IMAGINING OTHER
Political Philosophy Part 2
Marxism and
Socialism since Marx (pp17)
Part 1: Marxism
and Revisionism/Social Democracy (*)
(see also notes on
the Labour Movement… here we are dealing mainly with Marxist theory)
(*) part 2 deals
with the more recent issues for the left – including the New Left, Labour and
New Labour, the ‘Third Way’ etc.
Links: Imagining Other Index Page
Political Philosophy Contents Page
There are notes and points on inequality
at:
Chapter 8 of Corporate
Social Responsibility
and at: Updates on Inequality.
Outline:
1. Currents in
Marxism:
1.1 why the different “currents” in
Marxism #why the
splits
1.2 what are the main groupings #main groups
1.3 what are the theoretical
differences in Marxism #theory
2. Marx’s different
interpreters
2.1 Lenin and Stalin #Lenin and Stalin
2.2 Western Marxism – the ‘first generation’
#'Western Marxism'
2.3 Gramsci #Gramsci
2.4 Lukacs #Lukacs
2.5 the ‘second generation’ of
western Marxists - critical theory etc. #Frankfurt
School, Critical Theory
3. Social
Democracy: ‘revisions’ of Marx (by those who still felt themselves to be to
some extent Marxists, whilst others would say they were not):
3.1 Eduard Bernstein #Eduard Bernstein
3.2 Tony Crosland #Anthony Crosland
NOTES:
1. Currents in Marxism.
There are several
reasons:
- theoretical differences: Marxism is a complex theory with many
inter-related ‘parts’ (see pp16). Differences will obviously emerge among
interpretations as a result of emphasising different features of the theory.
Thus Lenin and others stressed: the economy and party organisation, the
strategy of the dictatorship of the proletariat, egalitarianism. “Western
Marxists” stressed Marxism as a philosophy, and such themes as alienation (in
the light of Freud and modern psychology). Social democracy stressed the
relative autonomy of politics and the way the economy and politics had changed
since Marx’s time. The New Left and some social democrats brought out the
libertarianism in Marxism. (See 1.3
below)
- the ambiguity/incompleteness of Marx's work – this led to different interpretations of key
concepts e.g. materialism, the role of the economy, the state, class struggle,
democracy, the transition to socialism…
- R.N. Berki, in
‘Socialism’ (see booklist) suggests that different
psychological approaches lead to different “socialisms” - and maybe the
same can be said of Marxism – so we could identify perhaps: authoritarian vs.
libertarian, practical vs. idealist; rigid vs. flexible Marxisms…
- differences in the historical/economic
circumstances where the theory
is applied. For example, developing economies (as
- sectarianism: the tendency to see
Marxism as "truth" encourages groups to fight amongst each other…
- "Third
International" - followers of Lenin and the CPSU (Communist Party of the
-
"revolutionary Marxism" – rejects the reformism of the pro-Moscow
communist parties - e.g. Socialist Workers' Party (UK), Revolutionary Communist
Party etc; since CPs tend to take part in Parliamentary elections etc, Marxists
who stress the revolutionary nature of Marxism have set up separate groupings;
theoretical differences obviously exist with (orthodox) CPs but differences,
often bitter, also exist with each other (e.g. in UK a contentious issue is
Ireland)
- council
communists stress that Lenin took over the workers’ organisations (the
soviets/councils) and manipulated them through the Bolshevik Party (and the
secret police!) – a genuine and democratic workers’ revolution could still take
place if “vanguardism” is avoided (see, for example, Pannekoek and the early
ideas of Castoriadis)
-
"Trotskyism" – rejects Stalinism (a bureaucratic dictatorship) and
Eurocommunism/reformism – Trotskyites were an early split from the CP/Third
International, in fact formed the Fourth International, when Trotsky was exiled
from
-
"Maoists" - Mao's main alteration to/development of Marxism was to
give a role to the peasantry, in alliance with the CP of course; this has been
welcomed by some in less developed countries. In
Article by Pankaj Mishra, author of
‘Temptations of the West’, G 200711 discusses the ‘return of Mao’ – points out
that Mao’s contribution to Marxist theory and practise was to identify a nexus
between the feudal elites in the hinterland (of China) and the capitalists in
the semi-colonial coastal cities. This was the class enemy against whom the
peasants needed mobilising. He lists as Mao’s key works: Report on an
Investigation of the Peasant Movement in
Mao’s ideas then had a significant impact
in
Now there is the insurgency in the
forests of central
Mishra also makes the point that
whilst the scale of Mao’s violence dwarfs all other crimes committed in the
course of nation-building, nevertheless ‘modernisers’ everywhere have inflicted
violence and suffering – especially ‘in a huge area of Asian territory, from
Turkey and Iran to Indonesia and Taiwan…’
- philosophical
Marxists e.g. "New Left" and “Western Marxism” - see 2.2 below, also
‘critical theory’ see 2.5 below
- there are also
Marxists who want to combine Marxism with e.g. Christian socialism, or to push
the Labour Party from within (Militant et al).
1.3 theoretical differences among Marxists – (revisiting points made concerning Marx)
differences centre on such problems as:
- economic
determinism: some Marxists have a model where the economic "base" is
separate from and determines the "superstructure" (politics, culture
etc); Engels himself tried to restate this by saying the "economy is
important in the last instance" (i.e. as a kind of ultimate constraint,
rather than a determining factor); more recent writers have put the
"relations of production" as fundamental - i.e. the danger with
economic determinism is that it seems to attribute to non-human aspects of society the ability to push us towards socialism
(material forces have a purpose?!) - at the very least it reduces the role of
the human agent. But if you reduce the importance of the economy, how does
Marxism differ from other theories of social change, and how does it
demonstrate the necessity for socialism?
- consciousness and
direction: related to the above, some (e.g. Lenin) believe(d) that workers
themselves, with no outside influence, will only develop "trade union
consciousness" (asking for concessions from capitalism, not revolutionary
consciousness which aims to overthrow capitalism); others (e.g. Rosa Luxemburg)
believe(d) that workers can "spontaneously" become revolutionary;
some argue that to develop communist theory/consciousness you need a party,
others reject this. Even Trotsky found the Party indispensable, and - for all
his criticisms, and despite how he was treated, Lukacs never left it (see 2.4
below)
- Marxism as a
scientific theory: stresses the importance of empirical observation – but if it
is a science then we ought to be able to make firm predictions, e.g. of a
coming "crisis of capitalism" – and this has proved very
difficult! A counter view is that the
development of workers’ consciousness will itself determine the direction of capitalism
(after all, Marx did say we have a choice: “socialism or barbarism”! – see
Castoriadis Notes on "Recommencing
Revolution" by Castoriadis). On the other hand, if consciousness is a
key element in the development of the proletariat before a revolution is
possible - how exactly does the level of workers’ consciousness relate to the
development of the economy (and couldn't such consciousness arise without a
high level of economic development)?
- can you combine a
scientific theory with a moral one (as Marxism seems to do)? The danger with a pseudo-science based on
moral arguments is that its adherents are driven to prove their correctness by
"forcing" events. Karl Popper argued that the characteristic of a scientific
theory is that it must be possible to
falsify it (by finding evidence that disproves it, or by testing it and the
test failing). Can Marxism be ‘falsified’? How do we go about testing arguments
that point to the collapse of capitalism as a result of the rate of profit
declining? The rate has gone down sometimes, and up at others; there have been
various ‘crises’ but no complete collapse as yet. Does this disprove the
theory? No, say hard-line Marxists, as they are still waiting for the final crisis… Popper says Marx's theory
suffer from historicism - the attributing to "history" of purpose and
meaning outside of how humans choose to act - again, a form of determinism.
- Marxism as
critique: if, as some say, the main strength of Marxism is to criticize and
demystify, why at the same time does it want to assert what it does? Criticism
and demystification does not of itself provide positive answers.
- Marxism as
ideology: if all classes adopt theories about the world which reflect their
position in it and their interests/desires, and these ideas are therefore
distortions - ideologies - how can it be proved that Marxism is not itself an
ideology? (Unless and until the socialist revolution has in fact occurred!)
Note too that Freud contributed other thoughts on the problem of
self-knowledge/self-deception... [Some of these arguments are taken from books
by Sabine and Lancaster – see the booklist).
2. Marxism's interpreters (post-1917) - selected
critical issues:
Lenin's revolution took many by surprise at the time: it had seemed that Marx
expected revolution to start in advanced capitalist countries. Hence many
(especially the Mensheviks) felt that Lenin introduced an element of
"voluntarism" – as it were ‘willing’ a revolution before economic
conditions were ripe.
[For another brief
note on Lenin, see sm2russianrevolution.htm#Lenin.
Here is a link to a pamphlet on Lenin to which I made a minor contribution: http://libcom.org/library/fresh-look-lenin-andy-brown]
These differences relate
to the division between those who saw Marxism as predicting events, in a
deterministic way (such as the Mensheviks) and those who believed (with Gramsci
and Lukacs) that what happened depended more on how people thought and acted -
a crucial aspect of this is "cultural": how ideas are presented by
the ruling powers, and how workers and others respond.
With the
Another feature of
Stalinism was the centralisation of power into his own hands. To many, the
Party was "substituting" itself for the proletariat, and Stalin
substituted himself for the Party. With the brutal suppression of uprisings in
East Germany and Hungary (1956 and after) - where ordinary working people were
making demands that the original promises of the revolution be fulfilled, a
good many westerners left the Communist Party, and much theoretical discussion
took place (e.g. the New Left).
2.2 “Western Marxism” or
“philosophical Marxism”
Perry Anderson in: Considerations on
Western Marxism, New Left Books 1976, argues that these thinkers were found
mainly in
workers councils; Lukacs was expelled
from the party because of his opposition to the party’s refusal to work with
other workers' organisations – a line known as
‘social fascism’); Gramsci spent
years in prison (while
For
The Italian Marxist
thinker and politician Antonio Gramsci was politically active during the rise
of fascism in
Gramsci had warned
of the danger of bureaucracy in the Party (as had Trotsky...), and called for
power to workers' soviets. He argued that the scientific nature of Marxism
cannot be demonstrated apart from the actions of the working class - i.e.
theory and practice must be one. Intellectuals who sympathise with the workers
must be "organically" linked, i.e. must "practise" by being
actively involved in struggle etc.
He noted the way
that classes exercise "hegemony" - i.e. control of society through
ideas as well as economically (through ownership of the means of production).
Therefore the struggle against the rulers must also be one on the
"cultural" plane. This stressed the role of the church, the media,
civil society organisations and trade unions. He thus rejected the
"base/superstructure" model that many Marxists had adopted, where the
economic base determines the cultural superstructure, and wrote of the ‘optimism
of the will’ (from Heywood 2003). He also suggested that the state has some
"autonomy" - its actions are not merely determined by economic
circumstances, but the ruling class has room to manoeuvre in response to
pressures put on it.
The Hungarian
Marxist Georg Lukacs wrote "History and Class Consciousness" in 1919
- 22, and other writings through to 1963. He also attempted to theorise a more
‘humanist’ Marxism, with his emphasis on “reification” – the process by which
capitalism reduces workers to passive objects or marketable commodities
(Heywood).
(The notes that
follow are primarily from Kolakowski’s Main Currents of Marxism – see
booklist).
Lukacs stressed
that the core of Marxism was "dialectics" - however, this is not just
a way of describing the world, it is a way of thinking which accepts that in
thinking about the world we change it. In other words the dialectic is a part
of the revolutionary process.
This enabled Lukacs
to tackle the problems associated with the question of ‘scientific method’ in
Marxism, and he did this by distancing himself from "empiricism" -
the obsession with "facts" - which when it gets in the way of seeing
the "total" movement of history, he said, produces revisionism and
reformism. His approach to the epistemological (the nature of knowledge - how
we know) aspect of Marxism was to subordinate ‘empirical’ facts to the ‘bigger
picture’ (as it were): "...when vulgar Marxists adduce "facts"
that appear to contradict the process (…whereby the time approaches for the
expropriators to be expropriated), so much the worse for the facts!"
On the other hand,
we must be able to fit the concrete details into the whole - this he calls
"mediation": over-emphasising one aspect or the other leads to errors
- too much attention to detail leads to revisionism, but too much attention to
"totalities" without taking into account specific differences in the
components leads to such doctrines as Nazism.
The crucial agent
in bringing about socialism, which is to create a "whole" society, is
the one which is itself a "whole" i.e. the proletariat (Marx's
"universal class"). The dialectic is the growing self-consciousness
of this class i.e. consciousness of "objective" change (all previous
classes and times have suffered from "alienation" or "false
consciousness"). Thus socialism is neither something we "want"
nor something we "foresee", but it is the very meaning of history.
Here Kolakowski observes that we have entered the world of myth... and I would
add that it is hard to believe that the working class must develop in self-consciousness by becoming Marxist – yet if you
believe Marxism has found the ‘truth’ about the future, so it must be…
Lukacs’s ideas were
not accepted by Stalin, and he was obliged to retract much of what he wrote
("self-criticism"). When
I would conclude
that his (problematic) ideas were more influential on philosophers than on the
workers’ movement – a dilemma that haunts many Marxist intellectuals…
2.5 The ‘second generation’ of ‘western Marxists’ (for Perry Anderson) were
formed by the experience of fascism and WWII (the
Centred on
Others of the ‘second generation’
were Louis Althusser
The most important
contribution of these thinkers was their attempted to integrate the
psychological ideas of Freud and his successors into Marxism - much work was
done on the "authoritarian personality" after the Second World War.
After all, Marxism as originally formulated did not seem able to explain
fascism – and yet fascism had appealed to many in the working class… They also
returned to the ‘dialectics’ of Hegel, and Marx’s use of them as a ‘critique’
of existing society – hence ‘critical’ theory.
Other ‘western
Marxists’ (especially Sartre) were influenced by phenomenology and
existentialism.
Perry Anderson suggests that these developments
of Marxist theory were especially prevalent in
and a large radical intelligentsia.
especially given the "defeats" that
fascism and Stalinism represented, (b) they worked in universities etc e.g. the
Institute for Social Research,
gradually got more distant from the Marxist
movement, (c) in
existentialism, the conflict in Algeria etc, (d)
Hungary 1956 - when a popular uprising was put down with Russian tanks -
represented another defeat for traditional
Marxist thought, and (e) they were consequently
not interested so much in economics, the political machinery of the bourgeois
state and the class struggle; hence there
was bound to be a shift to philosophy. Many leading theorists of this ‘school’ actually had
university chairs of philosophy! (cf. Althusser and Spinoza and
Montesquieu).
I am not sure that I go along with all of this, and it is worth stressing that alongside the
‘western Marxists’ identified above, there were others who stressed the
importance of workers’ councils, and a practical approach from the “bottom up”
(e.g. Karl Korsch, Anton Pannekoek and others – such ‘council communism’ was an
influence on Castoriadis). Perhaps
[Note: there are
many other prominent and influential Marxist thinkers and activists that I have
to leave out of these notes, at least for the time being e.g.: Erich Fromm,
Jurgen Habermas, Henri Lefebvre…
(*) also: Walter Benjamin - a figure who
intrigues me, since his work deals with creativity and the arts...
Comments by John
Dugdale (26.9.15 G2): ‘For devotees of
Critical Theory, he is now seen as one of the founding fathers along with his
sterner
From New Statesman,
a review of several books on Benjamin: http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2015/10/walter-benjamin-first-pop-philosopher
Thinkers such as
these, and Marcuse, were influential on the New Left (see 4.2 below)
3.
Social Democracy: (revisions of
Marx, but by those who still felt themselves to be Marxists)
Eduard Bernstein 1850 – 1932: [from McClelland 1996]
1.
Life:
In 1872 he joined the precursor of the German
Social Democratic Party in
Engels. He was executor of Engels’ will, and had
charge of his papers.
In
In 1898 he wrote Evolutionary Socialism, which
was published in 1899 in
Went back to
After his death in 1932 it was only six weeks
before Hitler came to power. Bernstein never thought Nazism had a future…
2. Main Issues (Sidney Hook, Intro to 1963
edition Preconditions of Socialism):
- science should be seen as tentative, not
doctrinal (i.e. it must change with changing evidence) – both the fundamental
concepts and the applications must be treated in this way, so that if the
‘applications’ don’t square with the fundamental concepts then these
(fundamental concepts) may need changing
- historical developments have not turned out as
Marx foresaw – in particular, unemployment and impoverishment of the workers
had not kept on worsening
- the basic ideas of Marxism need revising
(though NB he still saw himself as a Marxist, and Marxism as ‘scientific’):
(a)
historical materialism,
(b)
class war,
(c)
surplus value,
(d)
an account of the tendencies of bourgeois society
- consequently:
*
there is not likely to be an apocalyptic end to capitalism, rather a gradual
change – which is in fact a change towards socialism
*
the idea of a proletarian dictatorship should be rejected, as undemocratic –
socialism is a movement towards
(more/true) democracy, & the heir to liberalism
*
too much emphasis on the goal of the movement is wrong (utopian) – the method
and the movement are most important, and the approach must combine realism and
idealism.
3. These points in more detail:
Science: involves both the possibility of proof
based on experience, and proof based on logic, and the two must of course work
together. There is a ‘pure’ universally valid basis of Marxism (the
‘fundamental concepts) i.e. a philosophy of the general features of history and
society (though it has not yet been fully worked out), and there are
‘applications’, but these are ‘out of synch’ [my words].
(a) Historical materialism: if taken in a [too]
materialist sense must be determinist, but Engels argued that changes in
production are ‘final causes’ of social change and therefore not the only
causes. Social institutions are not merely the products of economic development
but can become social forces with a will of their own (e.g. the state has some
limited autonomy in relation to the economy). Thus capitalism involves “endless
parallelograms of forces” – what each person wills is hindered by what others
will, and the consequences are therefore not intended by anyone. Economics is a
“decisive force, [the] cardinal point of great moments of history, but not an
unconditional determining influence”. Moreover, we are getting to understand
economics better, and so to control it more.
(b) Class war: as public/common interests (via
the state) gain in power, so the conflict between private ownership and the
social character of production becomes less of a contradiction. Moreover, the
class theory is based on the theory of surplus value – see next point.
(c) Surplus Value: Bernstein felt that such
‘abstractions’ as “abstract labour, average wages, socially necessary labour”
were just abstractions and reductions – and that you could argue that workers
do not get the full value they create (or their fair share) without these
technical complications [my words]. So for Bernstein (as for many non-Marxist
socialists) the problem becomes one of distribution.
(d) Tendencies of the development of capitalism:
the bourgeoisie is not becoming smaller but bigger; the middle classes are not
disappearing (i.e. no polarisation is taking place). There is only some
concentration of industry and no concentration of capital. Restraints have been
placed on capitalism: factory legislation, minimum conditions of labour, crises
are being overcome etc. Bernstein also makes the point that a ‘catastrophe
theory’ is objectionable in that it makes radicals oppose improvements in order
to bring about the expected catastrophe.
4. Tasks for the socialist movement: Bernstein
was not in favour of the state to taking over large enterprises, as this leaves
many workers in small firms out of the picture – also, there is more
co-operation among producers now. He supported consumer co-ops as a way of
redistributing wealth (but not producer co-operatives as this would be turning
workers into capitalists). The crucial developments are: more of a say for
workers in the management of enterprises; and more democracy, based on a better
educated citizenship. The aim is “raising the worker from the social position
of a proletarian to that of a citizen, and thus to make citizenship universal.”
“[The] liberal organisations of modern society (are flexible and can be
changed) [so they] do not need to be destroyed, but only to be further developed.”
Socialism is a continuous process not a utopian
goal. With more freedom and democracy we will move away from economic
compulsion and be in charge of our own futures.
1. Life:
- son of civil servant and university teacher
- read Classics at Trinity College Oxford
- became economist while in the army, taught
economics at Trinity until 1950 when became an MP
- originally a Marxist (at
- published The Future of Socialism in 1956
- Foreign Secretary in Callaghan government for
ten months before he died.
2. Ideas:
1. Capitalism has been transformed:
-
there is less class antagonism, and the standard of living has improved –
including a better share of wealth for the working class
-
the power of the business class has declined, and they are less confident (no
lockouts as before WW II), and with full employment labour has more power;
business
is becoming more ‘socially responsible’
-
the power of the state has increased, through nationalisation etc (and at the
expense of the business class), and through a state bureaucracy
-
ownership and control have become separated (by shareholding, so they are no
longer both in the hands of capitalists); managerialism replaces the profit
motive
-
these changes are permanent, and the Conservative opposition have no
counter-plan – therefore the old picture of the aims socialism has to be
modified
2. The ‘old’ aims are varied and come from different,
and sometimes conflicting, origins:
-
‘natural law’ ideas, derived from Locke
- Owenism and co-operatives
-
the labour theory of value
-
Christian socialism
-
Marxism
-
William Morris and the degradation of work
-
Fabian gradualism
-
the ILP: the brotherhood of man
-
the welfare state and paternalism
-
syndicalism and guild socialism
-
planning.
However, these can be summarised in five aspects:
-
equality, classlessness, just appropriation – still some injustices here, but cannot
impose equality; question still also of attitudes (not everyone is other-
regarding)
-
co-operation and fraternity – but competition is not always harmful, and
pursuit of profit is bad only where there is inequality
-
workers’ control – trade unions have an effective say in industry, but Crosland
rejected co-operatives as impractical
-
social welfare – has been ‘substantially fulfilled’, but there is still squalor
and distress, social antagonism, and faulty distribution of rewards and
privileges (the
Beveridge
report had identified vulnerable categories, but there were still exceptions
and individual cases that were not covered)
-
full employment – has been achieved.
This can be boiled down to three aims:
-
social welfare of all
-
just rewards and a responsible status to the worker
-
the means to increase personal freedom and the range of choice.
Much of this has been achieved, but there is
still some progress to be made in terms of:
(i) equality (there is still ‘distress’ and some
poverty); there is still a strong sense of class (life-styles, status etc) and
we need to diminish social antagonism and
promote social justice: wealth still allows some
to buy advantages and power – hence redistribution must be pursued, and
nationalisation, social services, taxation,
education and trade union action should be
extended;
(ii) socialism has a reputation for being ‘dull’,
and Fabians emphasise ‘solid virtues of hard work, self-discipline, efficiency,
abstinence – rather it should be about
‘liberty and gaiety in [one’s] private life’, and
Labour should promote universities, the Arts council etc. See ‘The Good
Society,
Part 2
of Socialism Since Marx deals with: the New Left, the English experience,
Labour and New Labour and the ‘third way’.