Accusations of messianism in marxism

[BogdanV]

I've seen this thing a lot on atheist boards and also heard it from libertarians.
Personally I find it amusing : I don't worship Marx or view him as a deity nor do I ever had the impression that a real communist society will be heaven or Earth; its only going to be a evolutionary improvement over the current system and obviously, communism itself, like all the other socio-political systems that preceded us, will challenge the status quo and replace it , reach the apex of its potential and then, at the end of its days, will turn reactionary towards whatever new form of organization human kind will conceive in the distant future.

That's my personal take on the issue but I'd like to hear other opinions as well. I'm sure there have been reputable authors from both sides of the barricade that tackled this issue but I really don't know where to go.

[cynicles]

It's also funny coming from an ideology that lead to the formation of a cult around Ayn Rand and Ron Paul.

[jookyle]

They think it's just an easy way to discredit the movement. Since the term "marxism" has "Marx" in it, their simple minds think they can make a valid argument out of it.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Doesn't it come down to a criticism of the idea of Marxism being a meta-narratve which predicts the end of history and then it's subsequent replacement with some kind of utopian vision of society? If this is the case then I don't see it as an unjust criticism of Marxism. I'm a revolutionary who questions this understanding of Marxism, which is quite unscientific.

Also don't think that this view belongs to libertarians either.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, gotta agree here, it's the teleology and the eschatology they're going for, not the hero worship. The notion that there's somne 'divine plan' (read, 'unfolding of history') and that this will inevitably reach a final apocalyptic crisis that will usher in a new society ('kingdom of heaven'/'end of class society').

Some people really do believe that socialism is inevitable.

[BogdanV]

I'm a revolutionary who questions this understanding of Marxism, which is quite unscientific.

Also don't think that this view belongs to libertarians either.

Then does the issue lay with how some people interpret marxism or is it a flaw in the ideology itself ?


Some people really do believe that socialism is inevitable.

The baseless belief in the "inevitable coming of socialism" is inherently flawed, at least for the fact that you can't use absolutes in your statements and expect to be trusted.
Then again, nothing is set in stone; we could as well end up with a nuclear holocaust and go back to tribalism.

When I argued that socialism is the natural successor to bourgeoise democracy I should have mentioned that only if the trend of government decentralization and the increase in civil liberties carries on; it all depends on material factors : scarce resources lead to tighter state control while a abundance in resources and a high level of education lead to a more democratic form of government for example.

[aty]

Marx was not a determinist, just read him and you will see this...

[citizen of industry]

Yeah, gotta agree here, it's the teleology and the eschatology they're going for, not the hero worship. The notion that there's somne 'divine plan' (read, 'unfolding of history') and that this will inevitably reach a final apocalyptic crisis that will usher in a new society ('kingdom of heaven'/'end of class society').

Some people really do believe that socialism is inevitable.

"Socialism is inevitable" is kind of a simplistic argument, taken out of context. Some people believe that capitalism is not permanent, merely transitory, and that it is based on economic contradictions that make it unsustainable. Therefore, if humanity is going to last, socialism is inevitable if we don't destroy our environment/humanity.

An end of class society is not "heaven." We can see with the productive forces we have now it is entirely possible to have a communist society, i.e., a classless society. It is very realistic.

I find the comparison between Marxism and religion ironic, given the materialism. The two are irreconcilable opposites.

[Blake's Baby]

"Socialism is inevitable" is kind of a simplistic argument, taken out of context. Some people believe that capitalism is not permanent, merely transitory, and that it is based on economic contradictions that make it unsustainable. Therefore, if humanity is going to last, socialism is inevitable if we don't destroy our environment/humanity...

1 - that's two big ifs - if humanity is going to last... if we don't destroy our environment;
2 - the historically-limited nature of capitalism doesn't make socialism inevitable. Socialism requires the self-organisation of the proletariat. If that doesn't happen, neither does socialism and we all go into the dark.


An end of class society is not "heaven." We can see with the productive forces we have now it is entirely possible to have a communist society, i.e., a classless society. It is very realistic...

And? As in a different thread, someone is equating Barak Obama with Marxism and saying that Obama's aim is to 'immanentize the eschaton' ie bring about the apocalypse (interestingly, I didn't find out about that thread until I'd posted in this one - you wait ages for an eschatology on RevLeft and then two come along at once). Because no-one else believes that a classless society is possible, it seems no more realistic to non-communists than the Kingdom of Heaven does to atheists.


I find the comparison between Marxism and religion ironic, given the materialism. The two are irreconcilable opposites.

Well, unless the belief in 'materialism' is itself an idealistic one. You have to admit that some of the stuff that some self-identified marxists come out with about class consciousness and historic missions can be a bit deterministic, metaphysical, hand-wavey and/or just plain wrong some times.

[Beeth]

If I see smoke, I infer there is fire. It doesnt mean I predict there is fire. Inference is a reasonble conclusion based upon available evidence, in this case smoke. Likewise, the evidence we have is a class-based society, mode of production etc., and based on this evidence we infer or speculate as to how future societies may evolve out of it. This has nothing to do with prophecy and everything to do with speculative logic.

[Zanthorus]

It's an accusation that means nothing. Like 'mechanicalism', it doesn't really tell us anything about the truth of what something is saying, just that it accords with some belief which we happen to have invented a convenient swear word for so that people stop thinking about it. Pointing out parallels between Marxism and Eschatology doesn't say anything for the truth of either.


Some people really do believe that socialism is inevitable.

Yeah, what a bunch of weirdos. They're probably all Manilla Road fans as well.

gaP55FIbZyk

[RedHammer]

Honestly this is a non-criticism of Marxism and a sign that your opponent is either being deliberately misleading or ignorant.

You can pretty much draw a comparison to religion out of any ideology - especially libertarianism and fascism. We Marxists are materialists; we employ a material outlook of the world in order to think of solutions to material problems. Few things are as incompatible with idealism.

As for socialism being 'inevitable', some of the members here do think so, but here's the deal: if socialism were inevitable, then there'd be no need for revolutionary activity. Unless you think the "uprising of the proletariat" is in itself inevitable, which is quasi-prophetic.

Socialism is not inevitable. The crises of capitalism can lead to even worse forms of capitalism - fascism or neo-feudalism. It's a struggle that we need to keep up; that's why there is a need for agitation and struggle. Only then will we achieve socialism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yeah, gotta agree here, it's the teleology and the eschatology they're going for, not the hero worship. The notion that there's somne 'divine plan' (read, 'unfolding of history') and that this will inevitably reach a final apocalyptic crisis that will usher in a new society ('kingdom of heaven'/'end of class society').

Some people really do believe that socialism is inevitable.

Well, to compound this, there's also the problem of the "industrial working class" as the "revolutionary subject/agent." That parochial view relative to the entire workforce of a country fed into the secular messianism problem.

Folks, this is why crisis theory is overrated. Before the "new society" comes the big crisis.


It's a struggle that we need to keep up; that's why there is a need for agitation and struggle. Only then will we achieve socialism.

No, there needs to be education/"propagandism" plus agitation and organization, not just agitation and agitation-based action.

[The Idler]

Marxian economics is about as messianic as Darwinian evolution or Newtonian physics.

[BogdanV]

Thank you everyone for your comments !

No, there needs to be education/"propagandism" plus agitation and organization, not just agitation and agitation-based action.
In light of this, are there any resources you might suggest I read on this issue ? I'm sure there must be authors who endeavoured to critically analyze these claims.

[Blake's Baby]

...

Folks, this is why crisis theory is overrated. Before the "new society" comes the big crisis...

Ah, you couldn't resist could you?

Do you think capitalism is suffereing from a crisis, DNZ?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Sure it is, but the problem is that Marxian economists tend to call every single recession a "crisis."

[Thirsty Crow]

Sure it is, but the problem is that Marxian economists tend to call every single recession a "crisis."
But instead, if they were to adopt the point of view of the precarious labourer, of casual work, part time, the unemployed, they would have to conclude that capitalism is more or less a permanent social crisis of varying magnitudes and extent.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ That's still problematic in terms of "economics" theory on its own and especially in terms of political economy.

[citizen of industry]

^^^ That's still problematic in terms of "economics" theory on its own and especially in terms of political economy.

How so? Define. Every "recession" is a crisis. "Recession" is just a word used by capitalists to soften "crisis." Look at the last "recession," bankruptcy in the financial sector, bailouts in the industrial sector in several countries, mass strikes in Southern Europe, S. Africa, S. America, India. A higher concentration of capital in heavy industry, etc. That is crisis.

Where I'm at dozens of thousands (I use this term because I'm too lazy to look up the figures- was it 40,000 or 140,000?) of "precarious" workers, were laid off overnight, actually leading to a big controversy in government, media, etc. (that died down soon enough with no improvements - the corporations got their way unannounced by the press).

[citizen of industry]

And what is up with your politics, DNZ? You go on and on about working in call centers you aren't willing to organize, "sympathize" with a bajillion organizations you apparently aren't willing to join. You don't appear to be a teenage highschool student, so what is it? Don't tell me Revleft is the extent of your politics. You have all these theories, you must try them out somewhere, right?

[Thirsty Crow]

^^^ That's still problematic in terms of "economics" theory on its own and especially in terms of political economy.I don't disagree, but I think that speaks more about economic theory and political economy in particular than about the very perspective just presented.


"Recession" is just a word used by capitalists to soften "crisis."
Actually, "recession" is a "technical" term which denotes negative growth (I'm not sure what the criteria are for the distinction between recession and depression; perhaps the exteng of negative growth - that is, slump?). So, technically speaking of course, you can have stagnant employment patterns, or slow but steady growth in unemployment, alongside slightly positive GDP growth, and that wouldn't classify as a recession. So yes, of course, you're right in that the terminology is used, especially in media and official governemnt statements, to mistify the real situation faced by more and more wage workers and unemployed.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Marx was not a determinist, just read him and you will see this...

actually, the marxist take on history is deterministic. Not in the sense that history is predicted, but in the sense "the event is always a result, never a starting point".

[Die Neue Zeit]

How so? Define. Every "recession" is a crisis. "Recession" is just a word used by capitalists to soften "crisis." Look at the last "recession," bankruptcy in the financial sector, bailouts in the industrial sector in several countries, mass strikes in Southern Europe, S. Africa, S. America, India. A higher concentration of capital in heavy industry, etc. That is crisis.

Where I'm at dozens of thousands (I use this term because I'm too lazy to look up the figures- was it 40,000 or 140,000?) of "precarious" workers, were laid off overnight, actually leading to a big controversy in government, media, etc. (that died down soon enough with no improvements - the corporations got their way unannounced by the press).

Only depressions and near-depressions count as a macroeconomic crisis. You're conflating crisis proper with immiseration. The problem with overrating the former is that there's a tendency to glorify the most minute of disputes and struggles as something r-r-r-r-revolutionary when in reality they're not, as if we're nearing that crucial corner.


I don't disagree, but I think that speaks more about economic theory and political economy in particular than about the very perspective just presented.

And I explained briefly why above, and not as briefly in one of my articles and blogs.


Actually, "recession" is a "technical" term which denotes negative growth (I'm not sure what the criteria are for the distinction between recession and depression; perhaps the exteng of negative growth - that is, slump?). So, technically speaking of course, you can have stagnant employment patterns, or slow but steady growth in unemployment, alongside slightly positive GDP growth, and that wouldn't classify as a recession. So yes, of course, you're right in that the terminology is used, especially in media and official governemnt statements, to mistify the real situation faced by more and more wage workers and unemployed.

For example, Japan's stagnation doesn't look like a c-c-c-c-crisis to me.

[Ocean Seal]

I really want these people to spend five minutes in a room with Rafiq.

[citizen of industry]

Only depressions and near-depressions count as a macroeconomic crisis. The problem with overrating crisis is that there's a tendency to glorify the most minute of disputes and struggles as something r-r-r-r-revolutionary when in reality they're not, as if we're nearing that crucial corner.



And I explained briefly why above, and not as briefly in one of my articles and blogs.



For example, Japan's stagnation doesn't look like a c-c-c-c-crisis to me.

The government averted the crisis by bailing out heavy industry. Naturally, the debt grows, so they just voted to double sales tax as a band-aid. The population is dropping like a rock because everything is too expensive and wages are the lowest they've been in 30 years. But Japanese industry produces in China and Southeast Asia and sells their commodities overseas, thereby averting the population.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I regret to say that this criticism is not at all unfounded. Many self-described "Marxists" are not so much scientific socialists but religious followers of a messianic doctrine.
Any one who uses the word "revisionist" seriously falls into this category.