General and Particular

Marxism is often treated as a short-hand for politics perceived as serving some mass of society. However, views like nationalism of various kinds have often served these people, if we are to treat them as creatures with political and social wants, but Marxism is not held to take this into account. Marx is hence inevitably seen as the product of an intellectual not a part of these masses. Otherwise it would appear clearly that this popularised Marxism is an inchoate sham.

The Soviet Union is treated as like a 'test' of Marxism, but few other views have historically been subject to this schoolyard treatment via 'tests' and so on. People did not view Cromwell as a test for a society without a hereditary monarchy - indeed, this has caught on since. Marxism, on the other hand, has regressed notably due to the Soviet fall - Marxist organisations had shifted into practical organs of the Soviet state, and hence lost their connection to their theoretical groundings, which make Marxism what it is. Hence, they were left flailing for these afterwards, which led to a general dissolution. But this would seem a simple task requiring just to shift to a new focus, as approaches like Marxist humanism and explorations of the early Marx at least tried to realise. Marxism in general was unwilling to accept this, and so remained a cataclysm of vague phrases without theoretical direction. This treatment of the Soviet Union raises many issues, including how murderous Karl Marx is to be counted. There are other problems. How much of the blame is absolved Stalin and placed on 'Marxism'? In any case, the Soviet Union is treated as the particular case, and Marxism as the generality somehow underlying it and having an undefined effect on it. Marxism is hence reduced to an aesthetic behind the Soviet Union. This has partial validity - not only is Marxism usually just an aesthetic for Marxists, but the Soviet Union did generally treat Marxism as an aesthetic or drew on it extensively for this. In this, it usually found little resistance, and most Marxists were quite alright with giving in to it, apart from those condemned as 'dogmatic,' etc.

The few that remained elsewhere usually became highly reformist, to the point where even Cuba would be too much for them. A particular strength of the Soviets was militancy - they tried to set up and favour militant organisations like the Vietnamese, while Marxism itself usually had little focus on the militant form of organisation because they wanted organisations organised upon different lines. The militant is directly political in nature. As such, the flag of militant, resistant organisation was passed on instead to Islam.

The interaction of Soviet Union and Marxism can be treated as the failure of a movement usually considered 'Marxist.' So then one might consider it a revealing of certain aspects of Marxism. Of course, Marxism is not necessarily to be decided on with reference to the Soviet Union or such mere attempts at practical enaction, but by the validity of its theories and justifications. Only these can ultimately validate Marxism as opposed to other things, or in brief influence a rational creature (as humans are hoped to be) to adhere to an actual Marxism. If humans are often not of this kind, then it would seem to preclude Marxism's goal of participation in a human, rational society.  In any case, Marxism is also known for a fervent and oppositional belief, which one wit had the alacrity to compare to Satanism, but this is usually just reduced to a pious hope. In that sense, that Marxism then has more abrasive aspects must come across as a shock and seem to reveal 'aggressive' aspects seemingly in spite of themselves. This is a quandary of their own making. When it is drawn on clearly, as with The Hunger Games, it is probably an attempt to attack Marxist tendencies. This is treacherous.

When people oppose Marxism in this way, hence, they are thus drawn to speak of 'earth-shattering' revelations (not, of course, of the surprise that might come to a person who heard of Christianity from a typical modern 'Christian' and then turned to the book of Revelation which is a part of their apparent canon), or of deep pessimism. This shift of Marxism from pious, hardly obstructive ideal to something aggressive seems to portend all kinds of 'great' intellectual themes. Hence, if a person is a Marxist, their opponents are assumed to have an intellectual head-start of about a billion to infinity - they can just ask some 'concerning' question in the same room, and they are proclaimed highly intellectual. Marx themselves suffered similarly at the hands of economists, and hence economic Marxism was reduced to an apparent dead letter, with non-Soviet Marxists rarely being interested in it. People could merely heckle a Marxist, and they would seem intellectual. In general, then, this is a trap constrained to Marxism that can nonetheless perturb modern Marxists.

Views like Christianity and Marxism have a hard time returning, somewhat humorously, if they become obscure. They have too many 'unwelcome surprises' - if people can be made to accept Christianity as at least slightly benign, then there is too much of a threat that they can find something highly problematic about it and look elsewhere. And after all, what about the Church (with its Crusades and persecution, at that), Hell, Judgement, etc.? And the long-delayed kingdom of Heaven? Christianity hence cannot afford once it has shown itself to be once again a pariah, for it faces too much resistance. It can only survive by, as happened to Marxism in part in the Soviet Union, having its statements and symbols turned into ciphers for aspects of populace's lives or social structure, becoming in the process no more than idle symbols without their religious or political content. The kingdom of Heaven and related imagery? Well, it just relates, to many, to a promise of stability and social success for them, to the 'American Dream.' People accept Christians' misdemeanours, because they don't know if they're good Christians, but are quite willing for instance at funerals to proclaim them extraordinary Christians. People call Marxists idealistic dreamers, then they marry and do so twice as much. There is a certain sense of cognitive dissonance to all this. It isn't that they hold these two beliefs, it is that they do not or do not want to work on the level of beliefs. This presents a problem for these views considered authentically, because it is a tendency which separates things from them, but not for the vulgarised versions which capitalist society especially fostered, who would do all within their power to safeguard this vulgarisation. One could not combat this and escape their rebuke, clear in Christianity but often denied in Marxism.

A text cannot escape rebuke by being brief, where there is disagreement over the content. Where people do not take issue with the content, they will enjoy reading more things which favour this. If something is controversial and brief, it is usually going to have to be longer, or it will meet with immediate rebuke which it leaves things open for. If brevity is the question, what is going to get cut is the rejoinders - which is precisely what these people want, after Marxism has been proclaimed a dead letter. If their concern is not with the theory of Marxism, but their own enjoyment or such stimuli, then by identifying with this attack on a 'refuted' dead letter and getting texts which are just offering this treatment they can at least gain immediate and notable praise. Marxism is a notable source of it, as we have said - hence, it's always likely that many lurk around and participate there for this 'rush,' so to speak, with little concern for the theory and such. 'Marxist.' Marxist communities are hence quite reactionary, in a substantive sense.

In general, then, Christianity already has a difficult time surviving Christians, but survives by being something non-Christian, as Kierkegaard and others have observed. The Soviet Union was hence not a society subscribing to the tenets of Marxism. Nonetheless, it did attempt to place these Marxist tropes into the role of symbols, realising its images of usurpation, opposition to a social demographic and so on. It was hence a state which was itself plunged into opposition. In addition, it was a dictatorship, which nonetheless attempted to draw on a given system, which while this was limited still means that it could only subsist if based with personal rather than generic interaction with these tropes and images. Hence, the Soviet Union is not only an absorption of Marxism into symbols of the existent social system, but also its interaction with personal life if on a restricted scale. This means that it was in some ways an identification of Marxism with the nation or nationalism, and hence the formation of Marxism into a political agenda which integrated concrete realisation in the form of the nation and hence was directly political a demand, ideal or whatever. This is important - the Soviet state could not merely idly disseminate Marxist views which attacked them, but had to identify with these in some ways. As the Fates Warning song goes, 'I take a part of you, you take a part of me. [...] Searching for another chance to make us all one.'

In any case, people tend to take the Soviet Union as actually the general case, Marxism the particular to be gleaned from it. Marxism is hence subsumed totally by the Soviet Union, and by its leaders and populace. But this is clearly illusory if it is noted that Marx was minimally obscure - that this mass blaming or at times disregard of Marx based on this association with Soviet mass murder is hence without clear foundation. In any case, however, Soviet society was a situation where Marxism did subsist, in the form of its necessary interaction with the state. Marxism obviously lead to a dictatorship, because it disregards the political interests and hopes of people. It does not qualify these as real, and hence view them as 'zoon politikon,' as interested in the nature of the society around them being what they want it to be. It is in this sense a result of the atomized political views on the nineteenth century. It also lead to a frustrated dictatorship - of course, as this dictatorship was at the same time beholden to its themes of aggression and if you like the 'domestic violence' of state and Party. But did Marxism necessarily recommend its use in this manner? Was its use necessarily partial, disregarding by necessity in this context a large part of what Marx wrote about and tried to put forwards? In this sense, Marxism could hardly be given fitting application as the policy of a state based around the general division of labour, and specialization - an important part of the direction of 20th Century chess, for instance, although the Soviets did at least try to intervene in this politically and subordinate it to general issues. In this sense, the whole project of a 'Marxist' nation as there formulated was a problem, and its Marxism by necessity partial. This partial Marxism was nonetheless quite persistent, as it was found highly useful for those who wished to convert Marxism into a distinct career form in capitalist society, often dispensing with the Soviets after their fall to avoid the association with a fallen nation.

Marxism was hence an ideology proper to the early 1900s theme of a 'paranoid' dictatorship, which was an inevitable result of the human soon politikon increasingly encountering a society which moved almost at random and by laws created by humans but moving despite them. They hence represented an attempt to cohere society and keep it in human control, something both the Soviets and Nazis were explicit about. Hence, for instance, Hitler's sense of betrayal later on was major, and probably valid because the anti-capitalist trends of his Party and its anti-Semitism were things that could hardly go without notable resistance in a capitalist society. Such intrigues were essentially inevitable in higher places, it was just a question of where. Likewise, their army's motivation may have been lacking as they went on. Stalin was also known for their 'paranoia,' as a dictator, and indeed was harsh in his treatment of his Party members and people allegedly serving him. During this phase of things, Marxism hence had a direct relevance, but since then its relevance is quite different.

The Soviet Union is often portrayed as, to borrow a Kierkegaardian turn of phrase, 'extraordinarily Marxist.' This is in part because people are eager to see the Soviet state in contrast with another, 'better' one - hence, if it is Marxist, it is seen as 'really Marxist.' This was always likely to be the USA, because it is 'constitutional' and integrates intellectual labour into its state, it hence encapsulates the 'intellectual' pretenses of anti-Marxism, which would hence have Marxism be held of no intellectual account for its own part. Consider America as like a room, where capitalistic people reside, and Marxism as something 'outside' that. This is the only way that the Cold War can be portrayed as an 'ideological conflict,' without forcing random people to come to a judgement between these two elaborate views (Marxism, for instance) and what they have in common, differ on, how much of Marxist writing is valid, etc. Posing it as such, as is commonly done to promote the USA's cause, is not meant as putting everyone on the spot and saying that they can choose between these. This is not possible if it is honestly framed in these terms. Hence, what is actually meant is the physical separation of a place where normal people are, the USA, and a threat outside this - the Soviet Union. What are people doing in the USA? Free, 'nightclub' stuff, obviously, which is the popular image of that state as opposed to Soviet restriction - drinking alcohol, eating trash, having sex, occasionally while President (well it's the Land of the Free and they are there to keep asserting this, why wouldn't they then treat it as such?), taking drugs. That kind of thing. Hence, wherever such a situation exists, this opposition to the Soviets can be posed. This is a certain 'versatility' of capitalism. Because this opposition becomes a part of daily life, it is not easily overturned.

There is a certain dishonesty in posing politics in this way, but it is an attempt to make politics reducible to the sensuous, atomised experience of capitalist society. Politics there can only appear in the form of isolated impressions, and going beyond this tends towards socialism. Over-arching views like Nazism are only received as 'aesthetics,' although they at least are honest about this, but people do not wish to go further at the risk of 'alienating' the people around them. A Marxist cannot speak of 'alienation' from a personal stand-point, but only a theoretical one - otherwise, of course they would feel or be alienated, they are Marxists and wish to attack capitalist society. They're weird. In any case, the treatment of Soviet 'Marxism' is duplicitous, and stubborn in its duplicity - even if it is valid to note that uses of words like 'communist' here are misleading, people aren't talking about that, they're talking about keeping things out of a room. Dealing with this only as if it was a political discussion is fruitless if it is expected to go further, they would rather it was something like a counselling session. This can be unpleasant, as this is a highly isolated experience, and Marxism being subjected to it means that it inevitably seems obscure, and its aim at present far-off. Marxism, of course, exists as a political system continually after its formation, if an obscure one. It does not suddenly cease to be communist, etc., at a given time, and hence it can be freely interacted with.

Marxism continually undercuts its immediate appeal, as for instance with its criticism of the Proudhonist treatment of value, and hence blaming it for such eclectic uprisings can be problematic. It almost inevitably is replaced with Proudhonism, as Bordiga once noted.

The Soviet Union is restrictive. It tends to say 'no' to things, in popular terms, such as free enterprise, free choice of social systems, and other freedoms. Of course, communism must always be secured by some force, or we would merely create social multiplicity which allows for capitalism, and hence is not truly anti-capitalist. One can't rely on a constitution to do this, because they are famous objects of disregard. Hence, socialism without this reduces to a utopianism too mild to deserve the socialist name. Nonetheless, we must recall that capitalist society is one of need and fulfillment, where people are to continually seek and receive such things. To deny people this is anathema. Hence, capital's international watchword becomes the liberty which Paul famously condemned.

If Marxism is thus general, and the Soviet Union particular, why would Marxism be chained to the Soviet Union? There is plenty more to Marxism. But if we treat it in this way, then we prevent Marxism from being pinned down here, and hence many will disapprove of this. It is tantamount to supporting Marxism, if while giving this limited expression. In general, this view of Marxism reduces it to a threat to society and something which is a general hindrance. Marxist adherence to certain positions and opposition obstructs the harmonic society. Of course, Marxists are not considering Marxism for the sake of their own position in capitalist society or so on. Besides, they want to get rid of it. As such, it is generally safe to present Marxism as general, if this is honest, and then it tends to display favourably compared to the others in general. However, when this is not it is merely an image or aesthetic, that the Soviet Union can do as well as anything.

De Leonism and What's Left

For Daniel De Leon, socialists were the most advanced part of the society considered as a stratum. They could come into conflict with other workers, as De Leon did both in academia (ideological labour is still labour), and in the various unions of the time. Conflicts between unions were common at the time, and many defected from major unions due to dissatisfaction with among other things their rejection of politics and political discussion. It stood to reason that these highly reactionary elements of unions would see opposition. Unlike has often been alleged, Daniel De Leon identified with the more radical trend in popular politics, they did not only attack the unions in the abstract. Unions, obviously, are official and at least pseudo-political organisations, as the Labour Party was, and hence were subject to rebuke. This was especially likely because they are organs of negotiation. No doubt some would support Tony Blair for being head of the 'Labour Party' and having British labour's support.

They tried to take unions seriously as organs of political action. Hence, so far as they are concerned, IOC unions were to be a united force for a united struggle, they would also have to unite. This seems straightforward, if unions are to be of worth in such a context. However, the problem is that the division of labour which applies generally and which  the workers adhere to,  is set by the capitalists and must still apply in practice to workers' organisations. Hence, the unity of these unions is merely abstract, while in practical terms the capitalists are allowed to determine the nature of the union. Hence, even these, as in the IWW, took a reactionary and harmful turn, and rejected De Leon then only to accept Noam Chomsky now. The IWW right now is less a union than a divorce. The SLP are still humbly proclaiming themselves a Party, and as the song says, 'Best-laid plans sometimes are just a one night stand.'

This issue, of course, applies just as much to other unions, but in an inverted manner. Their division and hence form is dictated by capitalists, in a more direct sense, and they are cursed to wander like Ahasuerus where the capitalist leads. They are hence in many ways at the mercy of this class. The merit of the industrial union is that its if abstract union at least posits a socialist element, or the socialist hope, while the others do not do so in their organisation. The problem with this is that they tend to assume some form of 'socialism,' in whatever sense, is already in application, because they want this element to be applied without hindrance. It can only do this if labour is already carried out on this principle on a social level. This is not yet the case. But nonetheless it is the most fervent attempt to give unions or organisations of struggle a form making it of use to the socialist movement.

Daniel De Leon did oppose many socialists, but mostly for their retreats from socialism, not for socialism itself. If they saw problems arising, it was not from socialism itself. Hence, a firm adherence to this was not to be attacked. Only after one adheres to something can one go on to the other details. It would be strange, of course, to reprove people for being socialists and hence as De Leon said seeing the struggle through to its end, hence realising the terms and direction. They were hardly in a position to treat 'socialists' as the problem. Few people are attacked this much for their advancement in a given field, apart from priests. Many leftists would prefer a zone freed from 'meddling' leftists, or in brief one encouraged to be reactionary. If they were honest, they too would take as their slogan, 'No politics in the union,' and for their flag Gompersism.

De Leon, of course, wrote many works, and few have read over them. That would require patience, as the central points are often diffuse. It is not a topic of study. Hence, it need be no surprise that most of what we are told about De Leon's history is merely fabricated or sentimental, as with Irving Stone's stories about the oppression of Eugene Debs by the cruel De Leon. If De Leon were a more contemporary figure, their biographies would accuse them of cyber-bullying Jill Stein, no doubt. They are hence a historical object of wanton vilification - if they have to be mentioned at all. This might seem harsh. They died at around the time of the World Wars, of course, and the German side after World War I was highly demonised as a particular nation for their actions, to the point of seeking reprisal. In that sense, they might have just chosen the right time for it. In any case, they arose before the subsumption of the international communist movement by Soviet Russia, and hence their stern independence might seem a fitting reaction to the times.

De Leonite politics has often led to conflict, and responds to conflicts between various facets of society. It attempts to unify in a partisan manner against the forces opposed to it. However, the field of unionism was, peculiarly, not found a fitting location for this. De Leonism hence holds to underlying modes of social, partisan unity, against other elements. It thus can seem abrasive and strict. Nonetheless, apart from the particular forms advocated, De Leonism has the fortitude to stay outside these, by drawing on its firm adherence to socialism as such. Hence, its views summarised in terms of general traits have a long-lasting validity.