anti machine
6th August 2003, 21:08
I'm taking Western Civ 2 this summer, and for my final essay I chose from a list of topics one entitled "Karl Marx: Prophet or Crank?" This question already appeared to me as heavily biased, as my professor pretty much condemns any deterministic philosophy. So here it is, a little untypical of me. I certainly learned more about my ideology by composing this paper:
Throughout the civilized world the teachings of Marx evoke the utmost hostility and hatred of all bourgeois scienceAnd no other attitude is to be expected, for there can be no impartial social science in a society based on class struggle. Vladimir Lenin
Lenin, the instigator and interim dictator of the first Marxist revolutionary government, has here summarized the international sentiments regarding Marxist theory. Quite ironically, Marx has placed himself in the dead center of a classic dialectical conflict: Half the world has pitted itself against any movement or active theory of a communist nature, while Lenins half has enthusiastically praised and sparked such materialistic revolutions against any and all social orders. This conflict defined the latter half of the twentieth century and forever changed the face of politics, economics, and philosophy.
And it can all be attributed to a drunken insomniac who lived a life of destitute, surrounded by books, pens, and an unhealthy family; a man whose words, in modern times, can be regarded either as holy or fallacious. As Lenin so eloquently stated, there is no middle ground when dabbling in communist revolution. So the question posed to us here, one of the utmost historical relevancy, is as follows: Karl Marx-Prophet or Crank? Or none of the above?
Lenin is certainly of the persuasion that Marxs teachings are indeed prophetic, and his colleagues (those who have attempted to apply communist theory in their own nations, establishing themselves as almost divine executers of their interpretation of Marxs will) would agree with him. Does this necessarily mean that Marx has to fall into one of these extreme classifications? Impartiality cannot exist, as Lenin observes, but there is a definite difference between the hero-worship (of both Marx and Lenin) exhibited by the Soviets, and scholastic respect, even educated reverence, for the man and his genius.
Fear and Loathing in Capitalist Europe
To understand Marx, I suppose we shall have to begin where he began, in Germany of 1818, the epoch of early industrialization, an era he would come to abhor. His father, Heinrich, was descended from a family of rabbis. Though not particularly religious himself, he subscribed to enlightenment theory and Deism. A man of bourgeois status, Heinrich was a lawyer for the high court of appeals in Trier. When, in 1814, the Prussians re-conquered German territory from Napolean, Heinrich was subject to racial discrimination and forced to convert to Christianity. He was baptized a Lutheran in 1817, a move which secured his position of government official. His children and wife were baptized later in 1824.
At age seventeen, Karl Marx registered as a law student at Bonn University. The year he attended Bonn was filled with alcohol, poetry, and dueling. Heinrich was not altogether pleased with his sons disregard for academics, sending him off to the more studious environment of the University of Berlin.
While in Berlin, Marx came under the influence of Hegel, the nationalist German philosopher and perfector of dialectical theory. He joined a society called the Young Hegelians, forgetting his study of law and becoming an outspoken leader for the radical branch of Hegels followers. He came to regard Hegel as a read-between-the-lines prophet for social change, saying that Hegel turned up-side-down is economics. And in economics, says Marx, a key to history can be found.
Marxs relationship with Hegel is reminiscent of Lockes relationship with Hobbes, both claiming that in the other was a sort of encoded truth. The reader should take note that these two men, Marx and Locke, long since dead, would have a devastating effect upon the 20th century. It was the theories of these two men, neither of them properly applied, that would butt heads and erect what Churchill called an iron curtain, splitting the western world in two and giving rise to incredible tension felt throughout Europe and America.
Marx married his college sweetheart, Jenny von Wesphalen, and sought work. He became the editor for the Rhenish News. He was forced to resign when official censorship banned the paper, moving with Jenny to Paris in 1843. He was once again forced to ex-communicate for expressing radical opinions in his periodical journal, The German-French Annals. Escaping back into Germany only to be exiled once more, the Marxes moved to London in 1849. By this time Marx had already written the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts and published The Communist Manifesto. In 1867 Das Capital came under publication, and Marx died in 1883, a pauper, fated to never see the revolution he inspired.
What went wrong in Viet-nam (and everywhere else)
The international phenomena of Marxism was certainly not expected by people of the late 19th Century. Why did communist theory strike a never-before-seen passion in the hearts of millions? The explanation is quite simple: frankly, Marxism makes sense. He had found a key to history, and it appeared entirely plausible to his followers who were searching for an answer for their emancipation. And emancipated they longed to be. Now these peoples had found a justification for revolution, complete with a scapegoat and a savior: Bourgeoisie versus Proletariat.
I know that the question here is seemingly simplistic: does Marxist theory have any merit? But we presuppose that, should the answer be NO!, then we must denounce him as a crank, and if YES!, then as a prophet. We would denounce his theories entirely should that answer come up as no by means of our own reasoning. We look to the past, to Marxisms application, for that answer. This is wrong. We must analyze the functions of all particular governments established as self-proclaimed Marxian. We must compare those regimes to Marxs own prescriptions for governing.
Even so, this is no chore, as history has made it quite apparent why Marxist revolution, in essence, failed. There are two reasons for its demise. Firstly, any nation in the process of development, especially one with the chore of re-engineering human perception, cannot compete with a strongly developed nation whose doctrine it is to obliterate all movements which threaten its longevity and clout.
Secondly, and most importantly, is the factor of absolute power. As the axiom goes, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Marx calls for a dictatorship of the proletariat, a stage during which totalitarian, perhaps even fascist means will be utilized in restructuring society and economy. This stage of communism has been the only brand of Marxist theory in historical appliance, and has, each time, been directed by a totalitarian leader. Lenin was forced to stretch Marxist theory when the western world was not taken by communist storm, attempting to utilize orthodox Marxism for an isolated nation. For, as the Marxists might argue, utopia cannot be achieved so long as capitalism exists on an international scale. But global revolution never snatched the world up in its promising claws, so I suppose we cannot look to history if we wish to see true Marxism.
We can, however, look to the theory itself as a mirror for its failure and pinpoint exactly what it is about Marxism that doesnt make sense practically. Marx, by bestowing absolute power to the proletariat, only perpetuated the class struggle, almost seeming to instigate a reign of terror, as Mao interpreted quite literally for the cultural revolution. As Marx proclaimed, the history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.
Yet he keeps the revolution which will destroy class struggle within the realm of the class struggle. The first stage of communism, as Marx describes, will be a society ruled entirely by those people who had been subject to oppression: the proletariat. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisiethis cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the right of property. Unfortunately, none of the founders of Marxist regimes progressed past this stage, all of them becoming fixated on the revolution to come.
What Does it all Mean?
Marx is not alone, at least, in his analysis of history. Before he makes that leap to the disastrous conclusion of workers revolution, ideologically he shares the same perception with numerous intellectuals. Proudhon had already defined property as theft. The French existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre would convert to Marxism, calling it the only redemption for existentialism. And Bertrand Russell echoed Marxs interpretation of historical struggle being the result of private property, saying If men were reasonable they would decree that it (private property) should cease tomorrow. (Russell later abandoned organized politics and theory, and came to classify communism as a religion, saying the communist belief in the dictatorship of a minority of True Believers has produced a whole crop of abominations.)
So that which differentiates Marx from the others is the dictatorship of the proletariat, the very aspect of his theory which lays on the prophet/crank chopping block. Therefore, it is not necessarily his analysis of history that is controversial, but rather the supposed pre-destined route for humanity that he concluded lay in the working classes.
We can still look upon a historical figure of great impact without deeming them prophet or crank. In fact, we do it quite frequently, ignoring numerous beliefs of our founding fathers and praising their ideas that worked. But mankind certainly cannot find a neutrality in Marxism, as we refer back to Lenins statement of non-impartiality when dealing with not only a social science, but with a condemnation of all previous and existing social theories.
But we must watch that we do not contribute to the savior-recognition that orthodoxy proclaims for Marx. Russell is right in his perception of communist organizations and parties: they are no different than a religious sect, their members voraciously flipping through pages of his works, referring to the Manifesto whenever a question arises. Marx would disdain any movement that views communism in an absolutist, religious fashion. He often referred to faith-based, rabidly-totalitarian doctrines as dope for the masses, calling such beliefs every philosophers spot of infection.
Even the Marxists should not regard him as some divine sooth-sayer. What do you suppose Marx would say to his followers, those who changed the world after his death and those who wish to change the world of the future? What advice could he possibly give to these souls who live, breathe, and fight in his name, bearing his flag and consulting his text as if it were scripture? He would respond as he did to a French Marxist Organization of the 1870s, in whom he foresaw the same sort of hero-worship that plagues communist history. He would say to them all I am not a Marxist. Whenever any sort of idolization of an inspirational figure is present in someone with great power, catastrophe occurs.
One might regard Marx as a crank by citing nearly every historical example of his theories in their unfortunately destructive (sometimes self-destructive) applications. If we are to judge theoreticians by the institutions that their followers have erected, certainly all of them could be denounced as cranks in some form or fashion. Indeed, by this same token one would have to resolve to call Jesus Christ a crank. Regimes bearing the flag of Christianity left in their wake ten-fold the atrocities that the Marxists have.
For a theorist is only respectable if their theory has not been pushed into practice. Platos Republic is seen by the masses in such a light. But the moment that a race of philosopher-kings is introduced as a governmental institution, Plato will fall into the category of crank with Marx.
Furthermore, are we to hold other philosophers to the same strenuous tests that we have applied to Marx? If we did so, Aristotle, one of the greatest minds of western history, would be discounted altogether for his absurd notions of universal structure. His vast scientific achievements that have laid the foundation for modern science would be ignored as fallacious. Where would we be today if this was the common practice of evaluating philosophy?
No, we must forgive the great minds of our time for their mistakes and learn from them that which is valuable - which is, in this case, a great deal.
Throughout the civilized world the teachings of Marx evoke the utmost hostility and hatred of all bourgeois scienceAnd no other attitude is to be expected, for there can be no impartial social science in a society based on class struggle. Vladimir Lenin
Lenin, the instigator and interim dictator of the first Marxist revolutionary government, has here summarized the international sentiments regarding Marxist theory. Quite ironically, Marx has placed himself in the dead center of a classic dialectical conflict: Half the world has pitted itself against any movement or active theory of a communist nature, while Lenins half has enthusiastically praised and sparked such materialistic revolutions against any and all social orders. This conflict defined the latter half of the twentieth century and forever changed the face of politics, economics, and philosophy.
And it can all be attributed to a drunken insomniac who lived a life of destitute, surrounded by books, pens, and an unhealthy family; a man whose words, in modern times, can be regarded either as holy or fallacious. As Lenin so eloquently stated, there is no middle ground when dabbling in communist revolution. So the question posed to us here, one of the utmost historical relevancy, is as follows: Karl Marx-Prophet or Crank? Or none of the above?
Lenin is certainly of the persuasion that Marxs teachings are indeed prophetic, and his colleagues (those who have attempted to apply communist theory in their own nations, establishing themselves as almost divine executers of their interpretation of Marxs will) would agree with him. Does this necessarily mean that Marx has to fall into one of these extreme classifications? Impartiality cannot exist, as Lenin observes, but there is a definite difference between the hero-worship (of both Marx and Lenin) exhibited by the Soviets, and scholastic respect, even educated reverence, for the man and his genius.
Fear and Loathing in Capitalist Europe
To understand Marx, I suppose we shall have to begin where he began, in Germany of 1818, the epoch of early industrialization, an era he would come to abhor. His father, Heinrich, was descended from a family of rabbis. Though not particularly religious himself, he subscribed to enlightenment theory and Deism. A man of bourgeois status, Heinrich was a lawyer for the high court of appeals in Trier. When, in 1814, the Prussians re-conquered German territory from Napolean, Heinrich was subject to racial discrimination and forced to convert to Christianity. He was baptized a Lutheran in 1817, a move which secured his position of government official. His children and wife were baptized later in 1824.
At age seventeen, Karl Marx registered as a law student at Bonn University. The year he attended Bonn was filled with alcohol, poetry, and dueling. Heinrich was not altogether pleased with his sons disregard for academics, sending him off to the more studious environment of the University of Berlin.
While in Berlin, Marx came under the influence of Hegel, the nationalist German philosopher and perfector of dialectical theory. He joined a society called the Young Hegelians, forgetting his study of law and becoming an outspoken leader for the radical branch of Hegels followers. He came to regard Hegel as a read-between-the-lines prophet for social change, saying that Hegel turned up-side-down is economics. And in economics, says Marx, a key to history can be found.
Marxs relationship with Hegel is reminiscent of Lockes relationship with Hobbes, both claiming that in the other was a sort of encoded truth. The reader should take note that these two men, Marx and Locke, long since dead, would have a devastating effect upon the 20th century. It was the theories of these two men, neither of them properly applied, that would butt heads and erect what Churchill called an iron curtain, splitting the western world in two and giving rise to incredible tension felt throughout Europe and America.
Marx married his college sweetheart, Jenny von Wesphalen, and sought work. He became the editor for the Rhenish News. He was forced to resign when official censorship banned the paper, moving with Jenny to Paris in 1843. He was once again forced to ex-communicate for expressing radical opinions in his periodical journal, The German-French Annals. Escaping back into Germany only to be exiled once more, the Marxes moved to London in 1849. By this time Marx had already written the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts and published The Communist Manifesto. In 1867 Das Capital came under publication, and Marx died in 1883, a pauper, fated to never see the revolution he inspired.
What went wrong in Viet-nam (and everywhere else)
The international phenomena of Marxism was certainly not expected by people of the late 19th Century. Why did communist theory strike a never-before-seen passion in the hearts of millions? The explanation is quite simple: frankly, Marxism makes sense. He had found a key to history, and it appeared entirely plausible to his followers who were searching for an answer for their emancipation. And emancipated they longed to be. Now these peoples had found a justification for revolution, complete with a scapegoat and a savior: Bourgeoisie versus Proletariat.
I know that the question here is seemingly simplistic: does Marxist theory have any merit? But we presuppose that, should the answer be NO!, then we must denounce him as a crank, and if YES!, then as a prophet. We would denounce his theories entirely should that answer come up as no by means of our own reasoning. We look to the past, to Marxisms application, for that answer. This is wrong. We must analyze the functions of all particular governments established as self-proclaimed Marxian. We must compare those regimes to Marxs own prescriptions for governing.
Even so, this is no chore, as history has made it quite apparent why Marxist revolution, in essence, failed. There are two reasons for its demise. Firstly, any nation in the process of development, especially one with the chore of re-engineering human perception, cannot compete with a strongly developed nation whose doctrine it is to obliterate all movements which threaten its longevity and clout.
Secondly, and most importantly, is the factor of absolute power. As the axiom goes, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Marx calls for a dictatorship of the proletariat, a stage during which totalitarian, perhaps even fascist means will be utilized in restructuring society and economy. This stage of communism has been the only brand of Marxist theory in historical appliance, and has, each time, been directed by a totalitarian leader. Lenin was forced to stretch Marxist theory when the western world was not taken by communist storm, attempting to utilize orthodox Marxism for an isolated nation. For, as the Marxists might argue, utopia cannot be achieved so long as capitalism exists on an international scale. But global revolution never snatched the world up in its promising claws, so I suppose we cannot look to history if we wish to see true Marxism.
We can, however, look to the theory itself as a mirror for its failure and pinpoint exactly what it is about Marxism that doesnt make sense practically. Marx, by bestowing absolute power to the proletariat, only perpetuated the class struggle, almost seeming to instigate a reign of terror, as Mao interpreted quite literally for the cultural revolution. As Marx proclaimed, the history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.
Yet he keeps the revolution which will destroy class struggle within the realm of the class struggle. The first stage of communism, as Marx describes, will be a society ruled entirely by those people who had been subject to oppression: the proletariat. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisiethis cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the right of property. Unfortunately, none of the founders of Marxist regimes progressed past this stage, all of them becoming fixated on the revolution to come.
What Does it all Mean?
Marx is not alone, at least, in his analysis of history. Before he makes that leap to the disastrous conclusion of workers revolution, ideologically he shares the same perception with numerous intellectuals. Proudhon had already defined property as theft. The French existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre would convert to Marxism, calling it the only redemption for existentialism. And Bertrand Russell echoed Marxs interpretation of historical struggle being the result of private property, saying If men were reasonable they would decree that it (private property) should cease tomorrow. (Russell later abandoned organized politics and theory, and came to classify communism as a religion, saying the communist belief in the dictatorship of a minority of True Believers has produced a whole crop of abominations.)
So that which differentiates Marx from the others is the dictatorship of the proletariat, the very aspect of his theory which lays on the prophet/crank chopping block. Therefore, it is not necessarily his analysis of history that is controversial, but rather the supposed pre-destined route for humanity that he concluded lay in the working classes.
We can still look upon a historical figure of great impact without deeming them prophet or crank. In fact, we do it quite frequently, ignoring numerous beliefs of our founding fathers and praising their ideas that worked. But mankind certainly cannot find a neutrality in Marxism, as we refer back to Lenins statement of non-impartiality when dealing with not only a social science, but with a condemnation of all previous and existing social theories.
But we must watch that we do not contribute to the savior-recognition that orthodoxy proclaims for Marx. Russell is right in his perception of communist organizations and parties: they are no different than a religious sect, their members voraciously flipping through pages of his works, referring to the Manifesto whenever a question arises. Marx would disdain any movement that views communism in an absolutist, religious fashion. He often referred to faith-based, rabidly-totalitarian doctrines as dope for the masses, calling such beliefs every philosophers spot of infection.
Even the Marxists should not regard him as some divine sooth-sayer. What do you suppose Marx would say to his followers, those who changed the world after his death and those who wish to change the world of the future? What advice could he possibly give to these souls who live, breathe, and fight in his name, bearing his flag and consulting his text as if it were scripture? He would respond as he did to a French Marxist Organization of the 1870s, in whom he foresaw the same sort of hero-worship that plagues communist history. He would say to them all I am not a Marxist. Whenever any sort of idolization of an inspirational figure is present in someone with great power, catastrophe occurs.
One might regard Marx as a crank by citing nearly every historical example of his theories in their unfortunately destructive (sometimes self-destructive) applications. If we are to judge theoreticians by the institutions that their followers have erected, certainly all of them could be denounced as cranks in some form or fashion. Indeed, by this same token one would have to resolve to call Jesus Christ a crank. Regimes bearing the flag of Christianity left in their wake ten-fold the atrocities that the Marxists have.
For a theorist is only respectable if their theory has not been pushed into practice. Platos Republic is seen by the masses in such a light. But the moment that a race of philosopher-kings is introduced as a governmental institution, Plato will fall into the category of crank with Marx.
Furthermore, are we to hold other philosophers to the same strenuous tests that we have applied to Marx? If we did so, Aristotle, one of the greatest minds of western history, would be discounted altogether for his absurd notions of universal structure. His vast scientific achievements that have laid the foundation for modern science would be ignored as fallacious. Where would we be today if this was the common practice of evaluating philosophy?
No, we must forgive the great minds of our time for their mistakes and learn from them that which is valuable - which is, in this case, a great deal.