Bertrand Russell on Marx

[Caj]

I like Bertrand Russell, but he occasionally said some pretty imbecilic stuff:


To understand Marx psychologically, one should use the following dictionary:


Yahweh=Dialectical Materialism
The Messiah=Marx
The Elect=The Proletariat
The Church=The Communist Party
The Second Coming=The Revolution
Hell=Punishment of the Capitalists
The Millennium=The Communist Commonwealth

(The History of Western Philosophy, pp. 364)

Am I overreacting, or does this sound like something from Conservapedia? I expect a lot better from Russell.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

I got the same feeling. Russell's terrific on stuff like the Cynics, his sense of the political involvement of philosophers is encouraging, but like most of those Cambridge cats he got his Marx from conversations with the local Stalinist cheering squad.

[o well this is ok I guess]

"well ya see this philosopher was more of a literary philosopher than an academic philosopher (which i am!) dohohohohohoho"

[Bud Struggle]

Read this: tell me where he's wrong.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/more-news-dprk-t158853/index.html

Theoretical Communism (of the, "dude, it hasn't been tried yet!" school) is all right for in house discussions--but I'm sure Earl Russell was commenting on Communism as it appears in the real world.

As Materialists we can hardly criticize someone for taking a realist approach to life.

[Caj]

like most of those Cambridge cats he got his Marx from conversations with the local Stalinist cheering squad.

Yeah, I recently finished his Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, which although I agree with his criticisms of the Bolsheviks, his criticisms of Marxism in general were only valid if one doesn't differentiate between Marxism and Bolshevism.

[Caj]

I'm sure Earl Russell was commenting on Communism as it appears in the real world.

As Materialists we can hardly criticize someone for taking a realist approach to life.

He said "to understand Marx psychologically" not "to understand Communism in practice."

[La Comédie Noire]

Literally any attempt to project into the future can be made to seem religious and utopian. His conception of Marxism is of the vulgar variety and should be discarded as a blemish on an otherwise great book. In fact it's almost obligatory that when you write a general overview of philosophy or social science you have to have a chapter where you beat up Marx's corpse in a one sided boxing match. Actually that part isn't even in the chapter on Marx he just brings it up during his discussion of the church fathers I think? Just like, "well while we are on the subject, fuck Marx."


I got the same feeling. Russell's terrific on stuff like the Cynics, his sense of the political involvement of philosophers is encouraging, but like most of those Cambridge cats he got his Marx from conversations with the local Stalinist cheering squad.

I know a lot about Marx, but not so much about anything else he discussed in his book, but usually when I read an author and they get things wrong about a subject, it starts to make me wonder what else they could be getting wrong that I don't know about. I suppose it's just another argument for reading the source material.

[MarxSchmarx]

Well to be fair, Russell wrote that in 1945 when "Stalinism" with its plethora of neologisms and obfuscatory rhetoric that appropriated Marxism was pretty mainstream among western political activists.

As Anarchy! points out, it's a crude generalization of the "psychology of marxists" but we all know people IRL who do to varying degrees frighteningly approximate Russell's characterization and I imagine it was probably worse when stalin was near his peak of influence on the western left.

[RedSunsZenith]

Yeah, I'm a fan of him too, but I recently read The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, and he seems to make several baseless assertions about "human nature." I agree with his criticism of the Bolsheviks, and appreciate his observations about many Marxists being as dogmatic as religious people, but I was unimpressed by his views on the "driving forces in politics."

[Caj]

Yeah, I'm a fan of him too, but I recently read The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, and he seems to make several baseless assertions about "human nature." I agree with his criticism of the Bolsheviks, and appreciate his observations about many Marxists being as dogmatic as religious people, but I was unimpressed by his views on the "driving forces in politics."

I got the same impression from that work.

[occurin]

It might be a logical fallacy, but I can't take anything Russell says about socialism seriously since I learnt he knowingly took money from the British foreign office to write anti-Soviet books. And never declared it.

(can't post links: search Jack Clontz, Bertrand Russell and the Cold War for the article in a journal dedicated to Russell)

[Hit The North]

Well to be fair, Russell wrote that in 1945 when "Stalinism" with its plethora of neologisms and obfuscatory rhetoric that appropriated Marxism was pretty mainstream among western political activists.


Why be fair? What Russel is claiming to know is the psychology not of a movement (Marxism) but of a particular thinker (Marx). In other words he is tracing back from "communism as it appears in the real world" (Stalinism) to the "sinful" origin of the idea within Marx's own faulty motivation. He is claiming that Marx saw himself as the messiah, the proletariat as the elect, etc.

Meanwhile, his Practice and Theory of Bolshevism is a steaming pile of bourgeois crap. I wouldn't wipe my arse on it.

[ZeroNowhere]

To be fair, at least he's not Karl Popper.

[Bud Struggle]

Meanwhile, his Practice and Theory of Bolshevism is a steaming pile of bourgeois crap. I wouldn't wipe my arse on it.

But couldn't you say that about all "real world" Communism?

[ComradeMan]

But couldn't you say that about all "real world" Communism?

Ah... but you're not allowed to critique real world communism because it has never existed, on the other hand you are allowed to vaunt the achievements of real world communism because all of a sudden it suddenly... err.. was. ;)

[Thirsty Crow]

Well to be fair, Russell wrote that in 1945 when "Stalinism" with its plethora of neologisms and obfuscatory rhetoric that appropriated Marxism was pretty mainstream among western political activists.

This is obvious from the fact that dialectical materialism, as a cannonized philosophy or "world-view", did not exist during Marx's working time, and nor did he contribute intellectually to its formation, at least in some of its points (in fact, it could be argued that DiaMat was formed as a vulgar, one sided, insufficient exegesis of Marx's works).

But yeah, Comedie Noire hit the nail on the head with the comment that any political doctgrine which projects into the future could be made to seem religious and utopian. It's not surpirsing that in the era of rational thought a person opposed to that project would try to mmake of it a secular religion, firmly based in the older religious and metaphysical orders. It's called the struggle for hegemony, and this is only one of the tactics with specific effects as the desired outcomes.
But Russell seems to be going overboard even with this faulty ideological manouvreing. It's very hard to attribute such self aggrandizment to Marx ("The Messiah"), and it's evident he would like to try to do so since it's his way to "psychologically understand Marx".
It's more than a blemish: it's a very crude, idiotic, and dishonest piece in the overall strategy aimed at securing intellectually bourgeois rule. It does resemble a hypothetical article from conservapedia, in fact.


To be fair, at least he's not Karl Popper.
He's not open enough to be a Karl Popper.

[PlayAlone64]

Literally any attempt to project into the future can be made to seem religious and utopian. His conception of Marxism is of the vulgar variety and should be discarded as a blemish on an otherwise great book. In fact it's almost obligatory that when you write a general overview of philosophy or social science you have to have a chapter where you beat up Marx's corpse in a one sided boxing match. Actually that part isn't even in the chapter on Marx he just brings it up during his discussion of the church fathers I think? Just like, "well while we are on the subject, fuck Marx."



I know a lot about Marx, but not so much about anything else he discussed in his book, but usually when I read an author and they get things wrong about a subject, it starts to make me wonder what else they could be getting wrong that I don't know about. I suppose it's just another argument for reading the source material.

Dead on.

Sent from my PantechP8000 using Tapatalk

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

He's not open enough to be a Karl Popper.


When Lionel Robbins, the head of the London School of Economics, objected to the section on Marx The Open Society], Popper suggested that [Friedrich] Hayek should rewrite it. (http://theorangepress.com/woid/woid20/woidxx05.html)

Now that's being open!

[Matty_UK]

I like Bertrand Russell, but he occasionally said some pretty imbecilic stuff:



(The History of Western Philosophy, pp. 364)

Am I overreacting, or does this sound like something from Conservapedia? I expect a lot better from Russell.

I remember coming across that quote whilst reading the chapter on Marx in Russell's History of Western Philosophy. If I recall correctly he was making an argument that Marx is rooted in a Christian tradition and that communism was a European phenomenon. However he was writing in the 1930s. That communism ultimately became more prevalent in east Asia than anywhere else kind of discredits that claim of his.

He may be right that it has something in common with a religious mentality, but so what? Humans are prone to thinking in that sort of way, I don't think its necessarily something to be ashamed of as long as you don't become closed minded, which is hardly anything exclusive to ideologues.

[Bud Struggle]

I remember coming across that quote whilst reading the chapter on Marx in Russell's History of Western Philosophy. If I recall correctly he was making an argument that Marx is rooted in a Christian tradition and that communism was a European phenomenon. However he was writing in the 1930s. That communism ultimately became more prevalent in east Asia than anywhere else kind of discredits that claim of his.

He may be right that it has something in common with a religious mentality, but so what? Humans are prone to thinking in that sort of way, I don't think its necessarily something to be ashamed of as long as you don't become closed minded, which is hardly anything exclusive to ideologues.

Russell was was right in that Marxism as written may be all right--but attempts at Communism prroe that every attempt to make it work turned out qoute nasty. Even to this day.

Yes Commuism means well, but in the real world as Russell noted--it's quite half assed. It's pretty obvious it needs to be reformed.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I haven't read much from Mr Russell, though I agree with his notions on a wide variety of issues from world peace to atheism and religion.

This particular quote seems to me to apply more to Marxists than to Mr Marx himself.

[RGacky3]

Russell was was right in that Marxism as written may be all right--but attempts at Communism prroe that every attempt to make it work turned out qoute nasty. Even to this day.


Can I suggest you take an online Marxism class? http://www.rdwolff.com/classes, either pick the intro class or the class analysis part, its not perfect and its Richard Wolffs interpretation but its still pretty good.

The USSR never inplimented what Marx advocated, which was workers control over their own production.

BTW, Marxism IS NOT communism, Marxism is a system of analysing economic systems, you can apply Marxism to capitalism, socialism, and everything inbetween.

Russell's comparison of Marxism to religion really makes no sense, obviously there are some Marxists that almost take a religious approach to it, but thats true with every philosophy and every politicial group or economic tradition. Also in might come off like that reading the communist manifesto, but you have to remember, the communist manifesto was not a detailed analysis nor was it a plan, it was a political pamphlet meant to stir people up.

Marxism is not in the communist manifesto, its in Kapital volumes 1, 2 and 3.

Also those comparisons in the begining, give me ANY philosophy, ANY economic tradition or ANY political ideology and I'll make similar comparisons, its easy, cheap and meaningless.

[MarxSchmarx]

This is obvious from the fact that dialectical materialism, as a cannonized philosophy or "world-view", did not exist during Marx's working time, and nor did he contribute intellectually to its formation, at least in some of its points (in fact, it could be argued that DiaMat was formed as a vulgar, one sided, insufficient exegesis of Marx's works).

But yeah, Comedie Noire hit the nail on the head with the comment that any political doctgrine which projects into the future could be made to seem religious and utopian. It's not surpirsing that in the era of rational thought a person opposed to that project would try to mmake of it a secular religion, firmly based in the older religious and metaphysical orders. It's called the struggle for hegemony, and this is only one of the tactics with specific effects as the desired outcomes.
But Russell seems to be going overboard even with this faulty ideological manouvreing. It's very hard to attribute such self aggrandizment to Marx ("The Messiah"), and it's evident he would like to try to do so since it's his way to "psychologically understand Marx".
It's more than a blemish: it's a very crude, idiotic, and dishonest piece in the overall strategy aimed at securing intellectually bourgeois rule. It does resemble a hypothetical article from conservapedia, in fact.


Sure, you're right that it's exaggerated.


But you have not made the case that Russell had an interest, at least personally, in "securing bourgeois rule". His criticisms of Marx are not unique within the left, they have been made going back to Bakunin if not earlier.

Russell was, for all his many faults, a leftist and at the end of the day a man of principle who rejected capitalism. His skepticism of Marx had a distinctly leftist flavor (e.g., look at its comparison to bourgeois reductionist science). We may disagree with it, but his critique came from the left, not from the right.

Could Russell be accused of something like "ultra-leftism" and setting up strawmen? Possibly. But I think a healthy skepticism of venerated figures like Marx or, in our time, someone like Zizek or Chomsky, on the left is, if anything, erring on the side of caution. Such criticisms may go overboard from time to time, but they are healthy as long as they are grounded in leftist skepticism.