Since you are initiating the discourse based on readings of Marx, I will reply within that framework too.
It is fairly common knowledge that many different interpretations have been and can be read into Marx's writings. There are many unresolved contradictions in his thought.
Personally I disagree with Leninist vanguardism since it locates the agency of change within the central committee of the Party, (the group of professional revolutionaries who 'know best' and work in secrecy, giving orders to the trade unions, pamphleteers and other agitators & revolutionaries). I think this is outlined in "What is to be done"? I haven't read Lenin in years. This is essentially counter-revolutionary; it reproduces the roles of leader & follower and doesn’t allow for dialogue. I think history has proven that this organizational framework results in a reactionary oligarchy and bueracracy.
At least we agree on that one.
Among the key problems facing Marxists over the century was the dilemma between agency and determinism.
(1)Some of Marx's writings basically say that communism is inevitable, that capitalism itself creates the conditions for communism, and that revolutionary consciousness will arise no matter what. This is determinist. Marx by the way believed this was going to happen very soon within industrial countries. But it didn't, and the only places where it did happen (albeit in a very warped form) was in pre-industrial countries.
A lot of later Marxist thought deals with this problem - why don't the masses revolt, even though the historical conditions now allow it, even though it is in our interest to do so?
(2)On the other hand Marx can be read as a figure of the Enlightenment, believing agency arises from deliberate effort and critical thinking on the part of individuals. Communism is a choice, it is not mankind's destiny, but something we humans, as self-creating beings, have the capability to bring into being. And this is a vanguardist position. Just as the belief that agitation is necessary is vanguardist. I think you are misreading Marx if you think that he believed the working class had already achieved revolutionary consciousness. Which is what you seem to be implying?
I possess an above average faculty for self-reflection and can thus work at transcending the limits of society
to go with that, then even in its mildest form, it puts you up as some kind of leader, leading the unenlightened proletariat to the glorious dawn. While that might be your position (and it has pedigree, I'd argue it was Lenin's later position, after he'd broken with Marxism) it certainly wasn't the position of Marx.
I think you are flat out wrong there. For a start Marx wrote:
“Criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism”,
“Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again,”
“This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world.”
“The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.” (all from A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right)
This was written at a time when the vast majority of the working class was religious. You can choose to interpret this as “some kind of leader leading the unenlightened proletariat to the glorious dawn”, I would rather see it as a critical thinker attacking reactionary prejudices and writing it down in an attempt to spread the ideas and generally encourage dialogue, critical thinking and therefore revolutionary praxis.
Here are some more quotes to show that Marx was aware that class consciousness was not present in the vast majority of people (Both are from Estranged Labour):
"Political economy conceals the estrangement in the nature of labour by ignoring the direct relationship between the worker (labour) and production. It is true that labour produces marvels for the rich, but it produces privation for the worker... it produces intelligence, but it produces idiocy and cretinism for the worker."
"The result is that man (the worker) feels that he is acting freely only in his animal functions – eating, drinking, and procreating, or at most in his dwelling and adornment – while in his human functions, he is nothing more than animal."
(He is fucking harsh isn’t he?)
you might believe that the majority of people are reactionary and politically unaware and need your special insight into the human condition
I think you have confused two things. It is a fact that the majority of people are reactionary and politically unaware. Otherwise why hasn't capitalism been overthrown? Look at the governments of the world, the people who elected them and the people who accept them. Can you explain it?
I am not saying the majority of people need “my special insight”. What people generally need (among other things) is a strong critical faculty, organizational skills and the motivation to put theory into practice. This is of course open to discussion, it is not a tablet handed down by God. But it is generally supported by practically any anti-establishment thinker I have read and definitely by any anti-capitalist psychology I know.
Engels made clear that Marx thought the opposite.
Marx ... entirely trusted to the intellectual development of the working class, which was sure to result from combined action and mutual discussion
(Engels, Introduction to the Manifesto, 1888)
I don’t think this is “the opposite” but in fact exactly what I am suggesting.
I normally try to avoid doing this in debate, but I think it's relevant here. Can I ask what socio-economic class you're from? Because I do get the feeling from some of your comments, and I could be wrong, that at least some of your feelings that you are better than most people at analysing society may come from unconscious class privilege, as opposed to objectivity.
I am an orphan and was adopted at age seven by a very rich family of arms manufacturers, who paid for my education and gave me everything I ever wanted. After I graduated from university I left home, never to see them again, and I worked as a miner for 4 years until I got a severe chest infection. Right now I live in a squat, give private art lessons and collect a disability benefit every month. What about you?
It's clear that we are both 'educated' enough to have read Marx, whether by others or on our own, and that gives us both a huge privilege. How we choose to use it is up to us.
We cannot therefore cooperate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philosophical leaders.
(Marx, circular letter to the leaders of the German Socialist Workers Party, 1879)
I agree with that; it is my problem with Lenin. The point is not to be freed ‘from above’ but ‘from within’. But how do you suggest this is going to take place? It would be stupid to accept any belief that the majority of people believe in simply to avoid being an elitist. Much of what Marx wrote is contrary to the beliefs of the vast majority of the world’s population, both then and now. Do you dispute that? Your position is paradoxical.
-bruno |
