★

A review of the article on Marx’s work by Bronislav

From the inclusion of the title of this work of Marx in the reading lists of every party with a communist name, as well as the frequent use of quotations from this work in the materials of these organizations, one might think that «Critique of the Gotha Program» is a guiding force for them and that their members have studied it fastidiously. However, a read of their own programs reveals that they are not so much in line with the teachings of Marx as they are with the criticized Gotha Program, containing an abundance of empty phrases, rebranded bourgeois-democratic slogans, and scientifically unsound theses that would embarass even the authors of the Gotha Program. It becomes clear that they have studied only superficially, quoting but not reflecting genuinely.

Bronislav’s article, on the other hand, is an excellent example of how one should study Marx. He correctly assessed the importance of Marx’s work as a brilliant demonstration of Marxist criticism, which criticizes opponents not in a vacuum, but specifically in order to develop a positive exposition of communist ideas. All of the categories given attention in Bronislav’s article remain relevant today, and modern parties have found many ways to run into the same blunders.

Opportunism is amorphous. Even if an incorrect formulation is soundly struck down, it can easily return in different forms if it is not purposely and explicitly excluded by scientific knowledge. Marx may have struck down Lassalle’s proposal to establish producer cooperatives with state assistance and explained that «undiminished labor income» is an absurdity with nothing in common with communism, in which the product of labor is diminished significantly to meet social needs before passing to individual consumption, but this has not stopped modern parties from throwing their weight behind campaigns to adequately fund social programs by taxing the rich. The necessity of social expenditure is recognized, but the parties still attempt to apply the panacea of state assistance without imputing the responsibility of considering any aspect of class struggle other than the battle for wages to the proletarian. In addition, opportunists continue to offer the development of cooperatives as a supposed alternative to class struggle. While I have seen rhetoric in American groups similar to that of Sadonin’s, I have not seen any go as far and say that they will meet the needs of 95% of the country’s population!

Bronislav writes:
«Modern ‘fighters for the people’s happiness,’ in a fit of emotional defense of the ‘interests of the people,’ point to the beggarly wages of the proletariat, often limiting themselves to demanding an increase. Sometimes, in order to ridicule their own bosses and demonstrate their opposition to them, they cite Western countries as an example, saying that capitalism there is fairer, more humane, the salaries are higher, and the super-rich are taxed. They say that we in Russia need the same thing: more justice, and therefore more stability…for capitalism.»

It is correct that Western methods stabilize capitalism, but not by making it fairer, more humane, etc. as the «fighters for people’s happiness» would have Russian people believe. In fact, it is more unfair, more inhumane, etc., except the unfairness is not distributed evenly. The average inhabitant feels that he could become a successful manager, technician, or small businessman, even though he is much more likely to be working off a student loan as a retail cashier or defaulting on that loan while unemployed. Salaries may be higher in many cases, but inadequate or non-existent social benefits mean that more of the salary has to go to filling that gap, and frequently these needs simply go unmet. For those who do pull higher salaries, lack of conscience means that the extra cash often goes to waste or actively degrades the quality of life. It is all too common that the owner of an American home fills it entirely with useless gadgets, trendy clothes, collectibles, or even actual garbage, destroying his own life and family in the process.

Other mistakes, rather than changing much in form, are simply committed with even greater intensity than before. Not satisfied with the Gotha Program’s division of society into the proletariat and «only one reactionary mass,» many left figures divide the class according to occupation, income level, race, sex, etc. into smaller and smaller fractions, discarding the rest into the «one reactionary mass,» thinking that the minority that remains is the «true» proletariat, inherently destined to overthrow capitalism. One such left figure even wrote, «The proletarians ‘have nothing to lose but their chains,’ literally,» showing that he is as ignorant of Marxism as he is of figures of speech. The same proclamations of «Freedom of conscience!» ring out as loudly as ever in the left space, often amplified into claims that religious faith is a permanent and progressive fixture in society. They hear criticism of capitalism from believers and clerics, and think this means they are honored allies whose views should be tolerated and protected.

Bronislav also recounts the history of the publication of «Critique of the Gotha Program,» which is especially relevant for aspiring Marxists today. Marx and Engels showed exactly under which conditions it is permissible and right to hold criticism back: the incorrect provisions of the program were spontaneously interpreted in a correct way by both friend and foe, and it was dangerous to create a public discussion of the program during the period of illegality. If either of these conditions was not the case, they would have released their criticism publicly, and they still made their criticism known to the leaders of Eisenach in private letters. Neither of these is the case today, but the urge to hush up not just public disagreement, but private disagreement as well, guides the action of most left practitioners today. Scientific unity is IMPOSSIBLE if comrades with disagreements politely hold their tongues, not wishing to stir anything up, while growing opportunistic fungus in the back of their minds. The really polite, conscientious, respectful thing to do is pay attention to one’s own disagreements, make an independent effort to study the issue, and then, if there is still something to dispute, express those disagreements in a clear, creative form, perhaps an article.

Yesterday’s concilators are today’s opponents. Liebknecht offered compromise to the Lassalleans in return for NO BENEFIT, showing both his theoretical weakness and tendency towards conciliation. In his communications with Marx and Engels, he showed that he thought that the compromises he made were the right course of action, never recanting his errors. After this, he doubled down on the incorrect program by encouraging its adoption later, not as a compromise, but on its own principles. Now, Marx and Engels were not organizationally bound to Liebknecht, and rather hated that opponents held them responsible for Liebknechts actions; therefore, they did not have any means of forcing him to correct his errors or be removed from leadership. However, those who hope to one day build a party that lives up to the name of Marx can learn from it that mistakes that slide will only be committed again later with greater confidence.

R. Turner