Marxism and the U.S. left: thoughts for the 1990s

The "death of Marxism," widely celebrated in the capitalist press, could end up becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why is this the case, why does it matter, and what can be done about it?

1. Reports of death are exaggerated

For Marxism to be justiably buried, ,capitalism would have to have found the secret of eternal life. Since capitalism is a system of social relations, such immortality would have to rest on something more than the capacity to overwhelm all challengers; it would require that capitalism be able to solve the problems that keep bringing new challengers into being.

None of the world's recent changes have signified any progress in this direction. On the contrary, the gap between rich and poor is growing wider than ever, not only on a world scale, but even within many of the industrialized countries. Where this has not happened, it is only because of movements and measures embodying working class or socialist influence. Capitalist principles are moreover inherently ill-suited to confronting the environmental crisis; ecological rationality is simply incompatible with a commitment to growth, under whatever sponsorship.

Capitalism's only hope for long-term survival seems to lie in its ever-resourceful pioneering in the means of destruction. This is not limited to the military suppression of socialist or nationalist challengers; it also includes the neutralization of autonomous community life through the anaesthetizing/atomizing effects of television, the drug trade, and gang warfare. The United States, bastion of global capitalism, generates enough surplus to be able to hold the entire world at gunpoint, while at the same time--domestically--topping all other countries in its per capita prison population.

In short, capitalism is as damaging as ever, and the longer it hangs on, the more dangerous it gets. The objective basis for Marxism--the systematic search for an alternative to capitalism--has therefore never been stronger.

2. Still, all is not well

But even as the need for a Marxist response grows, its political viability is increasingly being called into question. These two developments, although contradictory at one level, are by no means unrelated.

The most recent blow to Marxism's political viability has of course been the disintegration, in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, of the regimes claiming explicit adherent to its principles. Within the directly affected countries, the popular image of Marxism is understandably negative. What is more remarkable, however, and what I want to consider here, is how the notion of Marxism's bankruptcy has gained credence within progressive movements in the West, and most especially in the United States.

The reason this requires explanation is that the overwhelming majority of left activitists in these countries have for a long time understood the Soviet regime and its offshoots to embody ,a clear departure from the democratic vision of working class rule that Marx expressed, for example, in his essay on the Paris Commune. Such a departure, however it might be accounted for, was never a sufficient reason for them to abandom the socialist project from which the Russian Revolution had sprung. Why should the final unraveling of a "false start" prove more debilitating than its earlier institutionalization in a repressive bureaucratic regime?

The answer to this question must begin with the present-day political environment in the United States, and in particular with the would-be self-fulfilling prophecy that I mentioned at the outset. The "death of Marxism" campaign entails a replication in the ideological sphere of what capitalism has been steadily accomplishing in the material sphere, namely, the destruction of any potential alternative system.

The ideological counterpart to capitalism's military-economic arsenal is its control over the mass media; a control which largely delimits the vocabulary of the left's political outreach. Phrases like "the collapse of Communism," the death of Marxism," and "the failure of socialism," taken as being interchangeable, are repeated so often and so automatically that they attain the status of axioms. Any suggestion that their message might be misleading requires the kind of lengthly explanation which threatens to turn people off.

The cycle is then complete: capital proclaims Marxism's death; ordinary people take it for granted; left activists are loath to challenge them; Marxism atrophies even among the activitists; and finally, Marxism is dead.

3. Where the treatment needs to begin

If this cycle is to be broken, it must be among those organizers and activists whose first question is likely to be, "Why should it matter? We're against domination, oppression, and injustice. Why should we care about Marxism?"

The answer has both theoretical and historical dimensions. The theoretical part can be put quite simply, although it may offend the pragmatic sensibility that much of the U.S. left inherits from its surroundings. Marxism is important because instead of just dealing with oppression on a case-by-case basis, or even with all the forms of oppression at once, it deals with the totality of oppression in all of its interrelationships.

Organizers might be tempted to respond scornfully to such quasi-religious terminology, but it is not without a rather compelling practical justification of its own. While totality might seem like a foreign concept to the various oppressed groups in capitalism society, organized as they are in distinct unions, rights groups, and community organizations, it is in no sense foreign to the structure against which these groups are trying to press their demands. The demands may be formulated separately, but if they reach high enough, they all confront the same antagonist at the top. This antagonist may not use the language of totality, but there is no sector of society and no major social issue on which it does not try to impose its priorities.

The antagonist in question is the capitalist class, or what Marx often referred to simply as capital. The totality in question is the entire complex of economic, military, and cultural instruments over which this class presides. The interactions among these instruments--or between any one of them and its popular challengers--are fluid but by no means random. We are dealing with a system that can distinguish among the various demands made upon it: accepting more readily--and coopting or reversing more easily--those that do not impinge upon class power.

This brings us back to Marxism's historical dimension. Individual or universalistic denunciations of injustice go back to ancient times; each form of human oppression can trace a long lineage. But neither the wisdom nor mercy of powerful individuals (or deities) nor the supposed common reasonableness of humankind as a whole has ever made a dent in any overall pattern of oppression. What has made a difference has been the self-organization of the oppressed, and the most enduring forms of such self-organization--from which the others have largely derived--have been along class lines. The impetus to such long-term self-organization was first provided by capitalism, which in turn was directly threatened by it. Consequently, the self-organization of the oppressed--beginning with the industrial working class--could not occur without eliciting an alternative vision for society as a whole.

The formulation of this vision, however, emerged directly from a structural analysis of the oppressive system in its entirely. As the system evolved--intensifying, mitigating, or highlighting the various particular forms of oppression--the analysis and the vision could evolve ,accordingly. What would remain would be the links between system on the one hand and analysis and vision on the other. This is the discovery that has come to be permanently connected with Marx's name. To reject it is to settle for a merely spasmodic response-mechanism to the framework imposed by capital.

4. Class and other oppressions

One of the most common arguments put forward by non-or anti-Marxist advocates of social justice is that Marxism wrongly elevates class oppression above oppression grounded in other traits--most notably, race and gender.

I would like to think that we can change the terms of the argument from one of comparing oppressions to one of considering how all of them can be overcome. The basic point that we come back to is that the various forms of oppression are interrelated and mutually reinforcing within a common system of power, itself based on class. But there are a number of facets to this argument that need to be spelled out.

First, there is a sense in which Marxism, as it has come down to us. is bigger than either Marx himself or any of his followers. This refers to its irreducible and epoch-making core mentioned above, that is, its emphasis on the analysis and transformation of capitalism. All those who accept this emphasis are operating, whether they like it or not, within the framework of Marxism. This is a matter of intellectual history, independent of anyone's predilection for labels. What Marxism does not imply is any necessary agreement with Marx or certain Marxists on such particular issues as gender and race. We need to be able to relate all such issues to our more general framework of analysis without being hobbled by the outdated or otherwise faulty attitudes of our predecessors. This is regarded as a perfectly routine expectation within mainstream scientific annd political discourse, hardly even worthy of mention. But just as mainstream commentators often view Marxists as uniquely "biased," so they tend to view them as uniquely tarnished by any flaws in their intellectual heritage. "Left" critics of Marxism sometimes apply similar guilt-by-association assumptions.

Secondly, those who accuse Marxism of slighting non-class forms of oppression often convey an unduly narrow view of class. Countless coalitions address themselves to such listings as "workers, women, people of color." But how many stop to consider that the women and the people of color they are addressing are themselves at the same time working people? This is not to say that the race and gender ,traits shouldn't be mentioned; it is to say that the class designation is broader and more inclusive. If groups oppressed by gender and race are listed parallel to workers, one can too easily get the impression that being "working class" entails being white and male. By the same token, the working class is often taken to be much smaller than it really is. If we look at the actual working class--as distinct from a mere shopping-list entry in some catalog of oppressed groups--gender and racial differences come to the forefront as a matter of course, but in a way that also points to a common interest in resolving them. This does not pre-empt the need for mutual support organizations of those oppressed along non-class lines; it merely stresses the conditions under which such distinct organizations will be able to pool their strength to bring the larger changes that their members need.

Third, class differences have a pecular trait compared to all other social cleavages. Classes are by definition unequal. One can talk about equality between women and men, and one can talk about equality between different ethnic groups, but one cannot talk about equality between the capitalist class and the working class. The capitalist class would not exist if it did not dominate the working class. The only way to bring about equality among the members of different classes is to abolish class as a social category. This is both the simplest and the most difficult barrier to overcome. It is simple in the sense that classes are deliberate human constructs; the class can disappear while the individual members remain. But the barrier is difficult because of all the historical/institutional reinforcements erected by the ruling class. The very concentration of this class--its small size, its homogeneity, its organizational advantage--makes it uniquely resistant to any collective internal transformation. At the same time, its social power has a scope and a degree of coherence--not to mention enforcement mechanisms--that go beyond anything attributable to any non-class entity (e.g., all whites or all men).

Fourth, granting the decisive power exercised by capital, one still has to ask to what extent all those who are outside the capitalist class belong to the category of the most oppressed in class terms, i.e., the working class. The question needs to be raised here, because it is often argued or suggested that the existence of an intermediate class between capitalists and workers proves the importance of having a non-class-based approach to issues of race and gender. I cannot presume to settle here the long-running debate over whether or not professionals, intellectuals, and artists constitute a separate class in capitalist society. But in relation to our present concerns, there are a few points to be made. (1) Especially with regard to race, it is true that significant advances toward equality can be made outside a framework of class struggle; however, the same individuals who may have gained full acceptance within a circumscribed context remain at the mercy of traditional behavior-patterns when they go outside that context. (2) A large majority of women and an overwhelming majority of people of color neither belong to the capitalist class nor enjoy professional status. (3) The policy changes that would help end oppression based on race or sex--both directly for the majority of its victims and indirectly for those who occupy the intermediate class positions--are consistently opposed by the capitalist class (examples: full employment, comparable worth, subsidized childcare, paid parental leave).

The upshot of all these considerations is that even if one's primary commitment is to respond to a non-class form of oppression, one will not be able to take more than the most preliminary steps toward liberation without engaging in class-oriented politics. The exact constitution of any class-based popular alliance is a complex matter, but the decisive role of capital in shaping existing society cannot be seriously doubted. Marxism's contribution lies in its sustained record of analyzing that role and of trying to build an alternative that will reflect the needs of the majority.

The political practice of Marxists deserves criticism to the degree that they have failed to respond to any of the manifestations of oppression. Marxist theory, moreover, needs to be continuously updated through assimilation of the new insights arising from such criticism. But those who attack Marxism as such are not helping this process. They are attacking the one body of throught and experience that has focused upon the core of system-wide oppression. Their impact will tend to perpetuate the fragmentation of the left and thereby to weaken any popular response.

5. The search for a cure

Much of the inclination to reject Marxism is associated with a wish for "new thinking." There is a curious irony in this. What could be newer than a society at peace with others, with itself, and with nature? More immediately, what could be newer than a progressive movement which, instead of just reacting to each separate problem or crisis, could itself become a coherent social force capable of growth? And what could be more worn out than capitalism's perpetual striving for novelty?

The real issue, of course, is not whether one's thoughts are new. Changes of surroundings and of audiences will assure them some degree of novelty in any case. The proper question to ask is, what will be one's frame of reference. More specifically for us: Do we or do we not take the critique of capitalism as our point of departure? And if not, then what do we take?

I noted earlier the common tendency to regard Marxists as uniquely subject to bias or uniquely tainted by the prejudices of their forebears. A similar dynamic comes into play in discussions of the movement's future. Somehow, it seems that if we retain a Marxian framework, we are the victims of hidebound tradition, whereas if we reject it, a world of unlimited possibilities opens up to us.

This is nonsense. In the matters that concern us, the number of options is limited, and each has its own tradition. Moreover, the track record of those who reject the past indiscriminately is by no means encouraging.

For the U.S. left, one of the best-known recent examples of such a tabula rasa illusion was in the student movement of the 1960s. The students tried to avoid an authoritarian trap by rejecting structural guidelines almost completely. Far from guaranteeing accountability, this approach left their organization defenseless against manipulation.

The current equivalent approach is that of fleeing class-based analysis in favor of an endless cycle of anti-oppression struggles, in which the power behind the oppression is left unrecognized and unscathed.

Both in the present case and in that of the 1960s, there is an element of justification in the way that people are trying to renovate the movement. The demands of the 1960s for internal democracy and the subsequent calls for struggle against non-class forms of oppression are uniformly vital to healthy left politics. But just as the anti-structural bias back-fired in the 1960s, so the fear of a class-based analysis and movement is backfiring now. The movement will remain divided and marginalized until this fear can be overcome.

As a partial antidote to the fear of class-thinking on the left, I would suggest a series of practical considerations:

(a) The legislative victories of single-issue organizations are relatively easily reversed.

(b) People struggling on any particular issue need the support of those whose primary personal concern may be with another issue.

(c) The key to defending gains and blocking reversals is to gain at least a share of power over the society as a whole.

(d) Understanding the connections between issues--which is what class analysis is all about--plays an important role in sustaining individual commitment over the long term.

(e) The shared understanding of such connections provides the basis for expanding the struggle, partly by inspiring new people and partly by keeping alive the cumulative experience of their predecessors.

COPYRIGHT 1991 Monthly Review Foundation, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group