The Rebel, by Albert Camus

[StockholmSyndrome]

After completing Camus' The Rebel, all of my previous reservations about revolutionary Marxism have been confirmed. I can now say with confidence that I reject the notion of a violent overthrow of the capitalist system. We will never achieve totality, and we will never reach the final culmination of history. To act in the name of a future, in the name of history, is both dangerous and inhumane.

Faith in bourgeois progress is what drove Marx to conclude that we would one day reach the Garden of Eden at the end of history. This is what leads revolutionaries to justify the sacrifices demanded of humanity in the name of the communist idea.

Socialism should no longer be thought of as an ends, but as a means. "Instead of killing and dying in order to produce the being that we are not, we have to live and let live in order to create what we are." We must keep the rebellious spirit alive in the name of justice, solidarity and unity, but always be wary that the demand for totality will inevitably lead to the negation of these values.

[ZeroNowhere]

That's a very sophisticated class analysis, but I'm not certain that this is entirely related to the literature forum, which should perhaps feature more discussion of the book. I didn't find it particularly impressive, so I don't have much to say about it.

[ed miliband]

Of course, Camus had no problem calling for the West to invade Hungary in '56; it seems violence is only worth condemning when it involves a vile mob.

[StockholmSyndrome]

aufkleben, what are you talking about? Camus stood with the people of Hungary against the violent repression of the Soviet military machine.

[ed miliband]

He criticised the West for not "defending" the Hungarians from the Soviets through military intervention.

[StockholmSyndrome]

There is absolutely no nuance to your point of view. It is simply a dogmatic and ideologically driven justification for the violent repression of people who were desperately trying to break free from the grip of totalitarianism. It is reprehensible, naive and juvenile. Albert Camus lived through the darkest and most turbulent times in the history of the world, saw the worst of the human condition, and reflected on it honestly and lucidly. Who are you?

[Raúl Duke]

What are you attempting to convince us of, exactly?

We all have an idea about Camus and his views on radical politics and revolution.
What is your argument?


I reject the notion of a violent overthrow Sooo...what are you advocating?
Peaceful revolution?
that we give up on the whole she-bang?
what?

I understand that you're trying to tell us that we should focus on the means instead of the ends or that the means and the ends are equal (whether literally or in 'value'), which isn't a new idea (i.e. Arguably, it's a common line of thought, in some form, among anarchists somewhat) among the left, but can you elucidate us to the specifics of your Camusian realization?

[Diello]

We all have an idea about Camus and his views on radical politics and revolution.

I don't.

[ed miliband]

How on Earth could you possibly conclude that I support the Soviet repression of the Hungarian Revolution because I find Camus' calls for Western intervention abhorrent? You see my signature? That's from a book written in the aftermath of the Hungarian Revolution which beautifully argues in favour of the Hungarian workers, and rightly points out that the Hungarians were revolting against both East and West. If Camus cared for the Hungarian workers and their revolution he would have been calling for them to be supplied with arms. He wasn't. He was calling for the West to invade, and a fat lot of good that would have been for the Hungarian workers.

Camus is to Hungary as Hitchens is to Iraq.

[black magick hustla]

camus was a black foot racist who thought the algerians were little puppies that needed the care of his white brethen, fuck camus

[brigadista]

prefer Franz Fanon personally...

[StockholmSyndrome]

aufkleben, show me where Camus ever called on the West to invade Hungary. Read "The Blood of the Hungarians", please.

maldoror, Camus repeatedly spoke out against racist repression in Algeria throughout his life. Simply labeling him as an indifferent colonialist is completely missing the point. It is you who is being racist for idealizing the Algerian uprisings and assuming any critical stance means that you believe the arabs were "little puppies". Since when does a left-communist such as yourself take the side of a national liberation struggle anyhow?

[Raúl Duke]

I don't.

well most people have that I know on here, at the very least heard of him and might have heard of the rebel and his falling out with Sartre due to politics.


maldoror, Camus repeatedly spoke out against racist repression in Algeria throughout his life. Simply labeling him as an indifferent colonialist is completely missing the point.

that's a good point until...


It is you who is being racist for idealizing the Algerian uprisings and assuming any critical stance means that you believe the arabs were "little puppies". Since when does a left-communist such as yourself take the side of a national liberation struggle anyhow?

I don't see that he actually did that in his statement, only that he claims that Camus did and that such an idea he found repugnant.

But yes, I too would like to see the evidence of racism and/or imperialism on Camus's part than just claims.

[black magick hustla]

aufkleben, show me where Camus ever called on the West to invade Hungary. Read "The Blood of the Hungarians", please.

maldoror, Camus repeatedly spoke out against racist repression in Algeria throughout his life. Simply labeling him as an indifferent colonialist is completely missing the point. It is you who is being racist for idealizing the Algerian uprisings and assuming any critical stance means that you believe the arabs were "little puppies". Since when does a left-communist such as yourself take the side of a national liberation struggle anyhow?

it has nothing to do with national liberation in any fucking way. the way he talked about arabs was racist and he opposed national liberation in algeria not from a class point but because he wanted to protect the west from russian machinations and because he felt bad for the overwhelmingly petit bourgeois pied noir community.

[Red Commissar]

Camus wanted France to act as a "caretaker" for Algeria, a France that he wanted to be some sort of social democratic type to do so. France not being what he wanted it to be, he largely went silent on Algerian affairs and didn't comment on it. Unlike some of his other peers at the time that lashed out at injustices by the French army and Pied-Noir groups, he took a subdued role.

As such some of his critics felt that his stance towards Algeria smacked of a "White Man's Burden" outlook towards Algeria, that France had to "civilize" it if Algeria could hope to be free and democratic. This of course presupposes that the Algerians are incapable of doing this with out the paternalism of a French state. Camus blamed France for not implementing freedoms and rights to Arabs and Berbers earlier, which he felt was a central cause of the dissent in the first place.

AFAIK the main thing he did is that he called for an end of violence between the FLN (Algerian forces) and the French forces to return back to dialogue, and I assume to work towards federalizing Algeria as a part of France, and granting rights to the various Algerian groups that were at this time denied many of the rights enjoyed by French citizens. Basically the Pied-Noirs, Arabs, Berbers, and other groups should all "share" Algeria.

Naturally he was opposed to Algerian independence but on the other hand could not find company in those pursuing the war to the end of preserving or extending the position of Pied-Noirs in French Algeria.

I think there was also some other concerns that played into his strong anti-Soviet outlook, namely in the form of Arab Nationalism that began to explode in this time. He felt this served Soviet interests more and would present a threat to the "free" nations.

Now that I think of it, I think this has some parallels to what some took in Britain to the question of India.

[bricolage]

As far as Algeria is concerned, national independence is a formula driven by nothing other than passion. There has never yet been an Algerian nation. The Jews, Turks, Greeks, Italians, or Berbers would be as entitled to claim the leadership of this potential nation. As things stand, the Arabs alone do not comprise the whole of Algeria. The size and duration of the French settlement, in particular, are enough to create a problem that cannot be compared to anything else in history. The French of Algeria are also natives, in the strong sense of the word. Moreover, a purely Arab Algeria could not achieve that economic independence without which political independence is nothing but an illusion. However inadequate the French effort has been, it is of such proportions that no other country would today agree to take over the responsibility.

He also came out against Algerian violence;


At this moment bombs are being planted in the trams in Algiers. My mother could be on one of those trams. If that is justice, I prefer my mother.

I know Said has used things like this to argue he was in 'outright opposition to Algerian independence', something used in turn to critique the Outsider;

True, Meursault kills an Arab, but this Arab is not named and seems to be without a history, let alone a mother and father; true also, Arabs die in Oran, but they are not named either, whereas Rieux and Tarrou are pushed forward in the action.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Regardless, my post is not about Camus' position on the Algeria question; it is about the philosophical work, The Rebel, and the implications it has for the left. To answer your original question, Raul Duke, my "Camusian realization" is threefold:
1. The Marxist dialectic is flawed in that it posits the end of antagonisms while at the same time saying everything is always changing and in motion and each new synthesis gives rise to a new set of contradictions. You cannot have both at the same time.

Either you say there will be an end to history, where all of humanity will be equal and free, in which case freedom and humanity can be put off indefinitely and the State apparatus can do anything in deems necessary in order to forcefully try to eliminate any antagonisms in order to bring about this free humanity. This is the revolutionary logic, that freedom can and must be suspended in the name of a future freedom.
Or you say there will not be an inevitable end to history, which means that humanity is not on some upward trajectory and also that past notions of progress, blind faith in technology and science, and the entire Hegelian dialectic must be scrapped, and, most importantly, no injustice done in the present (mass murder in the name of the revolution, say) can justify a future state of justice. "Suffering is never provisional for the man who does not believe in the future".

2. That everything cannot be reduced to class. Reducing everything to the master-slave dialectic means that you must accept that the only law is the law of force. Hence the Marxist adoption of the "might is right" scenario and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

3. There is a difference between rebellion and revolution. Rebellion is passionate dissent in the name of principles. Revolution is the passionate negation of these principles in the name of power. One is creative, the other is destructive. The end of God means that humans are responsible for putting something else in its place, lest we try to become God.

[manic expression]

Regardless, my post is not about Camus' position on the Algeria question; it is about the philosophical work, The Rebel, and the implications it has for the left. To answer your original question, Raul Duke, my "Camusian realization" is threefold:
1. The Marxist dialectic is flawed in that it posits the end of antagonisms while at the same time saying everything is always changing and in motion and each new synthesis gives rise to a new set of contradictions. You cannot have both at the same time.

Either you say there will be an end to history, where all of humanity will be equal and free, in which case freedom and humanity can be put off indefinitely and the State apparatus can do anything in deems necessary in order to forcefully try to eliminate any antagonisms in order to bring about this free humanity. This is the revolutionary logic, that freedom can and must be suspended in the name of a future freedom.
Or you say there will not be an inevitable end to history, which means that humanity is not on some upward trajectory and also that past notions of progress, blind faith in technology and science, and the entire Hegelian dialectic must be scrapped, and, most importantly, no injustice done in the present (mass murder in the name of the revolution, say) can justify a future state of justice. "Suffering is never provisional for the man who does not believe in the future".

2. That everything cannot be reduced to class. Reducing everything to the master-slave dialectic means that you must accept that the only law is the law of force. Hence the Marxist adoption of the "might is right" scenario and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

3. There is a difference between rebellion and revolution. Rebellion is passionate dissent in the name of principles. Revolution is the passionate negation of these principles in the name of power. One is creative, the other is destructive. The end of God means that humans are responsible for putting something else in its place, lest we try to become God.
And this is why Camus is every non-radical's favorite "radical".

1.) You can have both at the same time, just like you can say that every race has a finish line.

2.) Not everything comes down to class...but all aspects of human society are in one way or another rooted in production. Further, Marxism isn't about "might is right", it's about "right needs might". You can have all the nice ideas you want, but if you don't fight for them, if you don't imbue them with power, then you might as well take your ball and go home.

3.) There are few things more pathetic than an emphasis on "dissent". "Dissent" implies impotence, it implies some romantic concept of eternal opposition instead of advocating something worth fighting for (no surprise that liberals are so fond of "dissent"). To do the latter, one must recognize that some things in this crummy world need to be destroyed...in order for more humane things to be created.

[StockholmSyndrome]

1. I couldn't have said it better myself.

2. Of course I believe in "fighting" for what is right and leveraging power. But what is right is not killing people.

3. On the contrary, it means "fighting for what is right". It is the opposite of romantic, it is realistic. Perhaps "dissent" was the wrong word choice, but it's just a word, after all.

"To do the latter, one must recognize that some things in this crummy world need to be destroyed...in order for more humane things to be created."----It is much easier to talk about committing mass murder from your comfortable armchair than to actually go out and do it. Once you do, you will have abandoned that "more humane thing".

[manic expression]

2.) No one ever said as much...but to be a revolutionary means to know that such things are oftentimes necessary. We do not invite violence, but we must respond to it when others use it against us.

3.) I'm not talking about mass murder at all (strawman happy, are we?), I'm talking about self-defense of the working class movement for liberation. The "more humane thing" must be defended from its enemies, else progress is nothing but a cute idea and little more. "By any means necessary" has to do with responding to the brutality the ruling class wields...if one is too timid to admit that force is oftentimes necessary for progress then they are rendering themselves irrelevant to the struggles that matter most.

[StockholmSyndrome]

2. According to Marxist class analysis, the state is always and everywhere an instrument of the ruling class, whichever class that may be. Therefore, the goal of the proletariat should be to become the ruling class and consolidate all power in the hands of the state i.e. the class. The master-slave dialectic sets up the pretense for state worship and seeking power for power's sake.

3. You have been trained to think in vague and absolutist terms. "Self defense of the working class movement", "Admit that force is necessary for progress", "The struggles that matter most". You have given me no reason to believe that your naive plan of action is anything but the incitement of violence.

[manic expression]

2. According to Marxist class analysis, the state is always and everywhere an instrument of the ruling class, whichever class that may be. Therefore, the goal of the proletariat should be to become the ruling class and consolidate all power in the hands of the state i.e. the class. The master-slave dialectic sets up the pretense for state worship and seeking power for power's sake.
Again, this is misinformed projection and nothing more. Since you missed it the first time around, it is power for liberation's sake ("right needs might"). Even leaving aside theory for a second, almost all Marxist leaders, by virtue of their ability, could have chosen a far surer and more comfortable path to power, yet they chose revolution...why? Because it's not about just power but what a class is able to accomplish and create with that power. This is a truth that sideline-sitters like Camus are incapable of understanding.

Let me ask you: when slaves rose up against their masters during the Middle Passage, were they seeking power for power's sake? According to you, the slaves should just keep lying on the bottom of the ship and "dissented" instead of trying to take control of the vessel.


3. You have been trained to think in vague and absolutist terms. "Self defense of the working class movement", "Admit that force is necessary for progress", "The struggles that matter most". You have given me no reason to believe that your naive plan of action is anything but the incitement of violence.This coming from the person who doesn't think the definition of their cherished "dissent" matters. But I digress...to the "thinker" (now that is a vague term in this context) who refuses to see the inescapable nature of force in the politics today's world, revolution would seem like just a wanton "incitement of violence". However, this conclusion is a false equivalency because it posits that all violence, regardless of context or purpose, is the same. This is demonstrably wrong.

Self defense of the working class movement = responses to the repression of pro-worker voices and organizations by capitalists and counterrevolutionaries. Example: in the 1960's, police brutality against Black communities led to the demands of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense; soon, the police began targeting the BPP with sabotage, armed assaults and assassinations, from which the BPP defended itself. Read the Ten-Point Platform...is that an "incitement to violence"? No, it's an incitement to liberation...the place of force only comes when the rulers react with force. (I'm curious, what were the Black Panthers supposed to do when the cops attacked them?)

Force is necessary for progress = see above

The struggles that matter most = conflicts between the workers and bosses of a given society. Related example: the general impoverishment and brutalization of Blacks in the United States, and the attempts of working-class Blacks to fight this oppression (see above).

But of course, Camus was a-OK with mobs lynching socialists (while collaborating with NATO agents) in Hungary. I guess to the Camusian, truly vile acts of violence are acceptable if you keep repeating to yourself that they are.

[StockholmSyndrome]

There are masters and slaves, as in your example, in which slaves were taking over ships in the name of freedom and liberation, and then there is the master-slave dialectic as it is applied to the totality of human relations by Marxists. Taking state power in the name of freedom and autonomy and using said state power to suppress freedom and autonomy in order to preserve "the revolution" means power for power's sake and the abandonment of the rebellious spirit which caused you to act in the first place.

Again, I am not talking about acts of self defense by past workers' movements against capitalist repression, we are talking about the revolutionary attempt to forcefully overthrow and seize state power. I am talking about the way self-styled armchair revolutionaries such as yourself operate on a "false equivalencey" whereby "all violence, regardless of context or purpose" is simply the rule of the land, and we must become our enemies in order to defeat them.

Perhaps, you should read The Rebel again, or for the first time. And I also encourage you to read The Blood of the Hungarians.
For all the slanderous things people are saying about Camus and what he was "ok with", nobody has given me anything accept accusations.

[Thirsty Crow]

There are masters and slaves, as in your example, in which slaves were taking over ships in the name of freedom and liberation, and then there is the master-slave dialectic as it is applied to the totality of human relations by Marxists. Taking state power in the name of freedom and autonomy and using said state power to suppress freedom and autonomy in order to preserve "the revolution" means power for power's sake and the abandonment of the rebellious spirit which caused you to act in the first place. I have to put it this way - what the hell are you talking about?
First of all, no Marxist is advocating taking political power in the name of anything or anyone. Rather, political power is to be taken by the working class in order that the conditions for an establishment of classless, stateless society may be created. The most important f these conditions is the abolition of private property which shapes the dominant mode of production - production for profit, and not human need (private profit being the determining factor when deciding what to produce and how to organize production).

Furthermore, what "autonomy" and "freedom" does the political rule of proletariat suppress? The freedom of property owner to command social development by means of capital investment and employing wage earners?


Again, I am not talking about acts of self defense by past workers' movements against capitalist repression, we are talking about the revolutionary attempt to forcefully overthrow and seize state power. I am talking about the way self-styled armchair revolutionaries such as yourself operate on a "false equivalencey" whereby "all violence, regardless of context or purpose" is simply the rule of the land, and we must become our enemies in order to defeat them.I'm afraid you're making no sense whatsoever.



Perhaps, you should read The Rebel again, or for the first time. And I also encourage you to read The Blood of the Hungarians.
For all the slanderous things people are saying about Camus and what he was "ok with", nobody has given me anything accept accusations.And you disregard quotes provided by bricolage when it suits your argument.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Rather, political power is to be taken by the working class in order that the conditions for an establishment of classless, stateless society may be created.

Precisely. Once you submit with blind fervor to the idea that the Garden of Eden inevitably greets us at the end of history, then everything else is just a matter of expediency, and everything is allowed.


Furthermore, what "autonomy" and "freedom" does the political rule of proletariat suppress?

Just about every freedom that the current "political rule of the bourgeoisie" suppresses and more. I suggest you read up on the bloody history of state terror being used to enforce ideologies.


I'm afraid you're making no sense whatsoever.

That won't do.



And you disregard quotes provided by bricolage when it suits your argument. I have done no such thing. It seems like you have no point of reference and you have just stumbled into this discussion to chime in and throw stones. To quote the great Walter Sobchak, "You're like a child that wanders into the middle of a movie!"

[manic expression]

There are masters and slaves, as in your example, in which slaves were taking over ships in the name of freedom and liberation, and then there is the master-slave dialectic as it is applied to the totality of human relations by Marxists. Taking state power in the name of freedom and autonomy and using said state power to suppress freedom and autonomy in order to preserve "the revolution" means power for power's sake and the abandonment of the rebellious spirit which caused you to act in the first place.
:lol: So masters and slaves and masters and slaves are two different things. Cool idea. Unfortunately, the totality of human relations today is about masters and slaves. What else do you call workers? Their entire existence revolves around what they can produce, how much profit they can make for their bosses. It is slavery, one way or the other.

Further, there is no "in the name of" anything...there is only liberation or no liberation. Once a group liberates itself from oppression, they must take steps to safeguard this against their enemies. In our example, if slaves were successful in taking the ship, the surviving crew would oftentimes secretly steer the ship back toward slave-holding territories to save themselves (and force the "cargo" back into slavery). The only counter to this would be to use force to intimidate the sailors from doing this, or stop them forcefully...or else they would be back as slaves in a matter of days or weeks. Is this to "suppress freedom and autonomy"? Is this "power for power's sake"? No, it is the defense of liberation (however fragile) already won. I don't expect sideline-sitters to understand this, though.

PS, I like how you decry vague terms, and yet you throw out "freedom and autonomy" without even bothering to define it or put it into a useful context. Rank hypocrisy is something you definitely got from Camus, I see.


Again, I am not talking about acts of self defense by past workers' movements against capitalist repression, we are talking about the revolutionary attempt to forcefully overthrow and seize state power. I am talking about the way self-styled armchair revolutionaries such as yourself operate on a "false equivalencey" whereby "all violence, regardless of context or purpose" is simply the rule of the land, and we must become our enemies in order to defeat them.What's the difference between self defense against capitalist repression and attempts to seize state power? The two are intertwined to the point of being indistinguishable. If you try to liberate the oppressed, you are met with the violence of the oppressors. Then you must defend yourself. They are one in the same.

Also, one does not become one's enemy when one fights them. This is a leap of logic borne in a weak mind. Do I become a rabid dog if I defend myself and my family from one? No, I do not, just as pro-worker movements do not become reactionary by fighting reactionary violence. In our example, the BPP only demanded the liberation of Blacks from capitalist oppression, and for this they were met with brutal violence...what were they supposed to do at that point? Say "shucks, maybe if we read more Camus then we won't run into this problem"?

It is no surprise that you have absolutely no constructive answer to this crucial question...it is typical of sideline-sitters. After all, when one is watching a fight between two groups (sitting on the sidelines, in other words), they might as well look the same, even when both would do diametrically opposed things upon victory.


Perhaps, you should read The Rebel again, or for the first time. And I also encourage you to read The Blood of the Hungarians.
For all the slanderous things people are saying about Camus and what he was "ok with", nobody has given me anything accept accusations.So you're claiming that no socialists were lynched and no CIA collaboration occurred in Hungary in 1956? I see. Too bad both those things happened, and Camus still mindlessly glorified those crimes. I encourage you to read The Blood of the Hungarians, only this time you should educate yourself on what Camus was trying to whitewash.

[manic expression]

Precisely. Once you submit with blind fervor to the idea that the Garden of Eden inevitably greets us at the end of history, then everything else is just a matter of expediency, and everything is allowed.
Ummm....yeah....

But an end which requires unjustified means is no justifiable end… - Karl Marx, 1842

The ends do not justify the means, the ends are the means. - Trotsky, paraphrased

Let’s be clear about this for it is essentially a question of political ethics: ‘The end does not justify the means.’ Torture does not justify torture like crime does not justify crime. - Fidel Castro, 2009

The more you make stuff up about Marxism, the more you undermine your own credibility.


Just about every freedom that the current "political rule of the bourgeoisie" suppresses and more. I suggest you read up on the bloody history of state terror being used to enforce ideologies.
And which anti-socialist hack and ideological ally of yours would you recommend? Conquest? Solzhenitsyn, perhaps?

War is bloody. We can't change that. What matters is what you're fighting for and how you fight for it. And what you fail to recognize is that ideologies were not being enforced (whatever that's supposed to mean), liberation was being defended. Evidently you have a problem with workers defending hard-won progress from brutal reactionaries.


That won't do.
Another Camusian turn. It's OK if you make no sense, so long as you justify being an anti-socialist to yourself.


I have done no such thing. It seems like you have no point of reference and you have just stumbled into this discussion to chime in and throw stones. To quote the great Walter Sobchak, "You're like a child that wanders into the middle of a movie!"
Which is basically what Camus said of the Algerians. :rolleyes:

[StockholmSyndrome]

You ought to read about the Cheka, Stalin's purges, the Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot, decades of state repression, etc. and realize what your idyllic slave ship allegory is an attempt to whitewash over.



But an end which requires unjustified means is no justifiable end…..The ends do not justify the means, the ends are the means.....Let’s be clear about this for it is essentially a question of political ethics: ‘The end does not justify the means.’ Torture does not justify torture like crime does not justify crime.....

No amount of rhetoric can rescue faulty logic which leads to repression and terror.



Evidently you have a problem with workers defending hard-won progress from brutal reactionaries.

Once again, it is so much easier to kill when everyone on the other side of your barrel is simply a "brutal reactionary".



It's OK if you make no sense, so long as you justify being an anti-socialist to yourself.

Leave it to the hard-headed ideologue to determine who is and isn't a "socialist".

[manic expression]

You ought to read about the Cheka, Stalin's purges, the Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot, decades of state repression, etc. and realize what your idyllic slave ship allegory is an attempt to whitewash over.
So I take it you don't want to deal with the issue at hand. Typical. The example is neither idyllic nor an allegory, it is a real situation that occurred multiple times in history: slaves took control of their prison ship and were then faced with new challenges. Whatever course they took to defend their fragile freedom, it was objectively "repression". In response to this plain fact, your argument sheds a tear for those poor slave traders and shows nothing but scorn for slaves fighting for their freedom and dignity.

On your new line, as I said, your rhetoric is Robert Conquest with just a sprinkle of "radicalism" on top. If you want to deal with those issues in any significant way, be my guest, I can talk about the Cheka, the purges, the CR, Pol Pot, "decades of state repression" and whatever other tangent you want to bring up...but rest assured that the facts will show socialism to be correct and you to be among its opponents.


No amount of rhetoric can rescue faulty logic which leads to repression and terror.
First of all, you have utterly failed to demonstrate that Marxist logic is faulty, so full marks on even more leaps in logic. Secondly, the repression prosecuted by socialists is a response to counterrevolutionary threats. The slaves who took control of slave ships (and land-based slave rebellions too, for that matter) definitely used "repression and terror", but only because they had to. What, were they supposed to let sailors turn the ship back to slave lands? Were they supposed to not defend their freedom? You have produced no answer because you have none.


Once again, it is so much easier to kill when everyone on the other side of your barrel is simply a "brutal reactionary".
So the cops who murdered Fred Hampton weren't brutal reactionaries at all, but really nice guys trying to do an honest day's work?... Just like the Hungarian mob that lynched socialists and collaborated with the CIA were glorious freedom fighters who would never hurt a fly. Here's a slogan for you: Violence is never OK, unless socialists are being murdered!


Leave it to the hard-headed ideologue to determine who is and isn't a "socialist".
It's quite simple. If you promote the establishment and defense of socialism, you are a socialist. If you pretend that you like equitable societies but lack the fortitude to defend them from their enemies, you're not. Your place is quite clear.

[Amphictyonis]

The system of "communism" he and others such as Orwell saw and rightly criticized was a warped version of what Marx envisioned. If there had been socialist revolutions in the advanced capitalist nations Stalins idiocy would have never occurred. Camus was an anarchist anyhow and the sectarian mud slinging was on level ten in his day. I still struggle with the role of the state during and immediately following the/a revolution. I think Camus was more in favor of permanent cultural revolution but supported anarcho-syndicalism. If he were alive now I'd ask him to point out when in history had any oppressed class/people liberated themselves from such an all encompassing system without the use of force.

[StockholmSyndrome]

In The Rebel Camus notes how far removed from Marx's intentions the Soviet system was. However, to say that they weren't, then, truly Marxist is what we call a "no true scotsman" logical fallacy and is a cop-out in my opinion. No matter what his good intentions were, Marx did not have the foresight to see the inherently totalitarian nature of his Hegelian logic at work.

Also, it is a stretch to call Camus an anarchist or an anarcho- syndicalist. To my knowledge, he was sympathetic to their anti-authoritarian impulses and had some anarchist friends, but that is all.

[Zanthorus]

Since I have nothing better to do at the moment (Besides reading Marx of course, but I find that debating Marx's work gives me better insight into it than merely passively reading texts) I might as well have a go at replying to this mess of a thread. I don't necessarily agree with what some other people are saying, but since StockholmSyndrome is the original poster and the one bringing the status of Marx's project of revolutionary Communism into question, my post will have to focus on replying to his assertions. He begins by presenting the following as one of his reservations about revolutionary Marxism which Camus has been confirmed:


We will never achieve totality, and we will never reach the final culmination of history.

First of all, the 'totality' is not something that we are supposed to achieve. Totality for Hegel already exists, it is all around us. Totality means that everything is interconnected, that even the position of a particular grain of sand can have profound consequences on the world at large. To the extent that Marx adopts the concept of totality in his work, it also has nothing to do with anything to be 'achieved', rather that Marx examines all the production relations and categories within a given social form as an interconnected whole. In this connection it serves as a methodological device.

As for the 'final culmination of history', I presume you mean this to be related to the Hegelian idea of the end of history, announced in Hegel's Philosophy of History. The point of this declaration was that Hegel thought that there was a kind of necessary logical structure to history despite all it's contingencies, and that if we abstracted from these contingencies and merely examined the structure, we would see that history was goal oriented. More specifically, Hegel hypothesised that all of History was merely the process of the realisation of freedom. This culminated in the age in which Hegel lived, which Hegel believed was more or less the realisation of the idea that all men are free.

To begin with, Hegel's idea is much abused. Hegel does not believe that history actually literally comes to a stop, that would be utterly ridiculous. Rather, it is merely that history's internal logical structure has realised itself. On the other hand, it would be perfectly possible for historical contingency to drive us backwards in logical history while going forwards in real history. Hegel's idea of the philosophy of history and philosophy in general is also a very backwards looking affair. We can only see the actions of spirit after they have already occured. Similarly, the philosophy of history involves looking at history from our current standpoint and tracing out it's internal structure, not making any kind of statements about the future. It is possible that from a later vantage point, a different Hegelian might draw different conclusions about the end point which history had been moving towards.

More to the point is that the idea of the 'end of history' is predicated on Hegel's belief that the world conforms to a pre-determined logical structure. This is an idea which both Marx and Engels reject. Marx as early as 1843 in his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Years later Engels' was still carrying the torch by examining similar ideas as they appeared in Eugene Duhring, and subjecting them to ridicule in his whitty retort Herr Eugene Duhring's Revolution in Science (Better known as Anti-Duhring). Since Hegel's belief in the end of history is predicated on a philosophical belief which is rejected by Marx and Engels, it woudl be somewhat surprising if they continued to cling to the end of history idea. And in fact, I can see no evidence that they ever did believe in any kind of 'end of history'. The closest statement in Marx's works is probably in the 1859 preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, where he states that "The prehistory of human society accordingly closes with this [capitalist] social formation." However, Marx is not here stating anything about the end of history, but is in fact stating that socialism is it's beggining. The reference to a prehistory is most likely supposed to be a sarcastic reference to the views of the Young Hegelians about a 'prehistory' of human society, an idea which he and Engels lambasted in the German Ideology, stating that "Here [in the fact that the production of new needs engendered by the initial satisfaction of needs through production is the first historical act] we recognise immediately the spiritual ancestry of the great historical wisdom of the Germans who, when they run out of positive material and when they can serve up neither theological nor political nor literary rubbish, assert that this is not history at all, but the “prehistoric era.” They do not, however, enlighten us as to how we proceed from this nonsensical “prehistory” to history proper; although, on the other hand, in their historical speculation they seize upon this “prehistory” with especial eagerness because they imagine themselves safe there from interference on the part of “crude facts,” and, at the same time, because there they can give full rein to their speculative impulse and set up and knock down hypotheses by the thousand."

Now you elaborate more on your critique of this supposed Marxist belief in the 'end of history when you state:


The Marxist dialectic is flawed in that it posits the end of antagonisms while at the same time saying everything is always changing and in motion and each new synthesis gives rise to a new set of contradictions. You cannot have both at the same time.

However, referring back to our old friend the 1859 preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy again, when Marx posits the end of antagonisms, he is quite clear to add the proviso that "The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production – antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals' social conditions of existence". Marxism does not posit the end of conflicts between people but rather the end of conflicts between people which are brought about by their social conditions of existence, the organisation of social labour, which divides society into various classes with opposing interests. Now you are correct to state that Marxists posit that social reality is fluid and changing, however this is not in contradiction with the idea of socialism as the end of class antagonisms. There are other motors of historical progress besides class antagonisms. Engels and Marx are both explicit that even after the realisation of socialism, society continues to develop and change. For example, Engels' complains that in a discussion on the distribution of goods under Communism "[to] everyone who took part in the discussion, "socialist society" appeared not as something undergoing continuous change and progress but as a stable affair fixed once for all, which must, therefore, have a method of distribution fixed once for all." (Engels to Schmidt, August 5th 1890) In a similar context, in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha programme Marx posed a division of Communist society into both 'lower' and 'higher' phases, clearly implying that a process of historical change and progression occurs even within the social institutions of Communism after it's triumph.


Faith in bourgeois progress is what drove Marx to conclude that we would ohtne day reach the Garden of Eden at the end of history.

I have already critiqued the idea that there is anything approximating and 'end of history' in Marx's social theory. And I do not see any evidence that Marx was driven to his belief in the possibility of Communism by any faith in 'bourgeois progress', as you call it. Marx's arguments for Communism are based on the fact that the proletariat must organise collectively to defend itself against attacks on it's living conditions by the bourgeoisie, since competition between the workers gives economic power back to the capitalist class. The initial forms of this collective organisation are the trade-unions which defend the sectional interests of the working-class. In the late 1830's already, the British working-class had organised itself into something of a class party, the Chartist movement, which put forward demands of the working-class as a class, that is, political demands. In the 1905 and 1917 Russian revolutions as well as the November revolution Germany, the biennio rosso in Italy, the British Shop-Stewards Committee movement and other similar events during that particular historical period we see the workers organising themselves into new collective forms of organisation such as Soviets/Workers' Councils and Factory and Strike Committee's. Similar organisations reappearred in the events from the period around the end of the 60's with Mai 68 in France, the Hot Autumn in Italy, the Cordobazo in Argentina and the strikes on the Baltic coast in Poland, a period which ended sometime in the early 80's with the defeat of the mass struggles in Poland and the derailment of the Polish class struggle onto the terrain of the 'independent union' Solidarnosc. Besides the collective organisation of the working-class, the world-historic productive intercourse which provides the material basis for global communist society has come on in leaps and bounds such that 'globalisation' has now entered contemporary discourse around a hundred and fifty years after Marx first predicted the process in the hisManifesto of the Communist Party. If all of this is 'faith in bourgeois progress', well then I'm off to buy several books worth of whig history.


Reducing everything to the master-slave dialectic means that you must accept that the only law is the law of force.

First of all, it's not true that acceptance of the master-slave dialectic means acceptance that the only law is the law of force. Hegel's point in the dialectic of master and slave is the development of mutual intersubjective recognition, which for Hegel is the foundation of ethical life. Second of all, I don't actually think there is any good evidence that Marx's theory of class and class struggle was influenced in particular by Hegel's dialectic of master and slave in the Phenomenology of Spirit, rather than by his studies of political economy, as well as the Silesian weavers uprising, Engels' work on the Conditions of the Working-Class in England and so on and so forth. Finally, Marx does not reduce everything to the class struggle.


According to Marxist class analysis, the state is always and everywhere an instrument of the ruling class, whichever class that may be. Therefore, the goal of the proletariat should be to become the ruling class and consolidate all power in the hands of the state i.e. the class. The master-slave dialectic sets up the pretense for state worship and seeking power for power's sake.

Well, yes. I would think that rather obvious. The class which holds state power is, by definition, the ruling-class. It is also true that according to Mrx the goal of the proletariat should be to raise itself to the position of ruling-class in order to provide the framework in which the transition to communism can be realised, since attempting to realise communism while the representatives of the bourgeoisie retain state power is suicidal. You then use this to claim that the master-slave dialectic sets up the pretense for state worship and seeking power for power's sake. This is inconsistent, you previously stated that Marxists were motivated by a belief in the 'end of history', some kind of unrealisable 'Garden of Eden', now you say that our actions are guided by 'state worship' and 'seeking power for powers sake'. I have already criticised the former notion. As for the latter, how would you explain, for example, Marx's comments on Lassalle's notions about "co-operatives with state aid" in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, to the effect that "Instead of arising from the revolutionary process of transformation of society, the "socialist organization of the total labor" "arises" from the "state aid" that the state gives to the producers' co-operative societies and which the state, not the workers, "calls into being". It is worthy of Lassalle's imagination that with state loans one can build a new society just as well as a new railway!" Or how, for example, would you explain anything in his work The Civil War in France?


No matter what his good intentions were, Marx did not have the foresight to see the inherently totalitarian nature of his Hegelian logic at work.

But Marx explicitly rejects Hegelian logic repeatedly in his works from the 1843 Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right onwards! Engels makes similar critiques in the context of criticising Duhring's crypto-Hegelian views in Anti-Duhring.

To be frank SS, the statements you've made throughout this thread are based on some pretty schoolboyish misinterpretations of both Marx and Hegel. It's seems clear that you haven't really seriously read either of them, merely swallowed what Camus has claimed on an equally erroneous conception of their ideas. Marx and Hegel are both fairly important figures in the history of thought, and their ideas deserve more consideration than dismissal on the basis of some of the platitudes and outright falsifications you've put forward thus far. I sincerely hope you choose to engage in your own critical study of their works in future rather than relying on second rate hatchet jobs of this type.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Thank's for the essay, Zanthorus. And thanks for using that old and tired argument, "You've obviously never read Marx or Hegel".


To the extent that Marx adopts the concept of totality in his work, it also has nothing to do with anything to be 'achieved', rather that Marx examines all the production relations and categories within a given social form as an interconnected whole. In this connection it serves as a methodological device.

And what is the goal of the dictatorship of the proletariat? To put absolute control over that totality of productive relations into the hands of the proletariat.


There are other motors of historical progress besides class antagonisms. Eng
els and Marx are both explicit that even after the realisation of socialism, society continues to develop and change...a division of Communist society into both 'lower' and 'higher' phases, clearly implying that a process of historical change and progression occurs even within the social institutions of Communism after it's triumpth.

This a stretch and a cop-out and you know it.



You then use this to claim that the master-slave dialectic sets up the pretense for state worship and seeking power for power's sake. This is inconsistent, you previously stated that Marxists were motivated by a belief in the 'end of history', some kind of unrealisable 'Garden of Eden', now you say that our actions are guided by 'state worship' and 'seeking power for powers sake'. I have already criticised the former notion.

As Engels so succinctly puts it in his letter to August Bebel, March 1875:

"As, therefore, the State is only a transitional institution, which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one’s adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a “free people’s State”; so long as the proletariat still needs the State, it does not need it in the interests of freedom, but in order to hold down its adversaries, and, as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom, the State, as such, ceases to exist."

Yes, I know this might not seem like "power for power's sake", because writers and philosophers have the uncanny ability to make things sound great on paper. History tells us a different story. Damn, if only those poor bastards had actually read and understood Marx like you do!

[Zanthorus]

Thank's for the essay, Zanthorus.


And thank you for the sardonic anti-intellectualism :)


And thanks for using that old and tired argument, "You've obviously never read Marx or Hegel".

I'm uncertain how that is a tired argument. I have not really seen many people put it forward. In this case, it was a response to the varying misunderstandings which you displayed with regard to the 'end of history', 'totality', 'dialectic of master and slave', as well as the way in which Marx utilised Hegel's dialectic. Perhaps, on a second read, it was a slightly over the top response. But my point was that your assertion of what Marx's ideas were cannot withstand serious scrutiny.


And what is the goal of the dictatorship of the proletariat?

The immediate goal of the dictatorship of the proletariat (A term which, by the way, actually only occurs about seven times in Marx's entire collected works, and even then only between the years 1850-52 and 1871-75) is the political rule of the working-class, and the end goal is the institution of communism. Putting absolute control of the totality of production relations into the hands of the working-class is nonsense from a Marxist perspective - so long as the proletariat remains the proletariat it cannot have control over production relations, and when it has this control it is no longer as the proletariat, but as members of communist society hence not members of any social class. The rule instituted by the DotP is political not economic.


This a stretch and a cop-out and you know it.

I don't think so, I just explicitly quoted Engels on the "so-called "socialist society"" being "something undergoing continuous change and progress". Or again if you prefer: "To my mind, the so-called "socialist society" is not anything immutable. Like all other social formations, it should be conceived in a state of constant flux and change." (Engels to Otto Von Boenigk, August 21st 1890) I don't think there is much stretching or cop-outing needed to interpret what Engels is trying to say here.


As Engels so succinctly puts it in his letter to August Bebel, March 1875:

"As, therefore, the State is only a transitional institution, which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one’s adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a “free people’s State”; so long as the proletariat still needs the State, it does not need it in the interests of freedom, but in order to hold down its adversaries, and, as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom, the State,as such, ceases to exist."

Yes, I know this might not seem like "power for power's sake", because writers and philosophers have the uncanny ability to make things sound great on paper.

Now see this is where the idea that you have not actually read the pieces you are discussing comes from. This quote can indeed be made to look like a precursor of Stalinist gangsterism if we abstract it from context in the same way you have done. The full paragraph which the quote comes from, however, is this:


The free people’s state is transformed into the free state. Grammatically speaking, a free state is one in which the state is free vis-à-vis its citizens, a state, that is, with a despotic government. All the palaver about the state ought to be dropped, especially after the Commune, which had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term. The people’s state has been flung in our teeth ad nauseam by the anarchists, although Marx’s anti-Proudhon piece and after it the Communist Manifesto declare outright that, with the introduction of the socialist order of society, the state will dissolve of itself and disappear. Now, since the state is merely a transitional institution of which use is made in the struggle, in the revolution, to keep down one’s enemies by force, it is utter nonsense to speak of a free people’s state; so long as the proletariat still makes use of the state, it makes use of it, not for the purpose of freedom, but of keeping down its enemies and, as soon as there can be any question of freedom, the state as such ceases to exist. We would therefore suggest that Gemeinwesen be universally substituted for state; it is a good old German word that can very well do service for the French “Commune.”

The point of the quote was that at that Gotha unity congress the programme drawn up had made major concessions to the Lassalleans viz a viz the Marxists, including the idea of a "free people's state", a point which Bakunin seized on in, for example, Statism and Anarchy, in his critique of Marx and Engels. In this quote Engels is conceeding various points to the Anarchists, such as that the "free state" is actually a state which holds despotic control over it's citizens, and he even says that the arguments over the state ought to cease, since the Paris Commune (Which you will recall he later holds up as a shining example of the dictatorship of the proletariat) had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term. He even says that all mentions of the state should be replaced with the german term Gemeinwesen!

What is more in the paragraph just before this one he criticises the inadequate measures of the Lassalleans with regard to political freedom:


And what have the others conceded? That a host of somewhat muddled and purely democratic demands should figure in the programme, some of them being of a purely fashionable nature — for instance “legislation by the people” such as exists in Switzerland and does more harm than good, if it can be said to do anything at all. Administration by the people — that would at least be something. Similarly omitted is the first prerequisite of all liberty — that all officials be responsible for all their official actions to every citizen before the ordinary courts and in accordance with common law.


History tells us a different story. Damn, if only those poor bastards had actually read and understood Marx like you do!

Well, personally I do not believe that history is made by 'great men' or their ideas, and hence I don't believe that the failures of previous revolutionary projects can merely be ascribed to 'false ideas' of any sort.

[StockholmSyndrome]

The Engels quote, when placed into context, actually does more to elucidate the ridiculous lengths that he would go to justify the silly notion that a totalitarian state would "dissolve of itself".


Well, personally I do not believe that history is made by 'great men' or their ideas, and hence I don't believe that the failures of previous revolutionary projects can merely be ascribed to 'false ideas' of any sort.

There can be a reasonable debate about determinism vs. free will, but to say that ideas play no role in making human history is ludicrous. Even in the most deterministic scenario imaginable, we are left with choices. If you really believe that ideas have no part to play, then whats the use in arguing with me?

[Amphictyonis]

In The Rebel Camus notes how far removed from Marx's intentions the Soviet system was. However, to say that they weren't, then, truly Marxist is what we call a "no true scotsman" logical fallacy and is a cop-out in my opinion. No matter what his good intentions were, Marx did not have the foresight to see the inherently totalitarian nature of his Hegelian logic at work.

Also, it is a stretch to call Camus an anarchist or an anarcho- syndicalist. To my knowledge, he was sympathetic to their anti-authoritarian impulses and had some anarchist friends, but that is all.

He supported syndicalism/non violent revolution via trade unions and wrote for various anarchist publications. I enjoyed reading the Myth Of Sisyphus, The Stranger and The Rebel. I consider myself a sort of existentialist. I had to in order to stay sane -I grew up in an extremely religious home and rejected god around age 12. I was wondering through life aimlessly until I stumbled upon Sartre in high school. Reading their works has helped me through some hard times :)

[StockholmSyndrome]

He supported syndicalism/non violent revolution via trade unions and wrote for various anarchist publications.

Sounds good to me!


I enjoyed reading the Myth Of Sisyphus, The Stranger and The Rebel. I consider myself a sort of existentialist. I had to in order to stay sane -I grew up in an extremely religious home and rejected god around age 12. I was wondering through life aimlessly until I stumbled upon Sartre in high school. Reading their works has helped me through some hard times :)

Same here. I used to drink in order to escape reality. Now I drink in order to embrace reality and live life to the fullest!

[Amphictyonis]

Sounds good to me!



Same here. I used to drink in order to escape reality. Now I drink in order to embrace reality and live life to the fullest!

Glad to meet some one who understands that. I went through years of mindless work under the division of labor (like Sisyphus rolling his rock uphill forever) and decided at a certian point I am not my job and life is not serious business. Camus absurdism helped give me a comedic approach to life. It snapped me out of nihilism. Many people mistake him for being pessimistic or negative but he's quite the opposite.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Zanthorus, I apologize if I came off as dismissive or coarse with my last statement. I hope you didn't take it as an invitation to be quiet.

[Zanthorus]

Apologies, but I can't instantly reply to everything on this forum since I (a) tend to be in more than one argument at any one time and (b) have work to do outside of Revleft. It appears that since I last posted you have been restricteds. It would be unfair of me to reply in a section of the forum which you can't reply in. Most likely this thread will be transferred to Opposing Ideologies, or if not I will reply by posting a new thread in OI.