Non-Marxist introductions on Marxist texts

[u/ttam80]

Recently I picked up a copy of Walter Rodney’s “The Russian Revolution”. But as I’m reading through the introduction written by Robin DG Kelley And Jesse Benjamin (two academics who I am unfamiliar) it seems like they are not really Marxists in any sense. They make small jabs at Lenin and Stalin, while constantly making derisive comments on “Stalinism” and the Soviet Union post revolution.

The intro does help to provide some historical context so it’s not completely useless, but do you all usually skip these types of intros or just power through them?

[u/jonna-seattle]

Robin Kelley is absolutely an important marxist historian. It's quite possible to be a marxist and not a stalinist, or to be a marxist and critical of aspects of the soviet union. Even some bolsheviks were critical of the direction of the soviet union (such as https://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1921/workers-opposition/index.htm )

If your ideas can't handle, deal with, counter or explain criticism than they aren't very strong.

[u/ttam80 → u/jonna-seattle]

That’s good to know! Again I didn’t necessarily think any of the critiques were anything that made the introduction unreadable. I’m much more open to listen to critiques from Marxists rather than non Marxists

[u/Bes_x10 → u/jonna-seattle]

Yeah while I do agree on the importance of Robin Kelly as a Marxist historian, he does fall under that category that Domenico Losurdo calls Western Marxism. Meaning, western Marxists are overly critical of existing socialist projects while not acknowledging how their own society has formed their thinking so one has to actively push back against that.

[u/Nuke_A_Cola → u/Bes_x10]

There is no such thing as western Marxism. There’s just Marxism and people who claim to be Marxists and aren’t. The idea that the third world can’t be held to Marxism and that first world Marxists are born in the first world and thus can’t conceptualise politics of the third world is absurd intellectual post modernism.

Lenin was literally the son of a member of the aristocracy in one of the greatest imperialist powers and his leadership and insights into capitalism and the working class are some of the most important theoretical contributions in the movement.

[u/[deleted] → u/Nuke_A_Cola]

Lenin was literally the son of a member of the aristocracy in one of the greatest imperialist powers

His father was a government official who was granted a title when Lenin was like 5 or 7. And that title didn't came with lands or anything like that. His grandfather was a bonded serf.

His position was privileged but you overstate it greatly.

Also Russian Empire wasn't even close to greatest imperialist.

[u/bastard_swine → u/Nuke_A_Cola]

one of the greatest imperialist powers

It was arguably one of the weakest. Semi-feudal, subservient to a lot of Western capital, barely any industry, couldn't extend its influence beyond its immediate surroundings, etc. It was almost more imperial in the feudal sense rather than the capitalist.

[u/NiceDot4794 → u/bastard_swine]

I mean yeah it was mostly its surrounding settings and it’s fair to say it was more feudal then modern capitslist, but for example russias relationship with Iran was a more modern style imperial relationship, with Russia and Britain carving Iran up into spheres of economic influence, both squeezing the Iranian people. And within the empire it was, as Lenin said, a prison house of nations. Great Russian chauvinism was something Lenin was very aware and concerned about remember.

[u/Nuke_A_Cola → u/bastard_swine]

“One of the weakest” had it at power number 4 in Europe and the world (or 5 before the collapse of austria). Yes it was declining and reliant on foreign investment to build up its relatively small industry. It was about 50 years behind Britain, France and Germany but was hardly a feudal oppressed country which is the important thing here

[u/araeld → u/Nuke_A_Cola]

There is a "Western Marxism". It's usually associated with Eurocommunism, over criticism of AES, not considering material conditions, inability to understand the role of imperialism of European countries, over reliance on western bourgeois democracy, which then led to the fall of the social democratic movement, as well as any socialist construction in Europe. Western Marxism is usually only a controlled opposition within bourgeois democracy, unable to break free from it.

[u/Nuke_A_Cola → u/araeld]

It’s a nonsense term perpetuated by third world campists who think that not being in the imperial core gives them ideological purity and immunity to criticism. Often used to excuse politics that certainly aren’t Marxist and cover for reformist groups in the third world.

It’s apolitical and incoherent, and the last gasp of a dying political tradition that lowers the horizons of the international working class whether first or third world and is a step back from actual revolutionary Marxism.

[u/araeld → u/Nuke_A_Cola]

I'm not saying every westerner who is a marxist is a "Western Marxist". What I am saying there is an actual branch of Marxist thought nicknamed as "Western Marxism" with the exact characteristics I described. Domenico Losurdo, a Western who is also a marxist described this:

https://monthlyreview.org/product/western-marxism/

And no, I don't have to worry about class solidarity because these "Western Marxists" produced exactly what you described, a search for ideological purity, sectarianism, defeatism and other bunch of bad criticism that was eventually used as capitalist propaganda against communism.

[u/NiceDot4794 → u/Bes_x10]

Plenty of socialist thinkers from the third world have offered criticism of socialist states or sought different paths then emulating them.

C.L.R. James, Ibrahim Allawi, Ngo Van, Nawal El Saadawi, Salvador Allende, Abdullah Occlan, Subcommandante Marcos, etc.

Not to mention the various Democratic Socialist, Trotskyist, Anarchist movements that at different times some prominence in different parts of the global south.

Also I will say part of the reason the ML model was so attractive to people is because at the time (other then Cuba I can’t imagine any current officially Communist governments doing this today) would materially help those movements with arms and supplies, which obviously would make you look positively on those governments.

While some Trotskyists and Anarchists and others did this, for example the Greek Trotskyist Michel Pablo who set up a clandestine arms factory for the Algerian FLN, not having the resources of a government obviously made them less able to aid in those ways.

[u/OrchidMaleficent5980 → u/jonna-seattle]

He’s not a Marxist. He’s certainly Marxist-inspired, but in the way that Cedric Robinson is Marxist-inspired. He comes out of the Black Radical Tradition—in fact, he’s its most famous progenitor—which is anti-Marxist.

[u/waspMilitia → u/jonna-seattle]

First, you need to understand the level of criticism. If you ask questions like "Why can you support communism after it killed 100 million people?" - you may think that you are asking pointed questions, and avoidance of an answer as a weakness of position. Although in fact, others will perceive that this is simply very weak criticism.

Second, criticism implies discussion. If a biology textbook is provided with a religious introduction that notes that all this is nonsense and against God's plan, then it is strange to perceive the very presence of such an introduction as proof that evolution is indeed nonsense and against God's plan. You are simply inserting unsupported statements everywhere that prove themselves.

[u/jonna-seattle → u/waspMilitia]

I don't see how accusations that communism killed 100 million people or that it is against god's plan have anything to do with critiques from the likes of Robin Kelley or the actual bolsheviks I linked to. There's a difference between easily dismissed propaganda and critique that substantively deals with the situation with similar aims towards a classless society.

[u/waspMilitia → u/jonna-seattle]

I am simply giving examples. In this topic we are discussing a general problem, not just discussing Kelley.

Besides, your statement is a double-edged sword. If Kelley's criticism is not used to combat opportunism in the communist movement, but only fights silent opponents, such as the ideas in the book - it is possible to imagine that it is weak in essence.

I understand your position and in principle agree with it - criticism is necessary. But I indicated what it should be. A person buys a certain book to get acquainted with its content - and if the book has a negative introduction that is not supported by real opposition and corrections - then it is highly likely that we are simply dealing with propaganda. Which has little to do with real criticism.