The
majority of people in the world, except perhaps the mentally ill,
seldom ever claim to be Marxists anymore. Whenever progressives are
accused of being Marxists or socialists, they mock their
simple-minded opponents and go on their merry way.
However,
we have to keep in mind the famous quote about the
greatest trick the Devil ever having played was how he convinced the
world that he didn't exist.
 |
| Image Source |
The
great irony of present-day Marxists is that the majority of people
who are either consciously or subconsciously influenced by Marxism
have never read any of Marx's works. Then there are those who have
read his works and who have failed to understand Marx.
(Joseph A. Schumpeter
listed in his book, “History of Economic Analysis”
(Page 362, “Concerning the Marxist System”) quite a formidable
and hefty set of prerequisites that people have to read in order to
properly understand Marx. This probably explains why so many people
are reluctant and/or unable to fully understand Marxism.)
Regardless
of whether people have read or not read or understood or not
understood Marx, many people have uncritically accepted many of his
views as gospel truth. And I am willing to bet that most of those
people don't even know that they are channeling Marx.
 |
| Image Source |
For
example, one thing that I have heard many progressives complain about
often is that, especially after having been “influenced” by the
“corporate media,” far too many middle to low income earners “vote
against their own interest.” For proof simply do a Google search
for “vote against their own interest.”
However,
we have to ask what people mean by “interest” when they pose
their question. In every single instance, when that question is
asked, what they almost always mean by “interest” is the
interests of the group that the individuals supposedly belong to.
For
example, people often ask why ethnic minorities or women vote for
conservative parties, or why the low-to-middle income earners vote
for tax breaks for the “super rich.” Notice how no one ever asks
why a particular woman or member of an ethnic minority group might
vote for a conservative politician or why individuals would vote for
tax breaks that they themselves might not benefit from immediately.
It's always about the group.
This
goes back to Marx's belief, which he stated in the Communist
Manifesto, that “the
history of all hitherto existing human society is the history of
class struggles.” As far as Marx
was concerned, “interests”
are something definite and apart from a person's ideas.
It
was a belief that Marx himself contradicted in the same damned book.
As Marx was not a
member of the proletariat, he conveniently added that “in
times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour... a small
section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the
revolutionary class.”
If
it is possible for some people to extricate themselves from the
trappings of their own class and its supposedly inherent interests,
then the law is really not a law! Too many Progressives, however,
don't seem to be able to see the contradiction to question their own
beliefs when they talk about people “voting against their own
interests.” They believe that the “interest” of a class is
obvious and that there could be no doubt about what it is.
I
suppose it is much easier to assume that people who do not agree with
them are brainwashed class traitors than individuals who genuinely
have their own independent minds that happen to be opposed to theirs.
Furthermore,
this idea about class interest is an idea that is all too similar to
that of racists. Racists tend to believe that members of a race all
look and think alike. That they should all behave in a particular
way. That there are certain things that all members of a certain
racial group should inherently like and dislike. Replace the word
“race” with “class” and you get the same argument!
 |
| Image Source |
Edit:
The quote about the Devil may be attributed to Charles Baudelaire but in all fairness, Kevin Spacey did make it sound much better.
Nice post.
ReplyDeleteElsewhere on the internet, I got a response from a reader (who shall remain unnamed unless he/she chooses to voluntarily reveal him/herself) regarding this post. Here was the response:
ReplyDelete"Doesn't sound like you know Marx, either. Just saying. Marx wasn't a "Marxist," either. He was a materialist historian who made a reading of history through the lens of classes and who saw an evolutionary pattern in developing societies, essentially a Hegelian, just as Francis Fukuyama is, although they came to radically different conclusions about what the "End" state would be. When I teach Marx to undergrads, I talk about historical materialism and the way basic societal structures create culture and how ideology is the glue that holds it all together. It's simple, and it's fine. "Marx. I do not think that word means what you think it means..." to paraphrase another fine film..."
The following is my response:
First of all, seeing how you merely said that you think I “don't know Marx either” without mentioning anything that I said about the collectivist root of Marx's notion of inherent class consciousness/interest, which is the philosophical foundation of the phrase “voting against their interest,” I will assume that you have conceded that point to me, at least.
DeleteSecondly, we need not discuss Francis Fukuyama. His book, "The End of History," should have been enough to disqualify him from any further serious consideration. I would say the same of Marx but he has had far too much influence in the world and cannot be ignored completely.
There are many problems that I have with Marx. And I'm glad that you brought up historical materialism because it has been one of those things that has always confused me. Marx claimed that at the base of historical materialism is “material productive forces,” aka technology, the so-called driving power that creates all historical events and changes.
Seeing how you teach Marxism in a university, I'm sure that this quote will not be unfamiliar to you: “The hand mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam mill society with the industrial capitalist.”
He was convinced that it was material productive forces (technology) that determine human consciousness, which in turn leads to the different ideologies and societies that people create.
So here are my questions:
1) Where did these productive forces come from? Marx never questioned this. He took their existence as a given fact, as though things just appeared out of nowhere.
2) Is technology really material? Or is it the result of an individual's (or group of individuals') mind?
3) How do these productive forces make up the “economic structure of society?”
4) How does this “economic structure,” in turn, create the “superstructure,” which includes things as vast as natural science, religion, philosophy, the law, and the zeitgeist in general. Definitely no word about this one.
Marx never clearly explained any of this, and if he did try, they were half-hearted and vague. He simply asserted them as fact and he moved along. I suppose one should sympathize. Marx COULD NOT answer these questions. As you said, Marx was “a materialist historian who made a reading of history through the lens of classes and who saw an evolutionary pattern in developing societies.” If he had been intellectually honest, which Marx clearly was not, he would have had to admit that all new technologies are the product of an individual's mind.
If he had admitted that, his entire system would have fallen apart. He would have had to admit that the invention of material productive forces are determined by individual minds, not the other way around.
Then there's the entire factual nonsense that is at the base of historical materialism – did the hand mill “give us” feudalism, or did it exist beforehand? I pose the same question about the steam mill.
I do not know if or how you have filled in the blanks that Marx left behind; but if you are a Marxist, and have somehow filled in the missing pieces, especially considering that you said “Marx wasn't a “Marxist,”” then one thing that I can say for sure is that YOU have abandoned Marxism.
Why would his entire system have fallen apart if he acknowledged technologies are the product of an individual's mind? That's neither here nor there as to the impact of their invention. Whether those technologies came to be through an individual's mind, through the conglomeration of clever minds making incremental contributions, or dropped by aliens or elves tired of cobbling, onto the desks of engineers and inventors and patent clerks, they would have brought about the same changes in societies, once placed in the hands of profiteers and elites.
DeleteIt matters a great deal. Marx said that material productive forces are what determines the superstructure of any given society. However, as I said, those productive forces come from individual minds. They do not appear out of thin air.
DeleteBut then we have to wonder where those individuals with free minds came from. Yes, an individual with a rational and intelligent mind must first come up with a concept and then transform that concept into something that can be produced. However, that is not all that is required. A new technological invention also requires savings and capital investment (which also require rational and intelligent minds).
You say that technological inventions would have brought about the same changes in societies, once placed in the hands of profiteers and elites. But we have to ask whether these inventions could have come into existence without them. Some inventions such as the wheel certainly did not need savings or capital investments. However, what modern invention (and more importantly, mass production) did not require capital investments? And who has capital investments?
You seem to be implying that profiteers (Let's be honest here, who doesn't seek a profit? By that definition, EVERYONE is a profiteer.) had no role to play during the process of new technologies being invented, and only comes in later after all the hard work has been done just to turn a quick profit. I say that they play an integral role during the whole process from start to finish.
But that leads to more questions. What kind of economic system gives people the best opportunity to create savings and make capital investments? Did such an economic system come into existence because someone simply willed it? No, of course not. It, too, was the result of a very long series of mental processes.
Basically, Marx said:
Historical Materialism = Technology → Economic Structure → Superstructure
In fact, Marx thought that the discovery of electricity was THE material productive force that would hasten the inevitability of socialism.
(Another contradiction within Marx's ideas: If he truly believed that socialism was inevitable, why did he bother to organize a socialist movement, or a socialist party, or declare that the violent overthrow of the government was necessary to bring about socialism?)
On the other hand, what I am saying is that there is no neat step-by-step process. The entire concept of historical materialism is nonsensical. It all starts with individual minds, which Marx conveniently ignores, and everything else happens organically from that point. There is no smooth transition from one era to another. There is no collective mind, no such thing as collective interests. And there is no inevitable destiny.
So do new technologies determine the way people see the world around them? Or is it more likely that rational minds come first, which people improve incrementally over generations? The minds that help people to formulate their notions and ideas, which in turn could potentially lead them to create capitalist economies that can possibly give people the proper economic and political freedom and incentives that are needed for people to exercise their minds further to come up with new inventions for the sake of improving their lives further?
That is why if Marx had been intellectually honest, he would have had to change his mind about a LOT of things (and probably saved the world a whole lot of grief).