Early Marx on "civil society": suggestions for correction

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm

In his introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, the very early Marx wrote much about "civil society":


No class of civil society can play this role without arousing a moment of enthusiasm in itself and in the masses, a moment in which it fraternizes and merges with society in general, becomes confused with it and is perceived and acknowledged as its general representative, a moment in which its claims and rights are truly the claims and rights of society itself, a moment in which it is truly the social head and the social heart. Only in the name of the general rights of society can a particular class vindicate for itself general domination.

[...]

Where, then, is the positive possibility of a German emancipation?

Answer: In the formulation of a class with radical chains, a class of civil society which is not a class in civil society, an estate which is the dissolution of all estates, a sphere which has a universal character by its universal suffering and claims no particular right because no particular wrong, but wrong generally, is perpetuated against it; which can invoke no historical, but only human, title; which does not stand in any one-sided antithesis to the consequences but in all-round antithesis to the premises of German statehood; a sphere, finally, which cannot emancipate itself without emancipating itself from all other spheres of society and thereby emancipating all other spheres of society, which, in a word, is the complete loss of man and hence can win itself only through the complete re-winning of man. This dissolution of society as a particular estate is the proletariat.

However, comrade Cockshott noted some time ago that "civil society is a euphemistic translation of the German, bourgeois society is an equally valid one... Burgerlich gesellschaft" (http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0001/0306.html).

I wrote recently against reducing politics to the state form, on the one hand, and ignoring that gigantic political form altogether, on the other hand. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/demands-state-power-t165523/index.html) However, is there a way to reformulate the early Marx's take on class-by-itself and class-for-itself, particularly the latter, for more popular discourse?

I was thinking about "class/constituency in political society," but any thoughts on the matter?

[blake 3:17]

Couple negatives and a positive-


I was thinking about "class/constituency in political society," but any thoughts on the matter?

I have NO IDEA what that means.


However, comrade Cockshott noted some time ago that "civil society is a euphemistic translation of the German, bourgeois society is an equally valid one... Burgerlich gesellschaft"

Didn't know that at all. I'm starting to grasp how BIG the problem of translation is.


However, is there a way to reformulate the early Marx's take on class-by-itself and class-for-itself, particularly the latter, for more popular discourse?

I think the language of class in itself v class for itself needs to be revived. Some comrades who come from more economist backgrounds and have been critical of these terms for a variety of reasons. I think the distinction is extremely important in assessing both dimensions, talking about commonalities and differences within our class, what political activity we take up and how, how we work in the trade union movement, how we work in disparate social movements, and what we to do resolve capitalist injustice and create socialism.

[Grenzer]

Civil Society in the contemporary context usually refers to a non-government political entity. Advocacy groups and that sort of thing. These things are, of course, bourgeois by nature. This could be the same meaning in which Cockshott means it but I'm not sure. Define what you mean by political society and I'll get back to you.

This seems to go back to the issue of "Alternative culture" institutions and the like.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Civil Society in the contemporary context usually refers to a non-government political entity. Advocacy groups and that sort of thing. These things are, of course, bourgeois by nature.

I was under the impression that lobby groups, advocacy groups, think tanks, etc. were petit-bourgeois in nature, not bourgeois in nature. :confused:

What about town hall meetings?


This could be the same meaning in which Cockshott means it but I'm not sure. Define what you mean by political society and I'll get back to you.

Did you check the wiki on the subject?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society#Post-modernism


This seems to go back to the issue of "Alternative culture" institutions and the like.

Actually, this may be somewhat different because of the various kinds of groups mentioned above.

[Grenzer]

Well it depends on which advocacy groups you're specifically talking about. Some, think tanks in particular, can certainly be bourgeois in nature in my opinion, though I would say those that are aren't particularly high in number. Some users in here are fond of making the assertion that the petty bourgeoisie "don't exist" so I made that mistake based on habit. Sorry for the confusion, I've been dealing with the works of several African sociologists who use a somewhat different meaning than what you provided with the wiki. They primarily focus on advocacy groups and think tanks, which are certainly petty bourgeois in nature, although I would reject their assertion that these groups work for "democracy." I have not really read on the subject enough to say the significance in terms of town hall meetings.

So what do you propose, proletarian think tanks? This would require capital, and at this point it would seem to be in scarce supply for such an endeavor. Perhaps a party-organization could muster some, but it'd still be in short supply; enough to get a start at least.

Certainly most civil society institutions as they exist today are participated in the most by the petty bourgeoisie, advocating what they think is in their interest(immigration, right wing populism, etc). So I can see how this can move in several direction. One could, as I mentioned earlier, the encouragement of proletarian participation in civil society, or you could be hinting at co-opting a portion of the petty bourgeoisie to turn in on itself, or both? I would regard the former as a sound strategy, but difficult to achieve; and the latter as being attractive on paper, but unreliable and potentially dangerous in practice.

Perhaps I'm still not grasping exactly what's supposed to be going on here, civil society is abstract in the sense it's used here. Also, completely unrelated, but I had heard that Cockshott is a Maoist. Is that true, or is that just some bizarre rumor?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well it depends on which advocacy groups you're specifically talking about. Some, think tanks in particular, can certainly be bourgeois in nature in my opinion, though I would say those that are aren't particularly high in number. Some users in here are fond of making the assertion that the petty bourgeoisie "don't exist" so I made that mistake based on habit. Sorry for the confusion, I've been dealing with the works of several African sociologists who use a somewhat different meaning than what you provided with the wiki. They primarily focus on advocacy groups and think tanks, which are certainly petty bourgeois in nature, although I would reject their assertion that these groups work for "democracy." I have not really read on the subject enough to say the significance in terms of town hall meetings.

African sociologists? Out of curiosity, was the mention of one of them in my "Demands" commentary (current blog, also an article and additional programmatic commentary) coincidental, or did you proceed from there? :confused:


So what do you propose, proletarian think tanks? This would require capital, and at this point it would seem to be in scarce supply for such an endeavor. Perhaps a party-organization could muster some, but it'd still be in short supply; enough to get a start at least.

Certainly most civil society institutions as they exist today are participated in the most by the petty bourgeoisie, advocating what they think is in their interest(immigration, right wing populism, etc). So I can see how this can move in several direction. One could, as I mentioned earlier, the encouragement of proletarian participation in civil society, or you could be hinting at co-opting a portion of the petty bourgeoisie to turn in on itself, or both? I would regard the former as a sound strategy, but difficult to achieve; and the latter as being attractive on paper, but unreliable and potentially dangerous in practice.

It's definitely the former and not the latter.


Perhaps I'm still not grasping exactly what's supposed to be going on here, civil society is abstract in the sense it's used here. Also, completely unrelated, but I had heard that Cockshott is a Maoist. Is that true, or is that just some bizarre rumor?

He was and wasn't. He was once a member of a communist organization that combined DeLeonism, Bordigism, and Maoism and had its own unique take on revolutionary program.

[Grenzer]

African sociologists? Out of curiosity, was the mention of one of them in my "Demands" commentary (current blog, also an article and additional programmatic commentary) coincidental, or did you proceed from there? :confused:

Completely coincidental. I was reading a work entitled Democratic Reform in Africa: The Quality of Progress by Emmanuel Gyimah-Boadi. Gyimah-Boadi is the executive director of the Center for Democratic Development in Ghana and co-director of Afrobarometer, which is some sort of think tank that studies public opinion on economic and political development in western Africa. I think it could be an informative resource to one who has studied Marxist theory and understands the bourgeois pretensions and limits of his thought.




It's definitely the former and not the latter.

Now that that's cleared up, I will see with what I can come up with on the subject; but my initial impression is that civil society could only be useful in the context of your conception of a party which has merged itself with the labor movement and employs a minimum-maximum programme. With the state of things in regards to the communist movement, I can't see how civil society could be used in a constructive manner.




He was and wasn't. He was once a member of a communist organization that combined DeLeonism, Bordigism, and Maoism and had its own unique take on revolutionary program.

DeLeon, Bordiga, and Mao? That's a really bizarre combination, but I can imagine that their view would be interesting.

[28350]

DeLeon, Bordiga, and Mao? That's a really bizarre combination, but I can imagine that their view would be interesting.

Yes that is interesting. DNZ, where can I find more information about this organization?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes that is interesting. DNZ, where can I find more information about this organization?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Organisation_in_the_British_Isles
http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/uk.hightide/index.htm#cobi

[¿Que?]

This is one of my favorite things about Marx. That the historical role of the proletariat lies in the fact that its emancipation signifies the emaciation of all society, much like the bourgeois assume civil society to mean a society based on universal values (free enterprise and competition, entrepreneurship, etc). where in reality these values, moral principles, whatever, serve in the interest of maintaining bourgeois domination. In this respect, Marx is employing the dialectic, by suggestion that the only true universal values, are those of the proletariat, which include all subsequent conclusions regarding the dissolution of the state, private property and eventually social (or maybe just economic) classes.

EDIT: As to what sort of rhetoric or conception is need for 21st century socialism or whatever, I would ask what the significance of these would be on a concrete, on the ground situation. Are we talking slogans to chant at Marches a la "We are the 99%" or are we talking about a structured and systematic plan to gain popular support for a particular movement? Because that would take more than just the right idea, imo.

[Grenzer]

This is one of my favorite things about Marx. That the historical role of the proletariat lies in the fact that its emancipation signifies the emaciation of all society, much like the bourgeois assume civil society to mean a society based on universal values (free enterprise and competition, entrepreneurship, etc). where in reality these values, moral principles, whatever, serve in the interest of maintaining bourgeois domination. In this respect, Marx is employing the dialectic, by suggestion that the only true universal values, are those of the proletariat, which include all subsequent conclusions regarding the dissolution of the state, private property and eventually social (or maybe just economic) classes.

What's so special about that? This seems like run-of-the-mill metaphysical narrative to me. Such reasoning is not constructive and does nothing to advance struggle or theory. Dialectics seems like a pile of useless flotsam floating around within Marxist philosophy which we would be better off jettisoning. I don't think dialectics is inherently useless, but I do think it's counter productive to pretend that it's a "science" capable of unlocking the secrets of the universe rather than recognize the fact that it's a philosophical viewpoint and that it's metaphysical.

Before it's even said, it's worth mentioning that the claim that historical materialism is dialectical is entirely opportunistic bullshit. Historical materialism is totally separate from dialectics, but on it's own historical materialism does not suffice. On its own, it's simply mechanical determinism(another form of idealism) as opposed to being dialectical(idealistic again).

I don't mean to derail the thread, but dialectics really is of no value at all in regards to formulating revolutionary strategy, which is what we are trying to do here.

[¿Que?]

What's so special about that? This seems like run-of-the-mill metaphysical narrative to me. Such reasoning is not constructive and does nothing to advance struggle or theory. Dialectics seems like a pile of useless flotsam floating around within Marxist philosophy which we would be better off jettisoning. I don't think dialectics is inherently useless, but I do think it's counter productive to pretend that it's a "science" capable of unlocking the secrets of the universe rather than recognize the fact that it's a philosophical viewpoint and that it's metaphysical.

Before it's even said, it's worth mentioning that the claim that historical materialism is dialectical is entirely opportunistic bullshit. Historical materialism is totally separate from dialectics, but on it's own historical materialism does not suffice. On its own, it's simply mechanical determinism(another form of idealism) as opposed to being dialectical(idealistic again).

I don't mean to derail the thread, but dialectics really is of no value at all in regards to formulating revolutionary strategy, which is what we are trying to do here.
You're missing the point of my whole post. Marx's use of dialectic, in this case the antithesis of Bourgeois universalism, is to me a methodology to illustrate the problematics of any value system which claims to be for all, while perched comfortably upon the pedestal of privilege. It works without dialectics, and there really is no reason to dwell on that one point. But I appreciate your critique, in any case.