“Marxism – Last Refuge of the Bourgeoisie?” by Paul Mattick, 1978/1983
That
title got your attention. He actually
answers ‘no.’ Mattick is not a
professor, but was a life-long activist in the labor and Marxist movement. As a youth he was a member of the Spartacus
League in Germany, played a role in the 1919 German revolution, joined the
KPD/KAPD and was involved in the 1923 German revolution and the fight against
the Kapp putsch. He then emigrated to
the U.S. and joined several Marxist formations, then the IWW – even speaking at
Chicago’s Dill Pickle Club – and evolved into a council communist. He later wrote works critical of both Keynes
and Marcuse from the left.
I’m
only going to look at the last chapter of the book, as the rest is overly
familiar and a bit rhetorical. Mattick
held to the ‘state-capitalist’ theory about the Soviet Union and China,
insisting that a state-owned economy was exactly the same as a privately-owned
one. He saw Leninism as leading to a
replay of this. I’m not going to debate
those ideas, but only reference some of his original points about how bits of Marxism
could be useful to capitalists.
The
great conundrum of revolutionary Marxism, as opposed to bastardized reformist
versions, is the objective conditions it must operate in. Mattick himself lived through periods of
revolutionary upheaval and a return to relative stabilization in the central capitalist states. This made a deep impression on him.
To Mattick, revolutionary Marxism “functions
today as an ideology in anticipation of such a practice” – that practice
being revolutionary implementation by an active workers’ movement. “It
cannot operate under ‘normal’ conditions of capitalist production.” Hence what he is saying is no mystery – only
a long capitalist crisis can bring out revolutionary action guided by class
struggle.
Note,
he has no transitional approach between reform and revolution, which seems to
be a weakness of both reformism and ultra-leftism. Nor does he see a ‘transitional’ phase of a
workers’ dictatorship between capitalism and the withering away of the state
towards actual socialism.
“The great mass of workers acclimatize itself
to ruling bourgeois ideology…” in this period. Given both fear and limited
security, only conditions will push the great mass of workers to revolutionary
action. Mattick seems to give credence
to an automatic ‘final crisis,’ and an
‘objective failure of accumulation.’ He
also realizes the end point might be barbarism and world destruction too. So the role of socialism could be an attempt
to ‘save the world.’ Are we reaching
that point? That is another discussion.
In the
meantime, how do Marxism and capitalism ‘co-exist?’ Mattick: “The
history of capitalism is also the history of Marxism.” The grave-diggers trudge along, since graves
are still to be dug, though perhaps better paid for a while. The impact of
capitalist stabilization has promoted reformism in a Marxist cloak. It built social-democratic nations and reforms,
unionism, the ‘welfare state,’ some freedom for former colonies and demands for
social equality. It turned into ‘evolutionary theory.’
Marxism,
having lost hold of most large groups of workers, retreated to the universities
and spread among some intellectuals. It
infused sociology, geography, history, psychology, some political science and
even, in places, economics. For instance
Keynesianism is a capitalist attempt at incorporating tenants of Marxism –
specifically the role of the state and the financial status of ‘consumers’ –
i.e. workers. This is the
‘under-consumption’ thesis some Marxists like the MR school adopted. A
number of radical economists understood the ‘cyclical’ nature of capitalist
booms and busts, but never pinpointed the sputtering profit engine as the
culprit. Some thinkers understood ‘conspicuous consumption.’ National
‘industrial planning’ also became a thing in mature economies. State-driven development was adopted in many
newly-freed former colonies to jump-start some kind of capital growth and 'modernization.' Even globalization itself, knitting the world together by imperialist means, was a way towards a socialized world economy.
To Mattick, capitalist ideology penetrated into the workers’ states as ‘Marxism-Leninism,’ which he sees as a hold-over from the Second International. The state became ‘capitalist.’ He sees it as veiling labor exploitation using Marxist verbiage. Even he admits that Marx did not theorize a stage like this. Far beyond accusations of state exploitation is the economy of China. It nurtures an actual and massive capitalist sector. They have a yellow star on their flag celebrating the ‘patriotic bourgeoisie,’ so this is not some new thing. The idea that Chinese ‘socialism’ is simply the nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy has been refuted by many, including Marx. Mattick would agree.
Another way class struggle and Marxism infuse capital is to push it towards state intervention in the chaotic market; while also pushing it towards gains in productivity to offset labor. This has been a boon to the tech sector, sort of a dialectical dance where the pressure from workers is one thing that makes companies move towards robots, AI, computerization and automation. An analysis of the job losses in the 1980s and 1990s by Kim Moody shows automation was more damaging than Mexico or offshoring. Yet human labor and nature are the source of all value, so this poses a key dilemma for capital.
On another front, trade unions and forces like social-democracy and Eurocommunism became both sources of strength for labor, but also were integrated into the system and thus served to discipline workers in various ways. This situation is reflective of a sort of general stabilization after WWII. Mattick in 1978 writes “…at this point the future of Marxism remains extremely vague.” Workers feel organized action is necessary, but they also need to fill their individual and family needs at the same time. This means class consciousness is ambiguous. He finally writes: “The history of revolutionary Marxism has been the history of its defeats.”
Cheery, aye? Mattick, like every organized and conscious Marxist in countries with growing economies, has had to negotiate between this ‘stability’ and a seemingly unrealistic goal. However world capital at present, like it always does, is changing again. Bourgeois 'democratic' neo-liberalism is opposed by theocracies, military dictatorships, autocracies and oligarchies, but also by various forms of ‘illiberal’ authoritarianism, as the ‘center’ is failing to hold. This is because capital itself is coming up against various limitations. Profit rates, the environment, national structures, military conflict, debt and more are impeding the smooth flow of a stable world capitalism.
We are
in a new period which may open up revolutionary possibilities in the center and
‘peripheral’ countries both. In the terminology, it’s called a
‘conjuncture.’ In fact, given the
development of capital across the world, this simple meta-geographic
understanding about 'center' and 'periphery' should also change.
Prior
blogspot reviews on this subject, use blog search box, upper left, to
investigate our 19 year archive, using these terms: “council
communism,” “German Revolution,” ‘Marx,’ "Dill Pickle."
May
Day has many Left theory and semi-theory books – anarchist, council communist,
Marxist, social-democratic, ‘Marxist-Leninist.’
I got this one at the college library!
Red Frog / April 2, 2025
