BY AFASHIMA MOSES
There may be just a few individuals who are not inclined to have titles and identities attached to their names. Some, perhaps, use these titles and identities to achieve socialisation, while for others, it is out of self-validation and fulfilment. Marxism has, for many years, attracted followers and gained acceptability. While Marxism is an ideology, some have considered it a source of pride, making it a badge on their names and identities.
The real takeaways of Marxism have been reduced to individual interpretation. The concept itself, however, is increasingly open to different considerations. But what is, then, the real Marxist tradition?
John Molyneux, was a British academic, author, and leading member of the Socialist Workers Party. His booklet, What is the Real Marxist Tradition?, made clear the ideal nature of Marxism based on how the ideology should be perceived and considered. Molyneux, quoting Lenin, says that Marxism is “a block of steel.” This implies that the key points of Marxism as an ideology must be strictly adhered to. But when one attempts to do so by adhering to the traditional approach to Marxism, the ideas of Marx himself will be contradictory.
When discussing Marxism it may not be wholly correct to describe Marxism as just the followers of the views of Karl Marx. As such would limit the understanding and scope of interaction in the theory of Marxism. Molyneux stressed this when he said, “Even if, for historical reasons, we name the theory after the individual who did most to establish it, we cannot, at the price of total impotence, reduce or confine it to what that individual himself wrote.” (page 7). More elaborately, he stated that the idea of subjecting Marxism to the followership of Marx is “a scholastic, even religious, approach. It fails to take account of the fact that if Marxism is, as Engels said, ‘not a dogma, but a guide to action’, then it must be a living, developing theory, capable of continuous growth, which has to analyse and respond to an ever-changing reality—a reality which has, in fact, changed enormously since Marx’s day.” (page 7).
When you consider the world as a dynamic and changing place, then Marxism can be said to have gone beyond the traditional theoretical approach. As Trotsky observed, “Marxism is above all a method of analysis—not analysis of texts but analysis of social relations.” (page 7).
Marxism, in its traditional sense, is the battle between the proletariat (working class) and the bourgeoisie (ruling class). However, since the world is in constant change since the death of Marx, Marxism must also change to meet the demands of developing ideas. But it must, according to Molyneux, “do so without departing from the standpoint of proletarian revolution. If it does so depart, then it ceases to be Marxism.” (page 65). This is then where the metaphor of “a block of steel” is applicable. A better understanding of what Marxism should be is the view by Lenin that Marx “laid the cornerstones of the science which socialists must advance in all directions.” (page 65).
People who consider themselves Marxists must support the idea of Marxist internationalism and the principle of workers’ control of the means of production. These are basic components that all Marxists must protect and uphold to be real Marxists. Though Marxist internationalism and the principle of workers’ control of the means of production are somewhat ambiguous concepts, Molyneux presents a simple logic for understanding them.
According to Molyneux, the basic characteristic of Marxist internationalism is the priority of the whole interests of the world working class. (page 17). One thing that must be made clear is that the idea of “working class” is not just limited to the proletariat but includes all who are opposed to the ruling class, including the “unskilled workers” as Izielen Agbon calls them. This includes artisans, students, peasants, and other categories of people that are below the ladder of the ruling class. Any attempt to separate and categorize the working class must be refuted by all Marxists because, in times of revolution, all the categories of people below the ladder of the ruling class form the vanguard for the actualization of the revolution.
Molyneux explains this by giving the analogy that “a revolutionary worker who has never left his hometown, speaks only his native language, and yet opposes his ‘own’ government in time of war is far more of an internationalist than the learned professor who has travelled the world, speaks half a dozen languages, is steeped in the knowledge of different cultures, and yet in time of war supports his own government.” (page 17).
Again, because of the priority of the whole, Marxist internationalism supports the recognition of the right to national self-determination and support for national liberation struggles, if the interests of the international class demand it (page 18). This means that true Marxists should stand in solidarity with nation-states that are struggling for independence, like Western Sahara, Scotland, Catalonia, Palestine, and others. This internationalism is based on the idea that freedom is non-negotiable and the liberty of the entire working class of the world is of great importance.
Secondly, the principle of workers’ control of the means of production is an integral aspect of Marxism. Molyneux observed that the proponents of this principle are of the opinion that capitalism “is irrational and unjust, it causes economic crises, poverty, war, etc. If production were state-owned and there was state planning of the economy, it would be an altogether better, more rational arrangement and these evils would be ended.” (page 19). This constitutes just the surface meaning.
The mention of the state must not be taken too literally because it is somewhat contradictory to the real intention of Marxism itself. Marxist and socialists defines socialism as a form of government where the means of production is owned and controlled by the state. This will amount to an error in judgement if so limited. As public companies are dictated and controlled by the ruling class which the working class must dislodge. The ruling class in Abuja controls and determines how Nigerian public companies are run and managed. So it will amount to a mockery to reduce the NNPC, for example, to a socialist state owned company in the Marxist view.
The intention of Karl Marx is quite different. Molyneux explains that “the proletariat is locked in class struggle against the bourgeoisie which exploits and oppresses it” (page 18). And the only way it can win that battle and emancipate itself is to defeat the bourgeoisie politically and take possession of the means of production. This it can do only by creating its own state. Here, state and means of production imply that the victory of the proletariat will create a working situation where workers will manage and control what happens in the workplace. The workers’ state will be based on this collective control from below. So socialism is not just based on extending state owned enterprises that exist in many countries, but that are managed like private companies.
Marx himself, in the Communist Manifesto, says that “the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class, and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.” Molyneux sums up Marx’s view thus: “For the state socialists, state ownership is the end, the working class the means. For Marxism, the emancipation of the class is the end, state ownership the means” (page 18).
We can see that the entire theory of Marxism rests on the principles of internationalism and the means of production being controlled by the proletariat. As simple as this may be, modern-day Marxists are confronted with a barrage of personal ideological conflicts that erode the real Marxist tradition. Religion, political affiliations, and nationalism are some of the issues that can be pointed out as affecting the real Marxist tradition. In the words of Molyneux, “As in private life one distinguishes between what a man thinks and says of himself and what he really is and does.” (page 5).
In the midst of oppression by the ruling class, Marxist comrades who have not fully immersed themselves in the idea of Marxism often take sides with their religious beliefs. Marx argues that religion is a product of societal conditions, which are themselves distorted or “inverted.” He believes that an unjust or corrupt society gives rise to religious beliefs as a reflection of its own flaws and contradictions. In other words, religion’s distorted view of the world is a result of the distorted nature of the society that produces it. These personal affiliations have given room for extreme beliefs and far-right ideologies.
A real Marxist should care less about nationality and more about the freedom of the working class all over the world. A real Marxist should consider the fight against all forms of exploitation and oppression as paramount. Their political affiliation should be the enthronement of the working class to power in order to form an equitable state where workers determine and control the means of production.
For a free download of John Molyneux’s “What is the real Marxist tradition?” go to:
https://ivavalleybooks.com/2024/05/02/what-is-the-real-marxist-tradition-john-molyneux-1983/