Critique of Marx

[Socialist Dave]

As you probably won't remember, I'm still writing my dissertation on Marx's theory of history, and have nearly finished it. But I need to find the source of a criticsm of Marx, the one that questions why, if it is accepted that Marx is correct about the inevitable downfall of capitalism, that it has to be communism that follows, and not a return to a Mad Max style year 0, or to some kind of anarchist society, or something else entirely.

I already know how Im going to adress the critique, that as techonology and the general skills set of society progresses it cannot regress and so it does not follow that the new economic structure would be regressive either (I intend to cite the 'West German economic miricale' as evidence of this), but I cannot for the life of me remember where I read this critique originally. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[Hit The North]

Even in one of the most simple and general statements on history, in the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels allow for regression whereby the class struggle ends in the common ruination of society and where technique is lost and the productive forces thrown backwards. So I'm not sure that your proposed address to the critique has anything much to do with Marxism and it has the double disadvantage of being incorrect when history is analysed empirically (the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, for example).

[Socialist Dave]

state the obvious, of course that's possible, but for it to happen there has to be a regression in techonology, which in Marxist jargon is an umbrella term for not only technology in its eveyday sense but the skills owned by a workforce as whole. In post war Germany despite the devestation to the infrastructure, that is factories being bombed out etc. there were still skilled workers, doctors, scientists etc at level more or less equal with other european countries. Therefore, rapid economic development to a high level was possible once the bricks and mortar were in place, so to speak. Similarly with the collapse of capitalism as an ecnomic structure, in the most likeley situation technology won't have been destroyed, save for some kind of nuclear holocaust or something. This means we wont go back to feaudalism, serfdom, year 0, although a capitalist reboot of some sort could happen.

What I was asking for however, was help finding who raised the issue in the first place. I'm not interested in a debate over the internet about the merits of my argument to the contrary. I'll save that in person for my proffessors.

[Socialist Dave]

ps sorry about the spelling

[Hit The North]

ps sorry about the spelling

Don't apologise to me, apologise to your professors :rolleyes:

[Hit The North]

state the obvious, of course that's possible,

It might be obvious but you seem to have missed it when you argue (bold added for emphasis):


as techonology and the general skills set of society progresses it cannot regress and so it does not follow that the new economic structure would be regressive either And I am merely pointing out that there is a historical precedent in the collapse of Roman civilization where the means of production (including technology and technique) did regress and that, furthermore, Marx was aware of it.

So whomever launched this unfounded attack on Marx's alleged determinism and teleology, your response that
as techonology and the general skills set of society progresses it cannot regress is empirically untrue (it has already happened) and not really a Marxist response to the attack.

Your West German argument (which anyway was not a collapse in the mode of production and its supercession by another) merely states a transition which did not produce a regression in technology and technique. It's no proof that this cannot happen.

But, anyway, if any of your professors understand Marx and informal logic they'll point this out to you once you've submitted.

Good luck!

[u.s.red]

state the obvious, of course that's possible, but for it to happen there has to be a regression in techonology, which in Marxist jargon is an umbrella term for not only technology in its eveyday sense but the skills owned by a workforce as whole. In post war Germany despite the devestation to the infrastructure, that is factories being bombed out etc. there were still skilled workers, doctors, scientists etc at level more or less equal with other european countries. Therefore, rapid economic development to a high level was possible once the bricks and mortar were in place, so to speak. Similarly with the collapse of capitalism as an ecnomic structure, in the most likeley situation technology won't have been destroyed, save for some kind of nuclear holocaust or something. This means we wont go back to feaudalism, serfdom, year 0, although a capitalist reboot of some sort could happen.

What I was asking for however, was help finding who raised the issue in the first place. I'm not interested in a debate over the internet about the merits of my argument to the contrary. I'll save that in person for my proffessors.

I'm not sure I understand exactly what the critique is. Are you saying that someone argued that a collapse of capitalism would necessarily bring a destruction or regression of technology? I think Marx's theory of history is that man's consciousness is determined by the way that man produces his own life. Man progresses from slave to feudal production then to capitalist production. At each step there is a change in consciousness. It is impossible for human consciousness, with certain exceptions, for humanity, to regress to a previous state of consciousness. an example of one exception would be slavery in the u.s. south.

Once people become socialized in the capitalist mode of production they can't go back to feudalism. Workers learn day by day that they are part of a group with common interests; they leave the factory as a group and then develop associations like unions. And the capitalist can't do anything about it because he needs socialized workers to produce a profit.

Of course the capitalist wants to, and must, replace all workers with machines and robots. However, a profit cannot be made from a machine. Thus the fundamental contradiction of capitalism. IMO:cool:

[Book O'Dead]

As you probably won't remember, I'm still writing my dissertation on Marx's theory of history, and have nearly finished it. But I need to find the source of a criticsm of Marx, the one that questions why, if it is accepted that Marx is correct about the inevitable downfall of capitalism, that it has to be communism that follows, and not a return to a Mad Max style year 0, or to some kind of anarchist society, or something else entirely.

I already know how Im going to adress the critique, that as techonology and the general skills set of society progresses it cannot regress and so it does not follow that the new economic structure would be regressive either (I intend to cite the 'West German economic miricale' as evidence of this), but I cannot for the life of me remember where I read this critique originally. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

You have to factor in the class struggle as a social phenomenon that shapes the course of history. Otherwise you portray history as taking place outside or above human actions.

[Hit The North]

It is impossible for human consciousness, with certain exceptions, for humanity, to regress to a previous state of consciousness. an example of one exception would be slavery in the u.s. south.


Just for clarity sake, if there are "certain exceptions" where human consciousness can be shown to have "regressed to a previous state" then regression in human consciousness must be possible and cannot therefore be impossible.

For arguments sake, I think you're wrong. If human consciousness depends upon the mode of production then a decline in the mode of production will produce a corresponding decline in consciousness. But I don't think that Socialist Dave is arguing such a thing, anyway. His argument appears to be that a decline in the means of production (particularly a loss of skills and technology) as a result of revolution is unlikely.

But Book O'Dead is correct in pointing to the determining factor of class struggle. Marx's prediction that capitalism will be succeeded by communism is heavily context-dependent - and that context is the class struggle. If the struggle ends in the bourgeoisie irradiating the Earth as a last gasp effort to hold onto its private property, then we will see millions of deaths, destruction of infrastructure, etc. and a collapse in the mode of production. If, however, the struggle is a successful proletarian revolution from below, then there will be no decline in the mode of production but a qualitative leap towards a higher one.

So, in order to refute whomever raised the charge against Marx, the proper refutation would be to show how Marx's view of history is, as stated at the head of the Communist Manifesto, that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

It is the identification of the proletariat as the only revolutionary class in the capitalist mode of production that makes communism possible, for Marx. But if the proletariat never act as a revolutionary force, communism will not happen.

[Socialist Dave]

Prole Art Threat, we seem to reaching the same conclusion, albeit thorugh different routes. In a nutshell, the critique is based on the understanding that communism after captialism is inevitable. However, it basically claims that Marx makes too many assumptions that it will be communism, not a return to kind of year 0 or any other scenario is possible.

The critque is wrong, because it ignores the development theses, and as pointed out a science fiction esqe post apocaplyptic society, or for that matter any pre-capitalist society won't happen as long technology remains. What it does do however, is point out that communism is not a inevitablity. Capitalism as we know it's death is a foregone conclusion, but it is possible that if the proletariat fails to seize power and the bourgeoise is able to retain its politcal power then it can introduce some kind of degenerated capitalism.

Therefore, revolutionary action of the proletariat is essential for the birth of communism and the end of economic exploitation.

[Misocratist]

Not a critique, but has OP read G.A. Cohen's "Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence"? It's pretty much the best scholarly work that has been written on Marx's historical materialism.

[u.s.red]

Capitalism as we know it's death is a foregone conclusion, but it is possible that if the proletariat fails to seize power and the bourgeoise is able to retain its politcal power then it can introduce some kind of degenerated capitalism.

Therefore, revolutionary action of the proletariat is essential for the birth of communism and the end of economic exploitation.

I think we have already seen an example of this happening. In the soviet union the proletariat seized power under lenin and trotsky, but then, according to some, lost it under stalin. stalin then developed a kind of degenerated state capitalism.

[Socialist Dave]

Not a critique, but has OP read G.A. Cohen's "Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence"? It's pretty much the best scholarly work that has been written on Marx's historical materialism.

Certainly have, huge fan of Cohen. History Labour Freedom: Themes from Marx was great too.

[Book O'Dead]

I think we have already seen an example of this happening. In the soviet union the proletariat seized power under lenin and trotsky, but then, according to some, lost it under stalin. stalin then developed a kind of degenerated state capitalism.

This is wrong.

What power had been seized by the working class in 1917 was soon overthrown by the Bolsheviks during Lenin's lifetime. Stalin's rule was merely the logical outcome of Lenin's program and the civil war.

[u.s.red]

Just for clarity sake, if there are "certain exceptions" where human consciousness can be shown to have "regressed to a previous state" then regression in human consciousness must be possible and cannot therefore be impossible.

A process may be irreversible, while at the same time a part of the process is reversed. Human beings age but the aging process can be temporarily or partially reversed. Human consciousness is not a perfect ideal, but rather an organic, developing process.


For arguments sake, I think you're wrong. If human consciousness depends upon the mode of production then a decline in the mode of production will produce a corresponding decline in consciousness.

The dominant mode of production in the U.S. south until the civil war was slavery, definitely a regression or decline. Did the part of human consciousness represented by the glorious southern white plantation owner
also regress or decline?




So, in order to refute whomever raised the charge against Marx, the proper refutation would be to show how Marx's view of history is, as stated at the head of the Communist Manifesto, that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.



It is true that all history (and therefore all human consciousness) is the history of class struggle. However, that class struggle is based on society's mode of production. The bourgeoisie and proletariat developed out of the feudal mode of production: "We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society." (Manifesto)

[u.s.red]

This is wrong.

What power had been seized by the working class in 1917 was soon overthrown by the Bolsheviks during Lenin's lifetime. Stalin's rule was merely the logical outcome of Lenin's program and the civil war.

I tend to agree with you. However, there is a lengthy discussion on this site about whether the soviet union was capitalist, state capitalist or some type of socialist economy.

[Hit The North]

Human beings age but the aging process can be temporarily or partially reversed.

No it can't, except as a euphemism employed by the cosmetics industry.


The dominant mode of production in the U.S. south until the civil war was slavery, definitely a regression or decline. Did the part of human consciousness represented by the glorious southern white plantation owner
also regress or decline?


For it to be a regression, slavery must have supplanted wage labour as the dominant relation, which is not the case.

But, yes indeed, a break from slavery would require a change in the way the negro was considered by the erstwhile slave owners. Likewise a regression back to slavery would require another change in perception - one you might consider to be a regression (although which you have claimed to be impossible).

Actually, the persistent structural and institutional racism that prevailed in many of these states for a hundred years after the civil war and sparked the civil rights movement in the 1950s, demonstrates that there is no easy change in consciousness that mirrors changes in the relations of production.



It is true that all history (and therefore all human consciousness) is the history of class struggle. However, that class struggle is based on society's mode of production. The bourgeoisie and proletariat developed out of the feudal mode of production: "We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society." (Manifesto)

Actually the modern proletariat is the unique creation of the capitalist mode of production, not the feudal system.