Marxism in a Day: A review

I visited London today to go to Marxism in a day. A smaller conference than the annual Marxism festival and organised by the SWP in Birkbeck University, it featured talks by several prominent activists both from and outside of the SWP (including Wayman Bennet, Geoff Brown, Paul Holborrow, Alex Callinicos and Joseph Choonara), it acted as a pleasant space by which people of many age groups could discuss and gain insight into various pressing political topics alongside a very knowledgeable panel, to which our involvement was highly appreciated. 

The conference was opened with with excellent talks by Professor Alex Callinicos and SWP activist Katie Coles on the ever growing importance of Marxism in today’s society, and its evolution in its application economics and political sciences over time. This was then followed by Yuri Prasad’s talk on the need for revolution in understanding and fighting against racism, which inspired a lot of discussion. It was through listening to this that I began to really take in the sheer absurdity of the extent by which society remains so heavily divided by ridiculous social constructs of gender and race, that political differences, class struggle, and things that truly matter appear to be viewed as merely trivial matters that are hugely overshadowed. Some interesting points were also raised about unionisation and whether this was really the major revolutionary solution that many view it as in relation to these issues.

After breaking for lunch and having a discussion with the specific student wing of the SWP (in which, along with my Portsmouth comrades I was there with, I heard from many others about their recent activism), we reconvened to hear from the founders of the Anti-Nazi League. I particularly enjoyed listening to Wayman Bennett’s commentary on the defeat of the far right in London during the National Front’s formative years, and found his story telling style and use of humour relating back to today’s situation to be engaging, and exactly the way to motivate us and give us hope for the future revolution. 

As I left the university lecture hall after the final plenary and the closing words, this was exactly what I was feeling: truly inspired and filled with hope for my generation (who were the majority of the audience) to bring about change. Events such as this are hugely important for, not only educating and encouraging others to strive to improve society, but to allow more modern and up to date perspectives on Marxism to be understood, bringing the theory to life and increasing its accessibility. Because of this, I would highly recommend them to both the politically knowledgeable and those just beginning to develop their understanding. I also felt that this one being held in a university as opposed to a conference venue to be a very nice touch which perfectly added to this sentiment.

Perceptive analysis of the application of Tolstoyist ethics to the dialect of pacifist anarchism

In its crude sense when used in colloquial dialect, anarchism is regarded as the operation of a society without the presence of a state or alternative political vanguard to enforce law and govern the people, often being synonymous with chaos and connoted with political violence. It is also clear to note that little is done to distinguish the similarly rooted yet subtly differing ideas of anarchism and anarchy, with the latter being more widely used in quotidian discussion, relating more to a state of disorder and limited organisation of society. However, what is often disregarded is that anarchism and anarchy can often exist in more implicit forms that do not necessarily feature use of force, direct action and political violence so as to achieve revolutionary aims and reconstitute existing models of society (Christoyannopoulos, 2024). It can instead take on a more pacifist appearance. As described in Henry David Thoreau's Theory of Civil Disobedience, an approach similar to what is often referred to as anarcho-pacifism, can be seen as the ultimate means of achieving individual and collective liberty within a society governed by the people. The present role of the state "in the formation, a contract between the governors and the governed is entered into - the governors to protect the life, property, liberty and provide basic necessities of life and conducive environment for the wellbeing of the governed who in turn submit to and obey the laws promulgated for the general good" is considered, with anarchy in is supposedly chaotic form seen as something to be disapproved of considering the disparaging of the state as a form of civil disobedience, by which their role to "protect the life, property, liberty and provide basic necessities of life and conducive environment" is clearly disparaged (Thoreau, 1849). This sentiment, however, appears to arguably more effectively represent a form of community orientated anti-establishment libertarianism, as opposed to social anarchy. Equally, it must also be noted that chaos and disorder along with the failed use of direct can prove to remain equally prevalent in societies with strong governments and concentration of political and economic influence amongst a select group of individuals as observed here, which would thus go against many common perceptions of support and participation in anarchist activities. Therefore, it is through critical analysis of philosophies centred around social justice and the bringing about of peace so as to revolutionise society, such as those of individuals such as Leo Tolstoy, that one can understand the merits of anarcho-pacifism and how social anarchy can potentially be achieved through comparatively peaceful means. This is what this article intends to observe, as well as the supposed flaws with these methods.

Leo Tolstoy, a Russian novelist widely regarded for his religious theory- by which, as well as demonstrating a passionate distaste for the Orthodox Church and the clearly evident hierarchical system amongst the clergy traditionally, he considered Christianity as a doctrine for ethical and moral teaching, favouring an end to state and public-led political violence and social inequality- proved to act as an important figure in the development of many anarcho-pacifist philosophies. He uses this religious rhetoric to rationalise the idea that, if there was no God, love and reason should be one’s greatest qualities and so vilify nihilism, disrespect for others, and violence. One can make reference to his 1900 work On Anarchy in which he also presents something of a form of admiration for the motives of many anarchists (Tolstoy, 1900). He asserts this linking back to his emphasis on the importance of rationality in peacefully achieving revolution when he is quoted:

“(one) must submit to them your other inclinations, and not let them submit to your animal nature — to the cares about the commodities of life, to the fear of annoyance and material calamities”.

However, a reason in which Tolstoy’s principles may perhaps be ridiculed by anarchists and considered as supposedly counterintuitive, is that while he shows sympathy and admiration for the motives of revolution and feels that it would potentially be positive as a means of achieving his personal humanitarian aims, he doesn’t mention any specific methods of achieving this except for purely through the will of God and the strength of one’s inner self. This would thus mean he puts oneself and their development above the advancement of humanity and thus relatively speaking not prove to have such a great net influence on revolutionising society as a whole. This can be clearly observed through his claim that nobody knows whether revolution will take place and that this is purely determined by how well one has regenerated themself in the process. Also, in relation to his view of anarchy being derived from the sentiments of many progressive religious groups, how far these principles can be considered as truly anarchic is also something that some would question, seeing as historically a lot of these Christians had been reluctant to label themselves using the term anarchists (Barclay, 2009).

Overall, while much dispute can be had as to what constitutes anarchism and anarchy, and more pacifist and morally driven theories on the subject may perhaps be seen as overly idealistic and not revolutionary enough on a larger scale, it is clear that they can still somewhat effectively function in conjunction with pacifism. The idea of all anarchy being violent and relying on direct action can thus be disproven, and the ethics and philosophies of individuals such as Tolstoy can very much be seen as having their place in the advancement of understanding of social anarchy. His works, although also raising other questions as to what constitutes anarchy, provide effective nuance to this and further redefine revolution, perhaps appearing to act as the point of intersection of libertarian and liberal values with revolutionary aims directed at developing oneself on a personal level to respond to and initiate social change.

Barclay, H,  2009. Anarcho-pacifism. Published in The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest. DOI: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781405198073.wbierp1663

Christoyannopoulos, A, 2024. Mapping the Landscape Between Pacifism and Anarchism: Accusations, Rejoinders and Mutual Resonances. Published in British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 27(1). pp. 407-429. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13691481241257806%0D%0AThe%20British%20Journal%20of%20Politics%20and%20%0D%0AInternational%20Relations%0D%0A2025,%20Vol.%2027(1)%20407%E2%80%93429%0D%0A%C2%A9%20The%20Author(s)%20

Thoreau, H.D., (1849). Essay on Civil Disobedience. DOI: https://users.manchester.edu/Facstaff/SSNaragon/Online/texts/201/Thoreau,%20CivilDisobedience.pdf.

Tolstoy, L, 1900. On Anarchy. Published by The Anarchist Library. Source retrieved from http://tolstoyandpeace.wordpress.com/tolstoy-on-non-violence/on-anarchy-1900/. DOI: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/leo-tolstoy-on-anarchy

Critical analysis of Engels' work "The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man" as applied to Freudian dialect

 

When examining the application of anthropology to the physiognomy of society and the social and demographic dimension which has shaped it, a lot of this can be linked back to  Hegelian dialect, which has been further reviewed and built upon through understanding Engels’ perspective on the matter. This can be outlined in his 1876 manuscript, The Role of Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man. This manuscript, which consists of only an unfinished introduction and which was never published within Engels’ lifetime, provides an insight into the ways in which the foundations of a society ruled by a variety of constructs and social norms based off of physical and socially constructed characteristics of individuals based off of age, gender, and sexuality. While a lot of what is presented in this work would seem like a rather crude and empirical observation based off of a specific time period, it can prove to be useful in providing a possible (albeit overly simplistic and heavily based off of highly outdated socially constructed ideals), it proves to provide an insightful and interesting perspective on the nature of these ideals, and how they could potentially be something of crude human nature which has not undergone radicalisation or exposure to alternative means in which societies can operate, as is effectively achieved through understanding the evolution of the humanoid species by. This would perhaps also present striking similarities between Freudian dialect to also be somewhat evident with regard to the naturalistic ideas about sexuality and sexual activity which are observed here.

Physical geography and the topographical characteristics of the environment in which primates were born into were believed by Engels to be directly related to their anatomical development and had clearly influenced their evolution into humans. The most notable stages to this development and the key means by which the more advanced Homo Sapiens species could be effectively distinguished from primates and other species would be through their manual dexterity and ability to develop and use tools. This extended to their ability to engage in sexual activity and for differences in their physical form in relation to their abilities to carry out specific functions. As a result, this marked the beginning of ideas on traditional gender roles to be established, so functioning as the point at which the established conduct of behaving associated with these were born, there laying the foundations of today’s chauvinistic and machist society in which sexual repression remains evident. By this logic, gender and biological sex are seen as interrelated and stemming from the same scientific rationale.

This attitude, however, appears to be very much disproven by many more feminist and liberal commentary by which gender is not viewed as real or related to gender sex; it’s merely a perceived social construct derived from physical and observable characteristics that people have been institutionalised to associate with either of the two biological sexes. As a result, many would wish to abolish the idea of gender, as well as viewing Engels’ ideas to be somewhat sexist, homophobic and transphobic in today’s society. Links between the ideas discussed with Freudian theory of penis envy and the Oedipus Complex can be established in that the common consensus that women would begin to, in their primary  stage of psychophallic development, develop a desire for the male reproductive system (even goingp so far as to be sexually attracted to their male parent) appreciating the power it has. This would thus prove to act as “the physical reproduction of the patriarchy”, and substantiate his controversial and heavily sexist claims that women functioned living lives dominated by their sexual reproductive functions.