industrial 
system without individuals owning the power of capital - means of production, or 
the bourgeois property relations. 

Marxism in America has had a very difficult time and this difficulty is 
rooted in the development of our own working class. The workers will never 
overthrow the industrial system because it is not possible. A system of production 
cannot be overthrown. What can be overthrown is the property relations. What 
brings the industrial system to an end is not a "transformation of quantity into 
quality" or the industrial system expanding thorughout the earth, but rather an 
injection of a new qualitative element into the production process. The 
industrial system is a specific configuration of human labor and electromechanical 
process sitting on a historically specific energy grid. 

Here is the historical barrier the Soviets hit - not the operation of the law 
of value. Social revolution means the revolution in the material power of 
production or the technological regime and this revolution compels society to 
leap to a new political basis. Unlike during the era of Lenin and Stalin, our 
task is the abolition of property and not changing the form of property.  The key 
resides in the evolution of the proletariat in the sense that Marx uses the 
term. By proletariat Marx does not mean "The working class" and he makes this 
clear in the Communist Manifesto. Marx use of the term proletariat means the 
lowest strata of society. He describes the entire process with the clarity of 
genius. 

The master has to be quoted. 

"The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, 
except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby 
also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own 
to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities 
for, and insurances of, individual property. 

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the 
interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, 
independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority. 
The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, 
cannot raise itself up, without the whole super incumbent strata of official 
society being sprung into the air." 

Marx cannot be any clearer: "The proletariat, the LOWEST STRATUM of our 
present society . . ." 

What by chance is the LOWEST STRATUM of our present society? 

Marx describes the process in detail and we are living it today in real time. 
Yet comrades speak in categories from a previous stage of history.  

"Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on 
the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a 
class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, 
continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised 
himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke 
of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern 
laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks 
deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He 
becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. 
And here it becomes evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the 
ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society 
as an overriding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure 
an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting 
him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by 
him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its 
existence is no longer compatible with society." 

The process Marx speaks of above began - in an absolute sense, during the 
Reagan years and was incorrectly called Reaganomics and the underclass, when in 
fact the real proletariat was being crystallized in front of our eyes.  The new 
class is the real proletarait that Marx speaks of and not the concept 
"working class" from the previous period of history. This new proletariat is 
profoundly female and every one conceives the real proletariat as either black or 
welfare bums, bitches and lumpen proletarians. 

Well, the fact of the matter is that society is slowly being compelled to 
leap to a new political basis to satisfy this real proletariat and not the 
autoworkers. This process has the bourgeoisie screaming about population control, 
sustainability, the carrying capacity of the earth, renewable energy sources 
because we have entered an era where bourgeois property will be swept from the 
face of the earth and property abolished. 

Marx continues: 

"The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, 
replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to competition, by the revolutionary 
combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, 
cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie 
produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above 
all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are 
equally inevitable."

Marxism in America has had a very hard time. "Revolutionary combination due 
to association" was articulated as meaning trade unions in America and the 
Comintern doctrine of fighting amongst the lowest strata of the proletariat was 
rejected, in favor of Populism and Anarcho syndicalism. 

The "other guys" claim that the Marxist movement in America has bounced 
between social democracy and Stalinism, when in fact the bounce has been between 
Populism and Anarcho syndicalism from day one. 

Comrade, we Marxists and communist workers were defeated in America for a 
solid 100 years the hands, as every segment of the Marxist movement claimed the 
industrial proletariat was the engine of history. Our momentary breakthroughs 
were on the basis of the African American peoples movement, which caused a 
reawakening to revolutionary Marxism. 

Today, we can take the anarcho-syndicalist to the mat. Not because of 
theoretical brilliance but because the industrial sector has been and is being 
transformed and the dirty lie of Marxism in America is open for the world to see. 
The fact of our history is that the industrial classes and the industrial 
working class in the North was formed from European immigrants - whites, and the 
focus of the anracho-syndicalist remained on this segment of the working class. 
In plain English this historical error smelled of chauvinism and white 
chauvinism. 

Marx wrote for the world's workers: "The proletariat, the lowest stratum of ou
r present society," and history in America - our actual curve of development 
played a very cruel joke on us. Indigenousness Marxism in America had to 
construct itself on the basis of the national question - "the proletariat, the 
lowest stratum of our present society," and the African American National Factor 
in particular, because our path was blocked. 

Marx describes our line of march using the concept "line of march" or what 
communists call determining where to throw the strategic blow. 

"The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most 
advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that 
section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they 
have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly 
understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of 
the proletarian movement." 

The theory of the bounce between Social democracy and Stalinism is a radical 
misunderstanding of our history and lines of march. In fact one who uses the 
concept of "line of march" is called a Stalinist. These are people who had not 
understood the Communist Manifesto, much less the Bible of the Working Class - 
Capital. 

There is a need to discard the many terms and concepts inherited from the 
previous generation. 

Melvin P. 




More information about the Marxism mailing list