Questions re Marxism

[trivas7]

In his introduction to the Penguin edition of the Communist Manifesto Gareth Stedman Jones opines Marxism is "a powerful and organized post-Christian religion that, in the name of science, addressed itself to the oppressed". How do you respond to this criticism? Some of it goes to the scientific nature of Marxism; Stedman goes to some length to point out the illuminist and religious origins of socialism.

Finally, how do you answer the questions he poses in the preface: Were the claims of communism the product of a single process of reasoning, or did a semblance of theoretical unity conceal a more contingent and ad-hoc assemblage of propositions derived from different sources (I guess the charge here is incoherence)? Why should a declaration of communism have placed such emphasis upon the world-transforming achievements of the 'bourgeoisie'? Why should it have been imagined that existing social and political systems were unreformable or that periodic economic crises were signs of the impending end of the property system as a whole? Why should it have been assumed that there was a particular affinity bt the grievances of workers and the goals of communism? Why should it have been believed that a historical process, governed not by ideals but by the clash of materially contending interests ('the class struggle'), would nevertheless deliver such a morally desirable result?

[Cumannach]

In his introduction to the Penguin edition of the Communist Manifesto Gareth Stedman Jones opines Marxism is "a powerful and organized post-Christian religion that, in the name of science, addressed itself to the oppressed". How do you respond to this criticism?

The response is simply to show that Marxism is scientific. Did he offer any proof of how Marxist analysis is unscientific?

Why should a declaration of communism have placed such emphasis upon the world-transforming achievements of the 'bourgeoisie'?

The transformation of the mode of production by the bourgeoisie is emphasized because it is what brought about the existence of the modern proletariat. "What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers."

Why should it have been imagined that existing social and political systems were unreformable or that periodic economic crises were signs of the impending end of the property system as a whole?

It's not 'imagined', it's proved by a scientific analysis of human history and society.

Why should it have been assumed that there was a particular affinity bt the grievances of workers and the goals of communism?

Obviously because the goals of communism adress the grievances of workers- their exploitation and oppression.

Why should it have been believed that a historical process, governed not by ideals but by the clash of materially contending interests ('the class struggle'), would nevertheless deliver such a morally desirable result?

The inevitable result wasn't believed, it was discovered. It's up to you to decide if you think it's a morally desirable result- if you do, you'll become a Marxist and a communist.

[trivas7]

The response is simply to show that Marxism is scientific. Did he offer any proof of how Marxist analysis is unscientific?

What makes it scientific?

Thanks for responding, BTW.

[Decolonize The Left]

In his introduction to the Penguin edition of the Communist Manifesto Gareth Stedman Jones opines Marxism is "a powerful and organized post-Christian religion that, in the name of science, addressed itself to the oppressed". How do you respond to this criticism? Some of it goes to the scientific nature of Marxism; Stedman goes to some length to point out the illuminist and religious origins of socialism.

Simple. Religion is organized belief in a higher power - or a deity. There are no higher powers, or deities, in Marxism and hence it cannot be a religion.

Next question.

Finally, how do you answer the questions he poses in the preface: Were the claims of communism the product of a single process of reasoning, or did a semblance of theoretical unity conceal a more contingent and ad-hoc assemblage of propositions derived from different sources (I guess the charge here is incoherence)?

This is far too vague to necessitate any sort of response - There is absolutely nothing concrete in that claim. In the first place, what are "the claims of communism?" What is "a single process of reasoning?" What is an "ad-hoc assemblage of propositions derived from different sources?"

Why should a declaration of communism have placed such emphasis upon the world-transforming achievements of the 'bourgeoisie'?

Because they were "world-transforming?" Seems obvious, no?

Why should it have been imagined that existing social and political systems were unreformable or that periodic economic crises were signs of the impending end of the property system as a whole?

Marx answered this, in fact, he wrote a book on it. It's called Capital.

Why should it have been assumed that there was a particular affinity bt the grievances of workers and the goals of communism?

The question is misleading - The goals of communism are nothing more than the removal of the conditions which give rise to the grievances of workers.

Why should it have been believed that a historical process, governed not by ideals but by the clash of materially contending interests ('the class struggle'), would nevertheless deliver such a morally desirable result?

"Morally desirable results" are relative, hence the question is misleading. The historical processes are as they are, one derives one's own moral judgment regarding such process.

- August

[mikelepore]

Finally, how do you answer the questions he poses in the preface: Were the claims of communism the product of a single process of reasoning, or did a semblance of theoretical unity conceal a more contingent and ad-hoc assemblage of propositions derived from different sources (I guess the charge here is incoherence)?

Marx and Engels always emphasized that ideas about communism have appeared repeatedly since ancient times, but previous versions had such faults as their attempts to create new systems in small and isolated dropout communities instead of making national and world changes (such as Robert Owen), attempts to emphasize individual thinking (sharing and love) instead of restructuring social institutions (the words "to each according to his needs" came from Paul the Apostle), attempts to retain class division but make it more friendly (reformism), attempts to rely on recruiting the support of ruling class philanthropists for their own overthrow, etc. See a historical overview in Engels' pamphlet "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific." (Some of this discussion occurs in the pamphlet that the editor was writing his preface for, and the editor should have read it. )

As for the theoretical parts of Marxism, it's well known that Marx borrowed a lot of economics from David Ricardo, that Sismondi had earlier written about capitalism having a "crisis of overproduction", the idea of "natural price" being different from "market price" was earlier popularized by Turgot. Adam Ferguson had earlier proposed understanding history scientifically, citing the movement through historical stages that are based on inprovements to the tools of production.

It was Moses Hess who first recruited Marx to the idea of collective ownership of the means of production, but Hess was a Zionist, and Marx threw away that aspect.

There is no denial of the eclectic combination of previous thinkers.

Exactly what any scientific investigation should do.

[mikelepore]

Why should a declaration of communism have placed such emphasis upon the world-transforming achievements of the 'bourgeoisie'?

Social systems that represent progress at one point in time can later become outworn and decadent.

"... the history of mankind ... nothing remains what, where and as it was, but everything moves, changes, comes into being and passes away." - Engels, 'Socialism: Utopian and Scientific', 2

It has to be communicated to the student of socialism that capitalism once had a necessary mission to fulfill, it was once useful and progressive, it has completed its mission entirely, and it is now obsolete.

[mikelepore]

Why should it have been imagined that existing social and political systems were unreformable or that periodic economic crises were signs of the impending end of the property system as a whole? Why should it have been assumed that there was a particular affinity bt the grievances of workers and the goals of communism?

The objectionable things that capitalism does arise from the system's normal principles of operation. The madness for profits didn't cause General Electric to pollute the Hudson River because the business drives inherent to capitalism were FAILING to operate. The Japanese military didn't invade British Malaya for tin in 1941 and Burma for tungsten in 1942 because the drives of economic competition were FAILING to occur. The sharp concentration of wealth into the hands of the few doesn't leave many poor people lacking housing and medicine because capitalist mechanisms are FAILING to proceed. These are just a few examples out of the thousands that could be cited here. In generating thousands of unbearable problems, capitalism is operating exactly as it's designed to operate. The problems and crises that capitalism causes stem from the NORMAL functioning of capitalism. The system is already broken when it's running correctly. If the system were wonderful in essence but in need of some patchwork, it could reasonably reformed, but when we realize that the entire manifold of social problems is systematic to its normal operation, the pointlessness of trying to fix the system should become apparent. You can't mend junk. Capitalism has to be destroyed.

[Demogorgon]

While some people do seem to use Marxism as a surrogate for religion (including some here) and the Communist Part of the Soviet Union fulfilled certain functions religion normally fills (the social gatherings its local gatherings organised for instance or its coming of age ceremonies, to point out two relatively benign examples), it is not a religion as it has no ritual, no ceremony, no spirituality, no "correct way to live" and so on. A religion does not need a deity (some Buddhists are atheists after all), but it does need at least some of the above.

Marxism is a political ideology and as such is no more a religion, than Liberalism, Conservatism and so forth.

[mikelepore]

What makes it scientific?

I think in the sense of John Stuart Mill's definition of science:

"Since all phenomena which have been sufficiently examined are found to take place with regularity, each having certain fixed conditions, positive and negative, on the occurrence of which it invariably happens, mankind have been able to ascertain, either by direct observation or by reasoning processes grounded on it, the conditions of the occurrence of many phenomena; and the progress of science mainly consists in ascertaining those conditions. When discovered they can be expressed in general propositions, which are called laws of the particular phenomenon, and also, more generally, Laws of Nature." (from "On Nature", 1874)

The educational system tells us to study history to receive the practical benefits of its lessons, and Santayana told us that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." (from "The Life of Reason", 1905) It's very odd, therefore, that the subject of history is taught to us only in the form of an endless list of actions, names, dates and cities, without any reporting of general conclusions. Marx made one of the first serious efforts to identify the general laws of history.

Then, having done that, it's necessary to use those conclusions to bring about social changes. Just as medical research is objective or value-free regarding the identification of chemical and biological principles, but then applies the discovered principles with definite advocacy, to declare war on disease and injury, social science needs to determine the laws of human history in an impartial way, but then apply the conclusions in a partial way to improve social conditions.

[trivas7]

Why did Marx fail to produce a theory of communism?

In the confident days of 1847, Marx had mocked Proudhon: "You want the correct proportions of past centuries, w/ present day means of production, in which case you are both reactionary and utopian." But perhaps Marx himself fell into the abyss of utopianism, which explains why he preferred to spend the last fifteen years of his life not in an attempt to complete Capital, but rather burying himself in the intensive study of ancient, communal and pre-capitalist forms from the prairies of North America to the villages of the Russian steppes, like some 19th century primitivist (John Zerzan come to mind).

In 1848, it was all so simple: once the 'gigantic means of production and exchange' conjured up by 'modern bourgeois society' had been brought under human control, there would arise 'an association, in which the free development of each' would be 'the condition for the free development of all'. But in 1867 and after 15 years of study, Marx could see no means to get to communism.

[mikelepore]

Marx could see no means to get to communism.

Because Marx didn't realize that there are ways in which things can go wrong. He thought that all shake-ups and crises will lead to the same outcome -- whichever direction human history is going to take, which we shall find out about by observing it when it happens. IMO, this is the only possible interpretation of the statement in the Communist Manifesto, "In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things." Today any Marxists would say: I agree with this strategy, let's support it; I disagree with that strategy, let's oppose it. But to "support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things" shows an assumption that history is moving on a fixed track, and all we can do is affect the speed.

[mikelepore]

Where do you see an indication that the study of ancient society was due to be being a primitivist?

[trivas7]

Where do you see an indication that the study of ancient society was due to be being a primitivist?

I'm not seriously calling Marx a primitivist. I'm pointing out that the language in which Marx extolled the return to use value (and what he called 'the original unity bt the worker and the conditions of production' within 'a naturally arisen spontaneous community') in communist society was uncomfortably close to the language in which he recalled the merits of pre-capitalist societies.

In the writings of the1840s, there was no pathos in the evocation of ancient societies. Nor was there such a strongly developed distinction bt 'natural' and other needs. What distinguished Man from animal was his capacity to create new needs, and this capacity was most fully expressed within modern bourgeois society. By distinguishing bt 'natural' and other needs, Marx was in danger of undermining what had been most novel and valuable about capitalism. It was difficult to conceive how the forces of production could carry on developing at the same pace once the market was removed. Pre-capitalist societies operated upon the unconscious assumption of the fixity of needs. If such a fixity was removed, the whole point of use value was put into doubt. Had he persisted through to the end w/ the concept of use value that he developed in the first and only completed volume of Capital, Marx would have been in danger of replacing Capitalism w/ a pre-market form. In short, Marx's attempt to construct a form of socialism beyond the market was beset by overwhelming theoretical difficulties.

As the socialist economist Michael Kalecki remarked after returning to Poland as communist rule got established remarked: "Yes, we have successfully abolished capitalism; all we have to do now is to abolish feudalism."

[ComradeOm]

IMO, this is the only possible interpretation of the statement in the Communist Manifesto, "In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things." Today any Marxists would say: I agree with this strategy, let's support it; I disagree with that strategy, let's oppose it. But to "support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things" shows an assumption that history is moving on a fixed track, and all we can do is affect the speed.

Context is everything. The Manifesto was published in that amazing year of 1848 when revolution was in the air. The forces of reaction which had prevailed since 1815 were about to be thrown on the defensive and there was a real sense that major change was on the way. That Marx emphasised with this current merely illustrates that he was no ultra-leftist and had no qualms about allying with the bourgeoisie against the likes of Metternich. If however the bourgeoisie themselves came under assault from the proletariat then they too were fair game

In short, Marx was discussing the "revolutionary movement" of the mid 1800s, and the vista opening up before it, and not that of today or tomorrow

[mikelepore]

I probably misused this topic in a few posts. I think now that "Opposing Ideologies > Learning" is the wrong place for my opinionated interpretations of things. This topic has a different purpose.

[mikelepore]

the language in which he recalled the merits of pre-capitalist societies.

I think some of that came via the influence of Lewis Heny Morgan, who certainly influenced Engels immensely. I'm not sure to what extent Marx was also affected. Morgan expected the transcendence of the institution of private property to mean that highly industrial society of the future will have certain similarities to ancient tribal societies. One the conclusions with which Morgan closed his 1871 book Ancient Society was:

"Since the advent of civilization, the outgrowth of property has been so immense, its forms so diversified, its uses so expanding and its management so intelligent in the interests of its owners, that it has become, on the part of the people, an unmanagable power. The human mind stands bewildered in the presence of its own creation. The time will come, nevertheless, when human intelligence will rise to the mastery over property, and define the relations of the state to the property it protects, as well as the obligations and the limits of the rights of its owners. The interests of society are paramount to individual interests, and the two must be brought into just and harmonious relations. A mere property career is not the final destiny of mankind, if progress is to be the law of the future as it has been of the past. The time which has passed away since civilization began is but a fragment of the ages yet to come. The dissolution of society bids fair to become the termination of a career of which property is the end and aim; because such a career contains the elements of its self-destruction. Democracy in government, brotherhood in society, equality in rights and privileges, and universal education, foreshadow the next higher plane of society to which experience, intelligence and knowledge are steadily tending. It will be a revival, in a higher form, of the liberty, equality and fraternity of the ancient gentes."

[mikelepore]

Context is everything. The Manifesto was published in that amazing year of 1848 when revolution was in the air. The forces of reaction which had prevailed since 1815 were about to be thrown on the defensive and there was a real sense that major change was on the way. That Marx emphasised with this current merely illustrates that he was no ultra-leftist and had no qualms about allying with the bourgeoisie against the likes of Metternich. If however the bourgeoisie themselves came under assault from the proletariat then they too were fair game

In short, Marx was discussing the "revolutionary movement" of the mid 1800s, and the vista opening up before it, and not that of today or tomorrow

Thank you. I believe you're right. Also, Marx's comment in his 1850 address to the Communist League, "... this very moment, when a new revolution is imminent." He was talking about events of that time and place. He didn't mean "the revolution" in the sense of the ultimate banishment of class rule from the earth.

But what do you think is the answer to trivas7's issue about how "Marx could see no means to get to communism"?