IS THERE A HETERODOX MARXISM?

IS THERE A HETERODOX MARXISM?

Nildo Viana

It is common in the discussions on Marxism to use the terms "orthodox" and "heterodox". These terms and the supposed existence of these two forms of Marxism became popular , though without any further reflection. Orthodox Marxism is seen by the "heterodox" and supposed critics of Marxism as something negative. On the other hand, those who call themselves "orthodox" consider themselves the true followers of Karl Marx and Marxism. Some of these will reject the existence of a heterodox Marxism, because the only Marxism would be the orthodox one. At bottom, it is a scholastic discussion and a far cry from Marxism and its theoretical and methodological procedures. Hence it becomes useful to discuss the meaning of these two terms and whether there really is a "heterodox Marxism." Let us begin by discussing the historical origin of the two terms, conducting a critical analysis of both, and ending by placing the Marxist conception on them.

The idea of ​​an "orthodox Marxism" arises after Marx's death [1] . After the death of the founder of Marxism, Engels became the main representative of the continuity of the intellectual production of Marx and the most respected name within the social democracy (the set of political parties that called themselves that way - despite Ma r criticism x - especially the German Social Democratic Party) [2] and, after his death, this position was transferred to Karl Kautsky. This became the guardian of the "doctrine" Marxist and wrote some books to simplify it and Disclosure will -la, and adds not only their particular interpretation, but also additions (including the approach of Marxism and evolutionism). It is in this context that the use of the term "orthodox Marxism", represented by Kautsky [3] . This was even one of the opponents of "revisionism" represented by Bernstein.

The dispute between "orthodox" and "revisionists" also featured the dissident wing of Social Democracy, which was represented in the Netherlands by Pannekoek and Gorter, and in Germany by Rosa Luxemburg, diverging from both tendencies. The support of the German social-democracy to the war credits voted in the parliament opened an international split, emerging a group of individuals, organizations and parties from the old dissidents and / or new dissidents, composing what some have called "radical socialism." Among them were the internationalists (Otto Rühle and others), the Spartacists (Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebneckt and others), the Bolsheviks (Lenin and his Russian followers), among others.

In this context, radical socialism eventually split into various trends until the victory of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. At that moment, new trends emerged in opposition to Bolshevism (the English anti-parliamentarians, the Italian Bordigists, the German Communists, etc.). The process was radicalized until the international split between two conceptions that stood out the most: the "party communists", representatives of Leninism in Russia and its adherents and sympathizers in other countries, and the "communists of councils", defenders of the workers' councils in the German Revolution as the embryos of the future communist society. Thus, if the party communists, Leninism, attributed to the party the function of being the agent of the revolution and the manager of socialist society, the communists of councils recognized that this function rested on the workers' councils. The Council Communists realized the meaning of counterrevolutionary political parties and became antipartidários and party communist elected this organizational form the atom c ori the means for the taking of state power.

The victory of the Bolshevik Party in Russia, by carrying out a coup d'etat that resulted in the formation of a dictatorial political regime under state capitalism (mistakenly called "socialism") ended up generating the hegemony of Bolshevism in the socialist and communist milieux , through the force of Russia in the international scenario, the "Bolshevization" of the communist parties took place. It is in this context that the new "orthodox Marxism" emerges, no longer Kautskyist and Leninist. Lenin became the new representative of "orthodox Marxism".

Lukacs, in his period linked to the Hungarian revolution, diverged from the supposed "orthodox Marxism", placing that orthodoxy, in the matter of Marxism, refers to the method (LUKÁCS, 1989). Karl Korsch (1977) , in turn, will present a conception of Marxism derived from the writings of Marx and Antonio Labriola, an Italian Marxist , defining it as the theoretical expression of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat. The conceptions of Lukacs and Korsch, widely criticized by both Social Democrats and Bolshevists, ran counter to the two forms of "orthodox Marxism": Kautsky and Leninist. Kautsky separated "socialist science" from the "labor movement," and although he had not retired any definition of Marxism, his exposition of the "sources of Marxism" meant that he understood it as a "proletarian science" (as opposed to " bourgeois ") or as a synthesizing doctrine of German philosophy, English political economy and French socialism (Kautsky, 2002). Lenin agrees with such theses, but presents a synthetic definition of Marxism: "Marxism is the system of ideas and doctrine of Karl Marx" (Lenin, 1985, p.15). Lukacs's conception points to a break with the reduction of Marxism to Marx's thought by choosing method as the fundamental aspect. Marxist orthodoxy would not, therefore, be a discussion only of Marx's thought, but of the dialectical method. This position is still problematic, since it goes beyond Kautsky and Lenin, but still lacks the social being, the real and concrete basis, the "material foundation," which has generated Marxism. This is why Korsch's conception is the only one consistent with Marxism, since it is from the perspective of the proletariat that the dialectical method, the work of Marx, etc. becomes possible. Korsch's conception does not separate consciousness from social being and therefore (authentic) Marxism and (revolutionary) proletariat are inseparable [4] .

The conceptions of Lukacs and Korsch, as well as that of the communist councils and other revolutionary conceptions that criticized both Social-Democracy and Bolshevism, were marginalized. And it is in this context that the expression "heterodox Marxism" will emerge long afterwards to refer to critics of what is supposed to be "orthodox Marxism." In Brazil, this idea became popular due to a publication by Maurício Tragtenberg, entitled " Marxism Heterodox ", which was a collection of marginalized and forgotten authors: Herman Gorter, Jan WanclawMakhaïsky and Amadeo Bordiga. The texts were characterized by criticism and controversy with Lenin and contained, each author, a brief introduction of Tragtenberg. The term "heterodox Marxism" used in the cover of the book and the definition of Tragtenberg ended up generating the use of this term applied to all who were not Leninists (or Kautskyites, Social-Democrats). According to Tragtenberg, "we define heterodox Marxism as a reading of Marx not governed by the 'orthodox' molds defined by the so-called 'Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism' or 'Marxism-Leninism-Trotskyism', which underlie the analyzes of PCs linked to the USSR model until recently, the analyzes of the members of the Fourth International before their division into three currents and subsequent subdivision into two tendencies "(Tragenberg, 1981, p.7) .

That was enough for some sympathizers of Tragtenberg's ideas to use the term, albeit more broadly and without further reflection. The first point is that Tragtenberg's definition refers to a divergence with Stalinism and Trotskyism and its "institutions" (USSR and IV International), but falls into the ambiguity of considering them "orthodox", and with reference to Marxism and fails to other conceptions considered "orthodox" (Kautskyism, Maoism, etc.). However, Tragtenberg did not intend to elaborate a concept. The definition he presented is only a general description of the author that was present in the collection, being more a classification than an attempt to elaborate a concept. Those who came after Tragtenberg have popularized and dogmatized a term used in a specific context and without further reflection. The use of this term is extremely problematic and we will deal with it from now on.

The first problem in using the term "heterodox Marxism" is the meaning of the orthodox and heterodox terms. These two words have religious origin and not without reason. Incidentally, "orthodox Marxism" approached a religious conception [5] . The term orthodox comes from the union of two words of Greek origin, orthos + doxa. Orthos means "right," "right," "right," "right," "right." Doxa, in turn, originally meant "belief" or "opinion" or "popular belief" and "common opinion", as Plato used the term. The word "doxa" gained new meaning later (some indicate that it would be present in the pre-Christian Hebrew Bible, despite the truth of his existence is disputed by other r), going to mean "glory" [6] and would have reappeared in the Greek translation of the "New Testament."

The word orthodoxy is derived from the history of Christianity, which debated on orthodox Christianity and later will generate the orthodox churches. It is in this context that the idea of ​​orthodoxy arises, understood as the true doctrine or as " fidelity to doctrine . " The Council of Chalcedon, in 451 AD , being the fourth Council of Seven , and whose debate took place around the discussion of the monophysitism or diofism of Jesus Christ , marked a split in Christianity . Proponents of Monophysitism has va ma idea of only one nature of Jesus Christ and the dyophysite advocates presents va ma idea of dual nature, one human and one divine. The Council decided by the diofisismo. From the 11th century, there was a separation between the Orthodox Church (also called the Orthodox Catholic Church) and the Catholic Church (also called the Roman Catholic Church), when there was the "Great Schism" and the excommunication of the Orthodox. The Orthodox Churches, in turn, were divided between the Chalcedonian (who accept the Council of Chalcedon) and the Eastern (who reject such a Council), generating Orthodox churches called "Chalcedonian" ( or "Byzantine" ) and Eastern Orthodox churches , respectively .

All this discussion of orthodoxy in Christianity is important in understanding the origin of the term "orthodoxy." It occurs in the religious sphere, in the contest for dogmas, having as its source the sacred scriptures. On the other hand, behind these speculative exercises concerning the sacred scriptures, there was a power struggle with much deeper social roots, which we can not discuss here. Thus, orthodoxy is a process of affirming allegiance to a doctrine as a way of maintaining domination over competitors and believers. Any dispute over orthodoxy turns out to be a power struggle, in the sense of a relationship of domination. This is not clearly manifested and so it is in the disputes over dogmas and of which is orthodox that it appears concretely.

A similar process occurred with the formation of Kautsky's "orthodox Marxism," through a large bureaucratic organization called the German Social-Democratic Party, and Lenin's new "orthodox Marxism" emerged from another bureaucratic organization, the Social Democratic Labor Party Russian, especially when there was a split in the "Second International", an institution that agglutinated the social Democrat parties to tas worldwide. The dispute between Kautsky and Lenin was for power in the parties and at the international level and appeared as an interpretative dispute of "doctrine" (term much used by both) and tactical issues.

This historical contextualization and analysis of the word orthodoxy serves to show the problematic points of its use by those who call themselves Marxists. The religious origin of the term and the meaning of "fidelity to doctrine" is not only problematic in itself, but also to detract fromthe discussion: the question becomes the interpretation of the dogmas and not the class interests of the proletariat. The interpretation of dogmas, in turn, is the way in which each section of the party bureaucracy (among others) seeks to carry out its dispute, as if it were only a question of a true interpretation of Marxism , but which, in the end, is a search for the power to direct the party, the proletariat, the population as a whole.

The heterodox, on the other hand, may be the one who wants to dispute orthodoxy (and this is not assumed in this way) or else self-declaring unorthodox, detached from "doctrine." Thus, to call itself "heterodox Marxist" means to admit that Kautskyism and / or Leninism is Marxist and, still more, "orthodox", faithful to the doctrine (which, according to them, would be Marx's ideas) . This means a deformation of Marxism, in the sense that it is no longer, as Korsch put it, "theoretical expression of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat," that is, a theory and as such distinct from dogmas and doctrines. The theory is not a doctrine, ideology, belief, etc., nor is it based on fidelity to ideas and people, however important they are (and in some cases are , like Marx or Korsch, but requires analysis and reflection to recognize its importance or not) . The theory is instituted through research and reflection and not of belief or fidelity , whatever it may be [7] . For ideologists, fidelity to doctrine is the fundamental [8] ; for theorists, it is the theoretical consciousness that promotes agreement or disagreement with certain ideas. For pseudo-Marxist ideologues, fidelity guarantees access to doctrine; for Marxist theorists, is the criticism that allows access to theory.

For authentic Marxism, that is to say, not deformed, it is not a question of orthodoxy or heterodoxy, but rather an expression of the fundamental interests of the proletariat. What it means to adopt a political position, to carry out an analysis, to defend an idea, not for Marx to have supposedly said (for , above all, interpretations, even the most absurd and decontextualized , can be realized), but to correspond to truth and to the class interests of the proletariat.

Undoubtedly, Marx is a fundamental reference, not only for being the founder of Marxism and for launching the epistemic bases (theoretical, methodological, etc.) of a radical critique of capitalism and the design of a post-capitalist society (communist , self-managed) , but, fundamentally, for having expressed the perspective of the proletariat , a condition of possibility for this intellectual production . However, he did not try everything and could not predict the future, just as he was wrong on some issues, as is the case with every human being. The recognition of Marx's monumental theoretical work is part of the class interests of the proletariat, even though the commitment to truth is part of the axiomatic field of Marxism, which expresses such interests from a revolutionary perspective. After Marx, Marxism developed little, but found important contributions that kept the perspective of the proletariat (Korsch, Pannekoek, Rühle, Mattick, Sylvia Pankhurst, etc.). Marxism could not be a crystallized and stagnant thought, for it seeks to express reality and it is infinite, just as it needs to keep up with historical changes, and so it always has elements to develop.

The second problem is that "heterodox Marxism" is inseparable from "orthodox Marxism". There is no way to speak of one without speaking of another: if one did not exist, the other could not exist. Now, if the users of such a term recognize that there is a "heterodox Marxism", then they recognize simultaneously that Kautskyism or Leninism is "orthodox Marxism." And Marx's criticisms of Social Democracy, from Communist councils to Social-Democrats and Bolsheviks, to stick to just two examples, would be "heterodox" versus "orthodox." This creates a paradox:Marx himself, the founder of Marxism, becomes r "unorthodox." It would be the same as saying that Jesus Christ was not an orthodox Christian but "heterodox", which makes no sense. Obviously, this scholastic discussion is of interest to those who engage in bureaucratic disputes over power and not those who want human emancipation through proletarian self-emancipation or well-intentioned militants and intellectuals , but who lack a greater commitment to theoretical development and conceptual clarity, elements of the proletarian struggle.

The third problem is that the use of the terms "orthodox Marxism" and "heterodox Marxism " has no theoretical basis. The uses of these terms arise from a mere labeling without further reflection and reasoning. Those who use such terms do not work with explanatory concepts of what they are dealing with, and most often do not even define the words they use (beginning with "Marxism," with rare exceptions). Thus, in order to base a theoretical position in this respect, it is necessary to develop the concepts of Marxism, orthodoxy, heterodoxy, "orthodox Marxism", "heterodox Marxism", etc. And to elaborate a concept is not only to create a definition, but a totalizing process, which involves several concepts, and which explains and expresses a certain reality (such as a cultural phenomenon, such as Marxism).

Once it is recognized that such terms are problematic and do not express reality, then it is necessary to discuss which terms should therefore be used. Historically , what has been presented as "orthodox Marxism" is a false Marxism, a pseudo-Marxism. And this is explained by the fact that the dominant "Marxism" is the Marxism of the ruling class (GOULDNER, 2014 ). Thus, Kautskyism, Leninism, and all its derivatives, are forms of pseudo - Marxism. The Marxism of Marx, Korsch, and Pannekoek, which theoretically express the proletariat, are authentic Marxism. Thus, the distinction is between the authentic and the falsification, between (authentic) Marxism and pseudo-Marxism. Authentic Marxism, in turn, is not only a "variant" or a "dissidence" of pseudo-Marxism (whether Kautsky or Leninist), but a critique of it, since it expresses another social class, which is not the proletariat. So instead of "s fighting family," as some naive Trotskyists imagine that means the opposition between authentic Marxism and pseudomarxismo, it comes to fighting classes in terms of ideas and political struggle in general, which is expressed, for example , in the conception of the relation of revolutionary theory to the proletariat, in the question of organization, in what is understood by revolution and communist society, etc. If Marx began the critique of pseudomarxismo (VIANA, 2017), the Communist councilists developed the critique of Leninism Kautskyism and two more developed forms of the same, as well as several others gave Following this critical work.

Pseudo-Marxism is every conception that is said to be Marxist, but which does not express the class interests of the revolutionary workers' movement (which means that it expresses the interests of other classes, such as bureaucracy and intellectuality). a deformation of Marx's essential ideas, the first to express such interests theoretically , ie, it is a false Marxism, the transformation of this conception of theory into ideology (VIANA, 2017b) . Authentic Marxism (and the term " authentic " is only to differentiate it from the inauthentic, that is, from the falsification expressed in pseudo-Marxism) is the theoretical expression of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat, as Korsch (1977) put it. Authentic Marxism and pseudo-Marxism are antagonistic , since one expresses the revolutionary proletariat and the other expresses the auxiliary classes of the bourgeoisie, either by becoming autonomous or subordinating itself to such a class.

Thus the criterion for defining what is pseudo-Marxism and what is authentic Marxism is the class perspective behind both conceptions and how Marx expressed the perspective of the proletariat, so it is inevitable that pseudo-Marxists try to deform their thinking to that it fits into other perspectives. For this reason the struggle is theoretical, by the rescue of the thought of Marx and of the later authentic Marxism and he, realizing the correct interpretation of his writings and of his conception, as well as the critique of pseudo-Marxism; but it is also a broader political struggle, trying to prevent the deformed version of Marxism from gaining space with the proletariat, since it is harmful and if it succeeds it places this class in tow and in the service of party bureaucracies ( among others) . Proletarian self-emancipation is a total revolution. It is theoretical, and authentic Marxism is its expression; cultural, in which the proletariat develops its revolutionary consciousness and approaches theoretical development ; political, marked by the refusal of bureaucratic organizations alongside the establishment of autarchic organizations (forms of self-organization as workers' councils) , which are their form of implementation. Through pseudo-Marxism, the state apparatus is conquered and capital is reproduced, while through the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat, expressed theoretically and politically by authentic Marxism, capital is abolished as well as the state, and a self-managed society is established, concretizing emancipation human.

Authentic Marxism, therefore, is antagonistic to pseudo-Marxism and capitalism in general. He has no commitment to the society of the present but to the society of the future. That is the reason why it can make a merciless critique of the existing and at the same time refuse all commitments to this society and to the crumbs, reforms, conservative alliances and reformist, existing in capitalism. Pseudo-Marxism, commonly referred to as "orthodox Marxism", is in turn involved in the hair-dyeing of such a society; it can not overtake it or the mental plane of projecting a new society, for it arrives at the height of reformed capitalism. income and the like for the heirs of Kautsky, state capitalism and statehood, for Lenin's heirs , etc. ).

The inevitable conclusion of this whole discussion is that there is no "heterodox Marxism," even though there is no "orthodox Marxism." Marxism is not a religion and has no dogmas. What exists , in fact, is a pseudo-Marxism that takes various forms according to interbureaucratic interests and struggles (Leninists versus Social-Democrats, Trotskyites versus Stalinists, Maoists versus Stalinists, etc.) and an authentic Marxism, the theoretical expression of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat , which fights all forms of pseudo-Marxism as part of the struggle for human liberation . Therefore, the struggle for a society that achieves human liberation is a struggle against pseudo-Marxism, which is no more than an obstacle to its realization.

References

DRAPER, Hall. Lassalle and State Socialism. Marxism and Self-management. Year 02, num. 04, jul./dez. 2015.

GOULDNER, Steven. The Metamorphoses of Marxism. Free Space Magazine . Vol. 9, num. 17, 2014.

HAUPT , Georg. Marx and Marxism . In: Hobsbawm , E. (Org.). History of Marxism . Vol. 1. 3rd Edition, Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 1987.

KAUTSKY, Karl. The Three Sources of Marxism . Rio de Janeiro: Centauro, 2002.

KORSCH, Karl. Marxism and Philosophy . Porto: Afrontamento, 1977.

LENIN, W. The Three Sources and Three Constitutive Parts of Marxism . São Paulo: Global, 1985.

LÍNIN, W. The State and the Revolution . São Paulo: Global, 1987.

LUKÁCS, Georg. History and Class Consciousness . 2nd edition, Rio de Janeiro: Elves, 1989.

MAKHAÏSKI, JW Socialist Science, The New Religion of Intellectuals. In: TRAGTENBERG, Maurício (org.). Heterodox Marxism . São Paulo, Brasiliense, 1981a.

MATTICK , Paul. Kautsky: from Marx to Hitler . In: Mattick , P. et al. Karl Kautsky and Marxism . Belo Horizonte, Books Workshop, 1988

TRAGTENBERG, Maurício (org.). Heterodox Marxism . São Paulo, Brasiliense, 1981.

VIANA, Nildo. Karl Marx: The Disappointed Critique of the Existing . Curitiba: Prismas, 2017a.

VIANA, Nildo. What is Marxism . Rio de Janeiro: Elo, 2008b.

VIANA, Nildo. Pseudo-Marxism: The Transformation of Marxism in Ideology. Marxism and Self-management . Year 04, num. 08, jul./dez. 2017b.

---

[1] The expression "Marxism" came through Bakunin, with pejorative sense and referring to the German supporters of Marx in the International Workers Association (HAUPT, 1987). Shortly afterwards Marx himself would affirm that all he knew was that he was "not Marxist," precisely to separate himself from such "followers."

[2] German social democracy was born of the fusion of Marx's supposed followers (the "Marxists") and the followers of Lassalle (Lasallians), adherents of a "state socialism" (DRAPER, 2015) . Marx and Engels made several criticisms of the nascent party and this was expressed in letters and texts of both. After Marx's death, Engels would hold somecriticism, but would increasingly approach the Social-Democratic parties and their bureaucracy .

[3] Paul Mattick (1988) gives an overview of trends Kautsky which is useful for understanding its complete disengagement with the ideas of Marx and the labor movement.

[4] The gap in Korsch's thinking is manifested in not having deepened the discussion of theory (VIANA, 2008), but his definition of Marxism is the most appropriate, regardless of that.

[5] Makhaïsky (1981), by the way, already warned that "socialist science" was the "new religion of the intellectuals".

[6] The word glory would have several meanings in the bible, according to researchers, such as "honor," "greatness," "light." In the case of orthodoxy, the sense generally attributed is that of "light" or "brightness," that is, what can be understood as something that produces clarity, truth.

[7] Obviously the theory has an evaluative basis, expressed in its axiomatic field (in this regard see The Mode of Thinking Bourgeois , a work soon to be published ), which is its condition of possibility, but which is not something "blind" "But rather reflected from analysis, research, etc. This axiomatic field, which generates a commitment to truth, is the project of radical and total transformation of social relations, expressing the society of the future in the present.

[8] This can be seen in a few sentences of Lenin (1987), such as that one can be a Marxist admitting the "dictatorship of the proletariat". Pseudo-Marxists willingly accept this type of placement. An authentic Marxist would question: what is the dictatorship of the proletariat? What did this term become after Marx? Does this term currently serve the proletariat's struggle? For Leninists and their dogmatism, it is enough for the master to have said and everything is solved, including the master Lenin who will say what the dictatorship of the proletariat means and everyone will accept, because he is the representative of "orthodox Marxism."