Hi again,
IMO comrades - who are outraged at the economic system they find
themselves in; who are morally offended by the massive poverty which
sits unpleasantly next to the exclusivity of the great wealth of
society - are drawn to Marxism as one amongst a number of possible
solutions to this state-of-affairs. It has the added advantage that it
flatters their intelligence with its claims to scientific rigour but
it is perhaps sheer chance that they chose Marxism rather that
anarchism, Fabianism, more vague forms of socialism or even of a
paternal liberalism. Marx and Engels were not convinced by this
bleeding heart socialism or the politics of disgruntled opposition
which were based largely on sentimental and emotional ties rather than
on the rational scientific examination of all the elements of society
and the *understanding* of necessity of change.
These comrades seem to think that we should not put Marx's theories up
to general scientific assessment for fear they would be found wanting
in the light of modern science and hence the cosy ideology they have
found - to satisfy their hatred of the evil of capitalism - would be
lost (or would be relegated to the level of all the other brands of
'socialism' they could equally have chosen.)
To ask, 'What is the relevance of dialectical materialism to the class
struggle?' demonstrates the very problem. Their commitment to the
class struggle is not in doubt but it misses entirely the whole point
of Marxism's solution to the class struggle. Just as the soldier in a
war may be a brilliant fighter but need have no idea what he or she is
fighting for.
On the basis of the immediate needs of the class struggle on could
ditch much of the works of Marx as irrelevant. Why does Marx include
all that dull history on the origins of money, of machinery, or
various forms of labour, etc.? Why does the whole debate on
anthropology interest him so much? Why write an enormous work on
incorrect theories of surplus value? Surely the rallying call of the
Communist Manifesto is enough? Surely Das Kapital could be severely
edited into a more manageable form (what's the point of volume 2
anyhow?!?) ?
This reasoning (and it does have some logic) highlight precisely what
differentiates Marxism from other form of agitational left politics
and misunderstands the specific historical context under which Marx
and Engels were working. Marx's personal economic material conditions
were not such that they would, in themselves, effect his consciousness
in a revolutionary way. He was a philosophy student from a well-to-do
family who in his exploration of the way history developed and how
societies were constituted lead him to a scientific theory to explain
more clearly human social development. That theory was not limited -
like Utopian Socialism - to mere supposition and wishful thinking, but
was solid and needed to be able to withstand investigation by any
other scientist.
Marx understood that limits cannot be placed on science. One cannot
have a theory of gravity which does not apply universally and at all
times, so one cannot have a materialist theory based on dialectic
which applies to society and nothing else. Marx argument for
dialectics being a description of the way history (natural and social)
operates was precisely to avoid Utopian Socialism diverting the masses
and to prove that the bourgeois would be subject to these same laws.
Like King Canute, no matter what they did the tide would eventually
turn against them and wash them away. That was just a fact of nature.
John
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
