Hopscotch Anthill aptly described the three crises of political theory (consciousness, strategy vs. tactics, and post-revolution "order"), which relate exclusively to the relationship between Marxism and the workers' movement.
However, may I posit three "internal" challenges? These challenges also have some sort of relationship with the relationship between Marxism and the workers' movement, but I think these challenges have more "internal" impacts:
Reductionism
There are plenty of ways to go about this particular challenge to revolutionary Marxism. Lenin, for example, decried the "worship" of spontaneity, which is reductionist in its exclusive reliance on the sheer number of working-class folks, and fails to take into account Gramsci's analysis on cultural hegemony.
A second aspect of reductionism is the notion that capitalism has simplified class relations:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/has-capita...831/index.html
Quote:
#1) Does the person exist outside a wage-labour system? [If yes, then the person is a lumpenprole.]
#2) If Yes to #1, does the person contribute to the development of society's labour power and its capabilities? [If no, then the person merely contributes to the protection of the capitalist state machinery, and thus belongs to the same class as cops, security guards, judges, and lawyers. This "Class #2" also includes those elements of the traditional petit-bourgeoisie whose historical usefulness in developing society's labor power and its capabilities has expired, such as the manual bow-and-arrow handicrafts "occupation" that still exists today.]
#3) If Yes to #2, does the person have at least a "significant influence" ownership stake in and/or active control over the means of production? [If no, then the person is of the working class.]
#4) If Yes to #3, does the person have at least a "significant influence" ownership stake in the means of production? [If no, then the person is of the managerial class, comprised of lower (but this I don't mean a typical shift manager in retail or fast-food restaurants) and mid-level managers of bigger businesses, as well as all non-owning managers of smaller businesses, since non-active small business owners are obviously scarce (if existent at all).]
[Note this big chasm here between #4 and #5 in regards to the petit-bourgeoisie: they can have anywhere from "significant influence" ownership to "controlling ownership" in the means of production, but never on a sufficiently social scale.]
#5) If Yes to #4, does the person have a "controlling" ownership stake in the means of production on a sufficiently social scale ("social stake")? [If no, then the person is of the petit-bourgeoisie. There's the recent trend to "bourgeois-fy" top management through stock options and other ownership incentives.]
#6) or #5a) If Yes to #5, does the person exercise active control over his/her "social stake" in the means of production? [If no, then the person is a "non-functioning capitalist."]
|
Related to both of the above aspects is the reductionist (nowadays, or perhaps since Lenin and Luxemburg, IMO) base-superstructure analysis of society. I have said this in past threads that, since Marx was probably using the analogy of buildings as the basis of his analysis, there should be a "framework" in between.
EDIT: In the more "distant" past, I have said that the superstructure should be split into two - the "framework" and the "skin." In the more "recent" past, I criticized this position as somewhat reductionist, because the "framework" just happened to have "underground connections" to the base itself, and took upon the position that part of the superstructure and part of the base should be amalgamated together to form the "framework." This "framework" would still have been related to questions of organization. The problem with this still-reductionist "recent" position is that it still doesn't describe "the motion, change, flux, shifting balance of forces, etc. that is the reality of class struggle and human civilisation" (
PRC-UTE).
[Now, what about the structure of the Earth as an analogy? There's a solid inner core, a liquid outer core, a solid mantle but with convection (the driving force for plate tectonics), and a crust (with plate tectonics)? Part of the "base" is still "static." As for organization, I think that convection is the best analogy. After all, without it, there are no plate movements, and
without those, there would be no life!]
On a more "philosophical note," perhaps related to the reductionist base-superstructure analysis above is the reductionist notion that Marxism has a "complete, integral world-outlook":
http://marxists.anu.edu.au/reference...nni/smith4.htm
Quote:
It was in the 1890s, when Karl Marx had been safely dead for a decade, that Kautsky and Plekhanov invented ‘Marxism’. This total falsification of Marx’s work incorporated a story about a couple of ‘Young Hegelians’, who extracted the ‘dialectical method’ from Hegel’s system, and transplanted it into a materialist world-view. Then - so ran the tale - they could ‘apply’ materialism to history. The inventors of ‘Marxism’ gave their mythical beast the name ‘dialectical materialism’.
...
In any case, he only had time to begin the study of one particular item on his agenda. If we refuse to be bound by the false notion of ‘Marxism’, the idea that it possessed the patent on a ‘complete, integral world-outlook’, then we stand a chance of following Marx’s lead and continuing his work into the uncharted terrain of the twenty-first century.
|
A fifth aspect of reductionism is "traditional schematism." A most notable logical fallacy that leads to this is the erroneous equation (or, rather,
reduction) of the entire "freedom of discussion, unity in action" to mere democratic centralism, as if the latter is the only possible expression of the former. Other aspects of "traditional schematism" include over-emphasis on traditional organizations of post-revolutionary society (as if the party has to be materially merged with the state, or as if only an absolute plurality of
workers' parties can prevent "bureaucratization") and the notion of, in Rosa Luxemburg's words, "making a virtue of necessity."
A sixth aspect of reductionism is over-emphasis on organization. Such over-emphasis, as if organization is the be-all-and-end-all solution to every single question, leads to "bureaucratization."
Revisionism
This one would have been more self-explanatory, had this term not been so abused in modern times.
As noted in a Theory thread, it has been misused many a time for entirely personal reasons. Nevertheless, revisionism, objectively speaking, is merely an assault on the fundamental principles of revolutionary Marxism carried out by those claiming to adhere to those principles.
One such assault is what I call "apocalyptic predestinationism." Yes, I am deliberately invoking comparisons to the predestination theology of John Calvin. This "apocalyptic predestinationism" led Kautsky to believe that capitalism would soon collapse because of a crisis either in the here and now or on the horizon - hence his perception that no real revolutionary theory was needed.
"Apocalyptic predestinationism" almost led Lenin to deem imperialism to be the last stage of capitalism, but he then reverted to a pessimism (saying that he would not live to see revolution) that led to a bonus. Worse, "apocalyptic predestinationism" can be seen as the ideological cause of both Stalin's revisionist "theory" of "socialism in one country" and Trotsky's revisionist replacement of the minimum program with the transitional program.
Sectarianism
Some may think that, given my comments regarding "revisionist Trotskyism or revolutionary Marxism," sectarianism's root cause is reductionism. It isn't. Sectarianism can just as easily arise from differences in complex positions (and the placement of these positions above the more important issue of the class struggle) as it can from reductionist errors.
Now, having said all of the above, some may be wondering why I have not entertained the usage of four words - "dogmatism", "idealism," "opportunism," and "reformism." Simply put, the second can mean any combination of the above. For example, idealists are reductionists in reducing the emergence of material conditions to mere ideas. If they happen to be amongst fellow comrades, they are revisionist in attacking the materialist basis of revolutionary Marxism. In any event, they can also be sectarian in placing their lofty ideas above more important issues.
The usage of the word "dogmatism" implies the complete absence of "revisionism." One problem associated with this, however, is the combination of "traditional schematism" with long-held revisionist "principles" by many groups claiming to be "revolutionary."
Meanwhile, "opportunism" is borne out of revisionist and/or sectarian causes. Last, but not least, "reformism" doesn't carry as much stigma as "revisionism." Self-proclaimed "revolutionary" groups which are in fact revisionist will easily scoff at the notion that they're reformist, but eyes will be wide open and ears will be willing to listen upon a revolutionary Marxist saying the words "revisionism" and "revisionist."
Thoughts?
