Of Marx mice and Alberto Garzón

Marxist Theory · 2018-09-25

Core Argument¶

The article argues that Alberto Garzón, leader of Spain's United Left (IU), is preparing a break with Marxism under the guise of updating it. His article "Is Marxism a scientific method?" is not a genuine attempt to refine Marxist theory but a capitulation to the same pressures that have driven other left leaders toward the "centre ground." The central thesis is that Garzón's rejection of Marxism as a scientific method, his reliance on Karl Popper's philosophy of science, and his call for a "softened" historical materialism represent not an innovation but a retreat — one that mirrors the ideological trajectory of the PSOE in 1978 and the political collapse of Podemos. The article insists that Marxism remains the only consistently revolutionary theory capable of analysing capitalist crisis and guiding working-class struggle, and that abandoning it leaves the left without a compass, drifting into opportunism and confusion.

Theoretical Grounding¶

The analysis is firmly rooted in the classical Marxist tradition, drawing on:

Dialectical materialism as the philosophical foundation of Marxism, defended against Popperian falsificationism. The article argues that dialectics — particularly the transformation of quantity into quality — is confirmed by modern chaos theory and phase transition physics.
Historical materialism, defended against charges of "economic determinism" by citing Engels's letter to Joseph Bloch, which clarifies that the economic is "ultimately determining" but not the sole factor.
The Marxist theory of crisis, implicitly drawing on the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and overaccumulation, though the article focuses more on empirical evidence of capitalist dysfunction than on formal crisis theory.
The revolutionary versus reformist divide, situating the argument within the long history of revisionist struggles — from Bernstein and Kautsky through to the PSOE's 1978 abandonment of Marxism.
Trotsky's conception of revolutionary objectivity, quoted at length to counter the notion that partisanship precludes scientific analysis.

The article sits squarely in the anti-revisionist tradition, defending the continuity and vitality of Marx and Engels's fundamental ideas against attempts to "soften" or "supersede" them. It treats the Marxist method not as a relic but as a living instrument whose predictive power — from globalisation to polarisation — has been vindicated by history.

Conjunctural Relevance¶

The article is written in September 2018, a moment of deep crisis for the Spanish and European left:

Greece is cited as a warning: SYRIZA's trajectory from radical opposition to implementing austerity demonstrates the fate of left leaderships that abandon Marxist method for electoral pragmatism.
Podemos is in visible decline. The article notes that its attempt to occupy the "centre ground" — epitomised by the slogan "we are neither Left nor Right" — has led to disenchantment and loss of ground to the PSOE. This is presented as the inevitable result of ideological confusion.
The Spanish "Transition" is identified as the original sin: the PSOE's 1979 abandonment of Marxism at its Extraordinary Congress is quoted verbatim to show that Garzón's formulations are nearly identical.
The global crisis of capitalism provides the backdrop. The article cites UBS analyst George Magnus, Nouriel Roubini, and the Wall Street Journal to show that even bourgeois economists are turning to Marx for explanations of post-2008 stagnation, rising inequality, and the failure of monetary policy.
Mass movements are noted — the 8 March women's strikes, pensioners' protests, the Catalan democratic rebellion — as evidence of growing revolt that lacks revolutionary leadership.

The conjuncture is one of objective crisis meeting subjective confusion: capitalism is in terminal dysfunction, the masses are moving, but the left leadership is ideologically disarmed.

Where the Argument Continues¶

This article is part of a sustained polemic by the RCI against the degeneration of the Spanish and European left. The argument continues in:

Other IDOM articles on Spain, particularly those analysing Podemos's trajectory, the Catalan question, and the crisis of the PSOE. The reference to the 1978 PSOE Congress is a thread that runs through multiple pieces.
Alan Woods's broader writings on reformism and opportunism, especially his historical analyses of the Second International and the degeneration of mass parties.
Against the Stream episodes covering the Spanish left, the crisis of Podemos, and the theoretical defence of dialectical materialism.
The Marxist.com series on dialectical materialism, which provides the philosophical underpinning for the defence of Engels's Dialectics of Nature against Popperian and postmodernist critiques.

The article leaves open the question of what a positive revolutionary strategy for Spain would look like — it is primarily a polemical demolition rather than a programmatic construction. That work is taken up elsewhere in the corpus, particularly in analyses of the need for a revolutionary party and the application of the transitional method.

Connections¶

Engels, "The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man" — cited via Stephen Jay Gould as a demonstration of Engels's scientific prescience.
Engels, letter to Joseph Bloch (1890) — the classic defence of historical materialism against economic determinism.
Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto — presented as the most contemporary document available, predicting globalisation and polarisation.
Trotsky, "The Chinese Revolution" (1938) — quoted on revolutionary objectivity.
Karl Popper, The Poverty of Historicism and The Open Society and Its Enemies — the targets of the article's philosophical critique.
Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin — provides external scientific validation of Engels's method.
Mark Buchanan, Ubiquity — cited to show that chaos theory confirms dialectical laws.
The PSOE's 1979 Extraordinary Congress resolution — the historical precedent for Garzón's trajectory.

Key Quotes¶

"Marxism, in our firm opinion, is indeed scientific socialism (without inverted commas) and therefore very far from any kind of religion. It is based on a rigorous scientific method (dialectical materialism) and a scientific interpretation of history (historical materialism)."
"If we go to a library and take out any bourgeois book on sociology, economics or politics written 150 years ago, it will immediately become obvious that this book is merely of historical interest – its application to modern conditions, next to zero. But if we open the pages of the Communist Manifesto, written by two young men in 1847, Marx and Engels, we will find a most astonishing description and analysis, not of the world of 1847, but of the world in which we live today."
"The most serious bourgeois economists, particularly since the crisis of 2008, have become increasingly interested in the theories of Marx and Engels. It is therefore ironic that, in this very same period, a growing number of people on the left have decided to throw Marxism overboard."
"Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. The absence of ideology merely signifies the acceptance of a bad ideology. Ideas as confused as 'we are neither Left nor Right' open the door to an opportunist policy, with disastrous consequences."
"Marxism is not an onerous load that impedes our progress. Rather it is a compass that is absolutely necessary for us to find the right road. Without the aid of such a compass, we will necessarily lose ourselves in a morass of incorrect and contradictory ideas."
"What the postmodernist economists so critical of Marx fail to understand is that he was not an 'economist,' but a revolutionary. He did not work out an economic theory in order to deliver clever lectures in university seminars, to find a way to run the capitalist system, nor to work out a reformist electoral programme, but to analyse reality in order to carry out a thoroughgoing social transformation."