Marx's Personality - Great thinker, but unpleasant person?

[Uhuru na Umoja]

Recently I've been reading about Marx himself, and he seems to have often been quite insufferable. Although we do not need to respect him as a person to accept the brilliance of his ideas, I think he set a bad precedent. He choose to alienate all those leftists who did not exactly follow his vision of communism, and as a result weakened the left. Moreover, rather than engaging in productive discussions with other great thinkers like Proudhon and Bakunin, he merely inveighed against them, destroying the possibility of fruitfull colloboration.

As modern leftists, should we follow this example and ignore or attack all non-Communist or non-orhtodox Communist leftist, or should we merely accept Marx's ideas a starting point and examine the ideas of Bakunin, Proudhon, Chomsky, and other thinkers who were not stictly Marxist?

[Umoja]

Well considering what you say happened with Marx weakening the left, I'd think expressing a wider and more open minded view is usually better. The more you bend, the less likely you are to break.

[redstar2000]

Recently I've been reading about Marx himself, and he seems to have often been quite insufferable.

Well, he had a lot on his mind and suffered from nagging illnesses, especially late in his life. Some contemporary accounts emphasize his warmth toward "newbies" and willingness to patiently explain things to people.

He did have an intense dislike for those he regarded (rightly or wrongly) as charlatans, "fake" leftists interested only in their own careers and ambitions.

Looking back, I suspect that those who portrayed Marx in a bad light personally were mostly if not entirely people who didn't like his ideas either. That's usually the way it goes.

He choose to alienate all those leftists who did not exactly follow his vision of communism, and as a result weakened the left. Moreover, rather than engaging in productive discussions with other great thinkers like Proudhon and Bakunin, he merely inveighed against them, destroying the possibility of fruitful colloboration.

I think if Marx himself were present, he might tell a different tale. In any event, one would have to know a great deal that was never set down on paper to tell for sure who alienated who.

One thing is certainly clear; regardless of his sentiments, Proudhon's actual ideas were not revolutionary. I can see very easily why Marx would have regarded Proudhon as a representative of bourgeois ideology "within" the left.

As modern leftists, should we follow this example and ignore or attack all non-Communist or non-orhtodox Communist leftist, or should we merely accept Marx's ideas a starting point and examine the ideas of Bakunin, Proudhon, Chomsky, and other thinkers who were not stictly Marxist?

Obviously, we should "examine" all ideas that are critical of capitalist society or some portion thereof. I've even made an effort, on occasion, to read serious conservative critiques of modern capitalism...just to see if they might have come up with something interesting and useful.

And certainly no idea should be rejected "out of hand" just because it's "not Marxist"--that would be degrading Marxism to the level of theology.

But there was a reason that Marx was critical of many of the ideas of his era--it wasn't simply because he was personally an "egotistical bastard".

If you propose a revolutionary change in the prevailing social order as a result of decades of theoretical study, you are not apt to look kindly upon competing ideas which you regard as ill-founded, poorly researched, lacking evidence, and nothing but a distraction from the serious tasks that need to be undertaken.

Again, that's not simply a matter of Marx's "insufferable personality"--prior to the 20th century, many controversies in the sciences were fought in a "polemical" fashion...sometimes as nasty and bitter as any exchange of leftist polemics and sometimes even more so. Accusations of fraud, trickery, falsified data, plagarism, etc. were fairly common.

There's also a kind of fundamental question which perhaps has no "universal" answer--correct at all times in all historical situations. But, for example, in our present historical moment, what is a leftist, anyway?

Is it anyone who says they're one? And if that's not the case, how do you tell the "real" ones from the "fakes"? And is it correct to support and unite with the "real" ones and ruthlessly criticize and drive out the "fakes"?

As an example: what is the quality of Noam Chomsky's "leftism" insofar as he took it upon himself to publicly criticize the Cuban government not for any of the good reasons that the Cuban government might be criticized, but because they locked up a gang of paid agents of U.S. imperialism?

See what I mean?

:cool:

[elijahcraig]

As an example: what is the quality of Noam Chomsky's "leftism" insofar as he took it upon himself to publicly criticize the Cuban government not for any of the good reasons that the Cuban government might be criticized, but because they locked up a gang of paid agents of U.S. imperialism?


I think he mainly did that because he is against the death penalty. I've asked him about Cuba in emails and he points out that it is good in some ways, but also has some bad things (not really socialist, more degenerated, etc.). He's a leftist. You're basically saying "Anyone who disagrees with my vision of what fits Marxism, is not a leftist." I agree about Proudhon.

[Uhuru na Umoja]

Redstar... I take your point about the polemic style being popular at the time, and I agree that Marx had genuine reasons to disagree with many other socialists at his time. It just seems that often he choose confrontation without attempting reconciliation - often he outright attacked others' ideas, before trying to convince them of his own. Outside of Engels, who revered Marx, he alienated almost all of the political friends and allies he made throughout his life.

[Sandanista]

if you look at thinks more closely, proudhon and bakunin had vry different ideas from marx, bakunin and proudhon, both anarchists argued that u dont need the state to organise a syndicate, whereas marx argued that for the revolution to occur, the state was a fundamental, yet eventually, expendable phenomenon.

[redstar2000]

You're basically saying "Anyone who disagrees with my vision of what fits Marxism, is not a leftist."

So it must appear...to anyone who disagrees with me. But you and everyone else "draws a line" between leftists and non-leftists, and the argument, as I suggested, is where is that line to be drawn?

The only way to "avoid" that question is to simply accept everyone's description of themselves as accurate...which lands you in endless subjectivity and confusion. One of the ongoing problems with anarchism as a revolutionary theory is that they've never been able to draw clear lines between who is legitimately part of their movement and who is not; if you call yourself an "anarchist", you will be accepted as "legitimate" by most other anarchists almost regardless of your actual political views.

I do draw some pretty clear lines between what I consider "real leftism" and "fake leftism" and, naturally, I use my own views as a major, though not the only, criterion. Marx did likewise. So do you.

It just seems that often he chose confrontation without attempting reconciliation - often he outright attacked others' ideas, before trying to convince them of his own.

Well, he was "combative" by nature. It's possible that he cared more about the opinions of future revolutionaries than he did about the opinions of his contemporaries...many of whom he thought were "idiots". Having read a little bit about that period, it's difficult to disagree with him.

In our own era, I see on the internet a good deal of utter nonsense trying to pass itself off as "leftist". I'm not interested in "reconciling" my views with nonsense; I want the nonsense to be abandoned. That doesn't necessarily require a harsh polemical style--I'm a "nicer" guy than Marx was--but it does require the willingness to get up in public and say "that's wrong!"...even if you know that saying that will upset people.

Speaking the truth, as best you can, is the first duty of the real revolutionary.

:cool:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I don't balme marx for dismissing any reactionary thinkers and theories. We must never compromise with the bourgeoisie.

[Uhuru na Umoja]

Quote: from Victorcommie on 3:57 am on July 17, 2003
I don't balme marx for dismissing any reactionary thinkers and theories. We must never compromise with the bourgeoisie.
Perhaps not compromise, but the proletariat may work with the bourgeoisie in preliminary stages of the revolution, provided that it is behaving in a revolutionary manner. At least that is what Marx himself suggested in Germany in 1848. Although it may further be argued that this shows Marx's ability to cooperate with other socialists (which is against the grain of all that I have posted so far), his suggestion of cooperation with the bourgeoisie was a part of his attack on Gottschalk, a prominent communist in Cologne at the time.

The bottom line is that yes Marx was often - if not always - justified in his attacks on other socialists (even if his tactics were divisive). However, it is innacurate to see these attacks as aimed purely at avoiding compromise with the bourgeoisie - that was only a part of it, and indeed he at times encouraged such compromise (under his leadership, of course).