My International Politics says this about Marxism

[LogicalPimp]

At the university I'm currently taking a class in International Politics. I took the long time to quote this, word for word, about what the author claims is the problem with Marxism. I'd like to learn some possible faults with what he writes.

From "Principles of International Politics: People's Power, Preferences, and Perceptions" by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, 3rd edition.


Marxist predictions and reality were not consistent with one another in 1914. Marxist theorists predicted that a world war could not happen because the workers of the world would recognize their common class interests and the divergence between their interests and those of the aristocratic and capitalist classes who were making war. The workers simply were not expected to agree to serve in the armies of their countries, fighting against their class fellows from other lands. Marxist's greatly underestimated the power of nationalist feelings to join people together, even members of their own "class". Indeed, Marxism had no room for nationalism, because nationalism competes with class as an organizing principle. Marxist predictions about World War I were wrong, but Marxist dismissed the problem as being an error of the workers, who were fooled by false consciousness (that is, nationalism, trade union mentality, and the like), rather than an error of the theory. It took repeated failures, culminating in the early 1990's, before most Marxists accepted the overwhelming evidence that their theory perspective was wrong as a principle approach to governance

[catch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 07:27 am
At the university I'm currently taking a class in International Politics. I took the long time to quote this, word for word, about what the author claims is the problem with Marxism. I'd like to learn some possible faults with what he writes.

From "Principles of International Politics: People's Power, Preferences, and Perceptions" by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, 3rd edition.


Marxist predictions and reality were not consistent with one another in 1914. Marxist theorists predicted that a world war could not happen because the workers of the world would recognize their common class interests and the divergence between their interests and those of the aristocratic and capitalist classes who were making war. The workers simply were not expected to agree to serve in the armies of their countries, fighting against their class fellows from other lands. Marxist's greatly underestimated the power of nationalist feelings to join people together, even members of their own "class". Indeed, Marxism had no room for nationalism, because nationalism competes with class as an organizing principle. Marxist predictions about World War I were wrong, but Marxist dismissed the problem as being an error of the workers, who were fooled by false consciousness (that is, nationalism, trade union mentality, and the like), rather than an error of the theory. It took repeated failures, culminating in the early 1990's, before most Marxists accepted the overwhelming evidence that their theory perspective was wrong as a principle approach to governance
Some 'Marxists' in the social democratic parties voted for the war. So the idea that none of them predicted it is way off.

In addition the war was stopped largely by working class resistance in Russia, Germany and many other countries which saw massive strike movements against the war, desertions, mutinies etc.

It's also only the Leninist, Trotskyist and Stalinist variants of marxism that see it in any way as a 'system of governance' (and some within those trends wouldn't either).

[Hit The North]

Firstly, this question needs to be examined on two levels: (i) Marxist predictions of the objective situation, the logic of the system and its most necessary tendencies; (ii) the ability of Marxists to intervene politically at the practical level and lead workers against the demands of their war-mongering bourgeoisies.

On the first level, it was Marxists who were predicting the likelihood of Imperialist war against the naive faith of the liberal bourgeosie who believed they had finally abolished the possibility of war. In fact, it was the Marxists who rightly insisted that the only possible way of averting war was if the proletariat of all countries refused to fight. It thus became a central plank of 2nd International policy to promote and secure this outcome in the event of the imperialists declaring war.

On the second level, the International Marxist moverment obviously failed. In fact prominent Marxists like Kautsky caved in instantly and supported their own national bourgeoisie. This was a massive crisis for Marxism, but like all crises it clarified things starkly: it demonstrated weaknesses in the 2nd International version of revolutionary theory and helped Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg and others plot a course towards a truly revolutionary practice.

Also, as catch points out, the initial prognosis, that nationalism was not in the interests of workers and should therefore be resisted was proved correct in the tragic form of millions of dead workers.

I'm not sure what the author means when he writes:
It took repeated failures, culminating in the early 1990's, before most Marxists accepted the overwhelming evidence that their theory perspective was wrong as a principle approach to governance or how this relates to the discussion of nationalism versus internationalism and the quote appears to end mid-sentence. But Marxist would argue that governance is not something which is determined by theory but by the underlying class relations which "governance" tends to sanctify and seek to maintain.

[LogicalPimp]

CZ: Sorry for the apparent sentence fragment. There was a period immediately after the last sentence by the author.

Thank you everyone for the quick replies. This is especially helpful because I can research the differences:
It's also only the Leninist, Trotskyist and Stalinist variants of marxism that see it in any way as a 'system of governance' (and some within those trends wouldn't either).

[catch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 01:28 pm
Thank you everyone for the quick replies. This is especially helpful because I can research the differences:
It's also only the Leninist, Trotskyist and Stalinist variants of marxism that see it in any way as a 'system of governance' (and some within those trends wouldn't either).
If you look at those, you should look at the councilist and other variants as well - it's those that made a consistent break with parliamentarism and support for national liberation.

http://libcom.org/tags/council-communism

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 07:27 am
I'd like to learn some possible faults with what he writes.


But your excerpt isn't about what Marx wrote. It was about later people who read Marx and made their own interpretations. Now that's four possibilities: Any author could be right and interpreted right, the author right and interpreted wrong, the author wrong and interpreted right, or the author wrong and interpreted wrong.

As for myself, I tend to say that Marxism is just what Marx wrote, and therefore its meaning was frozen when he died. If it's X's interpretation of Marx, I don't call it Marxism; I call it X-ism. I would follow the same procedure for Platonism or Newtonianism or Jeffersonianism or Freudianism or the -ism named after any other writer. Pursuant to that, Marxism says nothing about World War 1, for example.

[LogicalPimp]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 05:31 pm


But your excerpt isn't about what Marx wrote. It was about later people who read Marx and made their own interpretations. Now that's four possibilities: Any author could be right and interpreted right, the author right and interpreted wrong, the author wrong and interpreted right, or the author wrong and interpreted wrong.

As for myself, I tend to say that Marxism is just what Marx wrote, and therefore its meaning was frozen when he died. If it's X's interpretation of Marx, I don't call it Marxism; I call it X-ism. I would follow the same procedure for Platonism or Newtonianism or Jeffersonianism or Freudianism or the -ism named after any other writer. Pursuant to that, Marxism says nothing about World War 1, for example.
Well said! :P

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by LogicalPimp+October 14, 2007 09:27 am--> (LogicalPimp @ October 14, 2007 09:27 am)
Bruce Bueno de [email protected] in "Principles of International Politics: People's Power, Preferences, and Perceptions"
Marxist predictions and reality were not consistent with one another in 1914. Marxist theorists predicted that a world war could not happen because the workers of the world would recognize their common class interests and the divergence between their interests and those of the aristocratic and capitalist classes who were making war. The workers simply were not expected to agree to serve in the armies of their countries, fighting against their class fellows from other lands. Marxist's greatly underestimated the power of nationalist feelings to join people together, even members of their own "class". Indeed, Marxism had no room for nationalism, because nationalism competes with class as an organizing principle. Marxist predictions about World War I were wrong, but Marxist dismissed the problem as being an error of the workers, who were fooled by false consciousness (that is, nationalism, trade union mentality, and the like), rather than an error of the theory. It took repeated failures, culminating in the early 1990's, before most Marxists accepted the overwhelming evidence that their theory perspective was wrong as a principle approach to governance [/b]
Everything other comrades have said is correct, but I'd like to add a few points of my own:

Fundamentally, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita seems to confuse the things Marxists said will happen with the things they wanted to happen. Marxists certainly wanted the workers of the world to recognize their common class interests and the divergence between their interests and those of the aristocratic and capitalist classes who were making war. They certainly wanted workers to refuse to serve in the armies of their countries.

But at no point did any Marxists ignore the possibility that their goals might not be achieved, and that a new European war might start. In fact, they warned that a devastating new war was very likely to happen if the workers did not join together.

As for the sentence referencing "repeated failures" up to the 1990s, the author is not making any sense whatsoever. First of all, Marxists were in control of a very large country - Russia - at the end of World War 1. I can't see how the Russian Revolution and subsequent creation of the Soviet Union could in any way be seen as a "defeat" or "failure" for Marxism. In fact, Marxists emerged from the war much stronger than they went in.

As for the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, unless you can point out exactly what part of Marxist theory it contradicts, you cannot count it as "evidence" that Marxism is wrong. I was not aware that if a country ruled by the followers of ideology X ceases to exist, that can be considered proof that ideology X is wrong. Plenty of capitalist countries have ceased to exist over the past century...

[bezdomni]

Determinism isn't consistent with real marxism.

[praxicoide]

Originally posted by mikelepore+October 14, 2007 05:31 pm--> (mikelepore @ October 14, 2007 05:31 pm)
[email protected] 14, 2007 07:27 am
I'd like to learn some possible faults with what he writes.


But your excerpt isn't about what Marx wrote. It was about later people who read Marx and made their own interpretations. Now that's four possibilities: Any author could be right and interpreted right, the author right and interpreted wrong, the author wrong and interpreted right, or the author wrong and interpreted wrong.

As for myself, I tend to say that Marxism is just what Marx wrote, and therefore its meaning was frozen when he died. If it's X's interpretation of Marx, I don't call it Marxism; I call it X-ism. I would follow the same procedure for Platonism or Newtonianism or Jeffersonianism or Freudianism or the -ism named after any other writer. Pursuant to that, Marxism says nothing about World War 1, for example. [/b]

For me "Marxian" relates to what Marx wrote, and Marxism to the discipline inaugurated by him. It's not a perfect name, but It's the most common.

[manic expression]

It's a strawman argument: they misrepresent Marxism and then claim victory after "defeating" the misrepresentation.

Marxists never claimed that world wars could never happen. On the contrary, Marx specifically said that large-scale wars were a way for the bourgeoisie to overcome the crisis of overproduction.

Like most capitalist "arguments" against Marxism, this is a bunch of garbage that no one should take seriously.