Joseph E. Stiglitz and the Trajectory of Chinese Communism since 1980

Stiglitz in China

In a recent Lecture to a Norwegian Business School Conference, Joseph E. Stiglitz (from Columbia University in the USA - he has been advising the Chinese Communist Leadership since the early 1980s, upon a transition to fitting China into a Market Economy globally), was, in his contribution to that Conference, extremely informative, in ways totally unmentioned either by the Citadels of Capitalism globally, OR by the current Left, supposedly opposing that system (including, surprisingly, many of the self-professed the Marxists)!

His contribution was NOT, of course, superior to those critics of Capitalism, but it DID highlight the inadequacies of the current Left's policies for fighting for both the End of Capitalism, in the West, AND, crucially, exactly how to achieve the necessary Revolution, without the major liabilities of the Rise of Stalinist Bureaucracies, as have followed such Revolutions in the past.

Now, immediately prior to the period that Stiglitz covers, the writer of this paper was resident in Hong Kong, as a lecturer in a University there, and had visited Communist China, as an already committed Marxist. So I was aware of the then current fight between the Maoist so-called "Gang of Four" (including Mao's wife) and the "Capitalist Roaders" - led by Deng, so I knew who won that fight, and how they disagreed with Mao's "Cultural Revolution". And, I travelled through the countryside observing how the smaller Country Soviets were working. So I am able to link up Stiglitz's account to its immediate prehistory in the Chinese Communist Party. But I must emphasise, most strongly, that in spite of the great value in studying Stiglitz's account, he is, certainly, no Marxist, nor even a Socialist. He is a Capitalist Economist, who accepts Capitalism, and plots its "best possible" consequent Trajectory economically, as both essential, yet worthy of much better critical study than it is usually accorded.

Indeed, literally all the criticisms of Capitalism, that both inform and energise the Socialist and Communist oppositions to it, are totally missing in Stiglitz: for his account is more like a modern Keynesian critique of current Neoliberalist Capitalism, rather than taking a steadfast position of requiring Capitalism's total termination.

Yet interestingly, Stiglitz was brought in to help, as it became increasingly clear to the Chinese Leadership, that the insertion of some tightly regulated Capitalist enterprises in China, was running into problems with the many country-localities in China, that were not included in the joint schemes, and these leftover-and-leftout town and village "Soviets" were clearly not benefiting from the economic changes, and were beginning to oppose the plans of the Central Bureaucracy, which would ultimately reveal iteself in the Tianamen Square Events: and require a Wholly New Phase, integrating this opposition into becoming part of the New Turn, and economic boom, in what was called the TVE (Town & Village Initiative), but to make it work, any remnants of the "Soviet" nature (which I had observed when I visited China before 1980), just had to go - and this, in time, would again require yet another New Phase!

Photographs from my travels in Communist China, 1979

But, as the reader will have already imagined, the alternatives to be put forward on this blog are most certainly NOT Keynesian criticisms of Capitalism, but, on the contrary, major criticisms of the current Left's opposition to Western Capitalism, as they were surprisingly and increasingly revealed by the experiences in China in the last 40 years, which has revealed a very Marxian Trajectory of differently necessary Phases of development, as what were previously-Working-Policies ran out of steam, and had to be regularly replaced, but, in a very pragmatic - "Crossing the River by Feeling for the Stones" way, as they put it! For, every change in Policy, was NOT occurring within an established Socialist Economy, but now in a mixed Communist/Capitalist Economy, both unavoidably linked to World Capitalism, and thereby guaranteed to engender such Crises regularly, and ultimately, at some point, precipitate a Wholesale Collapse.

NO, what I intend to extract from those twisted-temporary-experiences in China, is a much better Theory, extracted from and among Real 21st century Marxists, intended to guarantee the Success of Socialist Revolution in the West!

For, a comprehensive, all-areas-applicable Marxism (more properly described as Dialectical Materialism) was not sufficiently fully defined by Karl Marx - for though his contributions were Truly Revolutionary, they were not soundly applicable when not limited only to Marx's completed work: indeed the absolutely crucial area of The Sciences, was not significantly addressed, comprehensively, until the second decade of this century, with the various critiques of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory published in SHAPE Journal and elsewhere on the Web, by 2019.

And, in addition, the now available extensive range of lectures by David Harvey, all now on Youtube, both on Marx's Kapital and the Grundrisse, have brilliantly revealed aspects of Marx's method and begun to make them more generally applicable, BUT ONLY if tackled in the same way as Marx had worked, and in addition by scientifically-trained-experts, not only covering the specialist ground, but also, and crucially and necessarily extending the Marxist Method.

Indeed, though he didn't realise why it was necessary, Stiglitz, in his account of the trajectory in the last 40 years of Communist China, clearly identified the various key Crises, in the sequence of required changes, which could alternatively be explained using Harvey's interpretations of Marx's Method, but extended beyond what Marx had access to.

Now, the most important re-application of these methods is NOT primarily in addressing the failures of the Stalinists in China, but, in the far more important criticisms of the truncated appreciations of Marxism currently available, and unavoidably incorrectly applied to the necessary political agitations NOW, against Capitalism in the West! For, no matter what they all call themselves, the various Left political elements are NOT equipped with the 21st century Marxism that I am talking about: and hence, necessarily, their "Theory" leads to both Strategies, Tactics and Propaganda, that are all doomed to result in failure!

And, if Proof is required, they should all be pressed to explain both the various Phases that have been forced upon the Stalinists in China, AND, even more importantly, exactly how those same analyses can be effectively applied to their own current positions and policies - for there definitely are similarities, indicating what inexplicable-to-them failures they will most certainly encounter, and hope to understand enough, to be able to plot paths around them.

And, if they cannot do it, redirect them to both Harvey and Marx's original works to effect a radical change in what they consider to be MARXISM!

For, no-one on the Left seems to be aware of the Revolutionary Situation they are careering towards at some considerable speed, and are ALL at a loss to see what transforming Transitional Demands they will undoubtedly need, to orient themselves and Their Class to what must be done!

Have they read "Ten Days that Shook the World" by John Reed?

Do they not know why the slogan "Bread, Peace and Land", was their cry, and that it worked, and why it did so?

What should our demands be?

Before and After a Communist Revolution

Destroyed shops in Minneapolis

Commodities, Services and Jobs

PREFACE:

This paper started with the incentive to talk about Work-and-Fulfillment within an alternative Socialist Society, as distinct from the Capitalist Societies we all currently inhabit! But, such a single purpose endeavour as that intended objective, was immediately and dramatically overtaken by the significantly fast-deepening crisis of current World Capitalism, revealed by the latest bi-monthly Lecture by Dr. Richard Wolff in the Judson Memorial Church in New York City.

For it was precipitated by the joint effects of the beginnings of a mighty global virus epidemic, due to a wholly new Coronavirus, but occurring along with a Major Simultaneous Crisis in the Global Oil Industry, due to the threat of competition from the burgeoning Fracking Shale Oil Industry in the USA, which immediately caused a dramatic drop in the price of Oil across the Globe, and then immediately thereafter, a catastrophic drop in the value investments upon the Stock Markets of the World.

To make matters worse, the crisis caused by COVID19 was quickly transforming into a Global Pandemic, which literally nowhere was prepared for after, many still recovering from the economic slump of 2008!

Clearly, that joint Crisis had to be addressed NOW, urgently and even before any discussion upon Jobs, because a New Worldwide Recession could well be already in-motion, and the right political actions by the Revolutionary Left MUST come first, for the Current Crisis could be the initiation of a Revolutionary Situation.


JOBS

So, in this context, the struggle for Jobs will also be transformed!

The ways people earn their livings have dramatically changed under Capitalism, and though all occupations have not been equally affected, not every one has been affected in the same ways, or to a similar degree. And, it is the jobs of what are termed the Working Class (the Employees) and their families, that have been affected most damagingly, while those of the Owning Class - the Employers, also including a wide range of business owners, from many of the so-called Petty Bourgeois, though vastly smaller that The Working Class, and whose livelihoods depend exclusively upon the Workers - as Customers for their essentially-supplied goods (as in local individual shop-keepers in Working Class areas), whose Life Standards don't usually rise very much above those of their customers. But thereafter, via larger scale suppliers of needed utility services-and-regular-supplies, then upwards to a swiftly improving range of well-remunerated suppliers, and particularly to more expensive Services, then on to the ever more well-financially endowed middle class professionals in Medical and Financial Services. For while all of these people need to work-to-Live, most would never agree to being categorised as being members of the Working Class, though at times of Acute Crisis they are undoubtedly hit too!

Only the real Owning Class - the Bourgeoisie, have Resources well beyond their Daily Needs, as apart from previously accrued Wealth, and the consequent wherewithal for further Investments, their primary sources of regular additional income, in addition to Profits from their Owned Enterprises, are also significantly added-to by Interest from investments, Rents from owned and rented-out Properties, and even lucrative fees from Financial Services and/or Advice expensively supplied to those who can pay.

Clearly, the overall numbers involved are totally dominated by the vast size of the Working Class, but reduce swiftly across those intermediate Groups, until arriving at the Big Bourgeiosie, the numbers then shrink to a relatively tiny proportion: indicated by the fact that the total wealth of the bottom 3.5 billion people on Earth is matched exactly by that of the top 80 individual Capitalists, mostly situated in the USA!

But, not all of these Classes enjoy what they have to do, to continue to exist. Nor are most of their jobs at all fulfilling!

Yet there are Jobs that can be, and often are, fulfilling: those that serve their fellow workers in Health and Education - those doing significant research and development in Key areas of Knowledge, Care and Advice, plus Firemen and Lifeboat men, Arts and Crafts workers, as long as they are not undercut by cheaper factory-produced competing goods, or have been somewhat elevated to exclusively supplying the rich.

Actually whatever it is that workers do, they are all majorly affected by how the vagaries of the current Employer-Employee relation can affect their security and happiness. Literally everyone below the Bourgeoisie are damaged by the usual relations, which regularly throw many out of their jobs, and into sometimes desperate hardships and homelessness!

Now Capitalism, being always driven by the Profit Motif, will always put cheapness over quality, for what it produces for the Mass Market, and hence drives its employees into ever more unfulfilling repetitive tasks, taking away any of the pleasures of creative activities, for the more profitable drudgery of tending the faster repetitive processes of machines.

So, these two dominating, and likely to escalate pressures, effectively remove what pleasures could be got from work: so, even changing ownership of the Workplace, would never be enough! Even the Distributive Co-operative Movements (owned by their customers) could NOT significantly improve the lot of their workers, because of competitive pressure from the abundance of Capitalist alternatives, who would simply buy all their required resources from cheaper, more exploitative sources.

So, any attempt at piecemeal changeovers, will simply never solve the problems of labour: Capitalism itself has to be dismantled!

Now the recent effort of the People's Forum in New York to present the whole of Marx and Engels Communist Manifesto, read in a succession of major languages by native speakers, actually addressed many of these seemingly intractable questions at its very launch, in 1848. And it did not shrink from a Revolutionary capture of State Power by the Communists, which was essential to both defeat the local Forces of Reaction internally, and thereafter go on to defeat Capitalist Armies of Intervention, and continue to defend the Revolutionary State! The subsequent history of Russia after the Revolution proved that this part of their analysis was not only correct, but imperative in ensuring the continuation of their State.

But, for such a Revolution to happen at all, in a mostly Feudal/Peasant Economy, had meant that it had to both carry out the objectives of a Capitalist Revolution, to dispense with the earlier economic stage of Feudalism, and almost simultaneously demolish it as it was created, in order to establish its own absolutely crucial anti-capitalist intentions.

And, in such a country as Russia that involved a very short Alliance with the Peasantry under the banner of Peace, Bread and Land - to keep them on-side, but it actually and unavoidably ground to a halt, and they had to continue to increasingly concede to the more successful Peasants, who naturally saw the Future very differently to the Working Classes of the cities, and were striving for Feudal type Landed Estates; so the necessary Counter-Capitalist security measures expanded to also suppress the Kulaks (rich peasants) and their followers demands. But, in the countryside, the old alliance dissolved in the light of new "Landed" perspectives, and the security organisations found themselves opposed by Peasant-Soviets, increasingly dominated by the Kulaks.

A major Fight then arose between the Bolshevik Leadership of comrades like Lenin and Trotsky, and a fast burgeoning administrative Bureaucracy organised and led by Stalin!

But there are No Peasants in the UK!

The Fight will be against the Big Bourgeoisie!

The small businesses will finally be won to our side.

The State I

What is the State and whose interests does it work for?

The State: Now, Post-Revolutionary & Ultimately Desired

Now, the unavoidable and constant defining problem, for the vast majority of ordinary Working People, historically (and even now) has always been: who is in control of the State in which they live, for it is is absolutely never in the hands of the majority.

Now, when the difficulties of living under such circumstances, though never good, can and do get altogether too much to bear, so there can be, and, indeed, often has been, some kind of revolt, which, when it proceeds to general fighting action against the whole State, is termed a Revolution.

Indeed, a colleague was recently able to identify almost 800 violent revolts against their current overlords within our known Social History. It wasn't as rare as you think!

But, literally no Society is totally homogeneous - possessing of the same needs and desires throughout all its inhabitants. Militarism and Wealth has always accrued to minorities of individuals, which has always divided Society into various Classes, with the consequence that the majority is kept virtually powerless, and a relatively tiny Elite is therefore maintained in overall and lucrative control - even in supposed democracies.

And, that Elite has always necessarily gathered around itself a penumbra of somewhat privileged retainers and servants, who see their future solely in terms of the Elite they serve.

But, the majority have no say, AND also importantly NO means to overthrow the incumbent regimes, until, that is, some form of major crisis also affects even those who thought they were safe, and new temporary alliances between parts of the Middle and the Lower Classes, which could possibly challenge the Elite's Control.

The Middle Classes could, of course, never do that by themselves, though certain armed sub groups certainly could carry out successful coupe d'états- such as The Army, for example! But, it was The People-in-Arms in Russia, during the First World War, that ultimately sided with the suffering People, because that is also exactly who they too really were.

But, in most Revolutions, nascent New and increasingly powerful Classes - like Landowners, Manufacturers, Merchants and Traders, who then had sufficient financial wherewithal, and had promised the Lower Classes exactly what they desired to form into a capable Revolutionary Alliance, but who could also separate from that coalition upon success to deliver a new privileged elite!

In the English Revolution, the Parliament - representing the wealthier Landowners, chose Oliver Cromwell, as their leader, and who built his New Model Army, largely out of the Peasant Class, but who then developed their own ideas and associations like the Diggers and the Levellers, and who certainly had much more radical ideas than the wealthy Middle Class. Yet together they defeated the Royalists and decapitated the King! But, thereafter, the successful Revolution did literally nothing for the Peasants.

Upon Victory, the alliance fell apart (or more accurately was cleansed of its lower orders), while the privileged layers within the Army were easily converted into a means of maintaining the now established New Order. Indeed, Cromwell is still, to this day, reviled in Ireland for his brutal putting down their own Rebellion.

And then, slowly at first, but soon reaching colossal proportions the Peasants were driven from the land by Enclosures by the Landlords, to make way for much more profitable Sheep Farming, and also to increasingly supply Workers for the new Capitalist Factories appearing everywhere.

The promises to ordinary people of:

Liberté, Egalitéet Fraternité

were soon forgotten after the French Revolotion, and it was becoming clear that, every such Revolution, would not be completed without a change in both the Economic and the Political Systems too! It meant that the toiling masses had to be equipped with an agenda for the New State, developed from their needs and desires, and independent of those from more privileged prior comrades in arms, and involved themselves in a continuing fight to establish it, even after such a supposed initial Victory.

But, in Russia the nature of the New Revolutionary State, even though it was finally achieved decisively by the Toiling Masses, had effectively just transferred ownership of the Means of Production into the hands of a New State Bureaucracy.

The workers still had no direct control!

And, predictably, the new arrangement generated its own privileged Elite - Communist Party leaders and bureaucrats.

What was being undertaken in such a Revolution had to have those involved adequately informed by an understanding of all of this, and equipped with both a Powerful Theory and Developed Practice to produce the Conscious Engine Room both of and for the Toiling Masses. The Class had to have a dedicated Revolutionary Party to ensure its real success, which had also learned lessons from the mistakes of the past.

A New Path to Socialism?

Having been an advocate of Socialism all my adult life, and a dedicated and active participant in various professedly Marxist Parties, it is clear that the central objective of the Movement, which generated such means, has never been universally guided to success, by those intended organisations-of-change. Indeed, in spite of the vital theoretical contributions of Karl Marx, and the significant success of the Russian Revolution, the expected ultimate global triumph of Socialism over Capitalism has not been achieved.

And, as the future under Capitalism seems to be driving remorselessly towards an even greater calamity than the two World Wars of the 20th century, a solution to the causes of failure of the Socialist Movement has become absolutely imperative.

The generally-supposed banker methods have been proved to be ultimately counter-productive.

 

Indeed, the top-down organisation of the Socialist State, even when achieved via a successful and popular revolution, can never do it! For, it is always prone to the rise and increasing power of a centralised Bureaucracy: and, in the end, the ordinary Working People become just as powerless as those within Capitalism.

Yet, the remarkable undoubted achievements of Russia and China, after their successful revolutions, have proven the superiority of a Planned Economy: the swift developments of the Soviet Union, only to then be vastly exceeded by those of the Peoples Republic of China, clearly demonstrate that!

But, replacing the Capitalist owners with Bureaucratic directors never delivered Socialism for the People.

And, the reasons reside in the misunderstood true nature of Real Democracy! Neither Parliamentary Democracy under Capitalism, nor the Bureaucratic "Democracy" under Stalinism, can deliver True Democracy - a society run by the People. For, no matter how the Representatives of the People are first selected as possible candidates, and then voted into office - it is always achieved without:

1. Sufficient information to enable the right selection

2. Sufficient recall controls over the People's Representatives

3. Regular and sufficient interrogative access to them

But, how could all that be appropriately organised?

It should primarily be organised within the People's Workplaces and Living Constituencies, and it would need to be kept informed by an adequate and totally Free Press.

Indeed, the Principles of Democracy must be insisted-upon and instituted, not only in the organisation of local, district and national representative bodies of the State, but even within the political parties and policy-making bodies within the Populace.

And, these latter demands are also absolutely crucial!

For, there is a "leadership myth", which is always used to oppose such demands. It implies that you cannot trust the judgement of ordinary people to make decisions in their own best interests. You are, instead, supposed to find the right leader, who understands such things better than you, and get him or her to make such important decisions "on behalf of the People".

No, definitely NOT! 

The Leader might well be chosen because of an evident grasp of the most important issues (or perhaps not!). But, the policies pursued must always be those voted upon, by the majority. 

And, sometimes those decisions will be wrong! 

But how else will the populace learn and become competent at managing their own destiny? With the leadership principle, the bad decisions are always some other individual's fault! No-one ever learns it is their fault!

With True Democracy, there has also to be True Responsibility.

Decisions must be those of the majority, and implemented by the organisation and even by a leader who doesn't agree with them. For if that leader believes it will lead to a major set back, he must resign the leadership, and form a contrary faction arguing for a change in policy. Indeed, sometimes, that disagreeing leader should still march at the front of his differently-convinced members, and be defeated along with them!

That is exactly what happened in Russia in 1917 in what are termed the "July Days". In spite of totally disagreeing with the Kronstadters, who had marched into Petrograd, armed to the teeth, determined to arrest the Provisional Government. The Bolshevik leaders argued against it - it was much too soon. But, the Kronstadters would not be dissuaded, so Trotsky, who knew it was a major mistake, nevertheless marched with them, at their head, to the Winter Palace. 

It did indeed fail, and Trotsky was put in jail. 

But, the lesson was learned, and in October it was the Kronstadters, when called upon to do the same thing by Lenin, knew who to trust, and did the job. For, with that Responsibility, the people begin to understand more and more!

The preparing of the People for True Democracy has to be the primary purpose of socialists: for without that, all actions will eventually end in failure, and could lead to calamitous outcomes! Consider the rise of Fascism in many countries following the First World War and the Global Slump beginning in 1929, if you doubt it.

Let us seriously consider Democracy in the Workplace!

Both the Capitalist Workplace and those in the Soviet Union were NOT democratic: all decision were taken by managers or owners, and even in the Socialist State they were appointed by the central Government. Even there, the Workers were considered to be incapable of making the important decisions And, it was true: how could it be otherwise? You don't get born with such capabilities you are either taught them or you learn by experience! And, without the regular experience of making such decisions, you would indeed get them wrong, and never be in a position to take responsibility for them, and correct them.

There is a Workplace Democracy that takes all this into account! It is a version of a Workers Co-operative Company, where it is wholly owned and managed by the Workforce alone. And it is, therefore, part of the job, every single week, to come together to discuss problems and make decisions. Everyone is involved and the decisions of the majority are implemented by the management, who are both hired and fired by the workforce. The workers in such a company learn from their mistakes and their increasing number of successes.

Finally, the effect of the super-rich in society, whatever their political status, has to be addressed, for the current role of this group totally distorts any democratic features that actually exist, and in ways which completely negate their supposed-to-be intended purposes. For, prodigious disposable wealth can fairly easily be used to steer things to the detriment of the majority of the population and in the interests of a powerful few.

And, by far the most important of these is in the delivery of news and information to ordinary citizens, primarily via who own and run the Media, and how they select and deliver what they consider to be important.

For, what is important to billionaire owners will never be the same as what is vital to the majority of the population, and particularly the poor - the workforce exploited by those very owners. And, to take the case of the United Kingdom, at the present time, literally all the nationwide newspapers, and all the TV channels are clearly biased news-wise towards the requirements of the rich.

And, using the excuse of terrorist or even paedophile postings, even the organisers of the facilities on the web are being noticeably reduced for anti-establishment positions.

And, in the USA, where politics is majorly influenced by contributions to "election funds" and the like, staying as an elected representative can be greatly influenced by how much particular candidates, or even supporters of the same policies can spend across the media, and even the way they vote can be influenced by substantial contributions to "expenses".

Only effective policies addressing all of these aspects can deliver justice in political activity now, and help to maintain political objectives when electoral successes finally come.

The amassing of wealth, influence and power in few hands must not only cease, but be decisively dismantled and stopped from ever happening again!

Socialism will never be possible whilever the rich maintain their total dominance!

But neither will it be possible while power is held in so few hands - whoever's hands they may be.

Within Marxism?

Review: Marxism and the Philosophy of Science: A Critical History by Helena Sheehan
With a title like that you would think we'd be singing from the same hymn sheet, but sadly this doesn't deal with the real issues at hand.

A critique of Helena Sheehan's book

upon Marxism, Science & Philosophy

Part I

This paper, at this very early stage, addresses only Helena Sheehan's 38-page Introduction to her book, but such is, I have found, always a legitimate first step, as the writer's main purposes are usually clearly emphasized there, and so what will be delivered later in detail, will be usefully outlined in an Introduction to give direction to the ultimately following narrative. For then, you will have a fair idea of what you are going to get, before any other, as-yet-unmentioned diverting elements introduce any confusion, in the following detailed treatments.

This work, of almost 600 pages, attempts to relate both Marxism and Science, via their "philosophies" and their "histories", but does it from a surprisingly-claimed standpoint, namely from "Within Marxism", and this leads her to treat all of what she considered were natural, if sometimes aberrant, developments, from a supposed common-ground - established by Karl Marx in the 1840's, and including all that has been delivered, ever since, under that explicit banner.

Significantly, extensive access to the many countries, which, at the time of her extensive visits to them, and her consequent writing of this book, were still under the aegis of being "Socialist States", and still largely dominated by the Soviet Union. And, this was indertaken along with unrivalled access to their Centres of Learning in those countries. It, certainly, infers a strong connection, with one or another of the Communist Parties in the West, and having been a member of the CPGB, myself, for a time, I recognised the names of comrades from that time, within her Acknowledgements.

Sheehan personally sees her account as being about, "The story of the shifting nexus of science, philosophy and politics within Marxism", to which you have to ask, "So what is this 'container' which can include all of that?"

For, she puts that aberrant path down to "new scientific discoveries, new philosophical trends and new political formations", as the determining causes! And, that statement alone answers my question, by defining that "container" as being clearly - all those either professing to be Marxists, and, surely, also, in addition, even those defining that stance from without: that is both everyone calling themselves Marxists, and even opponents defining it, seem to be included within its inevitable trajectory of development! But, such errors are surely only later explained, while dealing with their origins within the criticisms of Formal Reasoning by the German Idealist philosopher Hegel, and his consequent assault upon Dichotomous Pairs of contradictory concepts, which always led to rationally-unbridgeable-impasses in Reasoning, and, thereafter, his consequent discovery that the problem always resided within inadequate or missing premises.

For, the origins of that crucial flaw had been there in Reasoning ever since the Intellectual Revolution in Ancient Greece, which occurred as an inevitable-consequence of the Neolithic Revolution some thousands of years earlier. What finally occurred was the beginnings of conceptual Abstractions, first in Geometrical Forms, and then in Mathematics in general, which was so productive in those idealised realms, that they were extended to Reasoning in Formal Logic too.

But, those original and highly-productive contexts were NOT about Reality-as-is, but, always, about stable-concepts-alone: where things didn't change qualitatively. And, though not originally overtly stated, such a stance was later found to conform exactly to The Principle of Plurality, wherein qualitative changes were prohibited, and entities, concepts and even Laws were considered to be fixed- it was also where the idea of eternal Natural Laws came from later in Science!

Now, this chosen trajectory colours the subsequent use of words like "rational" - for it usually implies a dependable mode of reasoning, which Formal Logic never delivers outside of Stabilities. And, in the same way, reference to eternal Laws, and even Truth has to be undermined if used loosely too.

It's not Marxism!

And, I must take issue with the "Broad Church" definition of "Marxism": for Marx's contribution was initially philosophical, and carried over Hegel's Dialectical Logic entirely, but into a strictly Materialist stance. And, thereafter, he began to apply it to his own specialist discipline of History, where he was able to explain prior Social Revolutions in terms of Crises in Stable Social Forms, progressing into total, general collapses, and subsequent creative construction of wholly new Social Stabilities. 

Marx developed Dialectics as the a more reliable way to deal with all qualitative changes , in particular with all situations in crisis, and at every possible Level.

Now, Sheehan calls it, "A story with its dark side, with retrogressive episodes, unscrupulous characters, hasty and ill-conceived projects, and superficial solutions, sometimes with dire consequences" - does this sound remotely like those involved applying Marx's Dialectics to currently happening situations?

Of course not! And such people were not Marxists, at all!

Sheehan is actually talking about the Stalinist bureaucrats, who drove the real Marxists out, or executed them as traitors, or even had them assassinated abroad. These perpetrators were trenchant enemies of Marxism who appropriated its name - and they were strong defenders of their accrued privileges and power.

Not every supporter of the Revolution, or even every member of the Bolshevik Party were Marxists, and the Civil War with the Whites, and the many armies of intervention, as well as the economic blockade inflicted upon the first Socialist State, would, and indeed did, distort the ways and the means of those running the new state. The bureaucracy became a reflection of these external forces from the capitalist states. and imposed "solutions" upon their own population, whether they liked or understood it or not!

The Marxism of Marx, or even that of Lenin was driven out by this bureaucracy, and the people's support for "Their Socialist State" was constantly eroded.

To explain all this, also required a trenchant criticism of State Ownership merely replacing Capitalist Ownership, with little or no Worker's Control of their places of work. And the same set-ups, but worse, were imposed upon the subject peoples of Royalist Russia, and the USSR's enlarged "Empire" too!

Nope. "Bad apples in the barrel" is not a Marxist analysis!

And, the many "complexities", of which Sheehan complained, were actually due to diverse pragmatic solutions isolating the Soviet Union from the efforts of the Capitalist World to destroy it. Such a struggle could have been the means of raising the Soviet People's Marxist consciousness, but, that was never the policy of the Bureaucracy.

Sheehan goes on to claim that:

"This work attempts to give an historical account of the development of Marxism as a philosophy of science as well as a philosophical analysis of the issues involved."

But sadly, the essentially-required prior-project to enable her intention had never actually happened! The 40 years invested by Marx into Capitalist Economics, was never replicated to do the same for Science, where it would surely involve a great deal more than what Marx had had to invest into a much smaller area. He had correctly concluded that he had first to become an Economist, and studied the best of the English School first, before he could even embark upon a meaningful critique of that subject.

So, with Science, the task would either involve the same sort of learning curve to be undertaken by an excellent Marxist (as good a dialectician as Marx), or, alternatively, its undertaking, along with the detailed study of Marxism, by a professional scientist critical of the consensus stances within that discipline.

It never happened, either way!

The aspiring Empirio Criticists within the Bolshevik Party, had it wrong, and had to be retrieved by Lenin with his book Materialism and Empirio Criticism, but Lenin was no qualified scientist and was pre-occupied with preparing to lead a Revolution.

The essential task was never undertaken, so Sheehan's intention also could also never be fulfilled - for the wherewithal to tackle it didn't actually exist.

Sheehan also claims that: 

"It shows the Marxist tradition to be far more complex and differentiated than is usually imagined, characterised by sharp and lively controversies for contending paths of development every step of the way."

And claims she is tracing the History of the Mainstream of Marxism in the century since Marx set out upon his colossal task. But she illegitimately confuses Dialectical Materialist Philosophy, and the Politics which both flowed from that stance, and conversely elicited a hostile incursion to those purposes from without! You cannot make those two coincident, for they never were. Each-and-every attempt at building a Workers International Organisation was betrayed by non-Marxists, largely consisting of Middle Class interlopers fearing what such an organisation would do to their intentions and aspirations.

It always occurred! And, there were always resources from defenders of Capitalism to finance such incursions.

The use of the term "Marxism" to cover all of this is certainly incorrect!

The Philosophy which Marx arrived at is has to be the engine of any consequent Politics. And the so-called controversies occurred when that wasn't the case. Stalinism was never a strain of Marxist philosophy: it was the stance of bureaucrats with State Power in the new State, which emerged from the Russian Revolution. The fights were not between groups of Marxists who honestly disagreed with each other: the two groups had very different stances and purposes.

The so-called controversies concerned with Relativity and Quantum Theory actually revealed the as yet uncompleted tasks of applying Dialectical Materialism to Science, but if the Marxists hadn't been removed from the struggle, they, and definitely not their opponents, could have completed that task. To blame the errors on the new discoveries in Science is dishonest. For dealing with these aberrations would have strengthened the new Philosophy: that's how developments occur!

The very fact that the new Idealist Stances in Sub Atomic Physics spread to Russia, showed clearly how far the Bureaucrats had strayed from Dialectical Materialism. For what they claimed was Marxism was nothing like the most important means that had been in Marx's hands, and should and would have tackled the latest Positivist inventions, if its supporters had survived the purges.

Imagine what the centres of Learning in a genuinely Marxist state could have achieved in this area!

NOTE: I must interject at this point, for the writer of this paper is both a Physicist and a Marxist, and has recently completed a real Marxist treatment of the Idealist Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, which any real Marxist could have done long ago. And a key reason for this never happening before was the triumph of the Stalinists.

And remember the collapse of the Soviet Empire was down to them too!

This scientific undertaking has taken most of my adult life, because I had to effectively "do-a-Marx-type-job" from scratch! There weren't any Marxists to help me.