Cultural Relativism: Anti-Marxist?

[Questionable]

During my downtime I wrote some thoughts I was having on cultural relativism and Marxism down in my journal. I decided to share them with my comrades here so we could get some discussion going.


Marxism is based upon the class struggle. The revolutionary proletariat is the only class which can solve the contradictions of capitalism and transform society into a socialist one before contradictions of capitalism lead to the common ruin of all contending classes.


Marxism analyzes history and society as the objective progression of class struggle. Our stance is defined by supporting the interests of the most progressive class, correct? Therefore we can say that the bourgeoisie are more progressive than feudal aristocrats, but the proletariat are the most progressive of them all because they alone have the unique position in society to abolish class antagonisms entirely.


So using these definitions, we can see which societies are progressive or reactionary. But according to cultural relativism, there is no way to judge the qualities of societies. All culture - values, norms, prejudices - are incomparable. No judgement can be made between a patriarchal slave society or a dictatorship of the proletariat, and if a society is one or the other, it is just as well because all cultures are, after all, relative. A government of the proletariat is equal to a government of the bourgeoisie. Is this not contrary to the Marxist position of societies gradually reaching higher stages through dialectic transformation?


At first glance cultural relativism seems to be a leftist position because it runs counter to the spirit of national and ethnic chauvinism, but it can also work as an enabler for reactionary elements. If a society treats women like property, it is none of our business. All ethics are particular to each culture and the best we can do is attempt to study them without making any value-judgements. But Marx summed up what our position should be quite nicely, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it." As Marxists our goals should be to recognize the progressive forces in society and support them against the reactionary.


Another issue is that cultural relativism dulls the urge to act within one's own society. Prostitutes, drug addicts, gangsters - these are no longer defects of the capitalist system, but merely different cultures that must be taken for what they are. Sometimes a nod is made in academia toward economic situations being a contributing factor, but greater emphasis is placed on the cultural aspect, of which there is no real revolutionary content to be found in the relativist analysis.


All this considered, it seems to me that cultural relativism is un-Marxist at best, anti at worst. What do you comrades think?

[Marxaveli]

It is certainly un-Marxist, but I would go as far to say that it is intrinsically anti-Marxist also, because it is a very easy methodology for the ruling class to use as justification for its existence and the contingent material conditions of the status-quo. Neo-Cons and other reactionaries point to culture as a result and cause to justify racism, sexism or other reactionary ideals. Take hip hop for example - conservatives try to use it as culture stigma to reenforce the stereo-types of African Americans being violent criminals or thugs, in the collective consciousness of the white ruling class, all wrapped in a pretty package of Judeo-Christian philosophy and values. It completely ignores or downplays structural material forces within society, and is very much a form of ruling class Idealism and methodology.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think the main problem is that it is an idealist attempt at trying to figure out why different societies might have different commonly held views or customs or whatnot.

I think it was initially an attempt to adress problems of a universalist sort of view which was used to contrast "civiliation" with "savagry". But of course rather than seeing maybe violence against colonialism in terms of struggles of oppressed and oppressor, or cultural manifestations in the context of the organization of that society and how and who rules it, still basically sees the world as "clashes of civilizations" even if they reject the racist conclusions others take from this same view.

[Blake's Baby]

...

Marxism analyzes history and society as the objective progression of class struggle. Our stance is defined by supporting the interests of the most progressive class, correct? Therefore we can say that the bourgeoisie are more progressive than feudal aristocrats, but the proletariat are the most progressive of them all because they alone have the unique position in society to abolish class antagonisms entirely.


So using these definitions, we can see which societies are progressive or reactionary...

We can see that, for instance, the USA or Isreal, which don't have a king, are more progressive than the UK or Sweden that do, you mean?

There are no 'progressive societies'. There have only been reactionary societies for a century now, because capitalism is no longer a social system that has any 'progressive' dynamic left. The Russian revolution was the first time that the working class posed the question of the overthrow of capitalism; since then, all capitalist states (ie, all states) have been reactionary because the capitalist class is reactionary. Only the working class is 'progressive' so only international proletarian revolution is 'progressive'. Anything else is lesser-evilism.

[hatzel]

Nothing in the OP has anything whatsoever to do with the correct definition of the phrase 'cultural relativism.'

[Comrade #138672]

Nothing in the OP has anything whatsoever to do with the correct definition of the phrase 'cultural relativism.'Can you explain the difference?

[Rafiq]

During my downtime I wrote some thoughts I was having on cultural relativism and Marxism down in my journal. I decided to share them with my comrades here so we could get some discussion going.


Marxism is based upon the class struggle. The revolutionary proletariat is the only class which can solve the contradictions of capitalism and transform society into a socialist one before contradictions of capitalism lead to the common ruin of all contending classes.


Marxism analyzes history and society as the objective progression of class struggle. Our stance is defined by supporting the interests of the most progressive class, correct? Therefore we can say that the bourgeoisie are more progressive than feudal aristocrats, but the proletariat are the most progressive of them all because they alone have the unique position in society to abolish class antagonisms entirely.

No, as this is obscure teleological, simplistic nonsense. Supporting classes on the basis of how "progressive" they are is a position only taken by petite bourgeois intellectuals, not by Communists. Certainly not by Marxists, as this in itself is nothing short of a moralist proclamation (We must support the more progressive classes is in itself a moral proclamation). A Marxist doesn't necessarily have to support anything, proletarian or otherwise. And, one of the reasons Marx supported the developments of capitalism globally was not because the bourgeoisie as a class were more progressive, but because capitalism itself was. He certainly didn't support it because he saw it as a necessary stage before we could enter some grand Utopia (communism, if you will). And, secondly, what is "progress"? Marxists understand that terms like "progress" are class-based and subjective, i.e. Progress for who?

I will say this shortly. As a Communist, Marx supported the developments of capitalism globally. What does this mean? Communism, as the embodiment of the interests of the proletarian class could only as a movement exist while the proletariat does. Marx didn't necessarily, you know, romanticize his support. Actually, his support for anything, actually, was more of a nodding of the head, i.e. A result of his understand of the complex and dynamic mode of production that was capitalism. To conclude this, Marxism does not emphasize the support of some kind of, universalist or objective progress. Marx supported Bourgeois progress, the progress of the capitalist mode of production which is in itself exclusive to capitalism, for reasons we can discuss, if you like.



So using these definitions, we can see which societies are progressive or reactionary. But according to cultural relativism, there is no way to judge the qualities of societies. All culture - values, norms, prejudices - are incomparable. No judgement can be made between a patriarchal slave society or a dictatorship of the proletariat, and if a society is one or the other, it is just as well because all cultures are, after all, relative. A government of the proletariat is equal to a government of the bourgeoisie. Is this not contrary to the Marxist position of societies gradually reaching higher stages through dialectic transformation?


Cultural relativism operates within the constraint of a devil called positivism, and it is certainly anti Marxist. Societies cannot be progressive or reactionary in an abstract sense, but they certainly can for example, be reactionary by bourgeois standards, or by the standards of capital. The problem with the cultural relativism you describe is that it merely seeks out to discover characteristics and features of cultures, without making any attempt to understand the origins of such cultural characteristics, which are inherently super structural. So yes, they are comparable, only through the lense which is historical materialism, though.


At first glance cultural relativism seems to be a leftist position because it runs counter to the spirit of national and ethnic chauvinism, but it can also work as an enabler for reactionary elements. If a society treats women like property, it is none of our business. All ethics are particular to each culture and the best we can do is attempt to study them without making any value-judgements. But Marx summed up what our position should be quite nicely, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it." As Marxists our goals should be to recognize the progressive forces in society and support them against the reactionary.


That isn't what cultural relativism amounts to. It's not that it's "none of our business", according to cultural relativists, but that, such a society can't be compared with ours, since it developed differently geographically, socially, etc. Of course, this isn't a Marxist position, as it is positivist (idealist) in nature and does not explain the origins of such existing cultures.



Another issue is that cultural relativism dulls the urge to act within one's own society. Prostitutes, drug addicts, gangsters - these are no longer defects of the capitalist system, but merely different cultures that must be taken for what they are. Sometimes a nod is made in academia toward economic situations being a contributing factor, but greater emphasis is placed on the cultural aspect, of which there is no real revolutionary content to be found in the relativist analysis.


What is a culture? Is the culture of the lumpenproletariat something existent? If it is, the point isn't to deny it's existence, but to demonstrate the origins of such a culture, i.e. the capitalist mode of productions. What if the culture of the lumpenproletariat is a defect of the capitalist mode of production? Of course this is a bit shaky. For one, there has been debate as to whether the lumpen proletariat can be defined as an objectively existing class with definite class interests, rather than marginalized parties in the class war.


All this considered, it seems to me that cultural relativism is un-Marxist at best, anti at worst. What do you comrades think?


Un-Marxist. Hope I helped.