Commentary: Upon the Occasion of Our Founding

Upon the Occasion of Our Founding

Since the middle twentieth century, the international socialist movement split into two divergent mutations: “social democracy,” which came to revere private ownership of the means of production, and “communism,” which came to revere violence and despotism— needless to say, these are neither social democracy nor communism to Marx or Marxists.

Both currents retreated from the aims of socialism— the former by abandoning the socialist method of abolishing private property, and the latter by abandoning democracy grounded in freedom of speech, the very precondition of a socialist society. These deviations were unnecessary revisions based on flawed analyses of the contemporary situation and on misunderstandings of Marx and Engels. Yet the former, in its sincerity, openly declared its own revision without shame, while the latter, in its dishonesty, not only proclaimed its own orthodoxy but also attacked those faithful to the theory by branding them as “revisionist” or “bourgeois.” As a result, genuine fidelity to the theory was lost.

Certainly, when theory can no longer correspond to reality, revision becomes necessary; but such revision must never be undertaken thoughtlessly. In fact, the revisions of the twentieth century fractured the proletarian class and deprived it of both the opportunity and the capacity for its own essential emancipation.

The purpose of this journal is to revive orthodox Marxism and to reclaim its true legacy—namely, the ceaseless analysis of and debate on the present conditions—so as to encourage the self‑emancipation of the proletariat and to prepare the conditions that make such emancipation possible. In modern democratic states, this struggle is a peaceful one, and it is sufficient for the proletarians of all countries simply to exercise their own power—namely, the election of proletarian representatives through the vote.

Workers of the world, unite! The day of liberation draws near. Its power lies in your own hands.

Commentary

The purpose of this commentary is to deepen the reader’s understanding by adding

theoretical precision to the founding statement. The founding statement expresses

my political position in a concise manner, but it intentionally omits strict

definitions and detailed argumentation. I am fully aware that such brevity may

invite misunderstandings or objections. This commentary therefore aims to supply

the necessary rigour.

As stated at the beginning of the founding statement, two major currents today

claim the name of socialism. “Social democrats” are a moderate group who seek to

achieve socialism (!) primarily by strengthening redistribution within the

framework of capitalism. We and they share the belief that improvements can be

pursued within existing democratic institutions. However, they remain captive to

the illusion of the universal validity of markets grounded in private property,

and they pledge to defend this illusion. In essence, they are market liberals.

For socialists, the market is a phenomenon, not an essence; its continued

existence is not of fundamental importance. Even in a society where private

property has been abolished, markets may persist as arenas of exchange, and if

they obstruct human emancipation, they may simply be discarded. Conversely, if

social democrats were to abandon their attachment to private property and aim at

its abolition, we would gain a significant ally.

The other current, the “communists”, are faithful Leninists, as is evident from

Lenin’s revival of the term itself. They either support an oppressive system

such as the Soviet Union, or they shift responsibility onto Stalin while

upholding Lenin’s mistaken claim to “democracy”. Regarding the former, it need

hardly be said that the Soviet system was not rule *by* the proletariat but rule

*over* the proletariat, and such a system cannot be regarded as our goal. The

latter position is enlightened insofar as it affirms democracy, but its

glorification of political revolution and violence is dangerous and far too

simplistic to be compatible with our position. The same applies to non-Leninist

currents such as Luxemburgism.

By explaining these differing positions, I believe the reader can now grasp the

contours of our own. There is no need to conceal it. We are adherents of the

orthodox Marxism of the Second International, and we hold in high regard the

theories of Marx and Engels and their successor, Karl Kautsky. The image that

may come to mind when one hears Kautsky’s name—dogmatism, conversion from

revolution to reform, opportunism—is largely the result of the claims made by

Luxemburg and Lenin. Yet a careful reading of his work reverses this impression.

From the outset, he argued that revolution was the only path under conditions of

oppression, and he rejected revisionism, which advocated abandoning the struggle

for political power or pursuing reform under the authoritarian German Empire.

Under the completed democratic system of the Weimar Republic, he sought to

abolish private property by means of reform. Drawing on his trajectory and on

Marx and Engels’ assessment of the Paris Commune, I hold that the completed

democratic state is itself the institutional form of the dictatorship of the

proletariat. Universal suffrage is majority rule, and in every country the

proletariat constitutes the majority. If the proletariat unites and acts

collectively, there exists no institutional framework capable of preventing it.

Naturally, if the proletariat fails to do so—as is the case today—it cannot

achieve its own emancipation through the abolition of private property.

For this reason, our primary objective is to enable the already completed

institutional form of proletarian dictatorship to function through proletarian

unity. This is the contemporary form of peaceful struggle. It rejects the only

remaining attempt to preserve bourgeois rule—division—and aims at the abolition

of private property, the achievement of social revolution, and the completion of

the proletarian revolution that began with the construction of a fully

democratic state.

This journal exists for this purpose: to provide a space for continuous analysis

and discussion of present conditions, to make these debates widely known, to

further develop them, and to encourage the proletariat to discover for itself

the means by which it may fundamentally overcome its own situation.

(written by Kainos Anokomes)