http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1251

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2006/12/25/gabriel-kolkos-after-socialism/

I would also recommend checking out Paul D’Amato’s book “The Meaning of Marxism,” which might clarify Marxism for you as not deterministic or unyielding, but in fact incredibly (at its core, and by necessity) flexible and adaptable.

A variety of regimes (Stalin, Mao, etc.) have (mis)used Marxism as an ideological tool to gain the support of the downtrodden and the left, but this does not mean that their pseudo-socialism is the inevitable result of the application of Marxism to organizing. To claim that would be to fall prey to the same sort of determinism that Kolko falsely ascribes to Marx. Using Kolko’s method, perhaps we should define “freedom” and “democracy” as equivalent to the ideology of George Bush, and then claim that any attempt to achieve either will result in brutality and oppression, so we must reject these ideals as idealistic.

“Kolko’s prescriptions are foremost, universal demilitarization and disarmament. He recommends taxing the rich to fund prodigal public spending.” These are great ideas, but they cut at the very heart of capitalism. Those who control the wealth produced by the working class do not participate in the production of that wealth, so they need militaries to protect their ill-gotten dough. They will not be eager to disarm, and will not disarm as long as they remain in power. Similarly, the rich (in other words, the ruling class) are not going to allow themselves to be taxed to any great extent unless they are forced to. So the question is, who takes power in order to achieve these and other goals, to run society to meet human needs? Marx’s contribution was to demonstrate the potential for the working class to take power and do just that, and it is still very much relevant today.