Unnecessary Dividers in the Marxist Community

I've written often of the multiple factions that plague the left. Specifically, these can include the difference between anarchists, trade-unionists, Marxists, anarcho-syndicalists, etc. Today, I will focus especially on the divisions that split the Marxist community.

The origins of the divisions in theory and practice debated among today's Marxists can be traced back more than seventy years. These differences can be extremely small and seemingly insignificant, and yet they never cease to cause controversy amongst leftists. I believe that these rows are caused more by managerial differences and the debate on modes of practice than any real ideological debate between Stalin, Trotsky, etc.

A good example of the needless debate between Marxists centers on Stalin's "National Question" and its place in Marxist thought. Self-described Trotskyists and Stalinists continue to be split by their opinion of this piece, often needlessly. The real focus on the "National Question" centers on state-craft, which is more or less useless to America's fledgling Marxist community.

Since the 1917 October Revolution, revolutionary politicians have understood that the theory of Marxism is a tool to be applied to oppressive governments in the hope of building a more egalitarian society. This point, that Marxism is a tool to be applied to a particular situation seems to have been lost on many revolutionary Marxist parties in the "First world." Deep down, every politically conscience progressive person has a inner-revolutionary, fighting to take over and foment some sort of a people's war for the betterment of mankind. But, as mature beings of current western society, we must put down this craving, and work for a true democratic revolution, within the political system we currently have. The concept of violent revolution in America, or the western world for that matter, is currently impossible and unsupported by the masses, and thus working towards one must be considered opportunist defeatism.

Revolutionary giants of the past provide a good example of thought, theory, and practice, and must be used often as a guiding light. There is nothing wrong with learning history, or admiring the likes of Lenin, Mao, or Che. The real problem starts in failing to understand that these men used Marxism as a tool in their time, and in their unique historical context. The failure to update Marxist action, and the refusal to take part in the current democratic political process dooms any Marxist movement to failure.