Marx

[tatu]

Would anyone say that Marx was "someone writing with an enormous sense of moral outrage against the workings of the capitalist system"?

Is the revolution inevitable? Or is it about "preconditions rather than of inevitable outcomes"?

I found the following argument against Marx in The Cambridge companion to Marx (ISBN 0-521-36625-9 - ISBN 0-521-36694-1 -PBK):

"First, if the replacement of capitalism by communism is a necessary event, there seems no point in anyone's lending a hand to the development, as such participation is likely to be risk and the outcome is inevitable anyway. But Marx himself felt moved to engage in political activity in support of the working class, an so must have felt that things were not as inevitable as this account would suggest. And of course, Marx was only the first Marxist to engage in political activism. Large number of Marxists subsequently followed suit and now regularly view political activism as a natural extension of their theoretical views".

He then goes on to say....

"I think that there is some kind of historical necessity in Marx's theory but it is not the sort that rules out an important role for free human action. The necessity is a necessity of preconditions rather than of inevitable outcomes".

Can anybody provide any views on the above quotations?

I found this (http://interconnected.org/matt/archive/james/Revolution.html).

[tatu]

I found the following quote:

"The group of political scholars and activists who formed the Second International were the first to attempt to 'work it out for themselves', and by doing so, tried to extend Marxism to include a coherent theory of mobilisation and revolution. Like you, they looked to Marx's work to provide a guide to how the war against oppression should be waged, and found only vague prescriptions for the tactics of the revolutionary leader.
On the most simplistic reading of Marx, the best thing you can do is to hope for, or even actively encourage, economic chaos. This is a kind of 'the worse, the better' school of Marxist thought, known as 'economism'. It believes that revolution is more likely as the conditions for the proletariat worsen. It is a very simplistic reading of Marx, based solely on the assertion that the contradictions of capitalism imply the revolution is inevitable. There is no role for a party under economism, as the revolution is brought on by economic, not political, factors. The economistic view clearly suggests that your revolution will be a violent uprising against capitalist oppression. It is important for you to note the simplicity of this view, and that it leaves several important questions unanswered, such as: How does the proletariat form a class consciousness? When does it realise the time is right for revolution? What are the links between the economic contradictions of capitalism, and the social revolt against them?
In arguing against the economistic viewpoint, while maintaining that the revolution will be violent, V. I. Lenin provides you with one possible set of tactics for a radical revolution. The most important point Lenin deals with is the formation of the proletarian class consciousness, required for solidarity and collective mass action. He argues that in order to form a coherent class consciousness within the proletariat, you must form a 'party vanguard'. In doing so, you ensure that the proletariat are not 'duped' into accepting anything less than a socialist revolution. The party is required because, on their own, workers are unable to create a 'socialist class consciousness' - it must be 'brought to them from without'(4). The closest they can aspire to without your guidance is a 'trade-unionist consciousness', which will not lead to socialism. Lenin points out that the need for intellectual leadership of the revolution arises from the fact that the socialist movement arose independent of the trade-union movement - one from the university, the other from the shop-floor. He argues that the proletariat must be kept away from the 'trade-union' ideology, because to follow simple trade-union policy is to subordinate the proletariat in bourgeois ideology. Trade-unionist approaches to worker's groups may lead to workers thinking only of their own material needs, and coming to compromise deals over wages etc.(5) In forming the party vanguard, you are opposing the ideology of the ruling class, and therefore your group is far less likely to operate within the boundaries defined by the apparatus of the state. By following the example of Lenin and his work, your revolution is going to be violent"

[Roses in the Hospital]

"First, if the replacement of capitalism by communism is a necessary event, there seems no point in anyone's lending a hand to the development, as such participation is likely to be risk and the outcome is inevitable anyway. But Marx himself felt moved to engage in political activity in support of the working class, an so must have felt that things were not as inevitable as this account would suggest. And of course, Marx was only the first Marxist to engage in political activism. Large number of Marxists subsequently followed suit and now regularly view political activism as a natural extension of their theoretical views".

I think the results of socialist experiments in countries such as Russia and China suggest that 'lending a hand' in countries which aren't ready is indeed a risky buisness. However, Marx's inevitable revolution does require people to carry it out, so there's nothing contradictory about Marxist activism. Afterall, people do need to know what they're going to be fighting for...

[Le People]

I think that Marx pointed out the evils of capitalism, and loosely proposed a better system. This proposition thus far is poorly done, but I intend on reading more.

[chilcru]

Is the revolution inevitable or "preconditions"?

The inevitability of the fall of capitalist society will not result from the workings of the system but from the contradictions that such workings spawn. Capitalist crisis will not bring about the downfall of capitalism, for as Marx had diagnosed it, it has built-in "coping up mechanisms". These built-in "coping up mechanisms" explains why the crisis occurs in a cycle, not in a straight steep plunge to total collapse. But the crisis will sharpen the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the working class, setting them to an eventual confrontation. It is this confrontation, culminating in the proletariat seizing political power, that will bring capitalist society to its total break up.

[anomaly]

Marx said that communism was 'inevitable' on materialist grounds (dialectical or 'historical' materialism). But, even in developing such theories, was he supposed to suppress his moral outrage at the injustices capitalism committed? And also, Marx only said it 'will happen'. He never really specified 'when'. He actually thought he'd see the beginnings of communism in Western Europe within his lifetime. So, given these two things, it's rather elementary to see why Marx felt it neccesary to actively promote anti-capitalist forces.

[Lev]

revolution in the 21st century is an actuallity. We only have o look at bolivia in recent months to figure that out. The questions that remain are about how socialists organise, prepare and intervene in day to day struggle to raise the confidence of the class. If workers cannot win a strike over pay and conditions or over pensions they are unlikel to be too willing to collectively confront the system

As marxists we should see the fight for reforms as flexing the political muscle of the working class and an oppurrtunity to steel a revolutionary party of ideologically commited socialists which will help direct the movement at crucial points in the struggle.

For me this means that revolution is never inevitable, potential revolutionary situations are inevitable, and we may claim revolution is inevitable for propaganda purposes but to claim that revolution is merely an inevitable logic within capitalism is deterministic and doesn't lead to practical conclusions. Marxism is a philosophy of praxis above all a guide to action. For this reason i would say that Marxism states that the material conditions for revolution are built into capitalism, the internal dynmic of capitalism creates the objective cirmcustances which could lead to the overthrow of i. BUT it is the subjective that counts, what we do, how socialists organise, get active and how the most advanced elements of the working class can be prepared theoretically and in the reality of day to day struggle is what makes the crucial difference.

[chilcru]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 08:28 AM
Marx said that communism was 'inevitable' on materialist grounds (dialectical or 'historical' materialism). But, even in developing such theories, was he supposed to suppress his moral outrage at the injustices capitalism committed? And also, Marx only said it 'will happen'. He never really specified 'when'. He actually thought he'd see the beginnings of communism in Western Europe within his lifetime. So, given these two things, it's rather elementary to see why Marx felt it neccesary to actively promote anti-capitalist forces.
It is not far-fetched, anomaly, that he was also seething with moral outrage in his critique of capitalism. Just read any of Marx's works and one can not miss the preacher's tone in them, so full of biblical and religious allusions ("money is god", "the primitve accumulation of capital is the original sin, etc., etc.). But, as you rightly said, he was writing all these not from the view point of a moral theologian or moral philosopher but of a materialist and measured things according to this materialist conception. He did not deal with whether things are inherently good or bad, morally right or wrong. He rather deal with whether things are on the side of revolution or not, of historical progress or not?

But I must cast doubt on your statement about Marx having thought of seeing "the beginnings of communism in Western Europe within his lifetime". The statement closer to that which I'm aware of is his statement that the proletarian revolution would first ring in England but did he really thought of seeing it in his lifetime when he said that? In his TCM, Marx is very explicit that the communist revolution will take one whole epoch.

[anomaly]

I'm pretty sure he did think he'd see the beginnings (that's the key word) of communism in his lifetime, which is why he worked so vigorously toward it.

Of course, I could be wrong. Look it up if you're that interested (as I'm not, haha).