[Individual-members-EL] to the discussion

[selvåg]

Dear Individual Members of the EL.

The writers of this letter - three norwegian comrades - have followed the debate about the strategy of the EL We hope this two artikles can create a discussion among individual members og EL.



The marxism is not an infallible theory, but a perception of the world and an analytic method, which is a result of a historical development. The clasiccal marxism gives knowledge about the capitalism and its disruption, the man`s relationship to his own class and to other classes, and man`s relationship to the technology.The classical marxism assumed that a sosialist revolution had to take place in an advanced kapitalist society. In such a society there would be abundance of everything: Items rquired for production purposes, commodities, ressourses and culture. A revolution in a developing country would be missing all this.The sosialistic revolutions we have experienced so far have taken place in developing countries. Thus those revolutions failed. Marx imagined a sosialist revolution in a developed capitalistic society with civic democracy and political freedom. The classical marxism never claimed sosialism in one country. The marxism is according to its way of thinking international. Yet it was forced into a nationalistic attitude, because the revolutions took place in developing countries. We must once and forever take leave of this nationalism in marxism. Marx wrote in the Manifest that the history of mankind is the history of the class struggle. This class struggle goes on today - week in some countries - open and bloody in others. But the struggle between the classes goes on all the time. Marx gave us a detailed analysis of the capitalism and claimed on basis of this that the capitalist system would break down, because of internal antagonisms. To day the class struggle is international. The production process develops not only on a national basis, but in an entire international production process. At the same time there exists an antisocial private ownership. This antagonism between the antisocial character of the private owership and the social character of the production is the basis of the irrationality and the anarchy in the capitalism, and it will result in a violent clash. 
In this situation when the capital becomes more and more international the working class is stuck with the old national state. 
For the capitalists it is quite simple to turn the workers in diiferent countries against each other. Never has the conclusion of the Manifest been more actual: Workers in the whole world, unite!
Marxists must have a perspective which reach farer than the national state and must make plans for international strategies for concrete action to defend the interests of the working class and in addition strategies for the ultimate settlement with the capitalist system.
We request the EL to arrange a meeting for discussion of the sosialistic internationalism.

Arthur Lindbom, Gudmund Kollung Selvåg, Asbjørn Andersen.
Bergen. Norway.   
  




Why has the labour movement rejected Marx?

The following text is written by the Norwegian historian Odd Andreassen and is translated from Norwegian.

 

 

 

Marx seems not to be significant for the labour movement and for the policy the Norwegian labour party (Arbeiderpartiet) follows. Why is that so? Why has the socalled "revisionism" obtained such a powerfull influence in the west - European labour movement, and in those parties which liked to call themselves "socialistc" or "communistic"?

This question does not only concern the common members. Even the socalled intellectual elite did not bother to learn to know Marx. They rejected something they did not know what was. One matter is that the sosial democracies in Westen - Europe did not accept what happened. What makes things still worse was that the bolsjeviks who implemented the revolution in Russia after Lenin`s death killed every debate about marxism and made Stalin`s interpretations irrefutible truths. The marxism was ruined by those who claimed being Marx`s proper inheritors. This is the most disastrous revisionism that ever took place. The reason is that capitalism impoised the human minda - even in Stalin`s Soviet. This was the reason why the experienses gained after the Russian revolution quickly proved to be negative.

In the sosialdemocratic labour movement the question about distribution was accepted. One looked away fromthe weight Marx attached to the production. For him it was not only a question about  the production of material goods. Only a few has understood the importance Marx ascribed to cultural and sosial conditions. To marx the most important was the production. Was the production guided from the regard of human needs or the capitalists`needs for constant rise in value?  Was the labour subordinated the capital, or was the capital directed by the people? To Marx it  was a question  of the labour`s liberation from the subordination under the capital. There was nobody who tried to explain that work of every type was predetermined by the capital.

It was the access  to the cultural goods, and to the sosial improvement for everybody , which was the meaning of Marx`s work. There were very few in the labour movement who understood this.

Marx`s basic idea was that the most important was to survive to be able to develop a new sosial system. Therefor the main emphasis must be laid on organising the economy. It did not mean that reforms were unimportant. But the reforms had to be placed in a relation, in which the goal was to abolish the power of the capital. Otherwise one would remain under the power of the capital. Then nothing was gained, beceause the capital could recapture what it had lost with the aid of privatisation.

We must regard the working class - national and international- as a result of learning in the official educational systems and in the other institutional systems - particular the places of work.That meant that the humans were moulded by the capitalism. Most of them did not understand this, neither their leaders.

Marx intended to develop an understanding  of the real practice of the capital and of its fundamental nature. To understand his thougts the consept alienation is important. The consept alienation is difficult. But in a way it describes a person when he "feels" that he does not control his own life, but that forces outside himself govern him. He "chooses" solutions with consequenses he does not know or would have rejected if he had greater political insight. In brief: he has little or no influence on what happens to him.

To day it is not unusual to hear people say: "The money rules". This is the true face of the capitalism, and it conserns all of us - the capitalists as well. But they have benefits of the situation, beceause they among other factors own the means of production. The working class on the other hand can only survive if it is able to sell its labour. For the working class becomes the alienation a threat against its quality of life annd even against the workers`lives.  The successors of Marx did not understand this, and they who understood were put down by the ideological power of the bourgeoisie. Such an ideological power was totally missing in the working class. Thus people like Eduard Bernstein - the father of revisionism were able to succeed with their rejection of Marx.

Bernstein turned down central parts in marxist thinking f.ex the marxist perception of history, which claimed that every change had its basis in the material conditions in society. This understanding was the guiding principle for his further work.

The other important item Bernstein rejected was the class struggle. He did not accept the fundamental antagonism between work and capital and did not understand that the capital commanded the work. Bernstein thought that the sosialism would develop through reforms. The history has shown that this is not possible.

If the capital is not deprived the controll over the labour, any reform which has not the antagonism between labour and capital as basis will be spoiled.

The third important item which Bernstein turned down was the revolution. This was a concept which not primarily was related to violence , but to a new practice in which the needs of the working class were ruling the labour. This was what Marx meant with his demand for the development of a political economy for the working class. 

The most important in Bernstein`s revisionism was his rejection of the dialectical research method which Marx emploied. The word dialectics means conversation and indicates how the thoughts will be altered when they influence each other.

Everything is in motion - nothing is determined for ever. The subject of history is change. The dialectics is revolutionary when it is applied materialistic. It was in this way Marx used the dialectics  and thus he became dangerous for the hegemony of the capital. 

Those persons who should communicate the thoughts of Marx to the public did not understand him. Thus the revisionism could gain ground  - also in the Norvegian social democracy. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://listi.jpberlin.de/mailman/private/individual-members-el/attachments/20090127/a6fe0bd5/attachment.htm>