In this book we critically discuss Classical Marxism Leninism, Anarchism, and Maoism from the perspective of political effectiveness here and now in present United States contexts. 1
We demystify, criticize, and uncover the roots of old-ideology weaknesses; we seek to learn from old-ideology strengths and we try to forge a set of guidelines for the task of eventually creating our own newer and better presently-relevant revolutionary ideology. We work from activist evaluative criteria. Rather than discussing all the best Marx and Lenin of the Collected Works, we discuss only the core of Classical Marxism Leninism as it was really employed by the Bolsheviks and as it's generally employed by sects today. Rather than struggling for 'philosophical precision,' we strive for practical relevant-to-use criticisms and alternative views. After emphasizing criticism in the discussion of Classical Marxism Leninism, rather than repeating that approach with Anarchism and Maoism, we turn more toward discovering positive aspects useful for us in the United States.
Chapter one gives a very brief descriptive analysis of late-sixties political movements. Its only purpose is to give force to the assertion that social change requires political insight; it also provides a background of some present movement needs to help orient our follow-up discussions.
Chapter two discusses the general nature of political consciousness in terms of the concepts of theory, strategy, and practice. It lays out an approach for studying political ideas we then use throughout the rest of the book.
Chapter three introduces Classical Marxism as a full consistent theory of social interaction, history, and revolution. The chapter presents Classical Marxism in a positive manner but in accordance with our critical expectations.
Chapter four introduces a significant portion of Classical Leninism. The effort is to objectively set out something close to what most Classical Leninists actually use in their day-to-day efforts, but again the discussion is organized and bounded in accordance with our critical desires.
Chapter five discusses Bolshevik Classical Marxist Leninist practice in young revolutionary Russia. While not explicitly discussing theory and strategy, it evaluates Bolshevik practice so as to lay a groundwork for critiquing the guiding ideology as well.
Chapter six evaluates Classical Leninism.
Chapter seven evaluates Classical Marxism, completing the examination from practice to strategy to theory.
Chapter eight summarizes the entire analysis.
Chapter nine discusses Anarchism, looking for new insights rather than deeply analyzing weaknesses.
Chapter ten discusses the Chinese experience, again looking more to find insights than to analyze recurring Classical or other weaknesses.
Chapter eleven discusses a number of Humanist Marxist and Neo-Marxist thinkers who go beyond Classical limitations.
And chapter twelve synthesizes previous results into a number of ideas about how an improved new United States political consciousness might be developed, about what it might look like, and about what it might accomplish.
What Is To Be Undone thus has rather clearly defined and delimited purposes. If it is read with desires to find new ideas rather than to defend old sectarian ones, its worth will be greatly enhanced. In his philosophic work Marx in the Mid-Twentieth Century Gajo Petrovic includes the following interchange under the subtitle "Objections and Replies":
The 'strange discussions' that have lately become frequent in Yugoslavia are free philosophical discussions about the open question of Marxist philosophy. The remnants of Stalinism in us (stronger in some, weaker in others) oppose free discussions on philosophy. An internal voice in us (or in some of us) is murmuring discontentedly: "Don't we behave too freely toward our great teachers?"We hope all this book's readers and indeed all radicals everywhere have Petrovic's kind of immodest spirit, and we hope our own efforts have been true to it, and to scholarly integrity as well. We must learn from "past teachers" to transcend them, not to enshrine, worship, or exploit them."First of all," wrote Engels to Plekhanov, "please stop calling me teacher. My name is simply Engels."
"However should we not be a little more modest?"
"The truth is as little modest as the light," says Marx, "and toward whom should it be? Toward itself? Verum index sui et falsi. Accordingly toward the untruth?"
"By a free discussion of everything will we not confuse and disorient the masses? Why should we underestimate the 'masses'? Why could not an undogmatic Marxism be at least as conceivable to them as the dogmatic one?"
"What are the opponents of Marxism going to say? Will they not feel they have triumphed when they see we write critically of Marx?" "They may. But let us hope that they will soon no longer be able to say: 'Jesuits have written more studies about Marx and Marxism than Marxists themselves.' "
"And what will our Marxist critics, for example the Chinese, say?" "Probably the same as the Albanian."
"But will not all these discussions weaken Marxist philosophy in its struggle against non-Marxist philosophy?" "Why should a living Marxism be weaker than a dead one?"2
We believe this book reflects parts of the changing consciousnesses of a large number of activists, and we hope its presentation will help us go forward in creating new ideas, studying them, and adapting them to our own real situations. It seems to us that such a trend would be vastly preferable to an endless repetition of the mistakes of the past.
FOOTNOTES
1. By Classical Marxism Leninism we mean only that body of ideas that constitutes the core ideology of Bolshevik-oriented parties and/or sects. We don't, for example, mean the whole and most enlightened libertarian elements of Marx's own writings or of his most competent interpreters. Still we don't want to slight the ideology we present and discuss. We feel it's a very flexible, powerful interpretation of the Classical view as good or better than any now being used by active Leninist parties. Further we think that many of our criticisms of it, though by no means all, as we'll take pains to point out, are also applicable to Marxist thought in general. The most important point, however, is not how 'Marxist' our Classical Marxism Leninism is, but how accurate a reproduction of what Marxist Leninists use, it is. Farther on in a later chapter we'll also consider some more progressive Marxist formulations.
2. Gajo Petrovic, Marx in the Mid Twentieth Century; Doubleday Anchor, Garden City, New York.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.