The dangers of progress vs values...

[rebelworker]

I recently can across a disturbing Quote by Engles durring a Debate with Bakunin over esentially his scientific socialism and "continuing progress" vs the more value based socialism in the anarchist tradition of the time.

Engles argues in support of The US invasion of Mexico and the seizure of Texas and California.

Such a reactionary position was defended by his flawed logic of the march of progress and a very top down idea of development.

To me this illustrated a very important flaw I have always had with the idea of relying entierly on some kind of scientific march of progress that if the the people at the top restructure things properly good things will enevitable come.

Now I clearly have a critique of some of the more utopian views about revolution and socialism, but to me this kind of eleitist view of social change has been at the core of Marxist thinking from the begining, and althought often the economic and political analysis is good, often the model for change is flawed.

The mass of oppressed individuals has so often by rolled over by vanguardist thinking in the logic that "all will be well for them in the long run if we are just allowed to follow our wonderful plan".

just wanted to throw that out there, often really basic political consepts get overly complicated by intellectual language, but for me this is the very simple basis for differing political vision with Bolshevik modeled communists.
Ill include the quote so you can see what im getting at...

Originally published in Neue Rheinische Zeitung February 14th 1849"Just a word about "universal fraternal union of peoples" and the drawing of "boundaries established by the sovereign will of the peoples themselves on the basis of their national characteristics". The United States and Mexico are two republics, in both of which the people is sovereign.
How did it happen that over Texas a war broke out between these two republics, which, according to the moral theory, ought to have been "fraternally united" and "federated", and that, owing to "geographical, commercial and strategical necessities", the "sovereign will" of the American people, supported by the bravery of the American volunteers, shifted the boundaries drawn by nature some hundreds of miles further south? And will Bakunin accuse the Americans of a "war of conquest", which, although it deals with a severe blow to his theory based on "justice and humanity", was nevertheless waged wholly and solely in the interest of civilization? Or is it perhaps unfortunate that splendid California has been taken away from the lazy Mexicans, who could not do anything with it? That the energetic Yankees by rapid exploitation of the California gold mines will increase the means of circulation, in a few years will concentrate a dense population and extensive trade at the most suitable places on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, create large cities, open up communications by steamship, construct a railway from New York to San Francisco, for the first time really open the Pacific Ocean to civilization, and for the third time in history give the world trade a new direction? The "independence" of a few Spanish Californians and Texans may suffer because of it, in someplaces "justice" and other moral principles may be violated; but what does that matter to such facts of world-historic significance?"

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Engels always was a bit of a racist dumbass. He often attacked the Irish in much the same way. They were "lazy" and "unenterprising," what a douchebag. But yeah, I know what you mean, historical reductionism is incredibly stupid and one of the main reasons why I never became a full time marxist.

[turquino]

The exaltation of the development of productive forces is an unattractive quality of Marxism. It's tantamount to an endorsement of imperialism and becoming more capitalist than the capitalists.

I view the shape of the relations of production as a more important measure of social progress than how many new things an economy can churn out per year.

[Saorsa]

The world was very different back then. Imperialism as a stage of capitalism had not properly emerged, and it's not like Marx and Engels were right about everything anyway.


Engels always was a bit of a racist dumbass. He often attacked the Irish in much the same way. They were "lazy" and "unenterprising," what a douchebag.

And Bakunin referred to Jews as "a race of bloodsuckers", so don't you get all high and mighty.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

The world was very different back then. Imperialism as a stage of capitalism had not properly emerged, and it's not like Marx and Engels were right about everything anyway.


And Bakunin referred to Jews as "a race of bloodsuckers", so don't you get all high and mighty.

Yes but I don't hang portraits of him on my mantelpiece. Unlike some marxists I know.

[KC]

I don't understand why Marxists here are supporting such a moralistic analysis of imperialism. The development of capitalism certainly has good qualities, and to deny that because you wish to cling to some moralistic analysis that "capitalism is bad and therefore we must fight it" is completely unmarxist (much in the same way that many Trots will outright condemn Stalin or the USSR under Stalin without accepting the good developments that happened; a very un-Trotskyist/un-Marxist analysis).

[BobKKKindle$]

...by rapid exploitation of the California gold mines will increase the means of circulation, in a few years will concentrate a dense population and extensive trade at the most suitable places on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, create large cities, open up communications by steamship...[etc]

This quote should be carefully examined as it can give an indication of why Engels supported what many members would see as a war of imperialist aggression. Engels argues that the American invasion was beneficial as it allowed for the extension of capitalism to an area where feudal relations were still dominant. Marxists recognize that capitalism is a more progressive social system than feudalism (and earlier modes of production) because capitalism enables the rapid development of the forces of production thereby creating the potential for mass abundance, and, through the increasing concentration of capital in larger units of production, generates the conditions which allow for the overthrow of capitalism by the revolutionary proletariat. Therefore, Engels is not adopting an elitist position, but is approaching the invasion from a materialist perspective based on an understanding of capitalism's historic role.


The exaltation of the development of productive forces is an unattractive quality of Marxism.

The development of the productive forces allows for the manufacture of a larger quantity of material goods and an improved standard of living. Communism cannot exist if the productive forces are not developed, as the adoption of communist norms of distribution in an underdeveloped country would simply result in generalized want, thereby providing the material base for ideas which prevent cooperation and social harmony. Marx wrote in The German Ideology (Feuerbach: Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlooks, Private Property and Communism)


A development of the productive forces is the absolutely necessary practical premise [of Communism], because without it want is generalized, and with want the struggle for necessities begins again, and that means that all the old crap must revive.

The German Ideology (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm#a4)

[turquino]

I don't understand why Marxists here are supporting such a moralistic analysis of imperialism. The development of capitalism certainly has good qualities, and to deny that because you wish to cling to some moralistic analysis that "capitalism is bad and therefore we must fight it" is completely unmarxist (much in the same way that many Trots will outright condemn Stalin or the USSR under Stalin without accepting the good developments that happened; a very un-Trotskyist/un-Marxist analysis).
Why is a moralistic analysis of imperialism worse than a rigid Leninist one? The export of finance capital was important in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but today its presence in the underdeveloped world is inconsequential. In contrast, Canada would be the most exploited nation on the globe if we only looked at foreign ownership. Most of Lenin's theory is outdated and wrong.

I recognize the historically progressive character of capitalism over feudal relations, but let's not delude ourselves about what was occurring here. The Mexican American War stole land from Mexico to accommodate more slaves, and leading to an ethnic cleansing of the Southwest. Those who stayed were subject to a racist settler occupation and terrorized by invading whites. So much for 'progress'. I suggest reading Occupied America for a history of what the Chicano nation has endured.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Why is a moralistic analysis of imperialism worse than a rigid Leninist one? The export of finance capital was important in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but today its presence in the underdeveloped world is inconsequential. In contrast, Canada would be the most exploited nation on the globe if we only looked at foreign ownership. Most of Lenin's theory is outdated and wrong.

I recognize the historically progressive character of capitalism over feudal relations, but let's not delude ourselves about what was occurring here. The Mexican American War stole land from Mexico to accommodate more slaves, and leading to an ethnic cleansing of the Southwest. Those who stayed were subject to a racist settler occupation and terrorized by invading whites. So much for 'progress'. I suggest reading Occupied America for a history of what the Chicano nation has endured.

Agreed 100 percent. This was a meaningless war which led to the deaths of many Mexican and American soldiers and countless Mexican civilians. Anyone recall the bombardment of Vera Cruz? Or perhaps the terror exacted on Natives living in the former Mexican territories?

[KC]

Why is a moralistic analysis of imperialism worse

Moralistic analyses are always the worst because they are based on a completely subjective concept (morality) and don't care to analyze the actual phenomenon but rather the reaction to it (i.e. whether it is good or bad). No event is simply good or bad, and such a Manichean analysis is completely unmarxist.


I recognize the historically progressive character of capitalism over feudal relations, but let's not delude ourselves about what was occurring here. The Mexican American War stole land from Mexico to accommodate more slaves, and leading to an ethnic cleansing of the Southwest. Those who stayed were subject to a racist settler occupation and terrorized by invading whites. So much for 'progress'. I suggest reading Occupied America for a history of what the Chicano nation has endured.

What exactly are you arguing here? Do you think I'm wrong? Because it seems that you agree with me in the beginning of this quote, yet go on some rant about the bad aspects of the spread of capitalism, of which you already knew I was well aware.

What's your point?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Zampano- Why are you an anti-capitalist? I am an anti capitalist because I find capitalism morally wrong, its a genocidal system that demeans and annihilates the human spirit. This is why I don't choose something more interesting, like say wood-working, to spend a lot of my free time on. Without moral judgments we lose our basic humanity. The Mexican American War was morally reprehensible, it harmed countless lives, its wasn't a "progressive" development. There's nothing wrong with a socialist arguing this.

[KC]

Zampano- Why are you an anti-capitalist? I am an anti capitalist because I find capitalism morally wrong, its a genocidal system that demeans and annihilates the human spirit. This is why I don't choose something more interesting, like say wood-working, to spend a lot of my free time on. Without moral judgments we lose our basic humanity. The Mexican American War was morally reprehensible, it harmed countless lives, its wasn't a "progressive" development. There's nothing wrong with a socialist arguing this.

I am a communist because I am against the alienation, oppression, division, violence, hatred and overall madness that capitalism perpetuates. However, I can say this while still recognizing that capitalism has played a progressive role in the past (and perhaps even in the present to some extent, although it is overall regressive nowadays). Capitalism to me is neither good nor bad, but a mixture of both. Any Marxist would support that claim wholeheartedly, as absolutism (especially of the Manichean morality type) has absolutely no place in Marxist analysis.

Your moral absolutism is pretty poorly thought out, but that isn't really surprising considering that you're an anarchist, whose beliefs are generally based on moral judgements.

[Mersault]

Your moral absolutism is pretty poorly thought out, but that isn't really surprising considering that you're an anarchist, whose beliefs are generally based on moral judgements.

How do you define morality, out of interest?

I'm not an anarchist but I know many of them and if morality is the basis of their judgments then that would make morality a very bizarre thing.

[BIG BROTHER]

Damm this is a though topic for me since I'm Mexican and the Mexican vs US war is what drove me to the left in the first place.

I was thinking though, could we even under a materialist perspective see the invasion as something progressive. I mean it did introduce capitalism to the conquered territories, but on the other hand this invasion along with other factors also lead the US to become a powerful imperialist nation which has in many times stood against the left, and not only that, but also the imperialism of the US has also prevented countries like Mexico to develop into capitalist nations and end backward feudal relations.

So, I'm not saying that my point of view is the right one, but that's how I tend to see it, but then again I am Mexican so I can't help to bias a little.:(

[turquino]

Moralistic analyses are always the worst because they are based on a completely subjective concept (morality) and don't care to analyze the actual phenomenon but rather the reaction to it (i.e. whether it is good or bad). No event is simply good or bad, and such a Manichean analysis is completely unmarxist.

Moral outrage has the potential to bring a person much closer to revolutionary politics than memorizing the collected works of Marx and Engels.


What exactly are you arguing here? Do you think I'm wrong? Because it seems that you agree with me in the beginning of this quote, yet go on some rant about the bad aspects of the spread of capitalism, of which you already knew I was well aware.

What's your point?
As i said before, i think capitalist relations of production and bourgeois democracy are a more important measures of progress than the advancement of capitalism's productive forces. Whose to say Mexico couldn't have revolutionized their own society? Engels seems to echo a common european belief about how North america is empty, virgin land without people (of importance), and it needed the allegedly entrepreneurial white male to harness its productive capacity for the good of mankind.

[Hyacinth]

I was thinking though, could we even under a materialist perspective see the invasion as something progressive. I mean it did introduce capitalism to the conquered territories, but on the other hand this invasion along with other factors also lead the US to become a powerful imperialist nation which has in many times stood against the left, and not only that, but also the imperialism of the US has also prevented countries like Mexico to develop into capitalist nations and end backward feudal relations.

So, I'm not saying that my point of view is the right one, but that's how I tend to see it, but then again I am Mexican so I can't help to bias a little.:(
IMO I think this is the right analysis. Marx and Engels thought that imperialism was, or could be, progressive due to the fact that it was suppose to spread capitalism throughout the world. I won’t comment on the history, since I’m not too familiar with it, but as it stands today whatever progressive impact imperialism might have had it no longer has it (if it had it at all). Rather than spreading capitalist relations throughout the globe it instead impedes the development of the productive forces in countries under imperialist occupation or influence.

That having been said, I do disagree with the moralistic analysis, since, after all, capitalism has been in the past, and continues to be in the present, progressive in the sense that it develops the productive forces (which will permit for the establishment of socialism/communism). For instance, China is a good example of a nation where capitalism continues to be progressive in the aforementioned sense. On the other hand the ability of capitalism to develop the productive forces in the advanced industrial countries seems to have waned.

That isn’t to say a moralistic analysis doesn’t have a place, but a purely moralistic analysis doesn’t give one a proper perspective on the historic role of capitalism. I mean you can shout all your moral outrage at the present state of affairs all you want, but if the material conditions aren’t right things simply won’t change.

[Led Zeppelin]

Whatever you want to say about it, Engels was wrong in saying "those lazy Mexicans" and other such crap, what the hell?

This is wrong too:


The Jew is the enemy of humankind. It is necessary to send this race back to Asia, or exterminate it ...

[...]

I deny her every political right and every initiative. For woman liberty and well-being lie solely in marriage, in motherhood, in domestic duties ...

[...]

The Managers are the natural representatives of the country. Ministers are only superior Managers or General Directors: as I will be one day ...

[...]

Do not forget that the despotism of the czar is necessary to civilization.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/4-anarch.htm)

[Dros]

Engels' position was fundamentally correct at the time. The development of capitalism was historically progressive. Obviously, he was wrong about the self determination of peoples etc.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Engels' position was fundamentally correct at the time. The development of capitalism was historically progressive. Obviously, he was wrong about the self determination of peoples etc.

But it didn't develop capitalism any faster than the Mexicans might have. At the time the war was seen by most free soilers as part of the "Slave Power" conspiracy. The war led to the expansion of slavery across wide swaths of new territory. Slavery is a pretty feudal mode of production, something which Mexico had already outlawed.

[BIG BROTHER]

But it didn't develop capitalism any faster than the Mexicans might have. At the time the war was seen by most free soilers as part of the "Slave Power" conspiracy. The war led to the expansion of slavery across wide swaths of new territory. Slavery is a pretty feudal mode of production, something which Mexico had already outlawed.

that's true, i mean after all the southern states were in a primordial feudal type of production mode.

And plus like I said before the expansion of the US made sure the former would keep all Latin American countries from successfully developing into capitalist nations.

[bcbm]

Your moral absolutism is pretty poorly thought out, but that isn't really surprising considering that you're an anarchist, whose beliefs are generally based on moral judgements.Generally? Care to back that up?


This is wrong too:Well no shit, but what does that have to do with Engels or the Mexican-American War? :rolleyes: Quit trolling.


Engels' position was fundamentally correct at the time. The development of capitalism was historically progressive.How does the outright theft of some of Mexico's most valuable and productive land help develop the productive forces there? How does ravaging the country help as well? The war didn't bring capitalism to Mexico, though it certainly expanded Southern feudalism.

And is the development of capitalism today through such means still progressive and correct?

[Led Zeppelin]

Well no shit, but what does that have to do with Engels or the Mexican-American War? :rolleyes: Quit trolling.

Read the title of the thread, then proceed to shut up.

[bcbm]

Read the title of the thread, then proceed to shut up.

Sorry, but I don't see what exactly Proudhon has to do with "the dangers of progress vs values" in the context of Engels and the Mexican-American War? As far as I can tell, none of your quotes have anything to do with either. Are you trying to suggest that value-based thought can be just as fucked (which I doubt anyone would disagree with, that wasn't the point here), or trying to score a nice shot on anarchists, or what?

[Led Zeppelin]

Sorry, but I don't see what exactly Proudhon has to do with "the dangers of progress vs values" in the context of Engels and the Mexican-American War?

If you read the OP you'll see that rebelworker cited Engels' position on the Mexican-American war as; "this kind of elitist view of social change being at the core of Marxist thinking from the begining, and althought often the economic and political analysis is good, often the model for change is flawed."

He then goes on to say: "The mass of oppressed individuals has so often by rolled over by vanguardist thinking in the logic that "all will be well for them in the long run if we are just allowed to follow our wonderful plan."

So he was referring to the dangers of progress versus value in a much broader context than that single quote by Engels on the Mexican-American war, he condemned Marxism and Bolshevism as a whole.

So no, you are wrong, the context was not limited to that Engels quote on that specific subject.


As far as I can tell, none of your quotes have anything to do with either. Are you trying to suggest that value-based thought can be just as fucked (which I doubt anyone would disagree with, that wasn't the point here), or trying to score a nice shot on anarchists, or what?

The quotes have everything to do with the flawed logic which rebelworker used in his original post to condemn Marxism and Bolshevism as a whole.

The point of the quotes was that a lot of "founders of theory" held some reactionary views, there's no doubt about that, but have you seen me today saying that anarchism equals anti-semitism? Or that anarchism equals contempt for women? Or that for anarchists both jews and women are merely "victims of their progress" based on what Proudhon and Bakunin said?

Of course not!

Did I not say in that very same post that what Engels said was wrong as well? If you read that full article by Engels you'll see that he said a lot of ridiculous shit in there (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/02/15.htm), but to be fair, he wrote that in 1849, and I have read things by him later on which contradict the garbage he wrote earlier, such as in 1869:


Il n’y a qu’un pas [it is only one step] from Ireland to Russia.... Irish history shows what a misfortune it is for one nation to have subjugated another.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/ch08.htm)

So no, I did not post those quotes to take a snipe at anarchists, I posted them to show the flaw in the logic of rebelworker, you don't condemn a whole theory or movement based on what one of its founders said over 150 years ago.

[manic expression]

Damm this is a though topic for me since I'm Mexican and the Mexican vs US war is what drove me to the left in the first place.

I was thinking though, could we even under a materialist perspective see the invasion as something progressive. I mean it did introduce capitalism to the conquered territories, but on the other hand this invasion along with other factors also lead the US to become a powerful imperialist nation which has in many times stood against the left, and not only that, but also the imperialism of the US has also prevented countries like Mexico to develop into capitalist nations and end backward feudal relations.

So, I'm not saying that my point of view is the right one, but that's how I tend to see it, but then again I am Mexican so I can't help to bias a little.:(

If you ask me, it wasn't completely progressive because the invasion introduced full-fledged chattle slavery to Texas (and Arizona and New Mexico IIRC). The Mexican government outlawed slavery, and so the reintroduction of slavery to these territories is more than enough to oppose it solely on materialist grounds.


Marx and Engels thought that imperialism was, or could be, progressive due to the fact that it was suppose to spread capitalism throughout the world.

Imperialism, as most Marxists today understand it, hadn't developed when Marx or Engels were alive.


Moral outrage has the potential to bring a person much closer to revolutionary politics than memorizing the collected works of Marx and Engels.

Moral outrage might work for students and different individuals, but the workers are usually motivated by their own material interests. Sure, some people might be drawn to revolutionary ideas because they find capitalism undesirable, some might even be drawn by a dislike of business suits, but that's not what drives revolutions. Material interest does. It is in the interest of humanity to abolish capitalism and establish socialism; it is not immoral to be a capitalist, it just makes you an enemy the workers (and the majority of the human race). As has been well said on this thread, capitalist exploitation is presently reactionary and an obstacle against the progress of humanity, and that is why it will be destroyed, not because it broke someone's golden rule.

Once you BASE a political view primarily on morals, you become practically irrelevant because that's not what class struggle is based on. Are there morals in communist ideas and practice? Of course, but that's not the point of this issue, our point is that we START from a materialist view of the world, and our morals come from this understanding. The ends don't justify the means: the ends ARE the means.

[BIG BROTHER]

If you ask me, it wasn't completely progressive because the invasion introduced full-fledged chattle slavery to Texas (and Arizona and New Mexico IIRC). The Mexican government outlawed slavery, and so the reintroduction of slavery to these territories is more than enough to oppose it solely on materialist grounds.



Imperialism, as most Marxists today understand it, hadn't developed when Marx or Engels were alive.



Moral outrage might work for students and different individuals, but the workers are usually motivated by their own material interests. Sure, some people might be drawn to revolutionary ideas because they find capitalism undesirable, some might even be drawn by a dislike of business suits, but that's not what drives revolutions. Material interest does. It is in the interest of humanity to abolish capitalism and establish socialism; it is not immoral to be a capitalist, it just makes you an enemy the workers (and the majority of the human race). As has been well said on this thread, capitalist exploitation is presently reactionary and an obstacle against the progress of humanity, and that is why it will be destroyed, not because it broke someone's golden rule.

Once you BASE a political view primarily on morals, you become practically irrelevant because that's not what class struggle is based on. Are there morals in communist ideas and practice? Of course, but that's not the point of this issue, our point is that we START from a materialist view of the world, and our morals come from this understanding. The ends don't justify the means: the ends ARE the means.

Well I think you have pretty much nailed it. The invasion of the US wasn't progressive as it expanded slavery, during Engels' time the notion of imperialism didn't exist so he didn't see the invasion the way most of us now do, and yea a materialist view is the one necessary to bring the revolution.

[bcbm]

LZ- makes more sense now, though might have been better if you'd said that to begin with.;)