Marx vs. Marxism

[Niccolò Rossi]

As of late I've been reading some material by Cyril Smith (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/index.htm) (Marx at the Millennium (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/millenni/index.htm)) along with some material from Marx Myths & Legends (http://marxmyths.org/index.php) specifically:
The Tradition of Scientific Marxism - John Holloway (http://marxmyths.org/john-holloway/article.htm)
The Legend of Marx, or "Engels the Founder" - Maximilien Rubel (http://marxmyths.org/maximilien-rubel/article.htm)
The Origins of Dialectical Materialism - Z. A. Jordon (http://marxmyths.org/jordan/article.htm)The texts above have got me into some serious re-thinking about my understanding of Marx, his thought and most importantly his legacy.

Are we deceiving ourselves when we call ourselves Marxists?
Are we reading Marx the way he intended?
Do we need to re-think Marx completely?
Has the mature 'scientific' Marx been misrepresented in history as a result of scientific interpretation?
Would anyone like to offer me some serious thoughts, opinions or criticisms of the above texts?

(I hope I've posted this in the right place, maybe theory would be more appropriate?)

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ To be fair, I am a "Marxist," given its "Pauline" (read: real) founder. ;)

However, as indicated by my avatar, that founder did most of his thinking upside down (full of reductionism and revisionism in making Marx the mere sci-soc look like a reformist, not to mention all the dialectical clap-trap), and my stuff as of late is intended to turn that founder right-side up (hence "revolutionary Marxism"). :)

There's a problem with nighttime posts (Pacific Standard Time) as of late getting deleted automatically by the system, so try not to respond too late. It's 7 am here.

In regards to Holloway's work, I think he may have read left-communist Dauve's The Renegade Kautsky and His Disciple Lenin (hence my interest in the real founder of "Marxism" ;) ):


The quotation from Kautsky makes clear that the central issue is not the peculiarities of the Russian revolutionary tradition: however important those peculiarities might have been, ascribing the problems of Leninism to them lets mainstream Marxism off the hook. The central issue is rather the concept of science or theory which was accepted by the main stream of the Marxist movement. If science is understood as an objectively ‘correct’ understanding of society, then it follows that those most likely to attain such an understanding will be those with greatest access to education (understood, presumably, as being at least potentially scientific). Given the organisation of education in capitalist society, these will be members of the bourgeoisie. Science, consequently, can come to the proletariat only from outside. If the movement to socialism is based on the scientific understanding of society, then it must be led by bourgeois intellectuals and those ‘proletarians distinguished by their intellectual development’ to whom they have transmitted their scientific understanding. Scientific socialism, understood in this way, is the theory of the emancipation of the proletariat, but certainly not of its self-emancipation. Class struggle is understood instrumentally, not as a process of self-emancipation but as the struggle to create a society in which the proletariat would be emancipated: hence the pivotal role of ‘conquering power’. The whole point of conquering power is that it is a means of liberating others. It is the means by which class-conscious revolutionaries, organised in the party, can liberate the proletariat. In a theory in which the working class is a ‘they’, distinguished from a ‘we’ who are conscious of the need for revolution, the notion of ‘taking power’ is simply the articulation that joins the ‘they’ and the ‘we’.



The problem with what Kautsky is saying here is that education has, in his own words, "become a merchandise." Most "intellectuals" are professional workers - "educated proletarians" (again, to use his own words). My class relations chapter-article stresses the need to get past sectoral chauvinism in favour of manual workers as one key step to freeing professional workers from their petit-bourgeois delusions.

[Niccolò Rossi]

However, as indicated by my avatar, that founder did most of his thinking upside down (full of reductionism and revisionism in making Marx the mere sci-soc look like a reformist, not to mention all the dialectical clap-trap), and my stuff as of late is intended to turn that founder right-side up (hence "revolutionary Marxism"). :)

I understand your opinions regarding Kautsky, the founder of "Marxism".

My question is have the likes of Kautsky (as well as other), vulgarized and misinterpreted Marx's, resulting in the 'Marxist' view of Marx (specifically as being 'scientific'?)

[gilhyle]

A lot of that stuff by Holloway/Jordan etc is half baked/disputable...not to be taken too seriously. Its all part of academic debate that sets up straw men and then knocks them down.

The concept of 'Marxism' is an ideological obstacle from the late 19 and 20th century, but it was of little importance as a concept to either Engels or Kautsky. They were interested in the idea of scientific socialism. Kautsky for example deals with this question in Chapter Two of his late work 'The Materialist Conception of History' where he sets out that his views (however influenced by Marx) are his own. The fetishisation of 'Marxism' is characteristic of Stalinism and its pretty twin - Western Marxism.

[Luís Henrique]

While of course the "Marxist" tradition is problematic, I think that a fetishisation of Marx, as some discoverer of a pure, almost unreachable thought, is worse.

Either that "thing" - call it "Marxism" or not - is able to evolve and transform itself, or it is dead. That's why I am very lukewarm towards "back to Marx" proclamations - even if it is obviously necessary, from time to time, to confront some "Marxists" with the fact that their notions directly contradict Marx's contributions.

Luís Henrique

[JazzRemington]

It really doesn't matter what Marx said. All that matters is his method and the tools he used in his work. His conclusions, however, are an entirely different matter altogether. If the empirical evidence does not support his conclusions, then they are to be thrown out and replaced.

[Hit The North]

If the empirical evidence does not support his conclusions, then they are to be thrown out and replaced.Who's empirical evidence? You talk as if this empirical data is just lying 'out there' waiting to be discovered and will present itself as a self-evident, indisputable truth.

[JazzRemington]

Who's empirical evidence? You talk as if this empirical data is just lying 'out there' waiting to be discovered and will present itself as a self-evident, indisputable truth.

Well, what did Marx do?

The point is to not take whatever Marx (or anyone else, for that matter) wrote as a series of self-evident truths (like the Bible or what have you).

[Niccolò Rossi]

I think that a fetishisation of Marx, as some discoverer of a pure, almost unreachable thought, is worse.


The point is to not take whatever Marx (or anyone else, for that matter) wrote as a series of self-evident truths (like the Bible or what have you).

I'm not trying to put Marx atop a pedestal and worship his every word as an eternal truth. What I'm curious about is whether this tradition, founded supposedly in the man's thought, is legitimately one in his legacy.


It really doesn't matter what Marx said. All that matters is his method and the tools he used in his work. His conclusions, however, are an entirely different matter altogether. If the empirical evidence does not support his conclusions, then they are to be thrown out and replaced.

Did you, or anyone for that matter read the above short works I posted? If you did you'd realise they are not proposing that Marx's conclusions where true and that anyone who says otherwise is false.

The articles where questioning Marx's legacy specifically as being "scientific" and the idea that he layed down a set of doctrines and principals that can be applied, a "Marxist" analysis.

I don't necessarily agree with the works, I such wanted to hear your opinions on them, but before you do, please read them....

[ComradeOm]

Has the mature 'scientific' Marx been misrepresented in history as a result of scientific interpretation?Keep in mind that the "Young Marx" school of thought was largely the invention of Western philosophers eager to reclaim a more "humane" Marx from the seemingly cold and scientific works of orthodox/Communist Marxism. Frankly I don't credit it at all - Marx's thought certainly went through an evolution but what we're seeing here is attempts to cherry pick from his work