Marxist use of "society"

[blake 3:17]

Within Marxist thought the term "society" is used in very different ways -- negatively, positively, and relatively neutrally.

Could people on this board clarify? Thanks.

[mikelepore]

This comment comes to mind, something that Marx wrote in the 'Grundrisse', which was one of his manuscripts for his book 'Critique of Political Economy':

"Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand."

It seems to me similar to saying, in biology, the individual isn't the basic unit. The species is the basic unit of life, and the individual is an instantiation of the species.

In an understanding of how human society works, the individual can't be taken as the basic unit. The categories of social relationships (including classes, but also including other kind of relations beside classes) are the building blocks. The individual human being is a particular instance. This isn't true literally, but it is a necessary outlook for achieving an understanding of how society functions.

For example, who is the capitalist? First we have a social structure such that there exists the role of a capitalist. Then someone comes along and fills that role, and now we have a capitalist. First the category, then the person. Of course, people are prior to categories, but none of society's mechanism can be explained on that basis.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

'There is no such thing as society.' Oh. She should die.

Society, community and other similar concepts must exist in a socialist society. However, they need to find a balance between the basic unit, as stated above, being the sum of all the parts (i.e. the working class as a whole) and protecting the ability of an individual to, in some ways, continue to be an individual (I am not talking about economic individualism here, but the concept of an individual making their own choices relating to relationships, education specialism and so on).

[blake 3:17]

I understand 'society' means a lot. Within Marxist writings there is reference to opposition to Society. I've been reading up on Rosa Luxemburg and German Marxism and the Socialist Party/Social Democracy/Marxism was understood as an opponent of society. In these cases I can take society as meaning bourgeois society or bourgeois social relations.

In my political circles a number of friends identify with Open Marxism (which I don't get) and they make similar statements against Society. The German Marxists of a hundred years ago make more sense on this, in that there was a mass Marxist party which could've challenged the bourgeoisie in a pretty torough going way. In the lack of an organized mass opposition, then what?


'There is no such thing as society.' Oh. She should die.


Absolutely -- her formula was families and individuals, right? I think we do have to consider that Thatcher represented a pretty far right liberalism on this, so do we rush to defend a centre left conception of society?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Of coruse we should not rush to defend the centre-left conception of society. In Britain at least, you will be hardpressed to find much of a centre-left conception of society anyway - now that Labour has really flung its cards on the table and moved from being a reformist party of labour to being full out neo-liberal, there really is a gap from right wing to the revolutionary left.

So in essence the centre-left, in this country, has the same opinion of society as Thatcher did.

However, there still must be the concept of 'society' to be found in marxist literature, right (I ask because you seem to be better versed in marxist theory than I)?

[blake 3:17]

In Britain at least, you will be hardpressed to find much of a centre-left conception of society anyway - now that Labour has really flung its cards on the table and moved from being a reformist party of labour to being full out neo-liberal, there really is a gap from right wing to the revolutionary left.


Not sure on that. The new Conservative leader has started using the term in direct criticism of Thatcherism.

Tories want to create big society: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/10/david-cameron-hugo-young-lecture


However, there still must be the concept of 'society' to be found in marxist literature, right (I ask because you seem to be better versed in marxist theory than I)?

I probably am. Not due to any brilliance, just been engaged by the stuff for the past 15 years. It drives me crazy knowing some stuff inside and out, and then feeling like a dope on something else. Urggh.


I looked up the definition in Raymond William's Keywords (a great book BTW) and the most recurrent theme is fellowship and community. Within different Marxist texts there's a pejorative sense implied in the term. The negative sense seems to be bourgeois society. I don't know if I'm missing something or whether there's another sense of the word.

I just sent an email to a couple of academic (and activist!) Marxists who may be able to shed some light. I will share.

If others have thoughts, that'd be great. Words change meanings so so quickly.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Well, I guess we will always be learning, at different levels. I wasn't highlighting the fact to brown nose you or indeed to be sarcastic in any way, merely stating that, despite our differences, you can be of help to me in the learning process.
Anyway.

Are you from the UK? I am. I know that the Tories are making more progressive noises than Labour at the moment, but we really, really must be careful to avail them of the status of 'social democrats'.
I am not a fan, obviously, of the brand of politics espoused by the careerist lackeys who currently run the Labour Party. However, there are two reasons why we should still consider the Labour Party as a whole (minus the corrupt leadership) as a social democratic force, and why, whatever they say, the Tories can never be thought of as such.

Firstly, despite the Tories making vaguely progressive noises, we must understand that politics in Britain is quite peculiar, in that it is steeped in tradition, precedent and above all conservatism. The Conservative Party has, by and large, been the leading force in British politics since the inception of a quasi-democratic Parliament. They have gone from being the defenders of aristocracy in the 17th, 18th and early to middle 19th century, to being the home of the manufacturer, incorporating varying levels of xenophobia, jingoism, sexism, homosexuality and other distasteful elements along the way. In essence, the nugget is that the Conservatives are known to be a party of power, not of ideology. So I would take anything that Cameron says which is vaguely progressive with a pinch of salt.

Secondly, i'm sure we can both agree that in Britain at least, the labour movement (with the Labour Party as its natural head) is a vital bridge to any future enaction of socialism. Lose the head and, well, you're fucked. Leaderships will come and go, but even today TU affiliated workers (again, despite a corrupt and utterly spineless leadership) make up in excess of 20% of the working population - giving huge revolutionary potential should the right conditions ever occur and correct leadership of the labour movement ever being in place. This is why we should maintain, in our thoughts, the labour movement and in general the Labour Party (although clearly not those who fulfil its positions of power) as a social democratic force.

Back on topic (got excited!), I don't see the problem with socialism taking ownership of the word 'society' and instead of using it in the perjorative to denote 'bourgeois society', using it, as your definition denotes, to encompass a more compassionate socialist society based on fellowship and community.

Either that or we find a new word.:cool:

[blake 3:17]

Digression, digression: I wrote a bunch of stuff but will PM you. I will note that I'm not saying anything pro-Tory, but there does seem have an ideological "correction" on their part. That's a whole other conversation.



Back on topic (got excited!), I don't see the problem with socialism taking ownership of the word 'society' and instead of using it in the perjorative to denote 'bourgeois society', using it, as your definition denotes, to encompass a more compassionate socialist society based on fellowship and community.


I think you're right. I'm fine with it.

I think I may be on a bit of goose chase. The references I have in mind seem fairly infrequent, and may be due to particular translations and specific interventions. Je ne sais pas.