Did Karl Marx have doubts about his theory being put into practice?

[atheistpally]

I'm watching a german documentary on TV about war and revolutions throughout history, and the narrator just mentioned something about Marx that I think I have heard people say before (maybe even on this forum), namely that Marx had suspected that things could end badly if someone was to take his theories and put them into practice. The narrator then quoted him as once saying to his wife:
"Wenn das je passiert, dann verschwinden wir lieber."
(If that ever happens, we should disappear.)

Would he have been alluding to the potential for fascists to hijack and reinterpret his ideas in order to further their own agendas? Or did he actually have doubts about his own particular flavor of communism being feasible/practical in the real world?

If the latter, what specifically would have been at the root of such doubts?

[Tim Cornelis]

"Would he have been alluding to the potential for fascists to hijack and reinterpret his ideas in order to further their own agendas"

I'm guessing you mean that Bolshevism and Stalinism are "red fascism". This is nonsense. Fascism isn't a catch all phrase that you can use on anyone that's authoritarian to one degree or another.

And without original source, it's not very useful to speculate on the meaning -- we don't even know if it's an authentic quote. Considering how many fabricated quotes and hoaxes there are (think "revolutionary holocaust" quotes and whatnot) it'd be useful to find that out first. A quick google search brings up nothing of the sort.

[N. Senada]

Marx was not a pure theorist who lives in the magic world of abstraction.
Marx was himself a practical politician as his whole life stand as demonstration.
Any separation between marx theory and practice are nonsense.

As for any doubt about authoritarian derange, let's see what Engels had to say:


Originally Posted by Fred
They [the anti-authoritarians] demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

[oneday]

Karl Marx recanted communism on his deathbed and became a classical liberal.:grin:

[Hit The North]

Marx had a theory of how capitalism worked, its likely future and supercession, and an approach which placed class struggle at the centre of his interpretation. Beyond that, there is no distinctive Marxist theory of how to run society. Marx was famously reluctant to engage in the speculation common to 19th Century socialist as he realised that the future society would be determined by its future citizens, not by geniuses arrogantly drawing up blueprints for a future utopia.
...

[Tim Cornelis]

Hmm, I was just writing on the topic of 'blueprints', and this idea of "future society would be determined by its future citizens, not by geniuses arrogantly drawing up blueprints for a future utopia." Which is, in my view, just silly. And especially phrased in this way, which suggests a completely voluntaristic understanding of historical development: "we can't say what the future will look like, people'll just do whatever".

But anyway, I don't know why people say this and stuff like this when OP asks an entirely different question :confused:

[Hit The North]

Hmm, I was just writing on the topic of 'blueprints', and this idea of "future society would be determined by its future citizens, not by geniuses arrogantly drawing up blueprints for a future utopia." Which is, in my view, just silly. And especially phrased in this way, which suggests a completely voluntaristic understanding of historical development: "we can't say what the future will look like, people'll just do whatever".

But anyway, I don't know why people say this and stuff like this when OP asks an entirely different question :confused:

Well, the question was about putting Marx's theories in to practice. Which theories do you think the OP is referring to?

Meanwhile, to resist drawing up blueprints for the future is not the same as accepting a completely voluntaristic understanding of historical development. It is, however, an acceptance of the fact that voluntarism does happen, that historical circumstances are important for shaping the precise outcomes of struggles; and that the creative force of social change is living workers changing their material conditions and not theorists imposing their mental abstractions.

I'm not sure what you're objecting to.

....

[Tim Cornelis]

OP was asking whether Marx believed his ideas were bunkum. Your's and Senada's comment don't really address whether he did.

Actually 'reminds' me, there's two variations of objections to blueprints, the voluntaristic one (future generation will build communism however they want) and the deterministic (the material conditions dictate what communism will look like).


we will look at the workings of communist society in a fair amount of detail. We will look at the organisation of production, consumption, and administration in communism. For this purpose we also need to pre-emptively criticise some positions that may surface now and then in response to this outline of communist society. Namely that “material conditions” dictate what communism will look like, not texts or ideas. Ernest Mandel similarly argued that:

Aside from a few general remarks scattered through The German Ideology, Capital, The Critique of the Gotha Program and their correspondence, Marx and Engels did not develop any systematic views on the organisation of the economy immediately following the overthrow of capitalism. This was not an accidental omission but a deliberate abstention. The founders of historical materialism believed that it was not their task to formulate a ready-made schema of the future society because that society could only be the concrete result of the conditions in which it would appear.1

First we may notice something that should raise a red flag, namely the argument that this was a “deliberate abstention”. We see this quite commonly in Marxist exegesis of texts by Marx and Engels. Whenever they appear to have an underdeveloped theory on this or that subject, it is explained away as deliberate or intentional. Take for instance X (author), he penned an exhaustive book on the state from a Marxist perspective, drawing mostly from scattered comments by Marx and Engels on the state. He observed that they were predominantly focussed on states in revolutionary situations, not as they reproduce class society ordinarily, and argued that this was intentional, as states are more commonly in a state of transformation. As Y (reviewer) contested it “...” (anything lacking in Marx is brushed off as intentional). This is pseudo-deification of Marx. Does Mandel fall into the same trap? Was the abstention of a systematic view of communism deliberate? And if so, was Marx correct in doing so? Bertell Ollman argued that Marx planned to give exactly such a systematic description of communism, he wrote: “judging from an 1851 outline of what was to become Capital, Marx intended to present his views on communism in a systematic manner in the final volume.” I am not familiar with this 1851 outline and cannot personally verify if this is accurate. Additionally, Ollman provides a chronic distortion of Marx's vision of communism, so he may not be the best source on the topic.

Second, it does not seem very compelling. If communism arises from the material premises in existence, or “the concrete result of the conditions in which it would appear”, then it would seem possible to infer from these material premises what communism would look like. The “few general remarks” we find scattered in the works of Marx and Engels seem founded on a coherent vision of communism. How do we arrive at a coherent vision of communism? Can we arrive at such a vision? I think we can logically conclude yes. We can infer from the social dynamics of capitalist society a framework of a communist society. Marx and Engels identified tendencies in capitalism to produce the basis for its own transcendence/sublimation. The socialised character of labour would be harmonised with the method of appropriation. We know, then, that the communist mode of production is based on social ownership and directly associated labour relations. We also know that the basic economic problem persists, and that therefore the above mentioned arrangements need to confront the economic problem. We can work out the implications and requirements of communism to institute a viable society with an improved material standard of living and, certainly no less important, an improved quality of life. Bordiga correctly notes that “communism presents itself as the transcendence of the systems of utopian socialism which seek to eliminate the faults of social organisation by instituting complete plans for a new organisation of society whose possibility of realisation was not put in relationship to the real development of history.”2 The 'blueprint' we will present shortly is not this. It is not a post-capitalist society imagined on the basis of a timeless morality or rationality, it is simply taken the material premise advanced by capitalism transformed into communism, with the practical implications of this worked out: we have socialised production, socialised appropriation of socially created wealth and the social ownership for the instruments and resources to produce social wealth. Taken these as the basis for our society, we can then work out the practical requirements to enable such a society to function, and the institutions that would be required, on their turn, to implement it.

I have forgotten who said it, but a Marxist argued, in response to the claim that Marx had written very little about communism, that in fact all Marx's writings on capitalism are about communism.
A similar argument to Mandel's is put forth by Bertell Ollman. Citing Marx's famous “state of affairs” quote, he argues “There are also remarks which suggest that one cannot describe communism because it is forever in the process of becoming”. A complete misinterpretation of what Marx says of course—completely off the mark. Marx is here simply describing how communism arises from the material premises of capitalism, originating from its contradictions, and presenting itself as the resolution of these contradictions, which, once resolved, means the inauguration of the social appropriation of wealth on the basis of the social production of wealth, that is, communism. To say that this quote implies that communism is “forever in a process of being”, a vaguely spiritual interpretation, reveals profound ignorance in this respect of the Marxist understanding of capitalism. This because this one sentence contains the essence of communism as understood from a Marxist perspective.

Finally, there is an anarchist variation of the objection to blueprints—the most silly of all I should stress. This objection is that providing blueprints is “authoritarian” because it deprives a future generation from construing their own non-hierarchical society in accordance with their wills and wants. Now, authoritarianism is reduced to even the propagation of ideas and options. As if such blueprints would hold compulsion over future generations. They would be entirely free to adapt and adopt such blueprints or not. This akin to suggesting options in meetings or assemblies is “authoritarian” because it deprives the other attendees from arriving at their own conclusions without the influence of ideas. Any form of deliberation would be authoritarian.

But what is the value in describing a vision of communism anyway? Certain materialists will contend that visualising a future post-capitalist society is a meaningless excision. If, they insist, the material conditions determine the social structure of society in general and hence in particular the social structure of communism, the structure of communist society will simply be revealed after the successful completion of the world proletarian revolution. But simply because communism is prefigured in capitalism does not rebut challenges that it is infeasible, nor does it mean that communism is superior simply because it succeeds capitalism—something implicit in the synthesis dialectics of Classical Marxism (where a higher form arises by default through the joining of a thesis component and an antithesis component). By constructing a framework of communism inferred on the basis of the material premises of capitalism we can theoretically conclude whether communism is worth fighting for. If it turns out that communist society would be incapable of delivering a higher material and social standard of living compared to capitalism based on our exposition and discussion of communism, we will have to settle for humanising capitalism to the greatest extent possible and take its inherent internal contradictions for granted. A theoretical exposition of communist society is therefore far from trivial. Lastly, where utopian socialist schemes are drawn on the basis of will, reason, and morality, our description of communism is consistent with, as Bordiga put it, the real development of history, that is, with the material premises.

I also half-suspect that a lot of Marxists reject blueprints simply because they have mistaken the Marxist critique of utopian socialism for a general condemnation of comprehensive descriptions of future societies.

[Tim Cornelis]

OP was asking whether Marx believed his ideas were bunkum. Your's and Senada's comment don't really address whether he did.


we will look at the workings of communist society in a fair amount of detail. We will look at the organisation of production, consumption, and administration in communism. For this purpose we also need to pre-emptively criticise some positions that may surface now and then in response to this outline of communist society. Namely that “material conditions” dictate what communism will look like, not texts or ideas. Ernest Mandel similarly argued that:

Aside from a few general remarks scattered through The German Ideology, Capital, The Critique of the Gotha Program and their correspondence, Marx and Engels did not develop any systematic views on the organisation of the economy immediately following the overthrow of capitalism. This was not an accidental omission but a deliberate abstention. The founders of historical materialism believed that it was not their task to formulate a ready-made schema of the future society because that society could only be the concrete result of the conditions in which it would appear.1

First we may notice something that should raise a red flag, namely the argument that this was a “deliberate abstention”. We see this quite commonly in Marxist exegesis of texts by Marx and Engels. Whenever they appear to have an underdeveloped theory on this or that subject, it is explained away as deliberate or intentional. Take for instance X (author), he penned an exhaustive book on the state from a Marxist perspective, drawing mostly from scattered comments by Marx and Engels on the state. He observed that they were predominantly focussed on states in revolutionary situations, not as they reproduce class society ordinarily, and argued that this was intentional, as states are more commonly in a state of transformation. As Y (reviewer) contested it “...” (anything lacking in Marx is brushed off as intentional). This is pseudo-deification of Marx. Does Mandel fall into the same trap? Was the abstention of a systematic view of communism deliberate? And if so, was Marx correct in doing so? Bertell Ollman argued that Marx planned to give exactly such a systematic description of communism, he wrote: “judging from an 1851 outline of what was to become Capital, Marx intended to present his views on communism in a systematic manner in the final volume.” I am not familiar with this 1851 outline and cannot personally verify if this is accurate. Additionally, Ollman provides a chronic distortion of Marx's vision of communism, so he may not be the best source on the topic.

Second, it does not seem very compelling. If communism arises from the material premises in existence, or “the concrete result of the conditions in which it would appear”, then it would seem possible to infer from these material premises what communism would look like. The “few general remarks” we find scattered in the works of Marx and Engels seem founded on a coherent vision of communism. How do we arrive at a coherent vision of communism? Can we arrive at such a vision? I think we can logically conclude yes. We can infer from the social dynamics of capitalist society a framework of a communist society. Marx and Engels identified tendencies in capitalism to produce the basis for its own transcendence/sublimation. The socialised character of labour would be harmonised with the method of appropriation. We know, then, that the communist mode of production is based on social ownership and directly associated labour relations. We also know that the basic economic problem persists, and that therefore the above mentioned arrangements need to confront the economic problem. We can work out the implications and requirements of communism to institute a viable society with an improved material standard of living and, certainly no less important, an improved quality of life. Bordiga correctly notes that “communism presents itself as the transcendence of the systems of utopian socialism which seek to eliminate the faults of social organisation by instituting complete plans for a new organisation of society whose possibility of realisation was not put in relationship to the real development of history.”2 The 'blueprint' we will present shortly is not this. It is not a post-capitalist society imagined on the basis of a timeless morality or rationality, it is simply taken the material premise advanced by capitalism transformed into communism, with the practical implications of this worked out: we have socialised production, socialised appropriation of socially created wealth and the social ownership for the instruments and resources to produce social wealth. Taken these as the basis for our society, we can then work out the practical requirements to enable such a society to function, and the institutions that would be required, on their turn, to implement it.

I have forgotten who said it, but a Marxist argued, in response to the claim that Marx had written very little about communism, that in fact all Marx's writings on capitalism are about communism.
A similar argument to Mandel's is put forth by Bertell Ollman. Citing Marx's famous “state of affairs” quote, he argues “There are also remarks which suggest that one cannot describe communism because it is forever in the process of becoming”. A complete misinterpretation of what Marx says of course—completely off the mark. Marx is here simply describing how communism arises from the material premises of capitalism, originating from its contradictions, and presenting itself as the resolution of these contradictions, which, once resolved, means the inauguration of the social appropriation of wealth on the basis of the social production of wealth, that is, communism. To say that this quote implies that communism is “forever in a process of being”, a vaguely spiritual interpretation, reveals profound ignorance in this respect of the Marxist understanding of capitalism. This because this one sentence contains the essence of communism as understood from a Marxist perspective.

Finally, there is an anarchist variation of the objection to blueprints—the most silly of all I should stress. This objection is that providing blueprints is “authoritarian” because it deprives a future generation from construing their own non-hierarchical society in accordance with their wills and wants. Now, authoritarianism is reduced to even the propagation of ideas and options. As if such blueprints would hold compulsion over future generations. They would be entirely free to adapt and adopt such blueprints or not. This akin to suggesting options in meetings or assemblies is “authoritarian” because it deprives the other attendees from arriving at their own conclusions without the influence of ideas. Any form of deliberation would be authoritarian.

But what is the value in describing a vision of communism anyway? Certain materialists will contend that visualising a future post-capitalist society is a meaningless excision. If, they insist, the material conditions determine the social structure of society in general and hence in particular the social structure of communism, the structure of communist society will simply be revealed after the successful completion of the world proletarian revolution. But simply because communism is prefigured in capitalism does not rebut challenges that it is infeasible, nor does it mean that communism is superior simply because it succeeds capitalism—something implicit in the synthesis dialectics of Classical Marxism (where a higher form arises by default through the joining of a thesis component and an antithesis component). By constructing a framework of communism inferred on the basis of the material premises of capitalism we can theoretically conclude whether communism is worth fighting for. If it turns out that communist society would be incapable of delivering a higher material and social standard of living compared to capitalism based on our exposition and discussion of communism, we will have to settle for humanising capitalism to the greatest extent possible and take its inherent internal contradictions for granted. A theoretical exposition of communist society is therefore far from trivial. Lastly, where utopian socialist schemes are drawn on the basis of will, reason, and morality, our description of communism is consistent with, as Bordiga put it, the real development of history, that is, with the material premises.

I also half-suspect that a lot of Marxists reject blueprints simply because they have mistaken the Marxist critique of utopian socialism for a general condemnation of comprehensive descriptions of future societies.

[Hit The North]

OP was asking whether Marx believed his ideas were bunkum. Your's and Senada's comment don't really address whether he did.


The OP wrote: "that Marx had suspected that things could end badly if someone was to take his theories and put them into practice."

So I ask you again, which theories of Marx's do you think he doubted could be put into practice? If, indeed, he did.


Actually 'reminds' me, there's two variations of objections to blueprints, the voluntaristic one (future generation will build communism however they want) and the deterministic (the material conditions dictate what communism will look like).


And both have validity, don't you think?

...

[Tim Cornelis]

But mate, you're not answering or address his question! He's not asking which or what theories Marx wanted to put in practice, how he arrived at those theories, he's asking whether Marx doubted his own theories enough to flee from the area where they were going to be implemented. It doesn't matter which or what theories, did he doubt them? There's no evidence he did. That's the answer.

Neither have validity as they both ignore the dialectical interaction of base and superstructure.

[Luís Henrique]

Perhaps this is related to the famous quote, "I myself am not a Marxist".

More to the point, the Critique of the Gotha Program shows Marx worried about people misinterpreting his work, and deriving mistaken conclusions from that misreading.

Luís Henrique

[Comrade Jacob]

Karl Marx recanted communism on his deathbed and became a classical liberal.:grin:

But guyz; marks sed he wont a markists, remember?

[Comrade Jacob]

I don't think Marx said anything particularly about it. (except for people twisting it / misinteroperating it)

[Emmett Till]

But guyz; marks sed he wont a markists, remember?

It was a polemical statement against one of the first of that all too common species, the pseudo-Marxist. Here on Revleft and elsewhere.

The exact words were, I think (please correct me any Marxologists out there if Im getting this wrong)

"If this is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist."

[Comrade Jacob]

It was a polemical statement against one of the first of that all too common species, the pseudo-Marxist. Here on Revleft and elsewhere.

The exact words were, I think (please correct me any Marxologists out there if Im getting this wrong)

"If this is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist."

I know

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Even if he did, what does that change? This type of argumentation is wrong. It's the same thing that Christians say about Darwin, he doubted his theory of evolution in the end(he didn't of course, more made up lies) so we should all doubt it! But my opinion on the matter doesn't rest upon whether Darwin thought it was correct, it rests upon the fact that there's mountains of evidence totally independent from him that shows evolution to be real. If Marx had some doubts that's fine because I didn't become a communist because I had a thing for Marx, I became a communist because I find it to be the solution to the shitty capitalist system we have now. Marx just refined those views and gave them more structure, if he flipped on the issues I wouldn't blindly follow his lead because Marxism to me has never been about Marx. People change their opinions, Mussolini went from a socialist to a fascist, I wouldn't have just switched positions because le douche changed his mind.