Max Elbaum has written an outstanding history of the so-called New Communist Movement of the 1970's and 1980's, Revolution in the Air (Verso, 2002). In its concluding pages he writes that

the socialist movement needs a full top-to-bottom overhaul, not just in the U.S. but worldwide. For the sea changes that occurred a decade ago were not simply one more in the long series of twists and turns that have shaped socialism's history. Rather, they brought a whole epoch that began in 1917 - if not 1848 - to an end.

Furthermore,

for a left confronted by new realities (and willing to face up to the decidedly mixed balance sheet of its own past), fresh analyses, new strategies, and new models are required. Developing effective ones will involve drawing on the best of many Marxist and non-Marxist radical traditions, but above all will require a hard-headed look at today's realities, willingness to explore new theoretical terrain, and a good deal of flexibility and experimentation in practical campaigns.

I certainly agree with all this, and the purpose of this paper is to identify the ideological obstacles facing those who have been imbued with Classical Marxism, in contributing to such a project.

By "Classical Marxism" I mean Marxist theory as it evolved during the first half of the last century under the influence of such revolutionary leaders as Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and Mao, in reaction to the concrete political situations they were immersed in. This was, of course, the practical implementation of the theories of society and social change propounded by Marx and Engels ("scientific socialism"), and elements of Classical Marxism have variously been called Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, and Maoism (or, better yet, "Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought"!). This contradictory theoretical system has some aspects which are valid and vital to the struggle for human emancipation, other aspects which are properly applicable only to the situations encountered at the time, and still other, major aspects which are just plain wrong.

Classical Marxism has presented itself as a full-fledged worldview, the claimed only alternative to that of the dominant capitalist ideology. In the absence of a coherent alternative to both worldviews, it is very difficult for revolutionaries imbued with Classical Marxism to make the qualitative ideological leap, resulting from quantitative understanding of the problems of Classical Marxism, that this worldview is so fundamentally flawed as to be useless - taken as a whole - in advancing human liberation. This then suggests that it may be impossible for (former) adherents of Classical Marxism to contribute to the project called for by Max (and others), for although they have rejected major things wrong with Classical Marxism, they remain trapped in that problematic.

This is not my view, both because I remain optimistic that people are capable of making fundamental changes in their worldviews (as evidenced by many activists' rejection of bourgeois ideology in favor of Classical Marxism, as the New Communist Movement grew), and because from my own experience I know that this is quite possible. Nevertheless, a person who has made the qualitative leap away from Classical Marxism will naturally be extremely wary of having more of her/his political time wasted by well-meaning revolutionaries who remain trapped in that worldview. (This refers to an open-ended collective project such as outlined above - there should be no barrier to working with such persons in coalitions with limited practical goals.) In order to ascertain how wide the gulf is among persons interested in developing "fresh analyses, new strategies, and new models", it may therefore be useful for me to lay out my understanding of certain of the strengths and weaknesses of Classical Marxism. This is done in the following series of points, in which "CM" refers Classical Marxism.

1. Socialism. While I realize that capitalism is at the heart of our social problems, and that these problems are the natural, necessary results of the development of capitalism, I can't properly call myself a "socialist" because I don't have a clear idea of what "socialism" could entail concretely. It is not enough to quote general goals such as democracy and workers' self-organization, as CM has generally been satisfied to do. Working out a clear, realizable vision of the new society is absolutely crucial to the development of a new worldview which can capture the imagination and energy of millions of people in this country. (My criticism of CM here isn't of its idealized goals, but rather of its lack of concreteness in advocating these goals.)

2. Anti-capitalism=socialism. CM considers "scientific socialism" to be the only realizable alternative to capitalism, which has given ideological cover to acceptance of the "really existing socialism" of the Soviet Union (or of the People's Republic of China, for that matter) as necessarily being a step forward in history and requiring support regardless of what was actually going on in those countries. This has tended to reduce critical understanding of the nature of these postrevolutionary societies to essentially zero. For example, in reacting to the fact that Stalinist society was obviously not leading to the sort of society envisioned by Marx and Engels, many adherents of CM tried to fit a square peg into a round hole by identifying the Soviet Union as being capitalist, rather than analyzing this new phenomenon, and most of the rest were satisfied to call it socialist because it obviously wasn't capitalist. It is in such thinking that CM is at its worst, in foreclosing on the original thought necessary to understand the world. (And this is a weakness of Max's book, that there is no mention of this third possibility - a socioeconomic system which is neither capitalist nor socialist - as being understood within the New Communist Movement. To the contrary, Theoretical Review and its small support network around the country did advocate this view.)

3. Role of the middle class. Marx and Engels considered the "middle class" to be historically doomed, with the vast majority of its members fated to be proletarianized. This isn't what has actually happened, and in the United States the middle class has been able to carve out for itself both an economically secure position and a strong supporting role for our political "ruling class" (which is more than just the big capitalists). Indeed, a rough estimate of the size of the middle class in our country would be 15%, as contrasted with perhaps 3% in the capitalist class and practically all of the rest in the working class. CM has historically ignored the importance of the middle class, leading both to disregarding its dangers, such as taking over control of societies after anti-capitalist revolutions, and to minimizing its potential for playing a crucial positive role in the struggle against capitalism.

4. Role of the working class. CM does have this one right: the struggle for human liberation must necessarily be based in the struggle of the producers for self-emancipation. But it is also necessary to understand and take into account the contradictions within the working class, as well as the debilitating effect of bourgeois and petit-bourgeois ideology on the worldview of workers. Furthermore, the struggle for human liberation must include the middle class as much as feasible, rather than relying solely on the working class. (Adherents of CM in the U.S. have made good progress along these lines, but there tends to remain in people's minds the outlook of CM that the "revolution" is essentially a struggle only between the workers and the capitalists.)

5. Dictatorship of the Proletariat. CM is correct in understanding that the capitalists, once politically defeated, must not be allowed to use their wealth, their connections, their experiences - as well as the ideological "chains of the past" - to play a major political role in the new society. What is so wrong about the concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat", even ignoring the fact that in practice it meant the dictatorship of the party (or more accurately, of the party's top leadership) over the rest of society, is that it poses an effective dictatorship of the working class over the middle class. Even if this could somehow be realized in practice (rather than just being a cover for the party's dictatorship over society), it is not the way forward.

6. Vanguardism. Perhaps surprisingly, I consider this Leninist concept to be basically correct, although not as historically put into practice, of course. For success in bringing about "socialism", it is necessary to have an organization which can analyze what needs to be done, which is immersed in people's struggles for a decent life, and which therefore is able to provide effective political, ideological, and organizational leadership in the struggle for the new society. A vanguard-type organization is needed for this purpose, one which selects its own members, is able to safeguard its members' security, and requires collectively determined action on the part of its members; democratic centralism (with meaningful democracy) is essential for its internal functioning. Such an organization, while naturally reasonable to the working class, is often anathema to the middle class (particularly its adherents of social democracy), for it inhibits them from dominating the organization through their special skills, petit-bourgeois ideology, and lack of accountability. (Again, it is necessary to point out the danger of the middle class to the revolutionary project!) Two major departures from CM regarding the vanguard organization (or "vanguard party") need to be stressed: first, it should not consider itself, nor seek to become, the only vanguard-type organization in the struggle; and second, it should not seek to organizationally dominate non-vanguard-type organizations engaged in the struggle - the leadership which it gives to the movement should be primarily political and ideological, rather than being primarily organizational.

7. Labor theory of value. The labor theory of value is fundamental to Marx's analysis of capitalism, and it is accepted by adherents of CM both because of Marx's brilliant insights into the functioning of contemporary capitalism, and because on the ideological level it explains how capitalists exploit workers. Unfortunately, as the basis for a scientific understanding of capitalism, the labor theory of value is dead wrong, for reasons which we have summarized elsewhere. (This isn't because Marx didn't use the scientific method in arriving at his analysis of capitalism, but rather because he didn't have the mathematical tools necessary to test the implications of the labor theory of value. Unfortunately, many of his followers had no interest in using the scientific method, nor much capability for doing so, and it has hardly helped that CM has treated Marx and Engels's pioneering work as being revealed religion.) In order to work out appropriate strategy for progressive social transformation, it will be necessary to understand the functioning of our present economic system, which will require discarding the labor theory of value.

8. Dialectics. Engels explained qualitative development through Hegel's triad, that the negation of the negation results in a return to the original state of an object, but at a higher level. In fact, he attempted to develop a theory of dialectical development, some of which was correct (the triad) and some of which was wrong (particularly his attempted application of dialectics to nonliving subjects). Lenin and Mao subsequently made contributions to an understanding of dialectical development (again, some of which were valid and others of which were not). On the whole, however, CM has pretty much ignored dialectics as a scientific tool for understanding the development of society, other than to give lip service to it in describing empirical phenomena. I think that a correct, scientific understanding of dialectical development is essential to working out appropriate revolutionary strategy, and in fact I have formulated a systematization of dialectics which I believe leads to such an understanding.

9. Historical materialism. Marx and Engels were absolutely right in identifying the economic base as determining what goes on in the superstructure of society, at least during periods of relative stability. However, CM has interpreted this "determination" in a strictly mechanical sense, leading to economism (viewing the contradictions and struggles within the superstructure as being basically manifestations of contradictions within the economic base). What is needed, instead, is a dialectical understanding of this "determination", incorporating both the relative independence of contradictions and struggles in the superstructure, and their limitations imposed by the material reality of the economic base. Furthermore, CM addresses only half of the condition of human existence: the social sphere, but not the personal sphere, which are in fact dialectically related. I have attempted to apply my systematization of dialectics to the development of a comprehensive and useful theory of dialectical materialism.

10. Individualism. As practiced, CM has been disgraceful in ignoring the personal needs of individuals in favor of "the needs of The Revolution". Such excessive collectivism is understandable, both in reaction to the extreme individualism of our society, and because of the need for people to act together, deliberately and systematically, to achieve common goals. But in fact individualism and collectivism form a dialectical unity (corresponding to the overall contradiction between the personal sphere and the social sphere), and recognition of the validity of both individualism and collectivism must be taken into account both in carrying out progressive struggles and in building organizations to further such struggles.

11. Sprituality. Looking back, it is the funniest thing to see Marxist revolutionaries rejecting their spiritual selves, as if they were completely rational Supermen (and Superwomen) motivated not by their feelings and personal needs but rather by the objective needs of The Revolution, surely superior to those at whose helm they place themselves. CM's rejection of spirituality and religion is an aspect of its rejection of idealism, in the name of its supposedly scientifically basing itself completely in materialism. But here again, materialism and idealism constitute an indivisible dialectical unity, and CM is philosophically dead wrong in concentrating solely upon one aspect of this dialectical unity. It is necessary to have a proper appreciation of the role of spirituality in people's lives.

The author was active in a number of radical organizations since the early 1970's, and he is currently treasurer of Peace Action of Washington. His detailed writings on dialectics and on the labor theory of value can be obtained by contacting him at dave@lanzl.com or at P.O. Box 30726, Seattle, WA 98113-0726.