Dogmatism and Marxism

I agree with the main part of what Mine has said, but I would like to add
that there are certainly some people WHO CALL THEMSELVES MARXIST who are
very dogmatic. For example, I knew someone from a USA trotskyist sect who
said that a worker could never be a fascist because fascism was the ideology
of the capitalist class and a worker couldn't be a capitalist (or something
like that!) and I knew someone else from a different group who argued that
international union leaders (such as Meany, head of the AFL-CIO or Woodcock,
head of the UAW) could not be called class enemies because they were members
of the working class, even though he admitted that they "pursued bad
policies."  That's what I'd call a really dogmatic collapsing of all social
factors into a one-dimensional interpretation of economics! These two union
leaders were a more important part of the capitalist State than perhaps 95%
of the actual capitalists.)

I know some people who believe that because Marx said that capitalism
precedes socialism-communism, that therefore, today, Marxists should fight
for the full development of capitalism in some places, rather than struggle
to eliminate it. Or that because Marx (& Lenin) supported some
anti-imperialist movements for "national liberation", that therefore,
Marxists today are duty bound to publicly support the Kosovar Albanians from
Serbian domination, or Milosevic, from NATO domination, or every guerilla
group that picks up the gun anywhere. (However, I would agree that
anti-imperialism should be a point of principle for Marxists (and anyone
else!))

So those would be my examples of dogmatism, the mechanical application of
abstract theory, by people who CALL THEMSELVES MARXIST.  I suppose Marxists
could just say that those dogmatic people aren't really Marxists. That's
what I might tend to do. But really, I have no illusions that such a
semantic technique resolves the issue in any kind of serious way. Whatever
kind of wording we might want to use, there clearly are many people who CALL
themselves Marxist who engage in dogmatic theorizing and behavior.

By the way, these errors are not just confined to those who might be
associated with the more revolutionary wing of Marxism. There are plenty of
moderate socialists (as well as just mainstream pro-capitalist theorists)
who engage in all kinds of dogmatic phrase-mongering.

Perhaps the most common form of dogmatism is the narrow minded,
unquestioning way they make the assumption that their more revolutionary
opponents are automatically dogmatic while they, the moderates, are simply
looking at objective facts, with no partisanship influencing their
conclusions. If I could be permitted to quote Lenin (& others who have made
similar statements): "Facts are stubborn things."

In the end, we still have to argue the facts, as well as the methodology (I
think Marxism works) to interpret that data.

Alan Spector



-----Original Message-----
From: md7148@cnsvax.albany.edu <md7148@cnsvax.albany.edu>
To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Date: Thursday, January 20, 2000 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: Historic spirals (fwd)



labeling one-self as a "non-dogmatic marxist" is itself a
self-affirmation of "dogma", accepting, by definition, the ideological
(false) distinction between "dogmatic" and "non-dogmatic marxism". it is,
itself,a product of "dogmatic reasoning"...


there is nothing like "dogmatic marxism". it is a false label and
ideology aimed to stigmatize communists by anti-communists. Since MARXISM
IS NOT A DOGMA, there is no point in arguing that "i am a non-dogmatic
marxist". people who argue this are IDEOLOGS par-exellence!! They
are imputing value judgement to their definition of marxism. They act like
agent prevacatours in marxism list servs to divide marxists!!


Mine