What would a rational Marxist current look like?
Posted on Friday 26 October, 2007
Filed Under The left
With the meltdown in Respect, the implosion of the Scottish Socialist Party and the collapse of the Labour left, the proposition that organised Marxism in Britain is weaker than at any time for a century hardly requires much elaboration.
But if an intelligent, rational, humanist Marxist current were to exist – and it very plainly doesn’t – what would it look like? Here are a few thoughts.
Ideologically, it would need to base itself on the realisation that answers to the political questions facing us do not come gift-wrapped in the classical theoretical works of the tradition.
Marx’s dissection of Victorian capitalism and Trotsky’s exploration of the political situation in 1930s, for instance, remain unparalleled analyses of these topics. But both were marred by the expectation of ‘revolution round the corner’, and in any case, no political literature can be expected to transcend its times, at least not indefinitely.
In a world that has changed in so many ways in my adult lifetime – globalisation, the demise of Stalinism, the dramatic resurgence of religion and nationalism, global warming, the communications revolution – it really is necessary to sit down and think things through, rearticulating the categories of Marxism for the present day.
Luxemburg’s insistence on democracy and Gramsci’s take on hegemony are probably more relevant to Marxists drawing up tactics for use in western Europe right now than anything that proceeded from the pen of Lenin.
Discussion and debate should be completely public, and take full advantage of the possibilities opened up by the internet, as well as more traditional forms of getting our ideas across, such as journals.
Rather than scorn anarchism, feminism, ecology and other schools of radical thought, we should take on board their genuine insights.
Organisationally, the toytown Bolshevism that the forerunners of the SWP once rightly derided should be junked immediately. A modern Marxist grouping needs to be loose, libertarian and Luxemburgist; there is no need for Elvis impersonator Lenin wannabes handing down ‘the line’ from on high.
Such a current’s orientation should of course be towards promoting basic socialist ideas in the organisations of the working class, including the community organisations of the working class. Members may belong to the Labour or Green parties, leftwing parties or no party at all, to whatever extent holding a card facilitates such tasks.
Sadly, I guess sanity is rather too much to ask for right now. And hey, it wouldn’t be half as much fun as petty bickering over minor sectarian quiddities, would it?
<<Go back
Comments
70 Responses to “What would a rational Marxist current look like?”
This debate happened before, and we were to tied up in our trot certainties to listen:
http://www.amielandmelburn.org.uk/collections/mt/index_frame.htm
“Rather than scorn anarchism, feminism, ecology and other schools of radical thought, we should take on board their genuine insights…Socialist organisation needs to be loose, libertarian and Luxemburgist…”
I’ll drink to that on a friday night. Cheers.
Good post.
Well said Dave. Personally, I’m an ecosocialist and a member of the Green Party. All of us on the left need to update our thinking, whilst of course remaining true to our principles. Where we have shared issues, we should work together. In unions, residents associations, pressure groups and political parties. It can be a ‘movement for change’, but we need to stop the petty bickering and avoid sectarianism. Although, I sometimes think that is what people enjoy about being on the left.
I know this will sound arrogant, but… it would look like the Alliance for Workers Liberty …give or take a few presentational issues (I know were’re not good at them): OK?
“I know this will sound arrogant, but… it would look like the Alliance for Workers Liberty …give or take a few presentational issues (I know were’re not good at them): OK?”
From the last few posts I’ve understood that Dave has taken the depressed view the ‘we are all fucked’. Something I can sympathise with. I’m not sure that I would want to join a party, however, that saw fertile recruiting ground in the near clinically depressed.
There may be loads of us, but paper sales will be pathetic.
Hi Dave
What do you think of the view as a Marxist, that you guys are now history? You have had your time, now move on?
John Gray, what an incisive comment. You have turned my world upside-down.
Mmmm. Well, I wrote a pretty similar kind of post earlier over at StroppyBlog. Ya copying me Dave?
http://stroppyblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/way-forward.html
What a load of old tosh.
To begin. Gramscis writings on hegemony borrow heavily from Lenin and in party matters Luxemburg was more or a disciplinarian than Lenin. Not that I expect you to know the actual historical record Dave.
Both Lenin and Luxemburg would have vomited at the idea that comrades who adhered to the Marxian program could chose and be permitted to join whatever party they chose. Both leaders in both practice and theory demanded that their comrades give the revolutionary cause the totality of their political lives. Both gave their lives as a result of their own total loyalty to the communist program.
As for borrowing from ‘other schools of radical thought’ this is an idiotic idea. How can one borrow ideas from ideologies which are opposed to workers power? Certainly revolutionaries should engage with such ideas but that is all.
John Gray brings in the point about Marxists having had their time and should move on.
We need to keep level headed during the current debate being waged amongst the left and not pander to the type of cynicism that led to the creation of Blairism/New Labour back in the late eighties /early nineties.
Many of the left at that time , jumped ship in the confusion, and threw in their lot with Blair in a poacher turned game keeper role.Consequently it led over the last 15 odd years to the decline of the Labour Party to the current state its in now ie less than 180’000 members, in-quorate meetings, only 2/3rds of CLPs being represented at conferences and the difficulty in inspiring despondent votes to vote for Labour at elections.
You cant even promote the few good things Labour has done because you get Iraq, privatisation and public service pay cuts thrown back in your face.I would get your own politics in order before you star writing off marxism.
Its worth pondereing those points John.
There is still a huge role to be played by marxists in organising against the neo liberal agenda being promoted and it will take abit of courage and ingenuity for the current non Labour and Labour left to bring themselves together on a non secterian basis.
Marxism didnt’die’out when the Berlin wall fell.
As the debates in Respect rage on and the CNWP fumbles along in an unfavourable climate we will only see younger socialists, new to the ideas being left dissolusioned to drop out of socialist politics altogether.I suppose you can call this the ‘human’ cost of being involved in Left politics.
This is why I agree with the calls made by the LRC and McDonnell for the left to start talking because everything else seems to be failing. This is not a call to join Labour, as someone (I think Doug) was infering I was saying in a previous post.That currently is a no brainer.
We need to get together on the issues that unite us and hammer out a way forward and that will mean dropping the factional interests temporarily in favour of uniting around the 99% of socialist ideas we all agree on.Arent these the principles that most workers organisations form on? Is it really that difficult?
Ian
On Gramsci I tend to agree with Mike. He clearly views himself as falling within the Leninist tradition and viewed Bolshevism as an example of hegemony in action (its alliance with the peasantry). He can also easily be placed in the Leninist tradition for his views on the Party, like Lukacs he represents a more self-consciously philosophical Leninism, one which attempts to give theoretical substance to Lenin’s practical and political observations about the role of the Party.
That being said, it is still true to say that a Gramscian approach would clearly be more sophisticated than the soi disant Leninists would have it. However, I would personally opine that a slavish adherence to Lenin’s particular positions in the Russian revolutions runs agains the heart of Leninism, which is premised on a concrete analysis of concrete situations. So the truly Leninist thing to do today is to abandon outdated practices that originate in the Russian Revolution.
I don’t really agree with Andy that we have that much to learn from Marxism today. The thing is that you can place the broad orientation of those debates within the Eurocommunist tradition, and it seems pretty obvious that this tradition has very little mileage in it. This also links nicely with the Gramsci, in that much of Eurcommunism’s output was premised on a hideous misreading of Gramsci.
Moving to more specific issues, I actually think we could do with going back to the Second International model or Party-building. Here the Party is an organisation which is embedded in the class, it doesn’t just take part in campaigns or education (altough both of those are important), but really tries to embed itself into communities by providing services, socials etc. What immediately springs to mind for me at this point is what the Black Panthers were doing in their heyday, I feel that’s something to aspire to. This of course means moving away from the narrow focus of the Party (or current or whatever) as a purely political body and instead seeing it as an organic part of the class (which was always how Lenin envisaged it).
“How can one borrow ideas from ideologies which are opposed to workers power?”
How exactly are anachism and feminism opposed to workers’ power?
What orthodox Marxists seem unable (or unwilling) to do is apply a Marxist critical analysis to the works of Marx himself and his followers – Marx, Lenin, Trotsky et al were all products of specific historical material conditions and their works should be read with this in mind. What made perfect sense in 1850s Europe or the USSR in the 1930s is not necessarily suited to our current situation.
Another suggestion (and I’m sure this will go down like the Titanic) is that maybe we shouldn’t be so quick to reject the work of certain Postmodernists eg Foucault’s essentially Marxist analysis of the construction of state power.
Dave
I agree with pretty much all of what you say.
And I think a lot of people do.
I see the main difficulty as timing and presentation rather than ideology because – as has been pointed out – whether we call ourselves socialists, communists, trade unionists, anarchists, or greens most readers of Dave’s Part agree on most things about society.
The question is how do we start a new “marxist current” to use your phrase in a way that draws in that broad consensus of activists.
How do we get the right alliances in place? how do we pick our moment? And how do we then market the idea to the people who don’t read Dave’s Part and who may – I fear – constitute a majority?
History would seem to suggest that Scargill, Taffe, Sheriden and Galloway (apologies for the over peronalisation but you know what I mean) made brave efforts but have not pulled it off.
It would seem to me that to persuade other people to take us seriously we would have to involve at least one union and some politicians people have heard of right from the launch.
The RMT, the FBU, John McDonnell and Tommy Sheridan – say.
How do we start building that alliance and how do we time and market our launch?
They are the questions.
Would that the “John Gray” who is some sort of professor at the LSE and thinks that the emlightenment was a terrible mistake and globalisation is terrible and we’d all be better off under religious obscurantism? What a wanker!
It amazez me that these reactionary clowns are allowed access to young, vulnerable minds. And that they get their banal books published.
Both Lenin and Luxemburg would have vomited at the idea that comrades who adhered to the Marxian program could chose and be permitted to join whatever party they chose. Both leaders in both practice and theory demanded that their comrades give the revolutionary cause the totality of their political lives. Both gave their lives as a result of their own total loyalty to the communist program.
This comment illustrates perfectly why the far left will fail and why humanity will benefit from the failure. The far left is gripped by deep and vicious authoritarianism.
Plus, it’s just plain nasty. People aren’t stupid you know – it’s not false consciousness that causes them to reject the far left: it’s a very real understanding of the depravity of the far left in power.
The violence of the former Soviet and the continuing Chinese dictatorship is not some aberration, it lies deep within the Leninist tradition – because Leninism per se, does not create the space for alternative ideas and disputes (once again – I recommend Tony Polan’s “Lenin and the end of politics” for more on this).
I don’t pretend social democracy is perfect, far from it. But it is the strand of the socialist tradition that has emerged from a rejection of Leninism and it is a better place to start.
In any case people who cite texts written a century and more ago as though they were holy writ would be better off in a monastry. They obviously have some deep flaw, intellectual or otherwise, if they say they are about “scientific socialism” and then reject the basic point of science – if you won’t admit that tour theory might be disprovable it is not science.
from a libertarian left perspective
I realize the world is said to love a tryer, but when you look at the number of times many of those who claim to be marxists have cocked up, you would have thought they would have concluded that they are not that good at the political game and looked for another line of work. Especially as they are forever telling us that Marxism is a science and thus a dead cert.
Normally I would not mind and would forgive them their mistakes, after all mistakes are common to the entire human race. It is just that they do go on as if they have found the holy grail, what ever that may be. All I really ask from them is a little modesty, is that to much to expect with their track record?
To be honest Dave I never had you down as a marxist, you seem to me to be far to inquisitive and comradely for that. Someone who has dipped in and out of the great man’s work, perhaps.
http://organizedrage.blogspot.com/
I never had you down as a marxist, you seem to me to be far to inquisitive and comradely for that. Someone who has dipped in and out of the great man’s work, perhaps.
You may be confusing followers of Marx with those of Lenin here. I’m a Marxist myself – tendance Raymond Williams or Guy Debord depending on the prevailing wind – and I don’t begin to accept the idea that Marxism isn’t compatible with being ‘inquisitive and comradely’.
Phil
Your absolutely correct, I meant the type of follower of Lenin and Trotsky who preaches with such certainty no matter what the subject. It is as if they admitted to having any doubts their whole world view would crumble. Before anyone misunderstands me, I am not blanketing all followers of the two old beards into this category, far from it in fact.
McGazz wrote “How exactly are anachism and feminism opposed to workers’ power?”
Well for a start anarchism, as propounded by such founders of anarchism as Bakunin and Proudhon, does not privilege the proletriat as the universal revolutionary class as does Marxism. It also denies the necesity of a transitional period during which a state, a workers state or semi-state if you wish, would be required. That is to say Anarchism denies the need for the working class to hold state power as a class. The reasonbeing that classical anarchism denies the centrality of class and substitutes for it the anarchist elite.
As for feminism it is based on the notion that the fundamental divide in humanity is not that between social classes but that between the sexes. By doing so feminism calls for the unity fio wmen regardless of class and obstructs the unity of workers regardless of our gender.
I accept that some forms of anarchism and feminism stray from the above positions but in doing so they tend to break from the fundamantals of their respective ideologies.
McGazz continued “What orthodox Marxists seem unable (or unwilling) to do is apply a Marxist critical analysis to the works of Marx himself and his followers – Marx, Lenin, Trotsky et al were all products of specific historical material conditions and their works should be read with this in mind. What made perfect sense in 1850s Europe or the USSR in the 1930s is not necessarily suited to our current situation.”
In actual fact there is a long history of orthodox marxism appling the analytical methodology of Marxism to Marxism itself. The work of Karl Korsch was concerned with exactly that question I note. Moreover I would argue that only braindead sectists would seek to build a political current in 2007 based on the various texts of various dead gentlemen with beards. But thats ‘orthodox Trotskyism’ for you I guess.
rather absurd Mike, to dismiss anarchism, without referring to the majority trends within it, which have always privileged the working class as the revolutionary class. Maybe not just absurd, perhaps, maybe deliberately myopic.
Yeah, most anarchists in England seem down with the workers than up with the bosses — almost all, in fact. And the Greens aren’t exactly anti-worker, are they?
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/3169
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/3131
Dave’s wrong imply there’s little Lenin’s writings can offer us – what about the analysis of imperialism, the aristocracy of labour, support for national self-determination, etc?
“As for feminism it is based on the notion that the fundamental divide in humanity is not that between social classes but that between the sexes.”
Wrong. Feminism is based on the notion that women are oppressed and there should be a fight for women’s liberation.
Some strands of feminism adhere to the view that you describe. But socialist feminism – currently undergoing something of a resurgence – certainly does not.
I think Mike’s ignorant dismissive sweeping statement is exactly the sort of thing that Dave was cautioning against.
Jim Denham: ‘Would that the “John Gray” who is some sort of professor at the LSE and thinks that the emlightenment was a terrible mistake and globalisation is terrible and we’d all be better off under religious obscurantism? What a wanker!
It amazez me that these reactionary clowns are allowed access to young, vulnerable minds. And that they get their banal books published.’
Er, no it wouldn’tbe that John Gray. But I imagine it’s that Jim Denham that can’t get out of bed in the morning because he’s overdone it A-BLOODY-GAIN the night before?
Well, the powerful and plentiful trends of anti-democratic anarchism should certainly be avoided, as should the anti-organisational.
As for the left, I suspect we need to look at why the worker’s movement has vanished and left us with remnants of sects, that are outside the social current – specifically the standing pool of two million or so unemployed that has hobbled the unions.
I guess this thread has demonstrated why it is so hard for socialists to unite, they all start squabbling among themselves. If only we could rise above it, but I suspect we need a revolutionary situation for that to happen.
“Would that the “John Gray” who is some sort of professor at the LSE and thinks that the emlightenment was a terrible mistake and globalisation is terrible and we’d all be better off under religious obscurantism? What a wanker!”
a) no it isn’t. this John Gray is a Unison activist.
b) what a massive misrepresentation of the ideas of the other John Gray in any case. have you actually read what he has written?
I wish I knew who ‘Last of the Blairites’ was so that I could buy him or her a drink!
“It amazes me that these reactionary clowns are allowed access to young, vulnerable minds. And that they get their banal books published.” – Jim Denham
I have no interest in John Gray’s work, but I think it needs to be pointed out that these vulnerable young minds he is apparently damaging are actually those of intelligent young adults who can make up their own minds and are no doubt exposed to a wide range of different views. Gray’s there to teach, not to indoctrinate and I’d presume that’s what he does. And I guess someone at his publisher considers his books to display sufficient scholarship to merit publication, but I don’t know, I’ve not read them.
My first thought on reading this post is I agree with every word written by Dave.
My next thought, after reading the comments thread was that Mike’s comments exemplify everything that’s wrong with the far-left. The tedious theorising, the treating of key writers (Marx, Gramsci etc) like they’re Holy Scripture Handed Down From Above, the dreary sermonising.
I mean:
“Both Lenin and Luxemburg would have vomited at the idea that comrades who adhered to the Marxian program could chose and be permitted to join whatever party they chose. Both leaders in both practice and theory demanded that their comrades give the revolutionary cause the totality of their political lives. Both gave their lives as a result of their own total loyalty to the communist program.”
Can’t you feel your brain ossifying just reading that?
I often think that the left would do far better if they just dropped some of the jargon and buzzwords – words like “imperialism”, “hegemony”, “dialectic” – and substituted a bit of plain English. I’m sure sprinkling these buzzwords all over your literature makes for brownie points at a Marxist seminar, but to actual human beings it just makes you look and sound like Rick from the Young Ones.
” . . . it just makes you look and sound like Rick from the Young Ones.”
Rik was an anarchist. Any serious working class activist would have known that.
Jack Ray wrote “rather absurd Mike, to dismiss anarchism, without referring to the majority trends within it, which have always privileged the working class as the revolutionary class.”
The problem with this is that it is not true. Prior to the development of the anarchist communist current and later the anarcho-syndicalist current, a mass current in contrast to the former, anarchism talked of an undifferentiated people not of the modren proletariat.
Next.
Janine wrote “Feminism is based on the notion that women are oppressed and there should be a fight for women’s liberation.”
Which, again, is simply not true. After all the idea that women are oppressed is an idea that pre-dtaes both Marxism and feminism. It cannot then be an idea that defines feminism given that it is found in a number of other ideologies as well as in the work of old Fred Engels.
So following Mike’s logic there can be no socialist feminism. I disagree. Has Mike ever heard of “social reproduction theory”? If not, he might want to read this:
http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue26/fergus26.htm
I think a socialist group at this time, is about the ones and twos. It’s about creating confident, articulate members.
In Minneapolis here, some socialist groups don’t allow young comrades, to interract with people from other groups.
On the contrary Jason I accept that socialist feminism exists. What I deny is that Marxism and feminism can be fused into a single coherent body of thought. It follows that for me those Marxists who claim to be socialist feminists have an understanding of Marxism that is flawed on the crucial question of womens liberation.
As for the idea of social reproduction theory I find the idea wrong. In that it suggests that even if the exploitation of one social class by another wereto be ended by a social revolution the oppression of wmen might be continued. This for a Marxist is ludicrous given the position of Engels that the defeat of the female sex was also the occasion for the rise of class society. The ending of class society then cannot be concieved of without womens liberation.
Mike, You have a very wooden way of arguing. It’s kind of “I define this word as meaning this, even if plenty of its adherents define it differently. And if this word means this, and that word means that, then this word and that word can’t possibly go together.”
It’s so divorced from the actual politics of the thing that it’s not the easiest thing to argue against, but it’s no less bullshit for that.
By the way, Dave, going back to your very first sentence … surely it is not “the meltdown in Respect” that signals the weakness of Marxism in Britain but the formation of Respect in the first place. Perhaps it’s meltdown may actually be a sign of hope.
Of course, we will still be asking/debating this question (sat on what’s left of the planet) in a hundred years time, unless comrades begin to address the issues I raise here:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_02.htm
I don’t accept that the main problem with the left is bickering over minor issues – rather, the problem is surely the refusal to discuss these at all.
As the recent debate on the Socialist Unity blog over the HOPI affiliation to Stop the War has shown, the predominant culture on the left is one where “unity” can only be achieved by excluding dissidents and getting everyone else to agree to a minimum programme which cannot be questioned.
The suggestion that everyone could be in the same organisation if we all accepted each others’ right to disagree is rarely entertained.
The refusal to allow questions to be asked and alternative views to be posed destroys the political culture of any left group. Without democracy, there is no possibility of rational ideas emerging – the SWP is well schooled in opportunistic “theories” rationalising the bureaucratic projects of its leaders.
However, left unity is essentially impossible without a sea change in activists’ Stalinist attitude towards debate.
Pearney opines that Rosa was ‘more of a displinarian than Lenin’ (though one assumes not as much as ‘spanker’ Galloway).
German social democracy and central Europen social democracy were certainly not without organisational faults (as Michels ‘law of iligarchy’ pointed out – in general terms.) But they were mass organisations based around the working class, with many democratic features. The neeaest equivalent here was the ILP.
I suspect it’s the lack of the ‘mass’ that acounts for many of the problems the left is undergoing here at the moment. Naturally there are anti-humanist trends, cringeing towards religious reaction, get-rich quick sects (aka SWP/Respect) out of their depth even in a couple of local councils, and… well a whole host of anti-socialist absurdities mouthed by such as the apologists for the Iranian regime in the StWC.
But the fundemental cause of this bizarre in-fighting I suspect is this lack of real mass – working class notably – politics.
Andrew, what you say has to be part of the cause, but because it is a *negative* cause (a bit like: ‘the forest fire was caused by lack of rain’), it cannot be the entire story.
But, Marxists have operated with a core theory (dialectics) for 140 odd years; that surely is partly to blame. If the truth of a theory is tested in practice, and our side has seen little other than defeat after defeat, split after split, then how is it possible for that core theory to have nothing to do with this, or for it not to have been refuted by history?
I accept your point Rosa: is perhaps best described as a necessary but not sufficient condition.
The kind of rational Marxist politics Dave outlines – which are close to views of many of us on the left – includes the ability to accept contradiction. That the culture of the ‘line’ contributed an important part of the inability of the left to relate to ordinary people (or more widely the vast changes in the class make-up of this country – many other points can be listed. Which I assume is Dave’s intention in opening up a debate.
On the line, just to give an example of what the Stalinist legacy meant.
My mum taught me a little old CP ditty: “Marx and Engels aways taught that undue concentration, on abstract intellectual thought, is very bad and always leads to great confusion” (maybe partially the case re. academic Marxism). Then the Stalinist twist comes, “And that is what we all must try to keep a close relation, between the statement of the line, and its practical application.”
Not much there about mass workers’ democracy in elaborating the party’s policies, eh?
Janine is correct, as usual.
Sex/gender oppression cannot be reduced to class oppression. Class is always “gendered.” There is nothing anti-Marxist about saying so.
Andrew, fair enough, but I was not too sure about this:
“The kind of rational Marxist politics Dave outlines – which are close to views of many of us on the left – includes the ability to accept contradiction.”
Is ‘accepting’ contradictions like, say, belief in the Christian Trinity — no one can explain it, but then again, no one dare challenge orthodoxy?
Rosa,
could you provide a 100-200 words summary of your theory on this topic.
thanks
Janine wrote “It’s so divorced from the actual politics of the thing that it’s not the easiest thing to argue against, but it’s no less bullshit for that.”
No Janine it is not rather the problem is that you are unwilling to engage with the basic ideas of Marxism on the development of class society. I can only suggest that you read Engels on the origin of classes where he argues that the oppression of women arose at the identical point at which social classes appeared. This suggests that the oppression of women can only be done away with at the same historical point at which class exploitation disappears.
This does not mean that sexual oppression can be reduced to a mere aspect of class oppression, an idea which it is illegitimate to father on me as does Jason S, rather that the two are intimately linked. Moreover in the entire corpus of Classical Marxism there is not as much as a hint that the oppression of women can be concieved of as part of a mode of reproduction linked but distinct from the mode of production.
That some thinkers who call themselves Marxists do adhere to the idea of dual modes of production and reproduction is true. But this idea has never been dominant among Marxists and is indeed largely confined to academic Marxists.
“The problem with this is that it is not true. Prior to the development of the anarchist communist current and later the anarcho-syndicalist current, a mass current in contrast to the former, anarchism talked of an undifferentiated people not of the modren proletariat.”
What a curious comment. You could probably fit the number of adherents to anarchisms other than anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism over the centuries into a football stadium. Whereas those trends have mobilised millions, and been mass movements in various countries. In what sense are they not the majority trends within anarchism, when they represent the majority of adherents that doctrine both past and present?
Gosh, you’re patronising, aren’t you, Mike? Surprisingly, I have actually read Engels on the origins of women’s oppression. Groundbreaking work it was, a real step forward for socialist thinking on the subject. (Mind you, it wasn’t perfect – gasp).
Yes, women’s oppression did begin with the rise of class society. And yes, that means that women’s liberation can only come with the abolition of classes. However, that does NOT mean that:
(a) seixst prejudices will automatically vanish on the dawn of the glorious revolution; or
(b) socialists don’t have to bother with that feminism mullarkey cos the revolution will deal wih that.
“I can only suggest that you read Engels on the origin of classes where he argues that the oppression of women arose at the identical point at which social classes appeared. This suggests that the oppression of women can only be done away with at the same historical point at which class exploitation disappears.”
A few points in response to this. Correlation is not the same thing as casuality, just because something happened at the same time as something else does not mean they are linked. Also your second sentence does not follow from your first. Just because two relations emerged at the same time does not mean that they can only be combatted together. Indeed the advancement of women’s rights within capitalist societies would seem to point in the other direction. Finally, I personally think it is extremely unlikely that the oppression of women only “arose” at the same time as social classes emerged. Just because Engels wrote it doesn’t make it true.
On the broader question of a what an intelligent marxist current would look like now, I think a first step you folks would need to take straight away is abandon your attachment to revolution. In developed countries the working class simply has too much to lose to make an insurrection seem like a practical political response. Material conditions have changed from the time when your holy books were written.
I have never really understood the hang-up on revolutions given that it is simply a way of achieving political power rather than the more important question of what you do with that power in practice. And going further where marxists have taken power through insurrection the results haven’t been too pleasant have they? (I realise they were probably the ‘wrong type’ of marxists according to some book written in the 1930s).