Finally, I get around to really explaining/justifying the title of my blog.
As I noted in my last post, “radical” is an example of a “loaded word.” It is used specifically to draw associations with historical communism, violence, plots to overthrow governments, anarchism, atheism, and thought that is in some way “nonrational.”
It is true that Marx’s philosophy is a threat to the status quo; and it is true that I have advocated complete systemic transformation in this blog. But when Marx or Marxists are attacked with the label “radical,” it is more than a comment about the social implications of their thought. It is a strategic means of discrediting Marxist thought: implying that it is inherently violent, obviously proven wrong, not worthy of simple consideration. And this is where I disagree and proclaim that Marx is not radical.
If someone professes to be Marxist, it does not mean that they are plotting the violent overthrow of any government. Many, to the contrary, are pacifists. They may think we have a broken and unjust system that needs to be changed, but how many people would truly disagree with that sentiment?
If someone professes to be Marxist, that does not mean they are Leninist, Trotskyist, or Maoist. Some obviously are/were. Some may point out that the Western portrayal of actually existing "communism" is markedly distorted, without trying to redeem all aspects of those regimes. It may bear repeating that many of the things that happened in the Soviet Union, China, and other places deviated quite widely from the actual writings of Marx. Furthermore, it is absolutely not true that the writings of Marx inevitably lead to the events in the USSR and China. It is an absurd argument, but I think I will have to devote an entire post to its refutation, nonetheless.
Finally, if someone professes to be Marxist, that does not mean they have lost their grip on reality, that their arguments are not logical or based on real evidence, or that there is automatically no merit to any of their thoughts. This one really gets me. How can so much well reasoned, well researched thinking be dismissed so quickly because of a label? No one should discount the ideas of any other person without examining what it is they are actually saying and evaluating their thought upon the arguments/evidence themselves.
That is why I hope anyone who happens to find this blog (who is not already Marxist), would at least take the time to look at what I am saying, to critically evaluate my arguments, at the very least to acknowledge that my thinking is in some way reasonable, without rushing to judgment based purely on labels. But I’m probably asking too much.
Showing posts with label Marx. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marx. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Where Marx Failed To Critique
Marx's critical analysis of society was quite comprehensive. Hardly anything escaped his cynical gaze, and no institution was sacred: he critiqued everything from the state to philosophy to the family. But "hardly anything" is not "nothing." Two things, in particular, slipped through the cracks of Marx's solid framework.
Science and technology
Marx did not believe that capitalism was necessarily bad; he believed it was a necessary step in the evolution of society because it allowed for the scale and type of technological innovation which Marx believed could finally free humans from demeaning labor. In fact, he believed the communist revolution would occur only after a certain level of technological development worldwide had been attained. Technology is necessary for sustaining the sort of communist utopia that he envisioned.
Related to this evaluation of technology, Marx relied on evolutionary models in his thinking and unhesitatingly championed science. For some reason, science seemed to be the one realm that Marx could not conceive of being permeated and structured by bourgeois interests. Of course, I have already spent a considerable amount of time in this blog making up for that lapse, so I don't think I need to go into more detail.
Secular-Liberalism
Marx actually did attack many liberal/secular doctrines: for example, the sanctity of the individual, the importance of private ownership and competition, and the meaning of "democracy" in practice. He still, however, maintained some notion of "the human potential," which a life freed of meaningless labor was supposed to help one attain. I do not think this is a terribly large omission; for my part, I still cling onto ideas of individual equality and "toleration" of differences that spring from the same source. It is hard to frame one's values in a language that is completely outside of the dominant (in this case liberal, secular) ideology. But a little awareness that one is doing so does not hurt either.
Science and technology
Marx did not believe that capitalism was necessarily bad; he believed it was a necessary step in the evolution of society because it allowed for the scale and type of technological innovation which Marx believed could finally free humans from demeaning labor. In fact, he believed the communist revolution would occur only after a certain level of technological development worldwide had been attained. Technology is necessary for sustaining the sort of communist utopia that he envisioned.
Related to this evaluation of technology, Marx relied on evolutionary models in his thinking and unhesitatingly championed science. For some reason, science seemed to be the one realm that Marx could not conceive of being permeated and structured by bourgeois interests. Of course, I have already spent a considerable amount of time in this blog making up for that lapse, so I don't think I need to go into more detail.
Secular-Liberalism
Marx actually did attack many liberal/secular doctrines: for example, the sanctity of the individual, the importance of private ownership and competition, and the meaning of "democracy" in practice. He still, however, maintained some notion of "the human potential," which a life freed of meaningless labor was supposed to help one attain. I do not think this is a terribly large omission; for my part, I still cling onto ideas of individual equality and "toleration" of differences that spring from the same source. It is hard to frame one's values in a language that is completely outside of the dominant (in this case liberal, secular) ideology. But a little awareness that one is doing so does not hurt either.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Marx and Religion
There are many misconceptions about Marx's view of religion, as well as the relation of atheism to Marxism in general.
Now, it IS true that Marx himself wasn't religious, and that it is a tenant of most forms of Marxism that all social institutions derive from and support the relations of production that form the base of society. In this sense, religion, as a social institution, is contingent (or part of the "superstructure," in Marxist parlance). It follows, then, that in Marx's view of revolution, when all relationships of domination were challenged and dismantled by the oppressed, this would extend to all social institutions, including the institutional forms of religion as we know them today. Now, Marx may have believed that at this point, people would cease to believe in God if there were no authority figures telling them to do so. However, that is quite different from saying that Marxism is in principle an atheist philosophy.
In fact, Marx was more ambivalent toward religion than most people realize. He may not have articulated a definition of religion like the one I outlined in my previous post (my own thinking on the subject owes much more to Talal Asad); however, unlike other scholars of his time, he did not rely on simple functionalism and recognized that religion was too complex to exist in a linear causal relationship with any other aspect of human life. Thus, he did believe that religious institutions were used to inculcate bourgeois ideology (even though he did not even touch on the role religion played in the emerging bourgeois-colonial world order with its concomitant "colonization of consciousness"; and he probably could not have imagined the way religion would come to be commodified, the way it would create new spaces for capitalist exploitation and use the language of markets and competition in the constitution of liturgical and discursive practices). But he also noted that religion "is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions" (the words immediately preceding the famous "religion is the opium of the people"... a context which gives this statement a double meaning, as opium is also an excellent pain reliever). Furthermore, as part of his general theory that that which arises from the materiality of productive processes comes to have a life of its own in which it is dialogically related to the material "base," Marx believed that religion contained ideas and principles (justice, giving to the poor, etc.) that could potentially be used by the oppressed to resist the forces of their domination.
Now, certainly there have been plenty of atheist Marxists. And this is excluding the "communist" dictators of the 20th century, because their political strategies bore little to no resemblance to the teachings of Marx, did not need to be justified by Marx (and in that sense the special relationship the Russian Orthodox Church had with the Tsar and the important role its clergy played in the old social order helps contextualizes the Party's actions toward religious institutions). But, one should note that there have also been a significant number of religious Marxists around the world. The very prominent "liberation theology" of Latin America, which fuses Catholicism with Marxism, is a good example.
I bring this up because it will be relevant to my next post, but also, because it demonstrates the way in which a certain view of Marx and Marxism was deliberately manufactured to sustain the narrative of the Christian-Capitalist-Democratic West triumphing over the Evil-Communist-Atheist East. It was necessary to play up the "inherent atheism" of Marxism/communism in order to frame the Cold War as a battle between Good and Evil, and cover up the fact that it was really a territorial squabble between two imperial powers.
Now, it IS true that Marx himself wasn't religious, and that it is a tenant of most forms of Marxism that all social institutions derive from and support the relations of production that form the base of society. In this sense, religion, as a social institution, is contingent (or part of the "superstructure," in Marxist parlance). It follows, then, that in Marx's view of revolution, when all relationships of domination were challenged and dismantled by the oppressed, this would extend to all social institutions, including the institutional forms of religion as we know them today. Now, Marx may have believed that at this point, people would cease to believe in God if there were no authority figures telling them to do so. However, that is quite different from saying that Marxism is in principle an atheist philosophy.
In fact, Marx was more ambivalent toward religion than most people realize. He may not have articulated a definition of religion like the one I outlined in my previous post (my own thinking on the subject owes much more to Talal Asad); however, unlike other scholars of his time, he did not rely on simple functionalism and recognized that religion was too complex to exist in a linear causal relationship with any other aspect of human life. Thus, he did believe that religious institutions were used to inculcate bourgeois ideology (even though he did not even touch on the role religion played in the emerging bourgeois-colonial world order with its concomitant "colonization of consciousness"; and he probably could not have imagined the way religion would come to be commodified, the way it would create new spaces for capitalist exploitation and use the language of markets and competition in the constitution of liturgical and discursive practices). But he also noted that religion "is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions" (the words immediately preceding the famous "religion is the opium of the people"... a context which gives this statement a double meaning, as opium is also an excellent pain reliever). Furthermore, as part of his general theory that that which arises from the materiality of productive processes comes to have a life of its own in which it is dialogically related to the material "base," Marx believed that religion contained ideas and principles (justice, giving to the poor, etc.) that could potentially be used by the oppressed to resist the forces of their domination.
Now, certainly there have been plenty of atheist Marxists. And this is excluding the "communist" dictators of the 20th century, because their political strategies bore little to no resemblance to the teachings of Marx, did not need to be justified by Marx (and in that sense the special relationship the Russian Orthodox Church had with the Tsar and the important role its clergy played in the old social order helps contextualizes the Party's actions toward religious institutions). But, one should note that there have also been a significant number of religious Marxists around the world. The very prominent "liberation theology" of Latin America, which fuses Catholicism with Marxism, is a good example.
I bring this up because it will be relevant to my next post, but also, because it demonstrates the way in which a certain view of Marx and Marxism was deliberately manufactured to sustain the narrative of the Christian-Capitalist-Democratic West triumphing over the Evil-Communist-Atheist East. It was necessary to play up the "inherent atheism" of Marxism/communism in order to frame the Cold War as a battle between Good and Evil, and cover up the fact that it was really a territorial squabble between two imperial powers.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Myths About Marx
In my first post, I listed some common misconceptions about Marx, Marxism, and communism... sort of as a teaser. Now that I have sketched a rough outline of my Marxist perspective, I thought it might be a good time to revisit that list of myths and explain (briefly) why these beliefs are unfounded. Hopefully I will have time in future posts to expand on some of these a bit more. (The last two on the list I have already touched on to some extent, so I will postpone, for now, discussing them further.)
1. Marx advocated the expansion of state power.
Marx believed that the state was only a tool of ruling class interests. Rather than wanting to expand state power, Marx looked toward a future without any state.
2. Marx called for the obliteration of any forms individuality, and the imposition of complete and absolute equality in all aspects of life, most particularly with wages.
Marx did not advocate total and absolute equality. He never criticized individual expression. The thing that he opposed was exploitation and the thing that he supported was production that was oriented toward fulfilling actual needs (rather than creating needs... and waste) and making the most of human creative and intellectual potential. In his communist utopia there certainly could have been room for inequality and diversity in different aspects of life. However, production in general would not be based on relations of exploitation, labor would be fulfilling rather than grueling and inhumane, and production would be communally guided to satisfy real needs.
Furthermore, Marx did not focus that much on his vision for the future evolution of society, and much of it remains sketchy. Most of his work was occupied with historical and economic analysis, which is unparalleled in its detail and explanatory value, and still hugely influential to this day.
3. Marx advised the working class to rise up and rule over the other classes, effectively reversing the class hierarchy.
Once again, Marx opposed exploitation of any kind. Although there is some mention in his writing of possible "transitional states," this is even more sketchy than his communist utopia.
4. Marx did not find any value in capitalism.
Marx thought that capitalism was a necessary and valuable step in the evolutionary process that would eventually lead to communism. Primarily, it was valuable in that it promoted technological innovation on such an unprecedented scale. One of the conditions of the transition to communism was that technological development would reach such a level that human beings would be freed from the drudgery of mindless physical labor: machines would be able to do all the jobs that were degrading or alienating to the human intellect and spirit.
5. Marx favored violence and insurrection.
Marx was never trying to precipitate class warfare. He never advocated violence. He thought that conflict was the inevitable, natural result of exploitation. (If you piss someone off enough, they will retaliate eventually.) Thus, he said that revolution was going to occur, organically, he didn't say he wanted to make it occur.
6. Communism, as it has existed historically, is an accurate reflection of Marx's vision.
There are many reasons why the communism of the USSR and its satellites does not reflect the writings of Marx... probably because it bears absolutely no resemblance to Marx's communism. I will only point out a couple of glaring differences here, because this could easily turn into an essay of its own.
1. Marx advocated the expansion of state power.
Marx believed that the state was only a tool of ruling class interests. Rather than wanting to expand state power, Marx looked toward a future without any state.
2. Marx called for the obliteration of any forms individuality, and the imposition of complete and absolute equality in all aspects of life, most particularly with wages.
Marx did not advocate total and absolute equality. He never criticized individual expression. The thing that he opposed was exploitation and the thing that he supported was production that was oriented toward fulfilling actual needs (rather than creating needs... and waste) and making the most of human creative and intellectual potential. In his communist utopia there certainly could have been room for inequality and diversity in different aspects of life. However, production in general would not be based on relations of exploitation, labor would be fulfilling rather than grueling and inhumane, and production would be communally guided to satisfy real needs.
Furthermore, Marx did not focus that much on his vision for the future evolution of society, and much of it remains sketchy. Most of his work was occupied with historical and economic analysis, which is unparalleled in its detail and explanatory value, and still hugely influential to this day.
3. Marx advised the working class to rise up and rule over the other classes, effectively reversing the class hierarchy.
Once again, Marx opposed exploitation of any kind. Although there is some mention in his writing of possible "transitional states," this is even more sketchy than his communist utopia.
4. Marx did not find any value in capitalism.
Marx thought that capitalism was a necessary and valuable step in the evolutionary process that would eventually lead to communism. Primarily, it was valuable in that it promoted technological innovation on such an unprecedented scale. One of the conditions of the transition to communism was that technological development would reach such a level that human beings would be freed from the drudgery of mindless physical labor: machines would be able to do all the jobs that were degrading or alienating to the human intellect and spirit.
5. Marx favored violence and insurrection.
Marx was never trying to precipitate class warfare. He never advocated violence. He thought that conflict was the inevitable, natural result of exploitation. (If you piss someone off enough, they will retaliate eventually.) Thus, he said that revolution was going to occur, organically, he didn't say he wanted to make it occur.
6. Communism, as it has existed historically, is an accurate reflection of Marx's vision.
There are many reasons why the communism of the USSR and its satellites does not reflect the writings of Marx... probably because it bears absolutely no resemblance to Marx's communism. I will only point out a couple of glaring differences here, because this could easily turn into an essay of its own.
- Marx argued that the communist revolution could only occur after attaining a certain level of technological development and globalization, which had certainly not been reached by 1917, nor even now.
- Marx was very clear that true a communist revolution had to be a global movement. It could not occur in one country or one region of the world alone.
- Marx's utopia was stateless... it was not a ruthless, genocidal dictatorship/empire.
- The revolution in Russia turned into a movement toward industrialization, which, I have already argued, made it more capitalist. For Marx, the communist revolution was a movement from industrial society to something different.
I should definitely do a post about this one, because I could keep going on and on and on....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)