Marx 'Contentious'?

[Lyev]

I got into a discussion with my brother about Marxism and Marx's analysis of things. My brother is unashamedly an Obama-ist and the discussion ended with him telling me Marx was a dickhead and that capitalism is a necessary evil. He later said, as reply to me, 'well, every political ideology is flawed in some way or another'.

But although I do half agree with him, he said that Marxism, in it's analysis of history, that it looks too much, and too hard for class-struggle, even when it's not there. I then gave him this quote 'The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.' from the manifesto and he said he realised this and said Marx was 'contentious' and looked for things when they weren't there. He said he's studied Marx a lot in history and he cited the 1867 Reform Act (in England) as an example of this 'contentiousness'. He said Marx was 'alright' but he looked for things that weren't there; as in class struggle. Apperantly Marx said something like the 'riots that lead to the 1867 Reform Act were a true example of revolutionary class struggle' or something; I don't know the exact quote, it would help if someone else knew about this and could give their view.

Basically the aim of this thread is discuss the possible flaw in Marxism that it try's to hard find class struggle when it's not there. My brother basically said that this: 'The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.' was bullshit. I gave him the manifesto and he read on a bit and still said it was crap. I told him it was very easy to have the views he has as a privileged, white, middle-class male in western society. I also told him that surely you could analyze anything with a Marxist perspective. And, that things like this are highly subjective so your argument is irrelevant and he simply shrugged and said 'yeah I suppose'. So I guess the aim of this thread is to try and prove the first line in the manifesto and, (if it's actually ever present) the 'contentiousness' in Marxism and trying to find the places where we try and find class struggle when it's not actually there, when we try to hard to find it and think we've found it and therefore obscure the true nature of things. I'm not denouncing our doctrine or anything, I'm no cappie and I'm still as Marxist as ever but I do think this is something we need to look out for and be careful of. Also if we anyone knows anymore about the 1867 Reform Act in England I'd be grateful if they could shed some more light on it. Thanks everyone :).

[ChrisK]

The 1867 Reform Act gave male workers the right to vote in elections. Originally it was only going to be skilled workers and was getting shot down in the parliment. But after workers staged demonstrations illegally in Hyde Park and a strong possiblity of a workers revolt in the country, caused the bill to be debated again and amended to include all male workers and was passed.

Basically your brother handed you a great example of class-struggle in which workers strong armed the representatives of the capitalist class into giving them more power.

[Post-Something]

Obviously "the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles" is an exaggerated claim and not meant to be taken literally. You would have to be an asshole to believe that society is comprised of nothing else. I don't think anybody would seriously still claim that without biting their tongue right after.

[MarxSchmarx]

No theory is ever perfect. Quantum mechanics can't explain relativity theory and vise versa. There are many biological phenomena that lie outside the ken of natural selection.

None of this means that these aren't useful and valid analyses.

A theory of everything is a theory of nothing. Marx was dead wrong about a lot of things. So was Engels. But both were right where it mattered.

[Bud Struggle]

Marx was dead wrong about a lot of things. So was Engels. But both were right where it mattered.

Except one place. Marx was wrong in thinking that the proletariat would revolt. Up to now at least only the pesants have been revolting. From Russia to Nepal. And that has led to these disjointed Socialist states that haven't seemed to work very well.

[Zanthorus]

Except one place. Marx was wrong in thinking that the proletariat would revolt. Up to now at least only the pesants have been revolting. From Russia to Nepal. And that has led to these disjointed Socialist states that haven't seemed to work very well.

Correct. However the reason isn't that it isn't in the workers interest to revolt which is what a lot of capitalists seem to believe, it's because the proletariat have been propagandised to believe that the goals of the bourgoisie are their own goals.

[RGacky3]

Except one place. Marx was wrong in thinking that the proletariat would revolt. Up to now at least only the pesants have been revolting. From Russia to Nepal. And that has led to these disjointed Socialist states that haven't seemed to work very well.

I don't think thats 100% accurate, the revolution in the USSR was largely urban worker led, as was the Spanish revolution, many uprisings in latin American countries have been worker led, the argentine worker takeover movement started with factory workers, and there are other examples as well.

[ChrisK]

Except one place. Marx was wrong in thinking that the proletariat would revolt. Up to now at least only the pesants have been revolting. From Russia to Nepal. And that has led to these disjointed Socialist states that haven't seemed to work very well.

You never read Ten Day's that Shook the World have you? In it John Reed writes all about how the Industrial Proletariat in Petrograd started revolting and took over all government functions there (he also talks about how it happened in all the other industrial cities). This also happened in Paris in 1871.

I also guess you've never read a book about the Russian Revolution itself, so I'm assuming that you've never gotten a chance to learn what went wrong and are just making statements based on what you learned in school.

[ZeroNowhere]

My brother basically said that this: 'The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.' was bullshit.Which is true, given primitive societies. Engels later admitted that the statement was made because of a lack of knowledge of primitive society at the time. However, your brother wouldn't seem to be referring to that. After all, communism is impossible, primitive communism is therefore also impossible. Communism is impossible because the Russian Revolution did not lead to communism. The Russian Revolution did not lead to communism because human nature makes communism impossible. This can be proved because the Russian Revolution did not lead to communism. Therefore, communism is against human nature. C.Q.F.D.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't think thats 100% accurate, the revolution in the USSR was largely urban worker led, as was the Spanish revolution, many uprisings in latin American countries have been worker led, the argentine worker takeover movement started with factory workers, and there are other examples as well.



You never read Ten Day's that Shook the World have you? In it John Reed writes all about how the Industrial Proletariat in Petrograd started revolting and took over all government functions there (he also talks about how it happened in all the other industrial cities). This also happened in Paris in 1871. Nice and all of that--but Russia wasn't an industrial country. I'm not saying they didn't have some industry but the country itself was semi-feudal. So was China, so was Viet-nam, so was Cambodia, so was Korea, so was Nepal, etc. And there was certainly no industy in Cuba. SOME of these countries had some proletarian base but by and large when Communism takes over--a king leaves office.

No industrial Democratic countries have ever turned Communist of their own volition.

[ChrisK]

Nice and all of that--but Russia wasn't an industrial country. I'm not saying they didn't have some industry but the country itself was semi-feudal. So was China, so was Viet-nam, so was Cambodia, so was Korea, so was Nepal, etc. And there was certainly no industy in Cuba. SOME of these countries had some proletarian base but by and large when Communism takes over--a king leaves office.

No industrial Democratic countries have ever turned Communist of their own volition.

None successfully, but they have risen up. German Revolution 1918, Hungary 1918, Spain 1936, Paris 1871. Hell, workers take over cities to get what they want sometimes, Seattle 1919, San Francisco 1934.

[RGacky3]

Nice and all of that--but Russia wasn't an industrial country.

That does not mean that the revolution was'nt primarily done by industrial workers.



German Revolution 1918, Hungary 1918, Spain 1936, Paris 1871. Hell, workers take over cities to get what they want sometimes, Seattle 1919, San Francisco 1934.


Also the Spanish revolution, also the Argentine takeovers, also Oaxaca, and others, Bud, I think your gonna have to admit your ass was handed to you.

[Bud Struggle]

That does not mean that the revolution was'nt primarily done by industrial workers. Of course it was started by a couple of proletarians, all of them them in FEUDAL countries--and it turned into a shit fest. There was no woker's paradise--it was a bunch of peasents making do. Any of the leaders of the USSR ever come from the Proletariat?




Also the Spanish revolution, also the Argentine takeovers, also Oaxaca, and others, Bud, I think your gonna have to admit your ass was handed to you. All agrarian countries, don't you think? Tell me Germany, England, the good old US of A, then we have something to talk about. And they all failed in no time at all.

Honestly, a Revolution in Wemier Germany or Depression USA would have started Communism off on a completely different foot. But no, those workers went for Nazism and Democratic Capitalism--and did so in moments of VAST economic crisis. When it comes to Marx and Communism--the facts of the past keep me staying an agnostic, not and athiest, just not a believer. And Capitalism has been very very good to this son of poor immigrants.

[RGacky3]

All agrarian countries, don't you think?

Spain is an Agrarian country? Also you got many examples western cities, in Germany, the USA and so on. In the United States, no one went for Democratic Capitalism, what happened was government intervention saved "democratic Capitalism" from revolution.

The fact is your claim about industrial workers somehow being less inclined toward socialism than peasants, just does'nt hold up, and now your changind your argument to talk about countries.

[Bud Struggle]

Spain is an Agrarian country? Also you got many examples western cities, in Germany, the USA and so on. In the United States, no one went for Democratic Capitalism, what happened was government intervention saved "democratic Capitalism" from revolution.

The fact is your claim about industrial workers somehow being less inclined toward socialism than peasants, just does'nt hold up, and now your changind your argument to talk about countries.

And you seem to be talking about nothing more than worker's strikes that got out of hand. And sure a government is going to get some intervention going when people start acting up. Did the Tsar join the CP? But history is about WINNERS and LOSERS. That's all there is. I don't know if you believe in God (it's none of my business and I'm not asking) but without an arbiter of all that happens--then there's just what happens. People's good intentions count for nothing. Failure is exactly that.

That's the curse of Materialism.

[#FF0000]

And you seem to be talking about nothing more than worker's strikes that got out of hand. And sure a government is going to get some intervention going when people start acting up. Did the Tsar join the CP? But history is about WINNERS and LOSERS. That's all there is. I don't know if you believe in God (it's none of my business and I'm not asking) but without an arbiter of all that happens--then there's just what happens. People's good intentions count for nothing. Failure is exactly that.

That's the curse of Materialism.

Yeah. I mean after all materialism doesn't ever care about how or why. hurf durf.

[ChrisK]

Also the Spanish revolution, also the Argentine takeovers, also Oaxaca, and others, Bud, I think your gonna have to admit your ass was handed to you.

Oops, misread RGacky3. Nevermind.

[ChrisK]

Of course it was started by a couple of proletarians, all of them them in FEUDAL countries--and it turned into a shit fest. There was no woker's paradise--it was a bunch of peasents making do. Any of the leaders of the USSR ever come from the Proletariat?

I would hardly call the industrial cities of western russia a couple of proletarians. Also, the relations in these cities were very capitalistic. AND, the successful February Revolution of 1917 was a capitalist revolution.

Read history, it helps in history debates.


All agrarian countries, don't you think? Tell me Germany, England, the good old US of A, then we have something to talk about. And they all failed in no time at all.

Spain and Hungary weren't agrarian.


Honestly, a Revolution in Wemier Germany or Depression USA would have started Communism off on a completely different foot. But no, those workers went for Nazism and Democratic Capitalism--and did so in moments of VAST economic crisis. When it comes to Marx and Communism--the facts of the past keep me staying an agnostic, not and athiest, just not a believer. And Capitalism has been very very good to this son of poor immigrants.

WTF are you talking about. The workers supported the German Revolution. The conservative members of the German Socialist Party (can't remember its formal name right now) turned their backs on the workers and thought the revolution to radical.

[ChrisK]

And you seem to be talking about nothing more than worker's strikes that got out of hand. And sure a government is going to get some intervention going when people start acting up. Did the Tsar join the CP? But history is about WINNERS and LOSERS. That's all there is. I don't know if you believe in God (it's none of my business and I'm not asking) but without an arbiter of all that happens--then there's just what happens. People's good intentions count for nothing. Failure is exactly that.

That's the curse of Materialism.

Revolutions start out as strikes that become insurrections. In seattle they made thier own government, same in san francisco.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Marx made many exaggerations and predicted a more steady growth of class struggle than the back and forth struggle we have seen since his time, but on this idea of social history being the history of class conflict, he is 100% correct.


Obviously "the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles" is an exaggerated claim and not meant to be taken literally. You would have to be an asshole to believe that society is comprised of nothing else. I don't think anybody would seriously still claim that without biting their tongue right after.

If by "class struggles" you mean full on pitched battles between unions and bosses up to factory occupations and so on, then yes, it is an exaggeration of class conflict in all societies.


"the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles"And then in the next few lines he says the class struggle is sometimes hidden from view while at other times breaks into view.

I think Marx was 100% correct that the history of all class societies is the history of class struggles. He was identifying the forces in society that actually shape society: class conflict. This is a basic and essential concept of a Marxist view of history, society, and nation states.

Just because there are no visible clashes between workers and employers doesn't mean there is no class conflict. In the US this year, strikes are the lowest they have been in decades but class conflict is probably more heated than it's been here in decades. When the banks are bailed-out with public money so they can continue to make private profits and foreclose homes, that's class conflict; the health care battle in the US is a class conflict; passing "right to work laws" is an example of class struggle.

Saying that because there are no outward signs of class struggle that the class struggle doesn't exist is like saying that since you are standing on a road and no falling, gravity only exists where there is a cliff! When there is no visible signs of class struggle, this usually means that forces are momentarily balanced.

[mikelepore]

Obviously "the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles" is an exaggerated claim and not meant to be taken literally. You would have to be an asshole to believe that society is comprised of nothing else. I don't think anybody would seriously still claim that without biting their tongue right after.

The phrase "the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles" doesn't mean "society is comprised of nothing else." It means that that the division into classes, and all of its ramifications and effects, has dominated the chronology of events that people call history.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The phrase "the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles" doesn't mean "society is comprised of nothing else." It means that that the division into classes, and all of its ramifications and effects, has dominated the chronology of events that people call history.

Right, well said. In Idealist history, societies are said to change because of the actions of some "great men" who have better ideas than other people or that the development of new ideas leads to changes in society.

Marx was saying, in contrast to theses views, the real engine of social change is struggle between different forces in society. Slave societies didn't exist because some people thought it would be a good idea and the slaves passively went along, it was a historical process. Peasant revolts or conflicts among the aristocracy or between the aristocracy and other classes shaped the way that feudal societies were created.

In Feudal societies, class was strictly enforced through a caste system where every individual was placed in that caste by God. This system didn't develop because the bible says so, this system developed because noble landlords needed to justify the social order of the day that they wanted.

[Conquer or Die]

Materialism exists in a vacuum. It is what is. He correctly identified labor against ownership. Labor creates, ownership does not create; this is a fact. He used this to leverage the potential of the creative class. He coupled this with the idea that those who do create are constrained by boundaries and limitations of those who seek to exploit the creation for their gain in order to exploit more. He then correctly assumes that creative power is limited because of exploitation.

The science is correct. There are creative people, and there are exploiter people. History says that creative people overthrow exploiter people. Why is this so? Exploitative people turn to destruction; it is necessarily wrong because it denies creation and substitutes it for elimination. History tells us that creation drives life and struggle.

"The history of class struggle" is the history of creation versus destruction. Creation wins by replacing elements of exploitation with new avenues for creation.

[MarxSchmarx]

Bud struggle has a good point, that the peasantry in many instances were instrumental to left-wing revolutions. And Marx overlooked the revolutionary potential this class could play, although I would argue given how well socialism has worked in agrarian or feudal societies like Mongolia or Bulgaria, Marx may have had a point about the limits of skipping from feudalism to socialism.

Other posters are correct that the urban proletariat has also led many left-wing revolutions, of varying success. And the historical contingencies surrounding the examples they cite in no way diminish the centrality of industrial workers in, say, the Russian revolution.

But another reading of this is to take the broader view of the "arc of history". Many of the advantages "enjoyed" by workers in the developed world (like unions and health codes) are due to very militant activism on the part of the industrial working class in places like France, UK and America. To neutralize these threats, the capitalist class has offered a few concessions. They are thus manifestations of the class struggle. True, this has not led to the wholesale replacement of the capitalist system.

Yet.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Bud struggle has a good point, that the peasantry in many instances were instrumental to left-wing revolutions. And Marx overlooked the revolutionary potential this class could play, although I would argue given how well socialism has worked in agrarian or feudal societies like Mongolia or Bulgaria, Marx may have had a point about the limits of skipping from feudalism to socialism.

Right. Well I don't think Marx was saying that peasants can run or fight revolutions or rebellions, he was well aware of peasant rebelliousness, I think his argument is that the peasantry can not fundamentally alter the order of society due to the position of peasants in society. If you are a peasant farmer you can run off an join a revolutionary army, but you cease to be a peasant, now you are a revolutionary soldier and you earn your way through donations by supporters or raids on storehouses or "liberating" enemy stocks. Peasants work on individual plots of land and basically want to get rid of landlords and rent or bank debts.

The working class, on the other hand can revolutionize society because when they get rid of their bosses (as opposed to getting rid of the local noble) they still have to work together in order to produce - it's not like they can take over the means of production and each take one press or one forklift home with them. So when marx talks about the working class being a revolutionary class, I think he means it in the sense that he believed it was the first class which could liberate itself and through that process get rid of all inequality and class oppression.

[Lyev]

Thanks everyone, great replies all around. I guess to accuse Marxism of contention is nonsensical really. In the current state of things, of course, contention from a Marxist perspective is wholly justified. There's nothing that necessarily needs refuting about 'the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles', it's simply a way of interpreting things, and of course subjectivity is always an issue.