The trouble with Marxism?

[Uncle Al]

I am a socialist, and did think I was a Marxist, but now I'm not so sure. I was flipping through 'Marxism and the Philosophy of Language' by V. N. Volosinov when I came across the following:

"One of Marxism's fundamental and most urgent tasks is to construct a genuinely objective psychology, which means a psychology based on sociological [author's italics], not physiological or biological, principles.

...the subjective psyche is an object for ideological understanding and socioideological interpretation via understanding [author's italics]."

This made me stop and think objectively about the Marxist view of the world, which up until then I had not really weighed up critically, believing Marxism to be a penetrating and viable critique and alternative to capitalism.

Basically, Marxism says that there's no such thing as a subjective, non-ideological thought or action: everything is motivated by the ideology of class struggle. This is why capitalists will always oppress the workers and seek out newer and bigger markets, and why workers will all too often fall into the trap of accepting the status quo: they are intellectual (as well as physical) slaves to the intellectual domination of capitalism. But surely this isn't right, and leads to issues for me:

1. As such, no-one can be responsible for their actions? Okay, granted - capitalists, being the ideological/intellectual/physical masters, are responsible, as they are aware of the plight of the Proletariat, are aware of how this may be remedied (i.e. socialism), and do everything they can to maintain the status quo. But the Proletariat can never be responsible, because they will always remain the victims of the capitalist ideology. Does this mean that a steel worker who is in prison for murdering his wife shouldn't be in prison, but is in fact a political prisoner because, in fact, he was made to kill his wife by, for example, the unbearable stress he was under from work, where he was underpaid and had to labour in appalling conditions (or some other such justification)? Individual responsibility seems to be negated, and it seems to me quite wrong. Are we really to believe that in a Communist society, there would be no murder,
because there would be no class struggle and no corrupting ideology?

2. Surely this way of thinking - that the majority of workers have been so addled by capitalism that they would not think of challenging the status quo - inevitably leads to substitutionalism: the replacement of the Proletariat as the agents of social change with a vanguard of 'enlightened' Marxists who see the truth, and whose job it is to lead the Proletariat and 're-educate' them? Isn't this what Lenin stated? Didn't the Bolsheviks make absolutely sure that the Russian revolution proceeded along Marxist lines by making sure they were at the front (the danger being that if they didn't, the workers wouldn't know the right way to go, and capitalism would never be destroyed)? Doesn't this kind of thinking inevitably lead, despite all the Trotskyist objections, to Stalinism - that the Proletariat can never be trusted until they have been thoroughly educated (some might say 'indoctrinated') by the enlightened vanguard, meaning any opposition to this vanguard must be heresy and must be crushed mercilessly (in fact, this seems to pre-date Stalin - Kronstadt comes to mind)? Doesn't this therefore just replace one system of received wisdom and ideology presented as absolute truth (capitalism) with another (Marxism)?

I suppose the objections to these arguments must come from a Trotskyist viewpoint - that dedication to a united front of all those opposed to capitalism would neutralise the danger of Stalinist dictatorship: if a united front had been formed in Germany to combat the rise of Hitler, socialism could have been brought about; instead, the KPD insisted on following Stalin's line exactly, and there was no unified opposition to the Nazis. But these objections seem to break down on closer analysis - it was Trotsky's view that, although Marxists should be committed to a united front, once the revolution starts, they should separate from the non-Marxist 'reformists' and set about educating the Proletariat in the actual truth, rather than, say, the social democrats' snake oil socialism (capitalism in disguise). Taking the German example again - had a united front been formed, this would hypothetically have led to a mass demand for socialism and could have tipped the country into socialist revolution. According to Trotsky's viewpoint, then would have been the time for the true Communists (i.e. ideologically-pure Marxists) to set up in opposition to the Social Democrats and themselves lead the people to a Marxist destination. But this would have been substitutionalism and, in effect, dictatorship, surely? Bureaucracy and authoritarianism must result.

If we take away the notion of an individual's responsibility for their actions and blame it all on sociological motivations, do we not pave the way for monsters like Stalin, who is given full licence to assume governorship of absolute truth? It seems similar to the religious fundamentalists who work in the same way. Any dedication to an ideology as absolute truth can only lead to repression, intolerance and dictatorship, and can only lead to the establishment of an ideological elite (the Bolsheviks, the priests, the ayatollahs etc.) who justify themselves as the only truly 'enlightened' ones whose duty it is to 'enlighten' everyone else, or, failing that, execute them as counter-revolutionaries.

By clinging to the argument that the Proletariat are kept in ignorance and subservience by capitalism, it becomes easy to ignore that actually we in the West live in quite a free society, objectively-speaking. Anyone can go into a library and pick up any book (even the Communist Manifesto) and read it. We can join any political party, speak out against our government, challenge those in authority. The debates that exist on these message boards would not have been possible in Communist Russia, just as they are not possible in Islamist Iran. Surely this means that we are morally obligated and bound by objective reality to fight for socialism democratically and not to cling to out-dated, restrictive ideas of what socialism should be and must be? If the workers don't seem interested in what we have to say, that isn't because of some Machiavellian capitalist conspiracy to keep them ignorant and apathetical, it's because we've failed to make our case effectively enough. And it might also be because

"Why should the overthrow of the existing order be of vital necessity for people who own, or can hope to own, good clothes, a well-stocked larder, a TV set, a car, a house and so on, all within the existing order?" (Herbert Marcuse quoted in Paul Mattique, 'Critique of Marcuse: One-Dimensional Man in Class Society', quoted in Paul D'Amato 'The Meaning of Marxism').

We can't make people care or accept a political system or ideology, as the bloody spectacle in Iraq should be proving to us every day.

Or am I wrong?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I think the author misjudged Marx's words, either blatantly or dismissively. Marx was talking about the general consciousness of each class, not individuals. I don't see Marx rejecting the opinion that biology influences one's thoughts. I'll draw on what he said:

Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand.

How does a homophobe, for example, differ from a member of the GLBTS alliance? Obviously to assume it's just a matter of choice is to dismiss the fact this person is being influenced by the physical world, which we can both agree is rather ridiculous - ingraining rejection of said homophobe's beliefs would be unproductive if it's just choice. Marx was starting from the position that opinions have already been formed. When we debate with each other, we're just fighting a chemical propaganda war. As for blaming society and not the individual, I think you're framing the subject wrong. Socialists in support of prisons, for example, are usually against revenge justice (death penalty, torture) because they see incarceration merely as defense. At the same time you can blame society and still take action against an individual.

To summarize, I doubt Marx was unconcerned with biology and its relationship with "choice." He never conclusively said that his analysis is based 100% around sociological influences, nor should we presume as much. He did stress materialism before abstract notions of free will, which is still encompassed in an analysis that takes into consideration such things as genetics. If a person is born into a void, they are not going to be feminist, nazi, or socialist. Their opinions and (more importantly) choices are going to amount to jelly.

Our opinions are not choices, and how we act on our opinions is influenced by our brain.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Don't be misled by Voloshinov; he was an ideologue himself, who propounded a series of a priori dogmas about language and mind supported by no evidence at all.

Moreover, language itself cannot be ideological, since for every indicative sentence there exists its contradictory. So, if someone says "The USA is a genuine democracy", or "Whites are the superior race", or "Women are inferior" we can say "The USA is not a genuine democracy", or "Whites are not the superior race", or "Women are not inferior". So, Voloshinov was wrong about this too, as are many other Marxists who follow his lead.

The rest of what you say is decidedly old hat; you have either not read much Marxism or are merely content to retail pro-capitalist propaganda.

Other comrades here can deal with the other things you say; I can't be bothered.

Mods: This should be in OI not Learning.

[trivas7]

Basically, Marxism says that there's no such thing as a subjective, non-ideological thought or action: everything is motivated by the ideology of class struggle. This is why capitalists will always oppress the workers and seek out newer and bigger markets, and why workers will all too often fall into the trap of accepting the status quo: they are intellectual (as well as physical) slaves to the intellectual domination of capitalism.

There's nothing that Marx wrote that lends itself to this kind of totalism. Marx was a theoretician of social change who looked at society scientifically, not as a psychologist or philosopher. Capitalists oppress workers because that's how the capitalist mode of production operates, it has nothing to do with ideas in people's heads. IOW the laws of capitalism are objective facts that operate independent of anyone's wishes or ideology.

[Uncle Al]

Okay, so I think I understand the gist of it - in general, people's actions are motivated by the opinions they hold. These opinions are not independently-formed (I suppose this is where the materialist view that existence precedes consciousness comes in), but are entirely dependent on circumstance (i.e. ideology). Why, then, can two people who have experienced exactly the same circumstances and been exposed to exactly the same materials, hold two differing opinions? Why could, for example, one be a socialist and the other a conservative? Surely this proves the existence of independent thought leading to independently-formed and reasoned opinions? Surely any member of the Proletariat (the Proletariat being the revolutionary force in society) who is exposed to Marxism and is told of capitalism's lies and deceits, would become a socialist revolutionary?

This leads to a fundamental question: why are the Proletariat not all fighting for a revolution? Most seem quite happy with their situation and the status quo. The answer must either be (a) the messengers (i.e. Marxists) aren't very good at delivering the message or (b) because they have no reason to be dissatisfied with the status quo. It is only when things are really bad (such as in pre-Revolutionary Russia) that people turn to the extremes; after all, wasn't it just these conditions that Marx was describing (when things really were pretty dire and socialism really did seem to offer the only way out)? But the trouble is, the general trend for wages and working conditions today is up, not down - what impetus is there for people to want to try and change things? We don't live under an autocracy and the majority of people in the West have shelter, food and a regular income. Certainly, that doesn't apply globally, but what difference does the plight of the workers in, say, India have on the workers here, who don't have that same motivation for change as workers in non-Western countries have?

And if we really do expect revolution to be made on the back of the plight of the globally exploited, we need only look at history. Surely it is capitalism, not socialism or Communism, that is paving the way for the reduction of poverty in non-Western countries, as it has done in the West (otherwise, we would all still be living in the 19th century, surely?). It seems blatant that capitalism is the driving force for change and progress in today's world. Socialism is nowhere to be seen, sadly.

[trivas7]

Okay, so I think I understand the gist of it - in general, people's actions are motivated by the opinions they hold. These opinions are not independently-formed (I suppose this is where the materialist view that existence precedes consciousness comes in), but are entirely dependent on circumstance (i.e. ideology).
Not at all, this is an entirely idealistic way of arguing. Opinions like all ideas are entirely dependent upon the material circumstances people find themselves in. People's actions are motivated by their real human needs, not by ideas in their heads.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Not at all, this is an entirely idealistic way of arguing.

No it isn't. Uncle Al is arguing that (as you said) "Opinions like all ideas are entirely dependent upon the material circumstances people find themselves in"


People's actions are motivated by their real human needs, not by ideas in their heads.

If this was the case why do ideologies such as nationalism still poison the workers movement? Why the continued existence of religion?

People are motived to action by ideology, but this ideology is not drawn from the heavens. It has it's basis in the material conditions in which humans find themselves. This is materialism, not idealism.

[Drace]

Humans are whatever they see.

[trivas7]

No it isn't. Uncle Al is arguing that (as you said) "Opinions like all ideas are entirely dependent upon the material circumstances people find themselves in"

No, Uncle Al stands "ideology" in apposition to "circumstances".


If this was the case why do ideologies such as nationalism still poison the workers movement? Why the continued existence of religion?
Because they have false consciousness. The ideas in their head don't reflect reality.


People are motived to action by ideology, but this ideology is not drawn from the heavens. It has it's basis in the material conditions in which humans find themselves. This is materialism, not idealism.Ideology is drawn from the heads of the ruling class, not the material conditions people find themselves in. Why else do they vote against their class interest?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Drace:


Humans are whatever they see.

That means that whenever you look at your screen, you are a computer screen.:lol:

[Lynx]

This leads to a fundamental question: why are the Proletariat not all fighting for a revolution? Most seem quite happy with their situation and the status quo. The answer must either be (a) the messengers (i.e. Marxists) aren't very good at delivering the message or (b) because they have no reason to be dissatisfied with the status quo. It is only when things are really bad (such as in pre-Revolutionary Russia) that people turn to the extremes;
a) the education campaign regarding Marxism has not gone well
b) is a result of (a)

It can also be demonstrated that if an option is perceived as more radical than other options, it is at a political disadvantage. Thus the only counter to this effect in a non-crisis environment is education.

[Le Drapeau Noir]

The trouble with Marxism is ... that it is full of Marxists. :laugh::D

[Wake Up]

The trouble with marxism is that it only counters economic exploitation.
Unfortunately exploitation exists in many forms of life, such as Sexual,Racial,hierarchical etc. By not countering these forms of domination those that are under their influence are not attracted to Marx.

There has not been a significant Marxist movement in America, the greatest industrial country in history - Please don't tell me that is all down to Bourgeois propaganda.

[Niccolò Rossi]

No, Uncle Al stands "ideology" in apposition to "circumstances".

Ideology is both a product of and a factor influencing the material conditions of a particular society. It is often put that they exist in a "dialectical relationship" with each other. Thus Uncle Al is right in saying that the ruling ideas or dominant ideology of a society will determine both the ideas and beliefs individuals hold and the action they take in accordance with them.


Because they have false consciousness. The ideas in their head don't reflect reality.

The question is then: do individuals act on the basis of this false consciousness or on the basis of their "real human needs"? Matter of fact you've already answered this question when you said:


People's actions are motivated by their real human needs, not by ideas in their heads.

After all, militant islamists and white supremacists are really motivated by their "real human needs" and not the false consciousness which they hold. :rolleyes:


Ideology is drawn from the heads of the ruling class, not the material conditions people find themselves in.

So religion is really just a big lie cooked up by the ruling class in a big conspiracy to fool the exploited. :rolleyes:


Why else do they vote against their class interest?

False consciousness.

I now pose the same question to you. Is it in their "real human interest" or is the the result of the "ideas in their head"?


The trouble with Marxism is ... that it is full of Marxists

Don't be a goose. If you've got nothing constructive to add then don't post. Simple.


The trouble with marxism is that it only counters economic exploitation.
Unfortunately exploitation exists in many forms of life, such as Sexual,Racial,hierarchical etc.

Unlike Anarchism, Marxism does not fight "exploitation" on the basis of some moralist a priori principal that exploitation and oppression are "bad".

It is untrue that Marxism "counters economic exploitation". The Marxist seems other forms of oppression to be largely based on class oppression. For example you can't destroy racism without destroying class.


There has not been a significant Marxist movement in America, the greatest industrial country in history - Please don't tell me that is all down to Bourgeois propaganda.

The reasons for the failure of the revolutionary movement in the US (and the entire world for that matter) are numerous and complicated.

I don't want to derail this thread but maybe you would care to explain why Anarchism did not catch on as a mass revolutionary movement in the US either.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


False consciousness

This is not a term Marx ever used, and Engels only employed it once, late in life, in a letter.

And no wonder, the term is devoid of meaning. A false friend is not a friend; a false door is not a door; so false consciousness is what? Not consciousness?


The myth to be discussed here was given its purest expression by John Plamenatz when he asserted that ‘Marx often called ideology “false consciousness”’.[1] Not surprisingly, Plamenatz cites no instances of this usage, as, in truth, Marx never calls ideology ‘false consciousness’. Indeed, he never calls anything ‘false consciousness’, a phrase that does not occur in his work. The standard of Marx scholarship in English has, it must be admitted, greatly improved since Plamenatz’s time. No serious commentator today would propose a relationship in the terms he employs with such assurance. There is, nevertheless, a sense in which the shadow of the false consciousness connection still looms large over the subject. This may be illustrated by the work of two later writers, both of whom recognise that Marx does not himself speak of ‘false consciousness’. Moreover, both have been highly influential and are representative of distinct general tendencies. Jorge Larrain, while eschewing the language of ‘false consciousness’, maintains that Marx identifies ideology with cognitive distortion in the specific sense of the concealment of social contradictions.[2] Terry Eagleton for his part believes that this language will serve to characterise not Marx’s sole conception of ideology but rather one he held among others.[3] In general, it may be suggested, the dominant view in the literature is that Marx should be credited with an understanding of ideology as necessarily involving what is cognitively defective or deficient, in being illusory, deceptive, partial, distorted or at any rate failing in some way to present a veridical picture of the social world. This is the myth which the present discussion seeks to expose.

It should be said by way of preliminary that the association of ideology and cognitive deficiency is now so widespread that it must be assumed to serve a deep need of the age, the need for a concept that collects items in virtue of just that sort of deficiency. No objection will be raised here to the devising of such a concept, or to labelling it ‘ideology’. What will be argued is simply that the ascription of the result to Marx is entirely gratuitous. It has generated what may properly be called a ‘myth’ in one familiar sense of the term, a systematic, internally coherent, imaginative construction that lacks any rational foundations. In matters of exegesis the foundations required are a grounding in the testimony of the relevant texts. The discussion will show that there are no such grounds in the present case. Thus, its aim is merely negative. It will not seek to put forward a positive, and necessarily disputable, interpretation of what Marx means by ‘ideology’ beyond whatever is directly conveyed by the textual evidence that will be cited.[4]

An important aspect of this evidence might be captured, without undue strain, by remarking that Marx never calls ideology anything. We have to deal not just with the kind of reticence that is evident in the case of such concepts as ‘class’ and ‘dialectic’. The difficulty here is still more basic in that Marx never manages even to set the scene for an attempt at conceptual explication since the bare substantive ‘ideology’ hardly figures at all in his work. The noun is almost always accompanied by an epithet such as ‘German’, ‘republican’, ‘political’ or ‘Hegelian’, or by a qualifying phrase, as in ‘the ideology of the bourgeoisie’ or ‘the ideology of the political economist’. More typical in any case is the adjectival usage in which such varied items as ‘forms’, ‘expressions’, ‘phrases’, ’conceptions’, ‘deception’, and ‘distortion’ are said to have an ‘ideological’ character. Even more distinctive is the frequency, amounting to approximately half of all references in the relevant range, of invocations of the ‘ideologists’, the creators and purveyors of the ideological forms. It is in general almost impossible to exaggerate the concrete, conjunctural nature of Marx’s dealings with the ideological, in marked contrast to the abstractions that characterise the later debates.

The rest of this can be found here:

http://marxmyths.org/joseph-mccarney/article.htm

[Wake Up]

I
Unlike Anarchism, Marxism does not fight "exploitation" on the basis of some moralist a priori principal that exploitation and oppression are "bad".


Well maybe it should, because exploitation and oppression are 'bad'


It is untrue that Marxism "counters economic exploitation". The Marxist seems other forms of oppression to be largely based on class oppression. For example you can't destroy racism without destroying class.

Class divisions will always exist when their is hierarchy. And these class divisions are not only economic. I see nothing in the writings of Marx that counters hierarchy outside the workplace.


The reasons for the failure of the revolutionary movement in the US (and the entire world for that matter) are numerous and complicated.

I don't want to derail this thread but maybe you would care to explain why Anarchism did not catch on as a mass revolutionary movement in the US either.

But the main reason for failure must be the theory itself. Even taking into account anti-revolutionary activities, their must be something seriously wrong at the heart of the ideology for Marxism not to have caused a revolution in America of all countries.
That problem is not focusing on hierarchy and domination in all spheres of life.


As for anarchism, unfortunately the movement has always taken a back seat in relation to communism especially in the USA. An anarchist revolution was never on the cards because it was Marxism that had the first shot at it.

[manic expression]

Well maybe it should, because exploitation and oppression are 'bad'

They are "bad" to the working class, but not objectively. That is the real difference: exploitation is not inherently "evil" or "wrong", it is simply a tool against the workers, and if someone wants to stand with the majority of humanity and progress, they will stand with the interests of the workers.

So no, taking a moralizing position is misled.


Class divisions will always exist when their is hierarchy. And these class divisions are not only economic. I see nothing in the writings of Marx that counters hierarchy outside the workplace.

Of course class divisions will exist when there is class society. No news here. However, Marx STARTS with production and then illustrates how all exploitation and oppression is designed AROUND production. That is how society works, and that is why Marxists are thankfully able to avoid the insipid and ignorant identity politics that liberal and anarchist organizations have been obsessed with (SDS in the US being a prime example of this).

Basically, all hierarchy "outside the workplace" is tied first and foremost to class. To suggest anything else is anti-materialist and, as such, incorrect.


But the main reason for failure must be the theory itself. Even taking into account anti-revolutionary activities, their must be something seriously wrong at the heart of the ideology for Marxism not to have caused a revolution in America of all countries.

This is incredibly narrow-minded. The reason a revolution has not happened in the US and other capitalist countries is not Marxism, it has to do with a thousand other factors that are playing themselves out daily. It's like holding an apple in your hand and blaming gravity when it doesn't hit the ground.

You blame Marxism, but you forget that Marxists have been singularly successful in making revolutions throughout the world, whereas anarchism has been utterly inconsequential.


That problem is not focusing on hierarchy and domination in all spheres of life.

No, the problem is that the American working class has been beaten back time and again. Marxists have made great strides in working class mobilization, and they are today, but the bourgeoisie has been able to best the workers so far. Imperialism has also been a key factor: sections of the working class have been bought off by the capitalists. Marxism, not anarchism, gives us this insight. However, history is not over, and class struggle is not over, and so there will be more to be said in this regard.


As for anarchism, unfortunately the movement has always taken a back seat in relation to communism especially in the USA. An anarchist revolution was never on the cards because it was Marxism that had the first shot at it.

An anarchist revolution was never on the cards because, among other things, an anarchist revolution is self-contradictory: revolutions take oppression, they consist entirely of one class forcefully overthrowing another. Anarchism posits that all authority is "bad", whereas Marxists know that all revolutions necessitate working class authority.

[gilhyle]

I think the questions you ask are fundamental and recurring questions. You are not wrong to ask them and they raise really important questions about how communists can theorise their opposition to capitalism in a way that leads to a practical approach to politics. You have rightly posted them in the learning section and comrades will (unavoidably) struggle to answer them because it is difficult to construct and protect a revolutionary perspective within this society.

But lets have a go.

You ask first:

no-one can be responsible for their actions?

Whenever individuals' attitudes are explained as flowing from social circumstances, the conservative reaction is that this eliminates all individual responsibility for actions. Consider a similar case, a paedophile who was abused as a child. We might 'explain' his perversion by the fact that he was also abused, but this does not eliminate his responsibility for his actions. Social responsibility for actions derives from the consequences of those actions. This is not eliminated by any explanation of the causes of those actions. Understanding why he is a paedophile does not alter the harm he does and therefore does not alter the social imperative to deal with him. He is to blame because he causes harm, irrespective of why he causes that harm. Social responsibility is not moral responsibility in a socialist society. In capitalist society, the two are confused, because Capitalism tries to suggest that its state gives 'justice' to all and justice is confused with moral good and moral good is a secularised version of the religious conception of good. Thus capitalist courts will sometimes ameliorate the punishment meted out to a person (or even their culpability in law for what they have done) because their actions can be explained as subject to some extraneous influence. This problem is an off-shoot of the capitalist conception of freedom, freedom from external constraint, and their rather bizarre ideological notions (not refelcted in what their own science of psychology has discovered about human motivation) of individual decision making. The result is all very confused and its hard to make sense of the mish mash of ideas that are reflected in court decisions in this society - or of the confused conceptions of human agency that lie behind those decisions. But what we can say, without writing cookbooks for the future, is that a socialist society will tend to focus not on vicarious punishment but on rehabilitation and protection of society from recidivism. In that context, individual responsibility for the social consequences of actions and inclinations will be strongly entrenched in any socialist legal system. There is a lot more to say on this; I have been very summary, just to give a sense of the kind of argument.

You hace asked secondly


Surely this way of thinking - that the majority of workers have been so addled by capitalism that they would not think of challenging the status quo - inevitably leads to substitutionalism:

This is an intensely interesting and difficult question. My answer is no. The party cannot substitute for the class because the substitution of the party for the class makes it impossible to battle bureaucratism......Yes, all that means is that we are between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, you rightly point to the obstacles to the mass of proletarians becoming self-conscious revolutionaries and on the other hand, the substitution of a revolutionary party for the state pushes that revolutionary state into a non-class condition which leads, almost unavoidably, back to capitalism. As revolutionaries, we must find a way to battle this dilemma. Your refer to Trotskyism (I will deal with your comments on the United Front in Germany if you want - your description of the idea behind this is not really right). This problem is reflected in the problematic heart of Trotskyism, which characterised the political crisis of the twentieth century as a subjective crisis, one of leadership, and yet which adheres to a doctrine, Marxism, which emphasises that leadership emerges as material conditions develop. The resulting problem is not a theoretical problem; it is a practical problem. It is a problem for us revolutionaries to be the reflection of material circumstances, as they develop. Again, there is a lot more to say about this.

On a more particular point, you ask:


Why, then, can two people who have experienced exactly the same circumstances and been exposed to exactly the same materials, hold two differing opinions?

Of course, no one experiences exactly the same conditions. However, leaving that aside, people experience similar circumstances and respond differently. But this phenomenon is not confined to social circumstances. I just watched Michael Winterbottom's film on Guantanamo and one inmate described his response to the torture techniques: "It either breaks you or it makes you stronger." Is it not always thus ? Some variability in response to circumstances is built into all living creatures. Is that not the very nature of life ? When we ascribe a certain influence to society we do not thereby fall into a mechanistic view of human nature. Rather we merely refuse to treat the individual as uncaused, just because it is not mechanically determined. The ideologue of individualism tells us (in effect) since you cannot list the causes of human behaviour with mechanical precision you should not list them at all; you should believe in the mystical spirtuality of individual motivation. No. This is unpersuasive. Why can we not list influences on humans without having to achieve a model of human behaviour which is predictive in all particular circumstances ? The argument is meant only to silence us, to undermine the scientific understanding of humans and to reinforce the mystification of society so that its members will be passive slaves to the mystery. On the contrary, let us list the influences on human behaviour, estimate their scope and operate within the methodological limitations that that involves. What is actually wrong with that ?


More than anything else, you should not despair because you see these difficulties, on the contary it is people like you who ask these difficult questions who make the best communists if only you can find your way to an answer that convinces you. Well Done ! (If I can be so condescending as to congradulate you !)

[Wake Up]

They are "bad" to the working class, but not objectively. That is the real difference: exploitation is not inherently "evil" or "wrong", it is simply a tool against the workers, and if someone wants to stand with the majority of humanity and progress, they will stand with the interests of the workers.

You only acknowledge exploitation of workers. Do you not see the problem here? By focusing only on workers you ignore the exploitation in every other sphere of life.



However, Marx STARTS with production and then illustrates how all exploitation and oppression is designed AROUND production.
Again no acknowledgment of exploitation in other spheres of life.




Basically, all hierarchy "outside the workplace" is tied first and foremost to class. To suggest anything else is anti-materialist and, as such, incorrect.

Is it?
What about a man beating his wife. That sounds like a physical hierarchy to me, nothing to do with economics or class. Unless of course you see men and women as belonging to different class...




You blame Marxism, but you forget that Marxists have been singularly successful in making revolutions throughout the world,

Successful??? I wouldn't call the USSR a successful revolution, I just see the replacement of one ruling class with another. Same with China.
I would concede that Cuba was more successful though...



whereas anarchism has been utterly inconsequential.


Oh please, you say I am being narrowminded.
Catalonia was only a few years, but achieved more socially than the 70 odd years of Soviet rule.
Pre industrial revolution their were forms of anarchism in many areas of the world, 1000 years in Celtic Ireland for example.
I concede that anarchism has not had it's day yet, I'm convinced that Marxism has.

[trivas7]

The trouble with marxism is that it only counters economic exploitation.
Unfortunately exploitation exists in many forms of life, such as Sexual,Racial,hierarchical etc. By not countering these forms of domination those that are under their influence are not attracted to Marx.

Exploitation for the Marxist is only economic exploitation. There is no other. Either you believe that economics is basic to an understanding of man or you don't.


So religion is really just a big lie cooked up by the ruling class in a big conspiracy to fool the exploited. :rolleyes:

Exactly. I take your point re the dialectical relationship between ideology and material circumstances, however.

[manic expression]

You only acknowledge exploitation of workers. Do you not see the problem here? By focusing only on workers you ignore the exploitation in every other sphere of life.

You're repeating the same points I responded to. All exploitation and oppression in capitalist society comes from exploitation of the working class. History is class struggle, all other things are tied to this. By focusing on the workers (and not "only" on the workers, that's a dishonest claim if you knew the slightest thing about Marxism), Marxism pinpoints the dynamics of society today.

Racism comes from capitalist exploitation: modern racism developed in conjunction with modern production and class relations; the racism of the plantation was replaced with the racism of the capitalist as slavery was abolished and the ruling class was forced to find new ways to differentiate themselves from "lesser" peoples. Sexism comes from capitalist exploitation: restriction of sexual freedom for women goes hand-in-hand with restricting economic freedom. If you let someone work and gain a paycheck and sustain a modicum of economic independence, they are now far more free to make their own way; in this way, oppression of women is tied to the workplace.

Your denial that class society is responsible for the reactionary character of the ruling class is astonishing. Nothing could be more absurd than the intimation that oppression just fell out of the sky one day.


Again no acknowledgment of exploitation in other spheres of life.

Obviously you didn't fully comprehend my argument. Please read my points again.


Is it?

What about a man beating his wife. That sounds like a physical hierarchy to me, nothing to do with economics or class. Unless of course you see men and women as belonging to different class...

It has everything to do with class. First of all, the relegation of the female to a secondary role in a relationship is purely due to economics. If the man is the breadwinner, there is a much better chance for the wife to be treated like crap, for she has no self-reliance. Deprivation of a wife's ability to feasibly pursue life outside that marriage makes it a lot harder for her to be treated equitably. Secondly, what are the factors which drive men to beat their wives? Lack of education, poverty, sexism itself, self-hatred, the list goes on. All these factors are fuelled by oppression of the working class. With liberation of the working class (and working class state power), education can solve backwards ideas, collective control can solve the pressure of poverty on families, new ways of looking at fellow human beings can solve sexism.

You see, even a seemingly unrelated problem always stems from the conditions in which it is set.


Successful??? I wouldn't call the USSR a successful revolution, I just see the replacement of one ruling class with another. Same with China.
I would concede that Cuba was more successful though...

Why wouldn't you call the October Revolution a successful one? Just about every part of society improved, from art to education to medicine to living standards and beyond. The workers, for the first time in history, decisively took control of a worker state. It was most certainly a successful revolution.

Now, in your eyes, what were its problems? The purges? Collectivization of the countryside? The gulags? The so-called dictatorship? All those things came after 1928, and are most certainly not inherent in either Marxism or Marxism-Leninism. In fact, it took the destruction of almost everything Marxism-Leninism is based on for Stalin to achieve his aims: he threw out democratic centralism (one of the most definitive parts of Leninist theory), he abolished the Congress of the Soviets (the biggest pillar of Soviet government) and he murdered most members of the party (60% of the 1935 Party Congress was dead by the time WWII broke out).

We can understand what happened and find reasons for those mistakes, but using those issues to write off Marxism and Leninism is simply uncalled for.

Furthermore, the Soviet Union was quite progressive even after all these setbacks. It defeated Nazism and saved Europe from racist slavery (and yeah, that's not hyperbole, that's what the Nazis were planning), it supported countless struggles against imperialism (Cuba, Vietnam, Palestine, South Africa, etc.), its public programs were very admirable and successful in helping its citizenry (healthcare, public transportation, education, housing and food, etc.) and more. If you've read anything about the end of the Soviet Union, you'd see the incredible decline in living standards that befell the people of that country. I could go on, but I think you get the point.



Oh please, you say I am being narrowminded.
Catalonia was only a few years, but achieved more socially than the 70 odd years of Soviet rule.

How so? Ignoring its deficiencies and inherent fatal flaws, it melted away after the first sign of adversity (the May Days, IIRC). Not surprisingly, it is precisely this brittle nature that makes it so easily celebrated by anarchists: futility can be made into legend if you don't want to look at why it's futile. The anarchist communes in Spain couldn't work because they could not be sustained: the militias they trained were infamous for their incompetence, their production couldn't overcome many obstacles. State power is useful, why not use it?


Pre industrial revolution their were forms of anarchism in many areas of the world, 1000 years in Celtic Ireland for example.
I concede that anarchism has not had it's day yet, I'm convinced that Marxism has.

Pre-industrial societies are mostly irrelevant, they have nothing to do with present conditions. Celtic Ireland matters as much to today's struggle as the Zaparozhian Host or Shaka Zulu.

[Wake Up]

An eloquent response :cool: But you misunderstand my point...

I believe that their are elements of exploitation in other spheres of life, while Marxists seem to believe that economics and the workplace is the sole place of oppression and domination.

For example you are right that exploitation of women is linked to the workplace, but you do not acknowledge that it happens outside of the workplace.

Of course oppression didn't just fall out of the sky, it has all ways existed and in all forms of life. By not acknowledging and rebelling against all oppression the revolution will ultimately be futile as the other forms of oppression take centre stage.

The October revolution may have worked economically initially but it did not remove oppression from the beurocrats and so ultimately the revolution failed. Stalin was able to destroy the marxist ideal because the original revolution did not remove his ability to do so.



Anyway Murray Bookchin puts it better than I...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd0hxVUIQvk

[manic expression]

An eloquent response :cool: But you misunderstand my point...

I believe that their are elements of exploitation in other spheres of life, while Marxists seem to believe that economics and the workplace is the sole place of oppression and domination.

Wake Up, my response above dealt with forms of oppression outside of the workplace. It is a fundamental misconception of Marxism to think that it looks only upon oppression inside a factory (the Communist Manifesto, of all documents, went in depth into such things, as did Engels). What Marxism does do, on the other hand, is pinpoint the locus of oppression, which is tied fully and directly to class. That is very much a different thing.


For example you are right that exploitation of women is linked to the workplace, but you do not acknowledge that it happens outside of the workplace.

Of course I did, re-read my post.


Of course oppression didn't just fall out of the sky, it has all ways existed and in all forms of life. By not acknowledging and rebelling against all oppression the revolution will ultimately be futile as the other forms of oppression take centre stage.

You acknowledge all oppression by first identifying its source. Revolution is not a play, you do not decide what takes center stage and what does not, revolution is the culmination of class struggle. That is your center stage whether you like it or not.


The October revolution may have worked economically initially but it did not remove oppression from the beurocrats and so ultimately the revolution failed. Stalin was able to destroy the marxist ideal because the original revolution did not remove his ability to do so.

First of all, the Soviet Union was a mixed bag economically, to say the least, after the Civil War. NEP had to be introduced because the entirety of Russian industry had been destroyed and the urban populations had been completely depleted. In addition, the German Revolution had failed, which isolated the Russian Revolution (Lenin's entire purpose in launching the October Revolution was to spark a revolution in Germany, not to stand alone).

In response to these crises, the party turned increasingly against democratic discussion (the ban on factions, adopted in 1921) and to bureaucratic mechanisms (one-man management, also adopted in 1921). This had nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism and everything to do with the immense challenges that faced the party and the country.

The October Revolution itself was successful for the reasons I said in my last post. If you look at the Soviet system as it was set up, the bureaucrats had no power. The Congress of the Soviets had all the authority, and the Commisariats (Ministries) dealt with administrative duties when necessary. It was completely democratic, especially as it was a process of the workers (see, class is so important).

The problems I mentioned before came to a head and the bureaucrats took over the party in 1928, but again, that was never the fault of Marxism or Leninism and it was never inevitable. In other revolutions (Marxist-led) which faced different material circumstances, such as the Cuban Revolution, you see a completely different scenario play out, and that is what you need to take into account.


Anyway Murray Bookchin puts it better than I...

I'll watch that soon.

[manic expression]

On the video, very quickly, he makes the same exact mistakes you are. He says Marxism isn't concerned with so-called "hierarchy" between ethnic groups, genders, pupil and teacher, father and son. I can only call this claim one thing: absurd. Marxists are very much concerned with all these relationships, the difference is that Marxism finds the center of them all, production. The liberation of oppressed ethnicities, women, homosexuals, the handicapped and other groups are ALL tied to the liberation of the working class, and to say any less is in defiance of reality. I've explained why before.

In addition, Marxists do not paint a simplistic and romantic vision of faceless oppressed and faceless oppressor down through the ages as anarchists do. To anarchist thought, nothing truly changed between the Bourbons and the Jacobins - they both had hierarchy! This myopic notion is what dooms anarchism, for instead of looking right at the most central part of class society, the relationship between classes, it gets caught in quasi-mystical ideas of individual liberation.

Have you read the Communist Manifesto? It explains the connection between class, class oppression and how that impacts all of life.

[Niccolò Rossi]

So sorry to Uncle Al for how off-topic this thread has become. Gilhyle gave a great response which I fully agree with.


Exploitation for the Marxist is only economic exploitation. There is no other.

Of course "exploitation" (used in the sense as by Marxists to refer to the extraction of surplus-labour from the direct producers) exists only in the economic sphere of human society. Certainly, however, you would not deny the existence of "oppression" in the other spheres of human social life?



So religion is really just a big lie cooked up by the ruling class in a big conspiracy to fool the exploited.Exactly

So what of Marx's use of Feuerbachian critique of religion as seen in Contribution to a Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, Introduction?

To Wake Up I largely agree with Manic Expression's reply above in response to your previous post. However there is one matter in particular I would like to bring up:


Basically, all hierarchy "outside the workplace" is tied first and foremost to class. To suggest anything else is anti-materialist and, as such, incorrect.

"First and Foremost" class is the root of oppression (as opposed to "hierachy") outside the workplace. However I think you go too far in saying "All" Hierarchy. Is class more than a special form of the division of labour? Is the social and technical division of labour between the sexes not the more fundamental root of oppression between the sexes.

Matter of fact you go on in your subsequent posts and really confirm what I am saying here


You only acknowledge exploitation of workers. Do you not see the problem here? By focusing only on workers you ignore the exploitation in every other sphere of life.

This has already been dealt with. Of course "oppression" occurs in all aspects of human social life but Marxists identify economic "exploitation" as being fundamental. This is not to say we ignore non-class oppression but we do not support a struggle against such on the basis of some a priori moral principal that exploitation is "bad" (some Marxists do justify a fight against other non-class oppressions but not on this basis).

If you are so eager to discuss this please resurrect my thread on The Relation between Class and Non-Class oppression (http://www.revleft.com/vb/relation-between-class-t85263/index.html?t=85263) as I would like to discuss it further as see little point in making another thread when questions are still left unanswered *hint to Devrim*.


Again no acknowledgment of exploitation in other spheres of life.

Again no argument to justify the fight against non-class oppression.


What about a man beating his wife. That sounds like a physical hierarchy to me, nothing to do with economics or class.

What exactly is "physical hierarchy" and what are it's roots?


Successful??? I wouldn't call the USSR a successful revolution, I just see the replacement of one ruling class with another. Same with China.
I would concede that Cuba was more successful though...

I know no Marxist (let alone Anarchist!) who would claim that the Cuban Revolution was "more successful" than the Russian.

[Wake Up]

I guess we will agree to disagree here......I admit that I am not as well read on Marxism as I should be (I have read the manifesto and others), I feel it is a mistake to link everything to class and the workplace but more research will need to be done on that front....


Anyway I will refer back to a minor point that I made and wish to elaborate on...

Whichever way you look at it the October Revolution eventually subsided into a dictatorship. Now if you are a worker elsewhere in the world and you see the example of what the USSR became, it would not fill you with confidence for a Marxist revolution. (I realize you will say that Stalin's policies were not very Marxist and I agree, but to the Layman it does not matter)
You see if a man is to commit himself to a revolution and therefore gamble with his life he needs to be sure that if the revolution is successful then he really will gain his freedom. It is hard enough to put your life on the line for an ideal, but even harder if you have doubts about that ideal.
Just about every revolution is history has been about freedom, usually freedom of movement, speech or votes. I believe that it is human nature to hold these freedoms above economic ones. So in the USA, where generally people have freedom of movement, speech and votes, (Though not nearly as much as they may think they have) revolution is far from the workers mind, even though they are economically oppressed.
In Russia however the peasant had no freedom of speech, no vote and very little freedom of movement as well as being dirt poor and economically oppressed and so revolution was definitely on the cards.

Would your average Russian peasant in the October Revolution call himself a Marxist? Would he have even heard of Marx? I believe that the Russian peasant revolted to gain his basic freedoms and the Marxists saw that the revolution could be put in line with Marxist theories.


(The last paragraph is pure speculation from me, so feel free to demolish it if I am mistaken)

[manic expression]

I guess we will agree to disagree here......I admit that I am not as well read on Marxism as I should be (I have read the manifesto and others), I feel it is a mistake to link everything to class and the workplace but more research will need to be done on that front....

Why is it a mistake to do so?


Anyway I will refer back to a minor point that I made and wish to elaborate on...

Whichever way you look at it the October Revolution eventually subsided into a dictatorship. Now if you are a worker elsewhere in the world and you see the example of what the USSR became, it would not fill you with confidence for a Marxist revolution. (I realize you will say that Stalin's policies were not very Marxist and I agree, but to the Layman it does not matter)

The October Revolution didn't, the Soviet Union did. What you're saying is like blaming the Storming of the Bastille for Napoleon; 18 Brumaire was never inevitable, and was not a result of the French Revolution itself.

If you are a worker elsewhere and you see the progress made by the workers of the Soviet Union, even in the darkest of times, you would not be alone. The October Revolution and the Soviet Union inspired countless movements for worker liberation. I don't have to look at hypotheticals, I look at the actual inspiration that affected just about every subsequent struggle. That, alone, disproves your assertion.


You see if a man is to commit himself to a revolution and therefore gamble with his life he needs to be sure that if the revolution is successful then he really will gain his freedom. It is hard enough to put your life on the line for an ideal, but even harder if you have doubts about that ideal.
Just about every revolution is history has been about freedom, usually freedom of movement, speech or votes. I believe that it is human nature to hold these freedoms above economic ones. So in the USA, where generally people have freedom of movement, speech and votes, (Though not nearly as much as they may think they have) revolution is far from the workers mind, even though they are economically oppressed.

We don't ask people to commit to ideals necessarily, we ask them to struggle for their own interests, and those of humanity, we ask them to help breaks the bonds which bind them every day.

Every revolution is about liberation and suppression in equal measure. A revolution is inherently the act of one class overthrowing another by force. This is what anarchists can never understand: the blunt reality of revolution precludes such lofty and unrealistic ideas.

In the US, those "freedoms" are not on the minds of anyone, they are simply rhetorical devices for the ruling class. In fact, I would venture to say they have become farcical in the minds of many. Revolution may be far from the workers' minds today, but that is neither the fault of Marxism nor the accomplishment of the capitalists, it is simply the fact that class struggle has yet to fully play out.


In Russia however the peasant had no freedom of speech, no vote and very little freedom of movement as well as being dirt poor and economically oppressed and so revolution was definitely on the cards.

The peasants didn't initiate the revolution in Russia. They did throw their support to the Bolsheviks eventually, but that was mostly after the SRs imploded following the revolution itself. At any rate, I don't think you give American capitalism enough credit. One out of five American children live in poverty, 40 million Americans have no healthcare. I could go on. The American working class is plenty exploited and plenty deprived and plenty screwed, it is our job to mobilize them to change this. I cannot tell the future, but I do know that the ruling class is in crisis and that we have an opportunity to make some progress. It may be just a start, but that's where everything starts.


Would your average Russian peasant in the October Revolution call himself a Marxist? Would he have even heard of Marx? I believe that the Russian peasant revolted to gain his basic freedoms and the Marxists saw that the revolution could be put in line with Marxist theories.

In 1917, your average Russian peasant couldn't read or write, or even think outside of their plot of land. As I said, they were not the spark of the October Revolution, that was carried out in Petrograd and Moscow by the vanguard of the workers. Once Lenin gave them what he promised ("Land, Bread and Peace"), which was what they were fighting for since even before the Great Reforms of 1873 (IIRC), they saw that the Bolsheviks were genuine in their claim to support the interests of the peasantry. What is that, other than Marxism? Marxism wasn't imposed upon the revolution, all Marxism did was underline the course of struggle that the Russian workers (and peasants) encountered.

"If this revolution is Marxist," Che Guevara said in 1960, it is "because it discovered, by its own methods, the road pointed out by Marx."

That is precisely the point.

[Black Sheep]

That is an extremely interesting thread.. i hope someone will fully answer uncle al's questions.
:blushing:

[Le Drapeau Noir]

Don't be a goose. If you've got nothing constructive to add then don't post. Simple.

What? By attempting to introduce a little levity to the discussion? Interesting ... so, you'll presume to tell me what I can and can't do even though it was just a point of humor.

Interesting, indeed.

[trivas7]

Of course "exploitation" (used in the sense as by Marxists to refer to the extraction of surplus-labour from the direct producers) exists only in the economic sphere of human society. Certainly, however, you would not deny the existence of "oppression" in the other spheres of human social life?

No, I wouldn't deny that oppression exists in other spheres of human life, but the revolutionary Marxist who does not concentrates on economic oppression and the class struggle has not kept her eye on the ball.


So what of Marx's use of Feuerbachian critique of religion as seen in Contribution to a Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, Introduction?
What re it? I don't take your point.

[Niccolò Rossi]

No, I wouldn't deny that oppression exists in other spheres of human life, but the revolutionary Marxist who does not concentrates on economic oppression and the class struggle has not kept her eye on the ball.

I agree, thanks for clearing that up.



So what of Marx's use of Feuerbachian critique of religion as seen in Contribution to a Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, Introduction? What re it? I don't take your point.

Doesn't your suggestion that religion is in a sense a massive plot or conspiracy concocted by the ruling class contradict Marx's Critique of Religion which he saw as a symptom of man's alienation?


What? By attempting to introduce a little levity to the discussion? Interesting ... so, you'll presume to tell me what I can and can't do even though it was just a point of humor.

No, by contributing nothing of substance and ignoring the questions posed by the OP.

[trivas7]

Doesn't your suggestion that religion is in a sense a massive plot or conspiracy concocted by the ruling class contradict Marx's Critique of Religion which he saw as a symptom of man's alienation?

Indeed, the inverted world of religion is symptomatic of man's alienation from true consciousness, but that doesn't mean it is a conspiracy foisted on others by people in the know. Religion, too, follow distinct historical patterns. After the initial phase of "revelation" comes an institutionalization known as the 'routinization of charism', when some religious spokesmen have to formulate its doctrines and practice and promulgate them. The ruling class too is lead to believe in it. It just doesn't know that it's an ideology that justifies its oppression.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Indeed, the inverted world of religion is symptomatic of man's alienation from true consciousness, but that doesn't mean it is a conspiracy foisted on others by people in the know.

Then why did you claim this was the case above:



So religion is really just a big lie cooked up by the ruling class in a big conspiracy to fool the exploited.Exactly

[trivas7]

Then why did you claim this was the case above:
Because religion is untrue. At the same time false consciousness doesn't know it's false.