Is the Marxist conception of practice irreconcilably opposed to personal liberty?

[Red Economist]

I need someone to go over this line of reasoning as I'm beginning to think that it shows Marxism cannot produce liberal societies (in the sense that the state leaves people alone- a quality independent of the existence of free markets).

I used to accept Marxism because I thought it was 'true', and a 'scientific' theory that was compatible with the kind of science I learned at secondary school (which I will call 'positivism' as it is based on testing a hypothesis and evidence etc, though I'm not 100% sure).

However, Marx in his famous quote, "philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it", was arguing against a static or passive conception of truth as the property of reason.

For Marxists, the criterion of truth is social practice. This has a massive confirmation bias (as pointed out by Karl Popper, who argued that Marxism was unfalsifiable) which means that you act on an idea without really knowing before hand whether it is true and will produce the expected results. This is important because the predictive abilities of Marxism as a philosophy of history rely on a system of logic with is assumed to reflect reality (dialectics and materialism).

Social practice acts as a 'laboratory' in which ideas are 'tested' against their results (through 'class struggle'). Consequently, Marxism measures truth by the success of an idea and Marxism therefore measures truth by 'power' (or freedom of action).

So, in other words, Marxism is not 'true' in a positivist sense, but is adopted because it reflects the "class interest" of the proletariat as a way of gaining power/freedom.

This kind of ringing alarm bells as clearly Marxism would clearly have some strongly 'totalitarian' leanings towards emphasizing the accumulation of political power as the extension of the 'freedom' of the working class.

Given this, I cannot therefore reasonably see how Marxism will produce a 'liberal' society (irrespective of the 'economic planning leads to totalitarianism' argument). Instead, it seems it will produce a totalitarian one as the measure of success of Marxist political theory is 'practice' in terms of the accumulation of political power by the 'proletarian' state.

Have I got this right?:confused:

[Hit The North]

In context, the claim made by Marx which finds its way to the end of the Thesis on Feuerbach, is not an epistemological claim. Rather it is a riposte to the Left Hegelians who believed that the root to changing society was developing a critique. Marx, on the other hand, is interested in establishing the role of practical, human, sensuous activity in transforming the world. In other words, he rejects theory as contemplation and instead insists that it must be a guide to action.

This is one of the reasons why Marxism is incompatible with positivism. Unless you hitch social theory to social practice there is no way to establish the truth of our propositions. On the other hand, positivism in the social sciences is predicated on an impossible objectivity by abstracting the 'scientific observers' (sociologists) from their identities as social agents.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I have to be somewhere in a while, so I will be quick - why do you think that more power for the proletarian (semi-)state means less individual liberty? The problem is that you're treating power as some disembodied corrupting thing. Whenever someone talks about "power", we have to ask "to do what? for whose benefit?". Socialists want the power to smash the old society and to suppress the counterrevolution.

I will address the epistemological points later.

[Loony Le Fist]

I need someone to go over this line of reasoning as I'm beginning to think that it shows Marxism cannot produce liberal societies (in the sense that the state leaves people alone- a quality independent of the existence of free markets).

I used to accept Marxism because I thought it was 'true', and a 'scientific' theory that was compatible with the kind of science I learned at secondary school (which I will call 'positivism' as it is based on testing a hypothesis and evidence etc, though I'm not 100% sure).

However, Marx in his famous quote, "philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it", was arguing against a static or passive conception of truth as the property of reason.

For Marxists, the criterion of truth is social practice. This has a massive confirmation bias (as pointed out by Karl Popper, who argued that Marxism was unfalsifiable) which means that you act on an idea without really knowing before hand whether it is true and will produce the expected results. This is important because the predictive abilities of Marxism as a philosophy of history rely on a system of logic with is assumed to reflect reality (dialectics and materialism).


To me Marx is useful to providing insight into the problem of how the capitalist system exploits people. That isn't to see his views are the end-all-be-all. At the end of the day, Marx was just another human being with flaws. He also was speaking to us from a different time. Nonetheless his criticisms of the capitalist system give us insight. However, I think there are more modern ways of seeing the problems that provide more details on the failures of a consumptionist system.

No political or economic theory can be as scientifically rigorous as say physics, biology or chemistry. That of course doesn't mean we can't use these tools to develop models that can help us answer questions about the political and economic sphere. You cannot separate economics from social structure, just like you cannot separate politics from it. Marx was not immune to being wrong.



Social practice acts as a 'laboratory' in which ideas are 'tested' against their results (through 'class struggle'). Consequently, Marxism measures truth by the success of an idea and Marxism therefore measures truth by 'power' (or freedom of action).

So, in other words, Marxism is not 'true' in a positivist sense, but is adopted because it reflects the "class interest" of the proletariat as a way of gaining power/freedom.

This kind of ringing alarm bells as clearly Marxism would clearly have some strongly 'totalitarian' leanings towards emphasizing the accumulation of political power as the extension of the 'freedom' of the working class.


Well it depends on how you interpret it. I see it more like a decentralization of power, so that no particular person has anything but the minimal necessary authority over another to ensure a functioning society. Authorities must either justify themselves, or be dismantled. Perhaps other's see it differently. It is up to us to develop strategies that fit our current world, and not the world of Marx.



Given this, I cannot therefore reasonably see how Marxism will produce a 'liberal' society (irrespective of the 'economic planning leads to totalitarianism' argument). Instead, it seems it will produce a totalitarian one as the measure of success of Marxist political theory is 'practice' in terms of the accumulation of political power by the 'proletarian' state.

Have I got this right?:confused:

I think this really depends on organization and centralization. The sad truth about power, is that it is inherently evil. The Stanford Prison Experiment comes to mind in which 60% of the people granted authority developed sadistic tendencies. In order to minimize that, decentralizing power, providing strong accountability, checks and balances are all necessary to ensure that totalitarianism does not ensure. And as you have stated before, this is an independent question from the economics.

In the end you get to decide what Marx meant, and what Marxism means to you. Marx opens doors for a lot of leftists. But that doesn't mean you should stop at him. I happen not to like the term "Marxism". He was a philosopher himself, and therefore he "only interpreted the world, the point is to change it."

I leave you with a quote from Pannekoek that I think sums things up.



Anton Pannekoek
Thus Marxism is not an inflexible doctrine or a sterile dogma of imposed truths. Society changes, the proletariat grows, science develops. New forms and phenomena arise in capitalism, in politics, in science, which Marx and Engels could not have foreseen or surmised. Forms of thought and struggle, that under former conditions were necessary must under later conditions give way to other ones. But the method of research which they framed remains up to this day an excellent guide and tool towards the understanding and interpretation of new events. The working class, enormously increased under capitalism, today stands only at the threshold of its revolution and, hence, of its Marxist development; Marxism only now begins to get its full significance as a living force in the working class. Thus Marxism itself is a living theory which grows, with the increase of the proletariat and with the tasks and aims of its fight.

[Tim Cornelis]

I need someone to go over this line of reasoning as I'm beginning to think that it shows Marxism cannot produce liberal societies (in the sense that the state leaves people alone- a quality independent of the existence of free markets).

I used to accept Marxism because I thought it was 'true', and a 'scientific' theory that was compatible with the kind of science I learned at secondary school (which I will call 'positivism' as it is based on testing a hypothesis and evidence etc, though I'm not 100% sure).

However, Marx in his famous quote, "philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it", was arguing against a static or passive conception of truth as the property of reason.

For Marxists, the criterion of truth is social practice. This has a massive confirmation bias (as pointed out by Karl Popper, who argued that Marxism was unfalsifiable) which means that you act on an idea without really knowing before hand whether it is true and will produce the expected results. This is important because the predictive abilities of Marxism as a philosophy of history rely on a system of logic with is assumed to reflect reality (dialectics and materialism).

Social practice acts as a 'laboratory' in which ideas are 'tested' against their results (through 'class struggle'). Consequently, Marxism measures truth by the success of an idea and Marxism therefore measures truth by 'power' (or freedom of action).

So, in other words, Marxism is not 'true' in a positivist sense, but is adopted because it reflects the "class interest" of the proletariat as a way of gaining power/freedom.

This kind of ringing alarm bells as clearly Marxism would clearly have some strongly 'totalitarian' leanings towards emphasizing the accumulation of political power as the extension of the 'freedom' of the working class.

Given this, I cannot therefore reasonably see how Marxism will produce a 'liberal' society (irrespective of the 'economic planning leads to totalitarianism' argument). Instead, it seems it will produce a totalitarian one as the measure of success of Marxist political theory is 'practice' in terms of the accumulation of political power by the 'proletarian' state.

Have I got this right?:confused:

Leaving aside whether your premise is accurate and your use of words like liberal and totalitarian, I don't see why you express power quantitatively and not qualitatively:

"This kind of ringing alarm bells as clearly Marxism would clearly have some strongly 'totalitarian' leanings towards emphasizing the accumulation of political power as the extension of the 'freedom' of the working class."

Why would 'accumulation of power' be sheer quantitative (as much power centralised) and not qualitatively (conquest of political power by the proletariat)?

[Red Economist]

Many thanks, as I am kind of answering my own questions at this point. Any extra help is welcome.



Hit the North
In context, the claim made by Marx which finds its way to the end of the Thesis on Feuerbach, is not an epistemological claim. Rather it is a riposte to the Left Hegelians who believed that the root to changing society was developing a critique.

Thanks. this has cleared it up a bit.



LooneyLeftist
The sad truth about power, is that it is inherently evil. The Stanford Prison Experiment comes to mind in which 60% of the people granted authority developed sadistic tendencies. In order to minimize that, decentralizing power, providing strong accountability, checks and balances are all necessary to ensure that totalitarianism does not ensure. And as you have stated before, this is an independent question from the economics.

This is something which has been on my mind for a while. Whilst 'fascism' tends to emphasis the role of irrational in politics, it is difficult not to be persuaded that the arbitrary exercise of power in "semi-socialist states", particularly the mass nature of organized terror, was more a product of an incomplete understanding of psychological motivations in Marxism.

Given that Marxism rests heavily on an emotive case for the class interests of the proletariat , the class struggle must necessarily ride on a tide of quasi-irrational psychological problems (e.g. the destructiveness of ideologically motivated fanaticism) which must to some extent form a part of the historical picture during a revolutionary period.
How far is organized terror the result of rational socio-economic clashes of class interest or is it the psychological irrationality at work in a system of class rule?

[I think I could answer my own question as I am assuming that 'economic' and 'psychological' are separate- which is idealist (in assuming separation of mind and matter), but would be still be good to know].



Criminalize Heterosexuality
why do you think that more power for the proletarian (semi-)state means less individual liberty? The problem is that you're treating power as some disembodied corrupting thing. Whenever someone talks about "power", we have to ask "to do what? for whose benefit?". Socialists want the power to smash the old society and to suppress the counterrevolution.

I'm still operating on the assumption of the state as the alienated power of society (as a ruling class). I feel deeply hostile to the 'state' as a threat to personal liberty, but 'liberty' (legal right) is not the same as 'freedom' (actual exercise of right).

In examining the class nature of the USSR and the other "communist" states of the twentieth century, how do we establish their class character? I know This is a problem thrown up because I'm using a 'positivist' philosophy instead of a Hegelian one; but if truth is discovered by practice, how do we "know" it will work [I]in advance and will produce the intended outcome of a proletarian state?

(Surely this approach of practice=truth poses problems from the perspective of economic planning as well? how can we plan economic activity in advance, when we are doing things ad hoc?)

I suppose what I'm getting at is that you can't know if socialism will produce a 'bureaucratic' deformation in advance if you discover truth through practice, how do you go about accepting this level of uncertainty?



Tim Cornelis
Why would 'accumulation of power' be sheer quantitative (as much power centralised) and not qualitatively (conquest of political power by the proletariat)?

The qualitative change between capitalism and communism is a revolutionary leap between two socioeconomically conditioned patterns of behavior.
I suppose I'm over-estimating the qualitative changes involved and it makes me conservative. This ignores the quantitative accumulation of changes in behavior as the result of the socialization of labor under capitalism probably because I still think like a bourgeoisie when it comes to 'human nature'.

[Rafiq]

Social practice breaths legitimacy into the idea, or forms it. But it is not the blank, empty, soon to be fulfilled idea that the proletariat fight for, it is the real fulfilment of their interests as a class, as individuals. In the struggle to conquer the state and exert their will, does the idea form. Ideas are not "tested" for that assumes the idea already exists and is waiting to be blessed by reality. Class struggle is not a means by which Communism is fulfilled, Communism is intregally a component of class struggle, a real existing phenomena inherent to the very essence of social relations (or the state which they exist). Social practice does not validate an idea, but produces one, or the PERSISTENCE of social practice, the unending movement of the reaffirmation of social relations ALLOWS the idea to exist, and validate itself. It is not so direct, but it is true. The point is simple: Social practice is not fulfilled with the intent on validating ideas, or fulfilling them, or ideas IN THEMSELVES (inseperable from real social forces)

[Hit The North]

This is something which has been on my mind for a while. Whilst 'fascism' tends to emphasis the role of irrational in politics, it is difficult not to be persuaded that the arbitrary exercise of power in "semi-socialist states", particularly the mass nature of organized terror, was more a product of an incomplete understanding of psychological motivations in Marxism.


But why do you assume that these states behaved or formulated policy that had anything to do with Marxism? Because they self-described as "socialist"? Somewhere, Marx warns us about understanding persons on the basis of their own opinion of themselves. The same is true of social institutions and the official declarations of political states. If it doesn't look Marxist and it doesn't sound Marxist, why assume that is Marxist?

This idea of "semi-socialist states" is pretty suspect as well.


Given that Marxism rests heavily on an emotive case for the class interests of the proletariat , the class struggle must necessarily ride on a tide of quasi-irrational psychological problems (e.g. the destructiveness of ideologically motivated fanaticism) which must to some extent form a part of the historical picture during a revolutionary period.
How far is organized terror the result of rational socio-economic clashes of class interest or is it the psychological irrationality at work in a system of class rule? You appear to picture the class struggle as something that happens inside marxism, rather than the opposite. It is capitalism - the actual existing relations of production - that makes class struggle necessary and gives it its character, not Marxism. Marxism is the best analysis of how capitalism works and what workers need to do in order to be free of it and realise their human freedom. But I think you pay it too much of a compliment to think that it can offer an all-encompassing psycho-social explanation of human behaviour. In fact, expecting Marxism to provide this plays into the hands of the "ideological fanaticism" that you are worried about.


I'm still operating on the assumption of the state as the alienated power of society (as a ruling class). I feel deeply hostile to the 'state' as a threat to personal liberty, but 'liberty' (legal right) is not the same as 'freedom' (actual exercise of right).
It's a safe assumption. When Marxists become advocates of states they are losing their way to a good degree. Marx argued that human beings cannot enter a realm of freedom until the state has disappeared. Therefore, the continuing existence of a state is almost a guarantee that this realm of freedom has not yet been achieved.


In examining the class nature of the USSR and the other "communist" states of the twentieth century, how do we establish their class character? We could examine the relationship between the state and the working class. Are the working class the direct rulers or are they ruled over in their name? Are they the masters over the means of production or is the means of production the master of the workers?


I know This is a problem thrown up because I'm using a 'positivist' philosophy instead of a Hegelian one; but if truth is discovered by practice, how do we "know" it will work [I]in advance and will produce the intended outcome of a proletarian state?
But even in positivism we don't know if a treatment will work until we have applied it and observed its result, so it's not clear to me what your objection is to the idea that all theory must be proved in practice. To me that sounds like a sensible and obvious rule for all science.



I suppose what I'm getting at is that you can't know if socialism will produce a 'bureaucratic' deformation in advance if you discover truth through practice, how do you go about accepting this level of uncertainty?
The future is undecided and uncertainty is built into the deal, so it has to be accepted. The alternative is a kind of madness. As for 'bureaucratic' deformation, if a society is rationally planned it will always be a potential danger. The point will be to maintain the utmost democracy in order that it does not become "the tail that wags the dog". Whether this happens or not will depend on the material conditions and social relations. I have every reason to suppose that technological solutions can be found to the problems of rational planning, especially in a post-scarcity society/communism which can eliminate the dangers of bureaucracy.

[Red Economist]

Social practice breaths legitimacy into the idea, or forms it. But it is not the blank, empty, soon to be fulfilled idea that the proletariat fight for, it is the real fulfilment of their interests as a class, as individuals. In the struggle to conquer the state and exert their will, does the idea form. Ideas are not "tested" for that assumes the idea already exists and is waiting to be blessed by reality. Class struggle is not a means by which Communism is fulfilled, Communism is intregally a component of class struggle, a real existing phenomena inherent to the very essence of social relations (or the state which they exist). Social practice does not validate an idea, but produces one, or the PERSISTENCE of social practice, the unending movement of the reaffirmation of social relations ALLOWS the idea to exist, and validate itself. It is not so direct, but it is true. The point is simple: Social practice is not fulfilled with the intent on validating ideas, or fulfilling them, or ideas IN THEMSELVES (inseperable from real social forces)

very eloquent. The idea is not before social practice, but the result of social practice. I swing between thinking like a liberal idealist and a Marxist materialist, so I miss the subtleties.



If it doesn't look Marxist and it doesn't sound Marxist, why assume that is Marxist?

because if it is a perversion of Marxist ideas or uses Marxist ideas to legitimize systematic repression, as Marxists we have a responsibility to prevent them being repeated if we truly want the proletariat to be free.

If it turns out we got it completely wrong, we should wrap the whole thing up so that we don't make the same mistakes twice. What makes me uncomfortable is this is impossible within Marxist ideology, since it is not a case of 'true' or 'false', but 'truth' and 'illusion'. It makes life more complicated. Yet bourgeois ideology could not do this either.


You appear to picture the class struggle as something that happens inside marxism, rather than the opposite. It is capitalism - the actual existing relations of production - that makes class struggle necessary and gives it its character, not Marxism. Marxism is the best analysis of how capitalism works and what workers need to do in order to be free of it and realise their human freedom.

I still treat (large parts of) Marxism as a 'theory' of social relations (hence my problem as I'm still working within liberal-social democratic ideology). Without a doubt it is the best analysis of how capitalism works, but I hesitate to cross the line to accepting it as true because of 'what went wrong' and how communist ideology was manipulated in to condemning capitalism for one injustice whilst maintaing the legitimacy of communism for doing the same thing. it is an emotional battle as much as an intellectual one.



But I think you pay it too much of a compliment to think that it can offer an all-encompassing psycho-social explanation of human behavior. In fact, expecting Marxism to provide this plays into the hands of the "ideological fanaticism" that you are worried about.

Well spotted. I'm an ex-fanatic who still feels the 'sting' of knowing I blindly accepted Marxism and overlooked the history of repression in the USSR, etc. finally reading up about it was not a pleasant experience.


But even in positivism we don't know if a treatment will work until we have applied it and observed its result, so it's not clear to me what your objection is to the idea that all theory must be proved in practice. To me that sounds like a sensible and obvious rule for all science.

I think to be honest, I'm using 'science' to cover up my moral apprehension. I would guess I'm projecting my own failings and sense of limitations on to the proletariat.


The future is undecided and uncertainty is built into the deal, so it has to be accepted. The alternative is a kind of madness. As for 'bureaucratic' deformation, if a society is rationally planned it will always be a potential danger. The point will be to maintain the utmost democracy in order that it does not become "the tail that wags the dog". Whether this happens or not will depend on the material conditions and social relations. I have every reason to suppose that technological solutions can be found to the problems of rational planning, especially in a post-scarcity society/communism which can eliminate the dangers of bureaucracy.

When Technology abolishes the division of mental and physical labor, the fundamental class antagonism will be abolished and the necessity of the state with it. I suppose Marxists have to treat "Stalinism" (for lack of a better word), the way liberals treat fascism; economically they have the same basis, even though politically they represent democratic and dictatorial forms of class rule.