monkeydust
6th February 2005, 18:41
I'm aware that many Communist, perhaps rightly, do not view their ideas simply as an "ideology" - in the sense of a set of normative values prescribing "how we should live" - but rather as a set of tools to understand the world, predict the path history is taking and, ultimately, where history will end up.
Supposedly, therefore, communism applies to anywhere where, broadly speaking, society is divided between the owners of capital and the workers. And that is, pretty much, everywhere.
Having seen recent threads regarding the Iraqi "Communist" Party, one might think that yes, the Marxist framework "fits" any society, that it does indeed apply universally wherever economic forces come into play.
But is this really the case?
Marx considered his "world view" to be objective, to apply anywhere and everywhere where the appropriate material conditions exist. But the Marxist's "objective" view of reality is itself undeniably a result of Western cultural ideas, traditions, beliefs and philosophies. Its claims to universality are undermined by its own cultural particularities.
To give one example, the Marxist conception of society posits a clear separation between two economic classes - the bourgoisie and the proletariat. Of course, you can take this and apply it to any economy if you will; but surely what is important when determining how a class will react (based on its "class consciousness") is not merely the observed existence of the class in economic terms, but rather the extent to which that class is actually perceived as a distinct entity by the members within it. The "working class", in this sense, is an entirely Western phenomenon. I find it hard to believe that the poor in, say, Iraq or Pakistan consider themselves "workers" in the way that westerners do and have done in the past.
To give a second example, the Marxist conception of reality relies on a few generally accepted premises that are themsevles, arguably, only Western particularities. One obvious such premise is the idea that everyone works, broadly, on the basis of self-interest. But can the large, interdependent families existent in parts of Asia be said to work on the basis of self interest in the sense that Westerners do? I'm not entrely sure.
To what extent do people here view this as a problem?
Is it the case that people in other parts of the world will inevitably come to abide by the Marxist "laws" of change?
Or is it instead true that Communism could encounter difficulty in applying to certain parts of the world because it is culturally a very much Western, certainly "developed world" ideology?
Thoughts?
Supposedly, therefore, communism applies to anywhere where, broadly speaking, society is divided between the owners of capital and the workers. And that is, pretty much, everywhere.
Having seen recent threads regarding the Iraqi "Communist" Party, one might think that yes, the Marxist framework "fits" any society, that it does indeed apply universally wherever economic forces come into play.
But is this really the case?
Marx considered his "world view" to be objective, to apply anywhere and everywhere where the appropriate material conditions exist. But the Marxist's "objective" view of reality is itself undeniably a result of Western cultural ideas, traditions, beliefs and philosophies. Its claims to universality are undermined by its own cultural particularities.
To give one example, the Marxist conception of society posits a clear separation between two economic classes - the bourgoisie and the proletariat. Of course, you can take this and apply it to any economy if you will; but surely what is important when determining how a class will react (based on its "class consciousness") is not merely the observed existence of the class in economic terms, but rather the extent to which that class is actually perceived as a distinct entity by the members within it. The "working class", in this sense, is an entirely Western phenomenon. I find it hard to believe that the poor in, say, Iraq or Pakistan consider themselves "workers" in the way that westerners do and have done in the past.
To give a second example, the Marxist conception of reality relies on a few generally accepted premises that are themsevles, arguably, only Western particularities. One obvious such premise is the idea that everyone works, broadly, on the basis of self-interest. But can the large, interdependent families existent in parts of Asia be said to work on the basis of self interest in the sense that Westerners do? I'm not entrely sure.
To what extent do people here view this as a problem?
Is it the case that people in other parts of the world will inevitably come to abide by the Marxist "laws" of change?
Or is it instead true that Communism could encounter difficulty in applying to certain parts of the world because it is culturally a very much Western, certainly "developed world" ideology?
Thoughts?