11.07.08
Reverse gear dialectic, studying Marx’s critics
Historical Materialism conference: Many Marxisms
In the middle of all the pundit comparisons to the era of FDR and the great depression, it is forgotten that that period had a behind the scenes driver in the surging left, the second to third Internationale, what to say of Boshevism soon to be Stalinism. The contemporary scene has nothing of the kind, except the echo of now failed leftist ideologies.
Public discussion of socialism ought to be a constant in liberal societies. Instead it has been so discredited by its Marxist hijackers that public discussion of issues suffers.
Lenin’s Tomb links to an historical materialism conference, with all the usual recombinations of jargon and refuted, or challenged theory.
These statements are not knee-jerk left bashing, merely the observation that there is no real left in our time-frame. The fall of communism should have led to a thorough critique of what went wrong, and yet still almost thirty years later Marxism chugs along, blocking a new left, and taking up the energy needed for a defining left.
This may be wrong, from Chomsky to Alternet, new lefts may be sprouting all over the place.
Part of the problem is that Marxism is so elusive that beginners are entranched, while those who study it on its own terms usually graduate out the backdoor, emptyhanded, next to a theory that makes no sense finally. A new approach is almost impossible to bring about. Part of the problem is that the theory was never really that, merely a complex propaganda, and thus not amenable to self-criticism. The point happened, when, perhaps as Marx grew older with his Capital unfinished, blocked somewhere in his analysis, finally handing the unfinished result to Engels, as a kind of reverse commodity fetish.
It is a great book, as symbolism, for all time, no doubt of that. But the theory doesn’t add up, and was picked to pieces almost immediately.
The whole game needs ruthless self-criticism, and some participation by those who aren’t prepared to close ranks around mass murder in the name of leftist solidarity.
The result here is that the outsiders often understand it better than the adherents. That’s a secret from my own studies: I suddenly realized after reading extensively in Marxist literature that the critics, bourgeois or not, were often better sources of information. Exceptions of course!
But reading Marxist literature you would have a hard time realizing that ‘historical materialism’ is an incoherent theory, and ultimately fails to arrive at a solid result. So why not say so, and do something else?
The core insights of Marx and his 1840′s confreres stand for all time as a challenge to capitalist ideology, and from there the construction of a practical labor movement stands as the only successful realization of the left. The rest, based on garbled Hegel, confused economic theory (but crystal clear economic critique), revolutionary nutcase fanaticism, and mad-dog mania against liberalism (like conservatives now), to be charitable, failed once. So why consider it twice?
The Marxist left was a surging tidal wive in the era of FDR. Now it is nothing. There is no future in simple repetition.
The left has a simple task, defining abstractly the potential for a viable socialist, thence possibly a communist, system, that can function practically, and that can’t, based on past failures, most probably be arrived at by revolutionary tactics or Stalinist blowouts.
Instead of dreary conferences on historical materialism, why won’t the left sit down and read every major critique of Marx, and start over from there? Two to start.
The Black Book of Communism (Courtois, et al.)
Marxism and the Leap into the Kingdom of Freedom (Walicki)
There are a lot of others.
If your read a lot of these critiques, a paradox can happen, energy is freed for thought, and the basic problem with liberal society stands out, minus the blinders created by now unbelievable Marxist shibboleths.
As things stand now, reactionaries have a monopoly on ‘understanding’ Marx. That that is only half-understanding doesn’t change the fact that Marxism as a belief system is a lot less than half-understanding.
The irony, and the reason for these statements, is that Marx’s basic critique remains valid, a point completely obvious from contemporary events.
But something confused and almost democi entered into the theory/ideology somewhere along the line, as the whole subject froze in the second internationale.
The result is an obstacle to a real left. And just at the moment of neoliberal blowout the old left is paralyzed with useless mentations about historical materialism
James said,
November 7, 2008 at 6:37 pm
What is your opinion on South America? It is too early to determine whether the leaders will be successful or not, but they seem to be creating a new left (maybe not Chavez).
nemo said,
November 7, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Good question. I must say that I lack the skills of Marx in the British Library studying the details.
The question of South American is hard to properly understand. But in outline the situation is clear, and one thing Lenin did get right was the basics of imperialism.
The left in South America has actually realized the problems with classic Marxism, and baulk confronted with Cuba, but is now condemned to eclectic experiments without much direction in what they are doing. But at least they are beginning to stand up to the horrendous situation imposed on them by such as the United States.
nemo said,
November 7, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine is good here.