My problems with the Marxist historical narrative

[Ranting Madman]

[TL;DR AT BOTTOM!]

Hi guys,

To be open with you from the beginning, I am not a Marxist, and I cannot identify with the Left in general for various reasons. As I understand it, this is therefore the only appropriate place in the forum for me to raise discussion. That's fair enough - I look forward to having some good discussions here with people of a different opinion.

POINT 1

I believe one weakness of Marxism is that it is a product of its time. I think that many of the so-called defining features of Marxism are shared by the various theories that preceeded it - compare, for example, the economic determinism of Marx with the Stadial Theory of Adam Smith (and even earlier forms in Pufendorf and Grotius). Marx's concept of economic development is very similar - essentially with an extra stage stuck on at the end to reflect the world of Marx's time. From the start, Marx is not particularly novel, but rather draws upon existing (and supposedly bourgeoisie) ideology.

Just like Smith and Pufendorf, Marx writes back the economic world of his own time into the past. I think one key example of this is reducing the 'feudal' stage to such a limited timespan, and viewing it as being in stark contrast to the 'commercial' stage. The thing is, most core economic tenants of feudalism have existed in some form from the dawn of agriculture. Ignoring the particulars of medieval law, feudalism as a means of social organization was the dominant order in ancient Gaul just as truly as it was in medieval France, and indeed post-Revolutionary France. In the so called ancient trading empires of the Phoenicians and the like, commerce remained the icing on the cake for what was a hugely rural, subsistence population. Yet Marx was influenced by a culture of historical study which emphasised the differences of various times and peoples, while ignoring the far greater similarities. Thus, Marx's entire narrative of economic progression through cultures and ages is fundamentally flawed - yet seemed to make sense given the radical economic change that industrialisation brought in his own time.

POINT 2

I also believe that the solution of socialism is something of a reactionary outburst against the existing order of Marx's time. Working from his premise that all social relations were a product of bourgeoisie forms of production, Marx concludes that all existing social relations must be utterly destroyed and allowed to grow anew from a less anti-social means of production.

And I believe the reactionary sentiment is a result of Marx losing his philosophical roots - he can see the injustices of the existing system, but has no real concept of what society should be like, and thus advocates the exact opposite of bourgeoisie economic life, yet an acceleration of its social impact (see the perhaps tongue-in-check dialogue between the imaginary bourgeoisie and proletarian in the Manifesto, where the bourgeoisie levels at the proletarian the various social ills of communism, only for the proletarian to take pride in it, and point out that capitalism started those trends in the first place!). Marxist morality is thus less a disavowal of bourgeoisie morality, than it is an extension of it.

POINT 3

I think this also reveals a conflict in Marx. On the on hand there were his more idealistic earlier years, when he sought a philosophical grounding by rather abstract discussions on what humanity and society are. On the other hand there is the more scientific and strictly materialistic socialism of his later years. I believe that his scientific socialism was an attempt to explain the loss of a pure humanity he once described - to explain how this pure man, who is by nature neither alienated nor oppressed, could spawn from himself a form of social relations that is inherently destructive to his own humanity. And from there Marx claims we have the whole story of increasing alienation as man supposedly strives towards 'self-actualization'. Of course, in pursuing this strictly materialistic path of scientific socialism, Marx abandons the abstract quality of humanity that it was intended to explain in the first place, instead extrapolating it from material forces.

TL;DR

For those who can't face such a wall of text, I summarise the weaknesses of Marxism as thus, and for reference, the above post is divided into the same three points:

1. Marx's historical narrative was not particularly novel, but it was highly flawed due to the tendency of historians to emphasise the differences rather than similarities between ages and peoples, and Marx's tendency to write his contemporary experiences back into history.
2. Socialism/Communism as a solution to capitalism are in Marxist theory highly reactionary and defined either purely in opposition to the capitalist order, or as an extension of capitalism's social revolution - with scientific socialism/communism lacking any philosophical foundations of their own.
3. There is a necessary conflict between Marx's notion of an abstract humanity from which all society flows; and his strictly materialistic 'scientific socialism' by which he documents the 'fall of man'.

[argeiphontes]

I believe one weakness of Marxism is that it is a product of its time.


To paraphrase somebody I don't remember, "Marxism remains the explanatory philosophy of our time." Everything is a product of its time, it doesn't make sense to say anything else. But that might be Marxism on my part ;) The details of capitalism may have changed since Marx's time, but the fundamental structure remains, so to say it's no longer relevant is simply not correct, and only possible with a very superficial analysis. You can dress yourself however you want, but you're still an animal. (Perhaps a vicious one ;) )

The value of Marx is in the historical materialist analysis of social relations and change. (I don't have much to say about dialectical materialism but that's just my opinion or lack of knowledge on the subject.) Last I checked, Marxism was a living tradition and not a religion, even though some people might treat it that way. The idea that people and their relations are (at least partially) determined by the material and social environments in which they're embedded remains a fundamental insight for social thought, just like Darwinism is to biology.



Marx concludes that all existing social relations must be utterly destroyed and allowed to grow anew from a less anti-social means of production.


That's great, because I share that opinion ;) If the world has changed, it's because people have changed it. Why not change it in a self-conscious manner rather than the truly 'reactionary' (in the sense you're using it) actions of the past. Marxism is in some sense freedom from the knee-jerk history of the past.

I don't mean any of this post in an offensive tone, and I hope I'm not coming across that way (it's words on a a page), but if you'd like to criticize Marx you're a little late to the party. Theory is going to change based on philosophy and empirical investigation, but the fundamental insights can remain. Marx understood that the practical implications of his theories are going to be subject to revision. If somebody reifies it as the word of god, they're missing the point. And not being Marxist IMO ;)

[Ranting Madman]

argeiphontes, you made a respectful and thoughtful post, how could I be offended? :)

Of course, I realise Marx has been critiqued often enough. I am here to offer my critique (as far as a forum post can be called that, lol) and discuss it with Marxists.


To paraphrase somebody I don't remember, "Marxism remains the explanatory philosophy of our time." Everything is a product of its time, it doesn't make sense to say anything else.

What I mean to say is that the Marxist attempt to explain history is fundamentally flawed, and has some pretty fundamental errors within it. For example, I think there is a lot of good reason to question the standard Marxist model for the economic development of society from Primitive-Feudal-Commercial-Industrial. If Marxism is shown to be wrong in these regards, then it fails as an "explanatory philosophy". It is also good reason to question the many predictions Marxism makes.


The value of Marx is in the historical materialist analysis of social relations and change.

I am in complete agreement here, and think that the material analysis is essential to historical study - I would say this remains Marx's greatest contribution to intellectual thought.


If the world has changed, it's because people have changed it. Why not change it in a self-conscious manner rather than the truly 'reactionary' (in the sense you're using it) actions of the past. Marxism is in some sense freedom from the knee-jerk history of the past.

As the young Marx realised, I think this is where having strong philosophical roots is essential. What we want society to be, how we want to live our lives - these are major issues which must rest upon the concept we have of our humanity. What sort of life is fitting for our nature as human beings? What sort of society fulfils those social interactions that we crave as a species?

The direction we seek therefore has to have a solid grounding in these ideals. This is also IMO where Marx is at his best - his concept of alienation, the quest for self-actualization as a species - unfortunately, these seem to have been lost in his more dogmatic notion of 'scientific socialism'.

I would also disagree with you when you say that Marxism offers us more freedom in determining our future as a society. Remember, Marxism is strictly deterministic - proletarian revolution is regarded as a necessary consequence of the nature of the capitalist system. Human will is entirely subject to the material forces that not only guide it, but mould it from scratch.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

1. "Marxism is a product of its time." Of course it is a product of its time, welcome to the first lesson of historical materialism! Marx drew from bourgie sources but in the end totally destroys their schools of thought from Hegel to Smith. Marx recognized that elements of feudal society, even of capitalist society can be found throughout the ages. The last chapters of Capital Vol. 1 is basically describing how capitalism grew within fuedal society. I don't know how long of a lifespan Marx gave feudalism though, I don't particularly think it matters much to me ideologically as a Marxist if Marx didn't get that right though. If you're right(I'm just going to give you the benefit of the doubt here) and he just sloppily took bourgie people like Smith to heart without looking into it himself it just shows a personal defect. Maybe if Marx utilized his own theory of history and gotten down to the actually existing conditions that existed during those times between people he would have realized the dominating social organization/mode of production during whatever time you're referencing were feudalist. If only Marx was more of a Marxist right?

2. How are you using the word reactionary? What do you mean by it? Because I think we have a very different definition. And I think you fundamentally misunderstand what Marx is getting at in that "tongue and cheek" section of the Manifesto. He's showing the irony and hypocrisy of capitalistic arguments against a communist mode of production. For example he shows that individualism has at its core bourgoeis private property, thus it being ironic and hypocritical for them to charge that individuality will be destroyed in communism when by their own logic they've ripped 9/10 people of their individuality. Now by extension of that logic Marx would be advocating taking away all individuality, but Marx's thought isn't an extension of bourgoeis morality.

3. I don't even see a conflict here. Marx was more into writing philosophy at first or something, I never get this young/old Marx divide people have. The way I see it people have to start somewhere, lay down foundations, and his writings on alienation don't contradict his later writings I don't think, seems more of a refocusing in his own life.

[Marxaveli]

Hello,


It is also good reason to question the many predictions Marxism makes.

Except Marxism doesn't make any predictions (other than that capitalism will eventually fall due to its inherent contradictions, and it will - whether socialism replaces it or not is another matter) - and this is one of the problems: that people somehow interpret Marx as being some fortune teller or 19th century Nostradamus. Marx was not in the business of making predictions - he wanted to understand capitalism in the most objective, comprehensive and scientific way possible. And it would be based on this analysis that the working class would use to both understand and want socialism, as well as why it is necessary. For Marx, the necessity of socialism is based on an understanding of how capitalism works.

Marxism is a mode of analysis for the historical development of humanity, and the social relationships under capitalism, not a system used to predict the future. That was left for the utopian socialists, whom Marx was highly critical of for good reasons.


I would also disagree with you when you say that Marxism offers us more freedom in determining our future as a society. Remember, Marxism is strictly deterministic - proletarian revolution is regarded as a necessary consequence of the nature of the capitalist system. Human will is entirely subject to the material forces that not only guide it, but mould it from scratch.

Marxism is a science, and therefore isn't deterministic (though it can certainly be used, like anything else, in a such a way - of course it shouldn't be). Or, at the very least, it is certainly much less deterministic than bourgeois rationality: "capitalism is the natural order of things, and there is no alternative"......it is also much less deterministic than any religious doctrine, which usually have a very narrow and cynical view of the human species (such as 'original sin'). It is no more deterministic than Darwin's theory of evolution, though as stated before, any theoretical framework can be taken and vulgarized/misused by individuals with power to justify their power and worldview of things. This is essentially what Stalin did with Marxism, and what Hitler did with Darwinism. But we don't blame or discredit the theories for this.

Lastly, proletarian revolution is indeed a necessary consequence of capitalist social relations. But that doesn't make Marxism deterministic, because there is a difference between "necessary" and "inevitable". Marx said the former.

[Ranting Madman]

1. "Marxism is a product of its time." Of course it is a product of its time, welcome to the first lesson of historical materialism! Marx drew from bourgie sources but in the end totally destroys their schools of thought from Hegel to Smith. Marx recognized that elements of feudal society, even of capitalist society can be found throughout the ages. The last chapters of Capital Vol. 1 is basically describing how capitalism grew within fuedal society. I don't know how long of a lifespan Marx gave feudalism though, I don't particularly think it matters much to me ideologically as a Marxist if Marx didn't get that right though. If you're right(I'm just going to give you the benefit of the doubt here) and he just sloppily took bourgie people like Smith to heart without looking into it himself it just shows a personal defect. Maybe if Marx utilized his own theory of history and gotten down to the actually existing conditions that existed during those times between people he would have realized the dominating social organization/mode of production during whatever time you're referencing were feudalist. If only Marx was more of a Marxist right?

2. How are you using the word reactionary? What do you mean by it? Because I think we have a very different definition. And I think you fundamentally misunderstand what Marx is getting at in that "tongue and cheek" section of the Manifesto. He's showing the irony and hypocrisy of capitalistic arguments against a communist mode of production. For example he shows that individualism has at its core bourgoeis private property, thus it being ironic and hypocritical for them to charge that individuality will be destroyed in communism when by their own logic they've ripped 9/10 people of their individuality. Now by extension of that logic Marx would be advocating taking away all individuality, but Marx's thought isn't an extension of bourgoeis morality.

3. I don't even see a conflict here. Marx was more into writing philosophy at first or something, I never get this young/old Marx divide people have. The way I see it people have to start somewhere, lay down foundations, and his writings on alienation don't contradict his later writings I don't think, seems more of a refocusing in his own life.

1. In providing an objective, scientific analysis of history, you have to transcend the norms and biases of your own time as far as you can - I question to what extent Marx achieved this.

I would also say that in questioning Marx's theory of economic determinism, I do far more than quibble about some minor historic detail. The whole notion of economic determinism is based around the idea of society progressing through several ordered stages of economic development, of which industrialisation is (or at Marx's time, was) the latest. If it should turn out, that, in fact there is no clear line historic outline showing the development of feudal, commercial, and even industrial modes of production; but that in fact all have coexisted in similar quantities for the greater part of human history - then you can see this greatly changes the Marxist narrative. The Industrial Revolution ceases to be the latest stage in an on-going process, but instead something of a quirk, a historic anomaly. It goes without saying how such thought would make a radical shift with standard Marxism.

2. By reactionary, I mean reactionary with a small "r", if that helps. Socialism/Communism seem to be to be a direct reaction against capitalism. They are defined entirely by their opposition to capitalism, their entire outlook on history is essentially that it is all one big lead-up to capitalism. In doing so, I think socialists lack any real philosophical roots of their own. They oppose bourgeoisie society, but seem to provide no real answers on how society ought to be - all they know is it involves abolishing anything remotely 'bourgeoisie'.

3. The problem is you say he had to lay down foundations. And he did do that with his concept of alienation etc - the problem is he abandoned these in his pursuit of scientific socialism. The notion of alienation rests on an inherent humanity which requires fulfilment, something independent of external material realities. Scientific socialism, on the other hand, asserts that man is defined by economic (and by extension social and political) relations. That is the conflict.


Except Marxism doesn't make any predictions (other than that capitalism will eventually fall due to its inherent contradictions, and it will - whether socialism replaces it or not is another matter) - and this is one of the problems: that people somehow interpret Marx as being some fortune teller or 19th century Nostradamus. Marx was not in the business of making predictions - he wanted to understand capitalism in the most objective, comprehensive and scientific way possible. And it would be based on this analysis that the working class would use to both understand and want socialism, as well as why it is necessary. For Marx, the necessity of socialism is based on an understanding of how capitalism works.

Marxism is a mode of analysis for the historical development of humanity, and the social relationships under capitalism, not a system used to predict the future. That was left for the utopian socialists, whom Marx was highly critical of for good reasons.

Regarding the bit in bold - you say Marxism makes no predictions, only to follow up by noting that it does in fact make one of the most dramatic predictions in history!

I would also add that you cannot separate this prediction from Marx's historical analysis. He says that the collapse of the capitalist system is a necessary consequence of its very nature, which was in turn something rooted in its historical development.

If capitalism hasn't collapsed in such a way (and lets face it, it has not, at least not in the way Marx thought it would), then Marx's historic analysis must have been fundamentally flawed. Somewhere, somehow, he has misunderstood the nature of the beast.


Marxism is a science, and therefore isn't deterministic (though it can certainly be used, like anything else, in a such a way - of course it shouldn't be). Or, at the very least, it is certainly much less deterministic than bourgeois rationality: "capitalism is the natural order of things, and there is no alternative"......it is also much less deterministic than any religious doctrine, which usually have a very narrow and cynical view of the human species (such as 'original sin'). It is no more deterministic than Darwin's theory of evolution, though as stated before, any theoretical framework can be taken and vulgarized/misused by individuals with power to justify their power and worldview of things. This is essentially what Stalin did with Marxism, and what Hitler did with Darwinism. But we don't blame or discredit the theories for this.

Lastly, proletarian revolution is indeed a necessary consequence of capitalist social relations. But that doesn't make Marxism deterministic, because there is a difference between "necessary" and "inevitable". Marx said the former.

Of course Marxism is deterministic - is not the course of history, the nature of society, and the life of the individual, subject to material realities? That for me is determinism. Whether or not religion or Darwinism might also be deterministic is irrelevant - let everything be treated for what it is in its own right.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

If it should turn out, that, in fact there is no clear line historic outline showing the development of feudal, commercial, and even industrial modes of production; but that in fact all have coexisted in similar quantities for the greater part of human history - then you can see this greatly changes the Marxist narrative. The Industrial Revolution ceases to be the latest stage in an on-going process, but instead something of a quirk, a historic anomaly. It goes without saying how such thought would make a radical shift with standard Marxism.
I think you're confusing Fuedal society with agricultural production. One has existed since the beginnings of the transition from nomadic lifestyles to settlement, the other characterises a period of history. Marx doesn't deny that agricultural production still exists in capitalism (it is necessary) but the economic relations of those engaging in agricultural production within capitalist society is different to those engaging in agricultural production in fuedal society.

In Fuedal society, peasants own/rent a plot of land and sell the produce they grow there in order to provide for themselves. In capitalist society, the vast majority of agricultural workers are wage workers. They don't own the land and don't sell the produce themselves and simply work for an alloted time in order to recieve a stripend to survive on. The owners of the land control all that is produced and sell it but very rarely engage in any labour themselves. This is a significant enough change in economic relations that marxism establishes them to be different historic periods.

Marx lived in a period of bourgeois revolutions. He saw the immense power that revolutions could achieve in changing the world forever. Germany went from a divided region of counties, duchies and kingdoms to a unified nation state that was amongst the most powerful economic and industrial places in the world. The basic economic principles established since the bourgeois revolutions remain today. He saw the proletariat as being the major force behind these revolutions and also saw that the interests of the proletariat lay not in accepting the wage labour of capitalism but in utilising its revolutionary potential (and the emancipating potential of modern technology) to overthrow the class system and live in a period of abundance for all rather than abundance for the few.

He didn't see it as inevitable and he never forecast a specific timeline or detailed outline of how this revolution would be enacted; he simply recognised the contradictions in the capitalist mode of production (the anarchy of markets, monopolies, crises etc) that would lead to inevitable conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. He chose his side, the proletariat, and detirmined that it could only ever throw off the shackles of capitalism by destroying the very conditions which predicate capitalism's existance, ie class society and the ownership of property being concentrated in the hands of a minority.

On another note, Marx's concepts of alienation and his analysis of the capitalist mode of production compliment each other rather than contradict each other. The proletariat is forever alienated in capitalism because it doesn't own or control that which it produces.

[Marxaveli]

I would also add that you cannot separate this prediction from Marx's historical analysis. He says that the collapse of the capitalist system is a necessary consequence of its very nature, which was in turn something rooted in its historical development.

If capitalism hasn't collapsed in such a way (and lets face it, it has not, at least not in the way Marx thought it would), then Marx's historic analysis must have been fundamentally flawed. Somewhere, somehow, he has misunderstood the nature of the beast.

Oh, but capitalism has already collapsed, MANY times in fact. The most notable of course, being in 1917, 1929 and 2008. The reason for its continued existence is the state itself, not because it isn't an intrinsically paradoxical system (it most certainly is, and has demonstrably proven so in a multitude of ways - by both Marxist theory and by history itself). If anything, Marx's historical analysis was pretty much right on the money (no pun intended). Capitalism's complete destruction hasn't come about yet, but Marx didn't put a date or time limit on this for obvious reasons. However, the contradictions within it, at some point, will become completely incompatible with one another, and it will reach a point where even the state cannot save it. In other words, it isn't a matter of if, but of when. As Marxists, we would prefer that be sooner than later, since the destruction of the system without socialist revolution could very well degenerate into something even worse than what we have now.

Now, you could argue that capitalism has proved more resilient than Marx had analyzed, and much of this is because he didn't take into account some of the factors that later Marxists observed, such as cultural hegemony, the ideological state apparatus, etc that helped/help contribute to bolstering the capitalist system. As well the creation of the so-called 'welfare state'. But arguing that capitalism is more 'clever' than Marx thought is an entirely different proposition from saying Marxist theory is entirely invalid. The fundamental tenets of his analysis of the social relationships under capitalism remain as true now as they were when Capital Vol.1 was being written, and so long as capitalism is the prevailing social order, Marxism will remain a valid and relevant system of analysis.


Of course Marxism is deterministic - is not the course of history, the nature of society, and the life of the individual, subject to material realities? That for me is determinism. Whether or not religion or Darwinism might also be deterministic is irrelevant - let everything be treated for what it is in its own right.

Comrade, the observation of existing social phenomena isn't deterministic. In the case of Marxism, the observation that people are constrained by the material forces of society. To say otherwise is in fact deterministic, since that would imply humans can change their social being on a mere whim, and very clearly, they cannot. In other words, you cannot "opt out of" capitalism for instance.

Darwinism not being deterministic isn't irrelevant, because in this case the same logic applies. Except in Darwin's case, the observable phenomena involves 'natural selection' and 'adaptation' as being instrinsic to the process of evolution. So are you going to say Darwinism is deterministic also? If so, then we clearly have a different definition of deterministic.

[ChrisK]

POINT 1

I believe one weakness of Marxism is that it is a product of its time. I think that many of the so-called defining features of Marxism are shared by the various theories that preceeded it - compare, for example, the economic determinism of Marx with the Stadial Theory of Adam Smith (and even earlier forms in Pufendorf and Grotius). Marx's concept of economic development is very similar - essentially with an extra stage stuck on at the end to reflect the world of Marx's time. From the start, Marx is not particularly novel, but rather draws upon existing (and supposedly bourgeoisie) ideology.

Just like Smith and Pufendorf, Marx writes back the economic world of his own time into the past. I think one key example of this is reducing the 'feudal' stage to such a limited timespan, and viewing it as being in stark contrast to the 'commercial' stage. The thing is, most core economic tenants of feudalism have existed in some form from the dawn of agriculture. Ignoring the particulars of medieval law, feudalism as a means of social organization was the dominant order in ancient Gaul just as truly as it was in medieval France, and indeed post-Revolutionary France. In the so called ancient trading empires of the Phoenicians and the like, commerce remained the icing on the cake for what was a hugely rural, subsistence population. Yet Marx was influenced by a culture of historical study which emphasised the differences of various times and peoples, while ignoring the far greater similarities. Thus, Marx's entire narrative of economic progression through cultures and ages is fundamentally flawed - yet seemed to make sense given the radical economic change that industrialisation brought in his own time.

Your point about Gaul is somewhat unfounded. While it is true that Celts and Germanic tribes engaged in social relations similar to feudalism, they are still different enough to warrant a distinction. While these people's both engaged in agriculture and rule by a leader, the similarity ends there. If I remember correctly, Celtic and Germanic land laws gave ownership of the land to whole community, not to the head of the society. What matters within Marx's framework is who owns the means of production.

Additionally, France after the revolution occupies a very interesting time in the history of class struggle. Since at least the time of the Medici banking family, the class that would eventually would become the bourgeoisie was in conflict with feudal rulers over who would hold political power. It was not until later that the bourgeoisie actually seized power.


POINT 2

I also believe that the solution of socialism is something of a reactionary outburst against the existing order of Marx's time. Working from his premise that all social relations were a product of bourgeoisie forms of production, Marx concludes that all existing social relations must be utterly destroyed and allowed to grow anew from a less anti-social means of production.

And I believe the reactionary sentiment is a result of Marx losing his philosophical roots - he can see the injustices of the existing system, but has no real concept of what society should be like, and thus advocates the exact opposite of bourgeoisie economic life, yet an acceleration of its social impact (see the perhaps tongue-in-check dialogue between the imaginary bourgeoisie and proletarian in the Manifesto, where the bourgeoisie levels at the proletarian the various social ills of communism, only for the proletarian to take pride in it, and point out that capitalism started those trends in the first place!). Marxist morality is thus less a disavowal of bourgeoisie morality, than it is an extension of it.

You seem to have misunderstood him. It is that they must be destroyed and not brought back. This is revolutionary and not reactionary.

He cannot see the future society because it is not here yet. That is fairly obvious.


POINT 3

I think this also reveals a conflict in Marx. On the on hand there were his more idealistic earlier years, when he sought a philosophical grounding by rather abstract discussions on what humanity and society are. On the other hand there is the more scientific and strictly materialistic socialism of his later years. I believe that his scientific socialism was an attempt to explain the loss of a pure humanity he once described - to explain how this pure man, who is by nature neither alienated nor oppressed, could spawn from himself a form of social relations that is inherently destructive to his own humanity. And from there Marx claims we have the whole story of increasing alienation as man supposedly strives towards 'self-actualization'. Of course, in pursuing this strictly materialistic path of scientific socialism, Marx abandons the abstract quality of humanity that it was intended to explain in the first place, instead extrapolating it from material forces.

Marx was rejecting philosophy as early as 1845. His lost his grounding in that idea extremely early.

Also, this talk about his early views derives from his Philosophic and Economic Manuscripts of 1844. These are his notes. Now I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want my notes published as my actual ideas, because I often change my mind or don't think something fully through.

[liberlict]

I'm not down with the periodisation of history either. I think capitalism has always existed, as well as socialism and feudalism. They just wear different clothes as technology develops.

[Tim Cornelis]

Just like Smith and Pufendorf, Marx writes back the economic world of his own time into the past. I think one key example of this is reducing the 'feudal' stage to such a limited timespan, and viewing it as being in stark contrast to the 'commercial' stage. The thing is, most core economic tenants of feudalism have existed in some form from the dawn of agriculture. Ignoring the particulars of medieval law, feudalism as a means of social organization was the dominant order in ancient Gaul just as truly as it was in medieval France, and indeed post-Revolutionary France. In the so called ancient trading empires of the Phoenicians and the like, commerce remained the icing on the cake for what was a hugely rural, subsistence population. Yet Marx was influenced by a culture of historical study which emphasised the differences of various times and peoples, while ignoring the far greater similarities. Thus, Marx's entire narrative of economic progression through cultures and ages is fundamentally flawed - yet seemed to make sense given the radical economic change that industrialisation brought in his own time.

The materialist conception of history holds that the material conditions, the base of society, shapes the superstructure. Insisting, then, that feudalistic-like social structures have existed in some form or another since the neolithic revolution in no way refutes that these structures were enabled by the material conditions. The Marxist position is not that history progresses in a neatly linear development of several stages. Rather Marx and Engels observed these stages, or modes of production, and argued their development was tied to the development of the productive forces. If we say that commerce had existed in ancient trading empires then we can say that this is only possible because of an advancement of the productive forces. We can infer this from the fact that you need a relatively large surplus of produced goods for trade to take commercial form.


I also believe that the solution of socialism is something of a reactionary outburst against the existing order of Marx's time. Working from his premise that all social relations were a product of bourgeoisie forms of production, Marx concludes that all existing social relations must be utterly destroyed and allowed to grow anew from a less anti-social means of production.

I'm not sure about this. Must be destroyed in the sense Marx believed this to be favourable or must be destroyed in the sense this inevitably arises from a social revoltion?


And I believe the reactionary sentiment is a result of Marx losing his philosophical roots - he can see the injustices of the existing system, but has no real concept of what society should be like, and thus advocates the exact opposite of bourgeoisie economic life, yet an acceleration of its social impact (see the perhaps tongue-in-check dialogue between the imaginary bourgeoisie and proletarian in the Manifesto, where the bourgeoisie levels at the proletarian the various social ills of communism, only for the proletarian to take pride in it, and point out that capitalism started those trends in the first place!). Marxist morality is thus less a disavowal of bourgeoisie morality, than it is an extension of it.

I don't think Marxism is about advocating the exact opposite of bourgeois social relationships as if socialism is a matter of policy and conscious shaping. Marxism doesn't advocate, it describes the objective functioning of social structures and deduces predictions (in the form of hypotheses) from this. Marxism is also an amoral framework.


1. "Marxism is a product of its time." Of course it is a product of its time, welcome to the first lesson of historical materialism!

I don't think this is true though. If you claim to articulate a method of analysis that is objective it cannot be indebt to the zeitgeist of that particular time (in the same way that Newton's theory of gravity is not a "product of his time").



Except Marxism doesn't make any predictions (other than that capitalism will eventually fall due to its inherent contradictions, and it will - whether socialism replaces it or not is another matter) - and this is one of the problems: that people somehow interpret Marx as being some fortune teller or 19th century Nostradamus. Marx was not in the business of making predictions - he wanted to understand capitalism in the most objective, comprehensive and scientific way possible. And it would be based on this analysis that the working class would use to both understand and want socialism, as well as why it is necessary. For Marx, the necessity of socialism is based on an understanding of how capitalism works.

Marxism can very well make various predictions, in the same way scientists can predict how certain chemicals will react and then test it. It doesn't mean that these predictions or hypotheses, if proven wrong, prove Marxism wrong -- again in the same way that Darwin made wrong claims, which does not invalidate Darwinism.


Marxism is a science,

Marxism is scientific*


Lastly, proletarian revolution is indeed a necessary consequence of capitalist social relations. But that doesn't make Marxism deterministic, because there is a difference between "necessary" and "inevitable". Marx said the former.

Is that true though? Necessary implies normative conclusions, which wouldn't really be scientific.



I would also say that in questioning Marx's theory of economic determinism, I do far more than quibble about some minor historic detail. The whole notion of economic determinism is based around the idea of society progressing through several ordered stages of economic development, of which industrialisation is (or at Marx's time, was) the latest. If it should turn out, that, in fact there is no clear line historic outline showing the development of feudal, commercial, and even industrial modes of production; but that in fact all have coexisted in similar quantities for the greater part of human history - then you can see this greatly changes the Marxist narrative. The Industrial Revolution ceases to be the latest stage in an on-going process, but instead something of a quirk, a historic anomaly. It goes without saying how such thought would make a radical shift with standard Marxism.

I don't think this is relevant at all. It does not refute that the material conditions shape the superstructure, it does not refute the materialist conception of history. The precondition for feudalism is still the existence of an agricultural society, the precondition for commerce is still some kind of proto-industrialisation enabling larger surplus of goods to be exchanged and traded, and industrialisation still has particular implications for the totality of social relations in society. It's irrelevant that society does not progress through a perfectly linear development of described stages.


2. By reactionary, I mean reactionary with a small "r", if that helps. Socialism/Communism seem to be to be a direct reaction against capitalism. They are defined entirely by their opposition to capitalism, their entire outlook on history is essentially that it is all one big lead-up to capitalism. In doing so, I think socialists lack any real philosophical roots of their own. They oppose bourgeoisie society, but seem to provide no real answers on how society ought to be - all they know is it involves abolishing anything remotely 'bourgeoisie'.

An ought is not scientific, so that would fall outside the realm of Marxism. What Marxism would be able to do is predict what social relations would emerge post-capitalism -- an incredibly difficult exercise. But socialists of various strands have described what they advocate and how a future socialist society could, would, or should function.



If capitalism hasn't collapsed in such a way (and lets face it, it has not, at least not in the way Marx thought it would), then Marx's historic analysis must have been fundamentally flawed. Somewhere, somehow, he has misunderstood the nature of the beast.

But nowhere does Marxism profess that capitalism will have collapsed before the year 2013, so I don't see this as relevant at all.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm not down with the periodisation of history either. I think capitalism has always existed, as well as socialism and feudalism. They just wear different clothes as technology develops.

In which case you're misunderstanding what is being discussed. It's not about individual behaviour, it's about systems. 'Owners' and 'waged workers' existed in Antique Slavery; slavery exists in advanced capitalism. But in Antique Slavery, 'capitalist relations' (workers paid wages by owners who expropriated their surplus labour) were not generalised; in advanced capitalism, 'slavery' (the owning of one person by another) is not generalised. No one is claiming these things don't or have not existed, but the dominant form of production - the main productive system - in any period is what defines it.

[Thirsty Crow]

In which case you're misunderstanding what is being discussed. It's not about individual behaviour, it's about systems. 'Owners' and 'waged workers' existed in Antique Slavery; slavery exists in advanced capitalism. But in Antique Slavery, 'capitalist relations' (workers paid wages by owners who expropriated their surplus labour) were not generalised; in advanced capitalism, 'slavery' (the owning of one person by another) is not generalised. No one is claiming these things don't or have not existed, but the dominant form of production - the main productive system - in any period is what defines it.
Precisely.

When radicals speak of capitalism, they speak of generalized wage labor as the most important and widespread way of organizing labor across society, among other things (this is the side of the reproduction of the form of labor power in its activity; other sides include the social form of the product, the kind of appropriation, the kind of imperatives arising from these sides as they are really combined and active)

[Zanthorus]

I think this also reveals a conflict in Marx. On the on hand there were his more idealistic earlier years, when he sought a philosophical grounding by rather abstract discussions on what humanity and society are.

Whenever you want to make an assertion about what Marx thought, it is a good idea to provide textual evidence, given the controversial nature of Marxological exegesis. In this case the textual evidence seems to me to point in the opposite direction with regards Marx's ideas in the notebooks ("Above all we must avoid postulating “society” again as an abstraction vis-à-vis the individual.").

[Thirsty Crow]

I'll address OP's point 1.




POINT 1

I believe one weakness of Marxism is that it is a product of its time.... From the start, Marx is not particularly novel, but rather draws upon existing (and supposedly bourgeoisie) ideology.This seems to be the first objection under this point.

In the first place, the issue of novelty is simply not important. The crucial question is what kind of questions can be posed within a paradigm and whether it enables correct analyses.

Secondly, while Marx certainly drew upon existing works (Scottish school for example), it is not correct to say that the materialist conception of history is only a continuation of the former without any serious modifications.


Just like Smith and Pufendorf, Marx writes back the economic world of his own time into the past. I think one key example of this is reducing the 'feudal' stage to such a limited timespan, and viewing it as being in stark contrast to the 'commercial' stage. The thing is, most core economic tenants of feudalism have existed in some form from the dawn of agriculture. Ignoring the particulars of medieval law, feudalism as a means of social organization was the dominant order in ancient Gaul just as truly as it was in medieval France, and indeed post-Revolutionary France. In the so called ancient trading empires of the Phoenicians and the like, commerce remained the icing on the cake for what was a hugely rural, subsistence population. Yet Marx was influenced by a culture of historical study which emphasised the differences of various times and peoples, while ignoring the far greater similarities. Thus, Marx's entire narrative of economic progression through cultures and ages is fundamentally flawed - yet seemed to make sense given the radical economic change that industrialisation brought in his own time.

The questions here are:

1) what are these economic tenets of feudalism

2) what does "feudalism as a means of social organization" in OP's view mean, given that they think post-revolutionary France exhibited this (did it ever undergo a transition which eradicated this means of social organization)

And it would seem that the so called "writing back" of contemporary social-economic forms into earlier periods of history is precisely what Marx avoids (and theoretically insist on avoiding in The German Ideology for instance) by recognizing the peculiarities, specific and determining features of different kinds of social formations.

To briefly explain the contrast between tributary social forms and capitalism, the crucial difference lies in the generalization of wage labor as:

1) the only means of procuring the means of subsistence for the dispossessed

2) the generalized social form of labor activity

The direct appropriation of the surplus product implies a very different kind of society (legal freedom as opposed to forms of bondage, at the very least). But, of course, contemporary capitalism hadn't eradicated kinds of bondage relationships completely. But this is besides the point.

Anyway, it is entirely unclear, and a product of confusion, how this writing back occurred if the stress is on the differentiation and not homogenization (Marx's view is not teleological in that he postulates the purpose, telos, as less developed in feudalism but destined to bloom into capitalism).

[argeiphontes]

capitalism will eventually fall due to its inherent contradictions ... For Marx, the necessity of socialism is based on an understanding of how capitalism works.

For a good, modern analysis of this I'd recommend Beyond Capital by Istvan Meszaros. It talks about the limits of exploitation, which he divides into intensive (colonization of personal life) and extensive (the search for cheaper labor and natural resources).

The problem is, I'd rather not wait until the distant, Star Trek future for capitalism to collapse of its own contradictions, I'd rather break it now ;)

[argeiphontes]

If capitalism hasn't collapsed in such a way (and lets face it, it has not, at least not in the way Marx thought it would), then Marx's historic analysis must have been fundamentally flawed. Somewhere, somehow, he has misunderstood the nature of the beast.


That's not a flaw of Marx, it's just that capitalism isn't done yet. For example, there are still cheaper labor markets to exploit in Asia and Africa. There are still unused oil resources to dig out of the ground and land to pollute with the burned up results of this. Governments can still redistribute the wealth of the population to bailout the system. Maybe they could still 'colonize' another natural human quality into a consumer drive to sell back to us in degenerated form. It hasn't collapsed--for now but that can't last forever because it relies on increasing profit. Every Ponzi scheme has to collapse. The only problem for us is time.

edit: @Ranting Madman: After reading the posts in this thread, I'd hate to be on your side of the argument. Good luck, and welcome to ThunderDome. ;)

[Ranting Madman]

Guys, thank you for the thoughtful responses. I can assure you I have read them all, however due to the volume and length of the replies, I cannot offer a point by point response to each of you.

However, I will try to bring together the common threads and provide some sort of answer to the main objections.

@GiantMonkeyMan, ChristopherKoch, Tim Cornelis, Blakes' Baby, LinksRadical & argeiphontes...

The issue with feudalism and the periodization of history:

First off, I am of course aware that Marx uses this periodization in a general sense, and acknowledges that the various periods overlap, and make a relatively smooth transition from one to the next.

My criticism was not that he did not do this. My criticism was that even at a generalized level, I believe this periodization to be fundamentally flawed.

As far as I am concerned, the chief mode of oppression from the dawn of society has been the accumulation of the fruits of one man's labour by another. Whether or not this occurs in the form of feudal dues or direct commercial transaction is more an issue of semantics and tradition than it is economic organization - the reality of the transfer of wealth and labour remains the same.

I would also suggest that the feudal/commercial/industrial flavours of this arrangement have not shifted drastically across the ages, at least not until the industrial revolution.

Hence, IMO, the industrial revolution is less part of a gradual and long-term economic narrative, than it is a very particular event, a historical anomaly. As such, I think it is better explained as something that is somewhat independent of social and economic relations - by this, I mean technology. Technology has the potential to blow apart an entire historical narrative. However, I think Marx missed this point, and instead wrote his own experiences with technologically-inspired socioeconomic revolution back into history.

So, rather than a linear (in the general sense) progression from feudal to commercial to industrial forms of organization, you can see all of them at varying levels throughout human history - suggesting that a layered and cyclical model might be more appropriate than Marx's generalized one.

See, for example, the Latifundia estates of ancient Rome, or the textile industries of medieval Europe. And compare that to the relative stagnation through a reliance on subsistence farming in Europe well into the Industrial age, never mind the Commercial age.

@GiantMonkeyMan, ChristopherKoch & Zanthorus...

The conflict between Marx's philosophical ideas and his scientific socialism:

The whole notions of alienation, actualization, self-activity and the like come from an entirely abstract concept of human nature, do they not?

Now, while Marx aims at a scientific approach in his 'scientific socialism', he rests much of his critique of the existing order upon the damage it does to us by our human nature - something that is entirely abstract and subjective.

The conflict I speak of is not so much a contradiction, as it is the fact that he builds a house upon sand. A scientific critique based on a abstract, subjective, and in Marx's case, very vague principle.

I mean, look at the German Ideology, where Marx seems to struggle to find what exactly defines our humanity as something separate from the animals. At first suggesting that it might be the way we shape our environment, he concedes birds and beavers do the same. Then he suggests it may be that we produce through our environments, before conceding various animals do the same, bees I guess etc. Eventually, he settles for pretty fanciful and entirely un-testable answers - for example that humans do the above for beauty rather than survival. And from such roots he builds his concepts of alienation etc.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think that establishing philosophical roots is essential. The problem for me is that Marx is inadequate in this respect, and he seems to abandon any pursuit of a philosophical understanding of humanity when he goes down the route of scientific socialism. He seems to abandon his notion of innate humanity, and increasingly describes humanity only by the manner in which external factors (society, the economy etc) shape it.

@Marxaveli, Tim Cornelis....

The issue with the predicted fall of capitalism, and the determinism debate:

Firstly, the determinism thing - of course, I am not suggesting some sort of metaphysical determinism aka hard determinism (I would have posted a link, but am unable to do so), I simply said that future of humanity at the collective and individual level is subject to material realities. Since this is systematic rather than something that merely influences the individual will, I think it is fitting to call it determinism according to the most basic definitions of the term. For example, a basic google-given definition of determinism:

"The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will."

As for the fall of capitalism, of course I realise Marx never set a date on it. However, I think certain social changes have taken place that actually remove the preconditions Marx set for a proletarian revolution. And remember, according to Marx, capitalism was supposed to be spiralling out of control in such a way that it could not temper itself.

However, look at the Welfare State, look at the revolution in working conditions, free health care for most of the developed world, the explosion of the salariat.

Thus, capitalism tempered itself on some level (even if only by finding outlets elsewhere), and thus Marx's concept of capitalism has been shown to be perhaps more radical than the reality.

@ChristopherKoch...

The question of whether Marxism is reactionary:

I think you are attributing more to the meaning of the word than what I intended by it. I mean to say that Marxism is something of a reflex against capitalism, a reaction against it. While that is fine in and off itself, this issue is I said that Marx knows less of what he is for than what he is against. I do not mean Reactionary in the sense of yearning for a return to a golden prior age.

Still, I think any belief system should have its own basic tenants that are more than "anti-ideology x". I believe that Marx attempted to formulate these in his younger, more philosophical years, but abandoned them later on in his life.

[liberlict]

In which case you're misunderstanding what is being discussed. It's not about individual behaviour, it's about systems.

I don't believe in "systems" either. There are no systems of production, there are just individuals acting as they do at any given time. Capitalism is just what happens when people are left alone to go about their business. As well as communism and feudalism. All of these things have their place, which is why they've always existed.

[Blake's Baby]

...

The issue with feudalism and the periodization of history:

...

As far as I am concerned, the chief mode of oppression from the dawn of society has been the accumulation of the fruits of one man's labour by another. Whether or not this occurs in the form of feudal dues or direct commercial transaction is more an issue of semantics and tradition than it is economic organization - the reality of the transfer of wealth and labour remains the same...

No, it doesn't. Historical situations are specific. All you are saying here is 'class systems exist'. Yes, we know, they've known that since the Babylonian Empire. The point is, in different places and different times, the specifics of the class system are different. In feudal England, lords had customary rights to produce. This was the primary means of gaining resources - through 'taxing' the poor in various ways. Now, bosses don't 'tax' workers, they buy their labour-power paying them with money, and use the stock to turn a profit. This is very unlike the system in medieval England - the forms of economic organisation barely resemble each other at all. Almost the only connection is that one group produces for another, ie 'it's a class system'.


I don't believe in "systems" either. There are no systems of production, there are just individuals acting as they do at any given time. Capitalism is just what happens when people are left alone to go about their business. As well as communism and feudalism. All of these things have their place, which is why they've always existed.

Do you believe the proportions are always the same? Or do you believe that in some places and times, certain forms or modes of behaviour predominate?

[liberlict]

do you believe that in some places and times, certain forms or modes of behaviour predominate?

Of course, but only on a region by region basis, and not in any linear way, so it's not a particularly interesting observation.

[Blake's Baby]

Neither is the assertion that 'class societies are class societies' (I paraphrase). Something about how and why different class societies are different would be useful, thanks.