What was Marx's value judgement on communism?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Daniel Muffinburg: What was Marx's value judgement on communism?
That it's the ultimate and final level of human social development. Communism is the end of scarcity (utopia), where people work 10 minutes a day, and read poetry.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Esuric: Daniel Muffinburg: What was Marx's value judgement on communism? That it's the ultimate and final level of human social development. Communism is the end of scarcity (utopia), where people work 10 minutes a day, and read poetry.
I know, but did he think that was a good thing or a bad thing, value-judgement-wise?
Marx and other scientific socialists will generally reject any appeal to the implementation of socialism on moral or value-based grounds as Utopian, whilst the Marxist "science of history" simply "discovers" how communism is a historical inevitability (a millennial sort of return to the whole; the proletariat becoming aware of his oppression, or a the Hegelian Man (Man as a social force) discovering that he is God and is reabsorbed into the Infinite... or some bunk). Thats the official position of Marxian communism.
However, reading Marx it seems rather apparent that every argument he made (or purposefully neglected to invest time in) was made ad hoc with the intention of proving the 'inevitability' of communism. He was not objective, he brought every argument back to the mystic dialectic. He displayed his rather Utopian desire to freeze mankind in a state of his communism (a state imposed by force, through the stage of "raw communism"). Perhaps he recognized communism was not "good" on utilitarian grounds, but he seemed to take a special interest in seeing his theory/will imposed on the whole of mankind.
I recommend reading this, its a brilliant essay.
My personal Anarcho-Capitalist flag. The symbol in the center stands for "harmony" and "protection"-- I'm hoping to illustrate the bond between order/justice and anarchy.
I remember reading somehwere that when there was a wave of assasinations of top people [in Russia?] Marx was very enthused. A shortcut had been found to bringing on Communism. So he obviously loved it.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Smiling Dave: Daniel Muffinburg: What was Marx's value judgement on communism? I remember reading somehwere that when there was a wave of assasinations of top people [in Russia?] Marx was very enthused. A shortcut had been found to bringing on Communism. So he obviously loved it.
Oh yes, he and Marxists in general would pretty much revel in and promote any action that agitated class relations and urged on the violent overthrow, if thats any indication.
First and foremost it was a historical inevitability decreed by the laws of nature.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Marx's writing was rather bland. As someone who has read the manifesto I can say that Marx never displayed much enthusiasm toward communism... It was just a cold like... Wave... A great inevitability. There is a cold and mechanical pleasure to it, but it is not something that you can love. It will happen, and it is slightly better than the current system, but there is no great pleasure to derived from it.
I encourage everyone to read the manifesto. It tells you a lot.
The Late Andrew Ryan: Marx's writing was rather bland. As someone who has read the manifesto I can say that Marx never displayed much enthusiasm toward communism... It was just a cold like... Wave... A great inevitability. There is a cold and mechanical pleasure to it, but it is not something that you can love. It will happen, and it is slightly better than the current system, but there is no great pleasure to derived from it. I encourage everyone to read the manifesto. It tells you a lot.
The Communist Manifesto didn't tell me anything. It was more like a party pamplet in length. If I'm correct it ranges around 80 pages, and you can read it just lounging around in no time. You get the idea of their goals, and so on, but doesn't go into any theory. Das Kapital is his magnum opus.
It is quite clear that you have little direct knowledge of Marxist doctrine, either generally or developmentally. Marxism cut its teeth as a political movement by agitating against the terrorist tactics of anarcho-syndicalists in France, Luddites in England, and Bakuninist anarchist throughout the continent. Marxism in all of its variations, from the Luxemburgian and Trotskyist left to the Stalinists and Maoists on the right, is undeniably a philosophy of mass movement, popular struggle rather than individual terrorism. Indeed, almost every major Marxist theorist roundly criticizes terrorism - on the entirely legitimate grounds that it de-legitimizes the political struggle of popular organizations, wins no political gains and brings fierce repression of labor organizations and parties, and substitutes the hollow heroism of the individual revolutionary for the democratically expressed movement of the people. Indeed, Marxism rejects terrorism not only as a moral wrong, but as counter-productive politically.
"In our eyes, individual terror is inadmissible precisely because it belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness, reconciles them to their powerlessness, and turns their eyes and hopes towards a great avenger and liberator who some day will come and accomplish his mission. The anarchist prophets of the ‘propaganda of the deed’ can argue all they want about the elevating and stimulating influence of terrorist acts on the masses. Theoretical considerations and political experience prove otherwise. The more ‘effective’ the terrorist acts, the greater their impact, the more they reduce the interest of the masses in self-organisation and self-education. But the smoke from the confusion clears away, the panic disappears, the successor of the murdered minister makes his appearance, life again settles into the old rut, the wheel of capitalist exploitation turns as before; only the police repression grows more savage and brazen. And as a result, in place of the kindled hopes and artificially aroused excitement comes disillusionment and apathy." - Leon Trotsky, Why Marxists Oppose Individual Terrorism (1911)
"[T]he terrorists bow to the spontaneity of the passionate indignation of intellectuals, who lack the ability or opportunity to connect the revolutionary struggle and the working-class movement into an integral whole. It is difficult indeed for those who have lost their belief, or who have never believed, that this is possible, to find some outlet for their indignation and revolutionary energy other than terror... This is an absolutely logical and inevitable conclusion which must be insisted on — even though those who are beginning to carry out this programme do not themselves realise that it is inevitable. Political activity has its logic quite apart from the consciousness of those who, with the best intentions, call either for terror or for lending the economic struggle itself a political character. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and, in this case, good intentions cannot save one from being spontaneously drawn “along the line of least resistance”, along the line of the purely bourgeois Credo programme. Surely it is no accident either that many Russian liberals — avowed liberals and liberals that wear the mask of Marxism — whole-heartedly sympathise with terror and try to foster the terrorist moods that have surged up in the present time." - Vladimir Lenin, What is to Be Done? (1902)
Marxism is given a great disservice when analyzed as a rigid doctrine - it is best interpreted as a methodology of analysis in its own right, and for Marxists the political conditions of society determine the tactics that should be employed, as Trotsky further argues:
"However, not the question of subjective motives but that of objective expediency has for us the decisive significance. Are the given means really capable of leading to the goal? In relation to individual terror, both theory and experience bear witness that such is not the case. To the terrorist we say: it is impossible to replace the masses; only in the mass movement can you find expedient expression for your heroism. However, under conditions of civil war, the assination of individual oppressors ceases to be an act of individual terror. If, we shall say, a revolutionist bombed General Franco and his staff into the air, it would hardly evoke moral indignation even from the democratic eunuchs Under the conditions of civil war a similar act would be politically completely expedient. Thus, even in the sharpest question – murder of man by man – moral absolutes prove futile. Moral evaluations, together with those political, flow from the inner needs of struggle." - Leon Trotsky, Their Morals and Ours (1938)
It is dangerous to characterize an ideology solely on the basis of a rather facile reading of history, gentlemen.
iskrabronstein: It is dangerous to characterize an ideology based solely on a rather facile reading of history, gentlemen.
It is dangerous to characterize an ideology based solely on a rather facile reading of history, gentlemen.
A facile reading of the OP's question led you astray, gentleman.
The question was not about the party line, but about Marx's personal opinion. And sorry that I don't remember the source, but I do remember that he personally loved terrorism.
Perhaps you can point to a source where Marx comes out against terrorism? Or does one not exist? [Which is very fishy].
iskrabronstein:It is quite clear that you have little direct knowledge of Marxist doctrine, either generally or developmentally. Marxism cut its teeth as a political movement by agitating against the terrorist tactics of anarcho-syndicalists in France, Luddites in England, and Bakuninist anarchist throughout the continent. Marxism in all of its variations, from the Luxemburgian and Trotskyist left to the Stalinists and Maoists on the right, is undeniably a philosophy of mass movement, popular struggle rather than individual terrorism. Indeed, almost every major Marxist theorist roundly criticizes terrorism - on the entirely legitimate grounds that it de-legitimizes the political struggle of popular organizations, wins no political gains and brings fierce repression of labor organizations and parties, and substitutes the hollow heroism of the individual revolutionary for the democratically expressed movement of the people. Indeed, Marxism rejects terrorism not only as a moral wrong, but as counter-productive politically.
Is this why Lenin violently overthrew a moderate and democratically elected regime in Russia? Is this why he brutally murdered Nicholas and his entire family? Is this why he fought an extremely bloody civil war which left millions upon millions dead? Is this why he ruthlessly "silenced" all opposition (red terror), while instituting concentration camps in 1919? Interesting.
You apparently haven't read Critique of the Gotha Programme. Marxism isn't some democratic movement bent on achieving a majority for piecemeal reform. Marxism is revolutionary in its discovery of the laws of history. The communist phase isn't brought on by popularity but by the negation of an established negation. It is not based on appeals to a better life but the realization that this is the only facet of continued life. The culmination in human's pre-history and the advent of the era in which man controls the forces of nature and does not succumb to alienated consequences of social institutions.
I think that one inevitably faces two Marxes or two sides of Marx that were in conflict. On one hand, he was a secular messianist or historical determinist, defining communism simply as the outcome of the playing out of material forces. On the other hand, he was a "revolutionary" that made prescriptive proposals in the name of taking steps to reach the goals. These are inherently in tension. Historical materialism should logically mandate moral nihilism and passivity, while communism as a positive prescriptive creed cannot be based strictly on historical materialism. Revolution of any kind presupposes at least some sense of control over the course of history or nature, a praxis, a prescriptive method for obtaining ends. This tension inevitably lead to a branching within the tradition of Marxism, with varying emphasis on the theory and praxis parts of Marx.
Smiling Dave:Perhaps you can point to a source where Marx comes out against terrorism? Or does one not exist? [Which is very fishy].
from http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/22865568/The-Tword-Conceptualising-terrorism [emphasis mine]
"Gerasim Romanenenko, who emphasised that terrorism was both humanitarian and effective. It cost infinitely fewer victims than a mass struggle; in a popular uprising, `the people' were killed while the real villains looked on from the sidelines. Terrorism, on the other hand, could be directed against the main culprits. To this Russian writer of the late 1800s, terrorism represented an application of modern science to the revolutionary struggle.9 In spite of justifications and theories underpinning revolutionary terrorism, Marxists disapprovingly referred to it as `individual terror'. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels often conflated the concept with force or violence in general. Marx stated that revolutionary terrorism was the only solution to shorten the "agonies of the old society and the birth pangs of the new".10 The debate on terrorism among Russian Marxists flared up when the Socialist Revolutionaries became involved in terrorist activities around the turn of the century. Like Marx and Engels, Lenin was rather ambivalent in his views on `individual terrorism'."
from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Marx [emphasis mine]
We are ruthless and ask no quarter from you. When our turn comes we shall not disguise our terrorism.
Brainpolice:I think that one inevitably faces two Marxes or two sides of Marx that were in conflict.
Dialectical materialism is a nonsensical contradiction in itself. How does one fuse Hegelian idealism with materialism? There's only one side of Marx, and it doesn't make any sense.
We may summarize the Marxian doctrine in this way: In the beginning there are the "material productive forces," i.e., the technological equipment of human productive efforts, the tools and machines. No question concerning their origin is permitted; they are, that is all; we must assume that they are dropped from heaven. These material productive forces compel men to enter into definite production relations which are independent of their wills. These production relations determine society's juridical and political superstructure as well as all religious, artistic, and philosophical ideas. -pp. 112, Theory and History
Esuric: Brainpolice:I think that one inevitably faces two Marxes or two sides of Marx that were in conflict. Dialectical materialism is a nonsensical contradiction in itself. How does one fuse Hegelian idealism with materialism? None of it makes sense. We may summarize the Marxian doctrine in this way: In the beginning there are the "material productive forces," i.e., the technological equipment of human productive efforts, the tools and machines. No question concerning their origin is permitted; they are, that is all; we must assume that they are dropped from heaven. These material productive forces compel men to enter into definite production relations which are independent of their wills. These production relations determine society's juridical and political superstructure as well as all religious, artistic, and philosophical ideas. -pp. 112, Theory and History
Dialectical materialism is a nonsensical contradiction in itself. How does one fuse Hegelian idealism with materialism? None of it makes sense.
I agree that historical materialism is bunk. However, my point stands that Marx's historical materialism contradicts any prescriptive program or notion of revolution. If historical materialism were assumed as a premise, then Marx cannot propose revolution without contradicting himself. If communism is an inevitable future stage of history, then there would be no point in proactively proposing steps to get there. If communism requires prescriptive measures along the road, then it cannot be the outcome of nothing but material forces playing themselves out irrespective of human influence. This is just a variation of the dillema between fatalism and ethics. I'm suggesting that Marx internally exemplifies the dillema.
There is of course another gross contradiction between Marxist theory and praxis (or ends and means), namely, that the praxis of the dictatorship of the proletariet doesn't lead to the outcome described in his theory of communism, that it is impossible to obtain a "stateless, classless society" through the means of state-takeovers and central planning. This fact is obviously vindicated by the actual history that took place after Marx, as well as any comparatively sensible notion of the nature of state power (such as that of Weber and others).
Yes.
In 1847, Marx argued that premature action by proletarian forces, including but not limited to terrorism, would be seen as a sign of weakness - and only be a tool in the hands of more conservative social factions:
"If therefore the proletariat overthrows the political rule of the bourgeoisie, its victory will only be temporary, only an element in the service of the bourgeois revolution itself, as in the year 1794, as long as in the course of history, in its “movement”, the material conditions have not yet been created which make necessary the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production and therefore also the definitive overthrow of the political rule of the bourgeoisie. The terror in France could thus by its mighty hammer-blows only serve to spirit away, as it were, the ruins of feudalism from French soil. The timidly considerate bourgeoisie would not have accomplished this task in decades. The bloody action of the people thus only prepared the way for it. In the same way, the overthrow of the absolute monarchy would be merely temporary if the economic conditions for the rule of the bourgeois class had not yet become ripe." - Karl Marx, Moralizing Criticism and Criticizing Morality (1847)
It is for this same reason that Marx condemns the Blanquists - they are revolutionaries who, to use the old phrase, "came before their time". The same focus on open political agitation, rather than conspiratorial action like Bakunin, was evident in the split of the First International - over this policy, among others.
Marxism is not an absolute dogma, at least not in its original form - it is a conditional philosophy. For Marx, just as for Lenin and Trotsky, the tactics of revolution had to be conditioned by the concrete realities of the political situation. And political terror, individual assassinations and bombings did not work. Mass terror, as Marx described it in the French Revolution and predicted it in Marxist revolutions, would serve as a terrible but necessary clearing away of the ancien regime. It must not be forgotten that the relatively peaceful consummation of the American Revolution has few analogues. In Latin America, Europe, Russia, China, and many other countries, autocratic or aristocratic rule could not be overthrown but by bloodshed.
I feel no compulsion to trade one-liners across the ideological fence about Lenin's conduct in the Bolshevik Revolution. I will, however, recommend Orlando Figes' history of the period as the most balanced and comprehensive I have read. His account answers most of your criticisms with historical context - the "moderate and democratically elected regime in Russia", by which I presume you mean the effective dictatorship of Kerensky, was under attack by the right in the form of military coups (Kornilov) and from the center (his very own Kadets, Constitutional Democrats). The decision to murder Nicholas and his family was indeed approved by Lenin and Dzerzhinsky, the head of the GPU, but was made by Communist officials on the ground in Ekaterinberg - and was opposed by Trotsky, Bukharin, and many other ranking members of the party.
I find it hard to believe that an accurate reading of history could ascribe sole blame for the civil war to Lenin, or the institution of concentration camps - which were also used by the Whites, in case you have forgotten.
iskrabronstein: Karl Marx, Moralizing Criticism and Criticizing Morality
Well that quote settles it. Clearly he is saying "If chopping off heads here and there would install Communism on the face of the Earth, I'm all for it. Sadly, it won't work."
OK, OP, you have your answer. He loved Communism so much that he was willing to kill kill kill to get it, so that everyone would be happy [but for the dead people].
Iskrabronstein's other quotes show that the Commie position, held by Marx and all his followers, seems to have been that one guy dead here and there won't cut it. What we need are mass bloodbaths.
Thank you for clarifying this, iskra.
Marx's approach to socialist policy is distinguished, as several posters have previously noticed, by a lack of appeal to traditional value judgments. The reasons for this are twofold - in stressing the ostensibly scientific, rather than moral rationale behind socialist politics, Marx sought to distinguish himself from Proudhonism and Christian Socialism in Britain. The second reason for Marx's appeal to relational values like justice and equity rather than absolute moral principles like good or evil stems from Marx's historical materialism - e.g., if the moral values of society are simply the distilled ideas of the ruling class, then the value judgments of that society are necessarily subject to their class-consciousness. In such an analysis, good and evil are variable according to the disposition of power in a society - justice and equity, however, are more concrete because of their relational content.
The Poverty of Philosophy (1885) contains most of these ideas.
iskrabronstein:Marxism is not an absolute dogma, at least not in its original form - it is a conditional philosophy
So say the revisionists of Marxist theory. Philosophy is merely the explanation/rationalization of past events. Philosophy will cease exist when the private life and the public life culminate into a singularity.
iskrabronstein:I find it hard to believe that an accurate reading of history could ascribe sole blame for the civil war to Lenin, or the institution of concentration camps - which were also used by the Whites, in case you have forgotten.
Lenin was the key instigator in organizing the Bolsheviks in Petrograd.
I could quote plenty of bloodthirsty statements from liberal bourgeois revolutionaries, "tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots" etc. - but it would serve about as little purpose to this discussion as your enlightened contribution.
Andrew Cain:You apparently haven't read Critique of the Gotha Programme. Marxism isn't some democratic movement bent on achieving a majority for piecemeal reform. Marxism is revolutionary in its discovery of the laws of history. The communist phase isn't brought on by popularity but by the negation of an established negation. It is not based on appeals to a better life but the realization that this is the only facet of continued life. The culmination in human's pre-history and the advent of the era in which man controls the forces of nature and does not succumb to alienated consequences of social institutions.
Excellent.
Andrew Cain: iskrabronstein:Marxism is not an absolute dogma, at least not in its original form - it is a conditional philosophy So say the revisionists of Marxist theory. Philosophy is merely the explanation/rationalization of past events. Philosophy will cease exist when the private life and the public life culminate into a singularity. iskrabronstein:I find it hard to believe that an accurate reading of history could ascribe sole blame for the civil war to Lenin, or the institution of concentration camps - which were also used by the Whites, in case you have forgotten. Lenin was the key instigator in organizing the Bolsheviks in Petrograd.
I don't believe the latter was ever under question. It still confers no sole blame - the Bolsheviks were a party.
Grayson Lilburne: Andrew Cain:You apparently haven't read Critique of the Gotha Programme. Marxism isn't some democratic movement bent on achieving a majority for piecemeal reform. Marxism is revolutionary in its discovery of the laws of history. The communist phase isn't brought on by popularity but by the negation of an established negation. It is not based on appeals to a better life but the realization that this is the only facet of continued life. The culmination in human's pre-history and the advent of the era in which man controls the forces of nature and does not succumb to alienated consequences of social institutions. Excellent.
That is absolutely true - but it is a mistake to conflate the philosophical underpinnings of Marxism with its actual formation of policy.
A closer reading of the CoGP IV would have yielded this particular gem - "Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it".
iskrabronstein:That is absolutely true - but it is a mistake to conflate the philosophical underpinnings of Marxism with its actual formation of policy.
It is a mistake to connect theory to practice?
iskrabronstein:"Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it"
Yes, the individual realizing that the private sphere is in tune with the public sphere. That our interests as private individuals are really public interests. The state itself being the midwife of such realizations since, according to Hegel, it represents the culmination of collective interests. Marx opposed Hegel on the idea that there is tension between private interest and public [ state ] interests.
Andrew Cain: iskrabronstein:That is absolutely true - but it is a mistake to conflate the philosophical underpinnings of Marxism with its actual formation of policy. It is a mistake to connect theory to practice? iskrabronstein:"Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it" Yes, the individual realizing that the private sphere is in tune with the public sphere. That our interests as private individuals are really public interests. The state itself being the midwife of such realizations since, according to Hegel, it represents the culmination of collective interests. Marx opposed Hegel on the idea that there is tension between private interest and public [ state ] interests.
It is a mistake to argue that the philosophical arguments advanced by Marx in 1875 should determine the political policies adopted by Trotsky in 1905, or Lenin in 1917. We could start a separate thread about the development of Marxism from Hegelian thought, unless that would be off-topic in this forum. I think it is a fascinating subject.
iskrabronstein:It is a mistake to argue that the philosophical arguments advanced by Marx in 1875 should determine the political policies adopted by Trotsky in 1905, or Lenin in 1917
Why? The economic base of the superstructure hasn't change therefore a near copy of the superstructure is still intact or at least you have yet to show that it isn't and it is not as if Marx's arguments are relative to a specific decade. They are relative to specific economical epochs but Marx, Trotsky and ourselves still live under the 'capitalist' epoch.
Are you then arguing that economic systems cannot themselves change and develop throughout the course of their existences? Beyond that tangent, how do you think Marx's dialectical materialist characterizations influenced, let us say, Trotsky's policy as Chairman of the Petrograd Soviet in 1905?
When Trotsky had to decide whether or not to support an armed demonstration in Petrograd, in memory of workers killed throughout the fighting since Bloody Sunday, do you really think he flipped through Marx to divine whether his decision would truly negate the contradiction inherent in the class-system of society, and by doing so cause the synthesis of personal and social interests in a glorious collective revolution?
No - he made a political decision, based on political considerations, and the demonstration remained peaceful.
It is just as erroneous to argue that Marx's ideas hold absolutely for Marxists as it would be for me to argue that Adam Smith's ideas bind capitalists in a similar manner.
iskrabronstein: "Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it".
I guess, that is a way of saying that some worker council runs the state on behalf of the worker.
Caley McKibbin: iskrabronstein: "Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it". I guess, that is a way of saying that some worker council runs the state on behalf of the worker.
According to some Marxists, yep.
iskrabronstein,
Did Karl Marx believe that communism was a good thing or a bad thing?
iskrabronstein:It is just as erroneous to argue that Marx's ideas hold absolutely for Marxists as it would be for me to argue that Adam Smith's ideas bind capitalists in a similar manner.
I don't think anyone is arguing that, and even if they are it is irrelevent, as this thread is specificaly about Marx himself.
Daniel Muffinburg: iskrabronstein, Did Karl Marx believe that communism was a good thing of a bad thing?
Did Karl Marx believe that communism was a good thing of a bad thing?
Add. - Marx would obviously argue it to be a good thing for the proletariat and a bad thing for the bourgeoisie.
iskrabronstein: Daniel Muffinburg: iskrabronstein, Did Karl Marx believe that communism was a good thing of a bad thing? ... Add. - Marx would obviously argue it to be a good thing for the proletariat and a bad thing for the bourgeoisie.
...
So, it would be a bad thing for Karl Marx, since he was bourgeoisie.
Then why did Marx advocate communism? Aren't the bourgeoisie supposed to act in their self-interest?
Daniel Muffinburg: iskrabronstein: Daniel Muffinburg: iskrabronstein, Did Karl Marx believe that communism was a good thing of a bad thing? ... Add. - Marx would obviously argue it to be a good thing for the proletariat and a bad thing for the bourgeoisie. So, it would be a bad thing for Karl Marx, since he was bourgeoisie. Then why did Marx advocate communism? Aren't the bourgeoisie supposed to act in their self-interest?
This actually exemplifies Marx's reason for avoiding those very value judgments - if you accept the existence of antagonistic class interests, then you necessarily reject the existence of a universal morality.
You most likely well know that Marx defined class not by economic or cultural status, but by relationship to the means of production. I do not think Marx considered it a contradiction for a bourgeois to express socialist sentiments - that is, after all, what moderate European social democracy was.
iskrabronstein:You most likely well know that Marx defined class not by economic or cultural status, but by relationship to the means of production. I do not think Marx considered it a contradiction for a bourgeois to express socialist sentiments - that is, after all, what moderate European social democracy was.
What about Engles? He was an exploiting capitalist who owned factories. How could a bourgeois understand proletariat logic and favor proletariat sentiments? That would go directly against his own interests, which violates Marx's theory of class consciousness.
I think you'll find that the majority of the focus on class consciousness as a deterministic factor in personal development comes from Stalinism. Marx viewed class consciousness as a continually shifting tableau of opinion and policy, made concrete and definite only by the historical experience and perspective of its constituents. It is a collective consciousness, one that can influence people but not determine them entirely.
iskrabronstein: I think you'll find that the majority of the focus on class consciousness as a deterministic factor in personal development comes from Stalinism. Marx viewed class consciousness as a continually shifting tableau of opinion and policy, made concrete and definite only by the historical experience and perspective of its constituents. It is a collective consciousness, one that can influence people but not determine them entirely.
No that is actual incorrect. At the beginning Marx did believe that history is determined to develop along the lines of alienation and class consciousness would be a product of such alienation. It was only Engels who tried to downplay the determinist nature of Marx's theory because the 1848 revolution didn't pan out and neither did the Paris Commune which was largely a Proudhonist revolt. All the while immiseration was supposed to be transpiring and yet the worker never experienced such high standards of living in human history. It was only then that Engels started changing his tune by saying that it is not their [ Marx and himself ] that people took the theory to such an extreme and that economic class conflict is the source of historical events if it cannot be explained by anything else.
Andrew Cain: iskrabronstein: I think you'll find that the majority of the focus on class consciousness as a deterministic factor in personal development comes from Stalinism. Marx viewed class consciousness as a continually shifting tableau of opinion and policy, made concrete and definite only by the historical experience and perspective of its constituents. It is a collective consciousness, one that can influence people but not determine them entirely. No that is actual incorrect. At the beginning Marx did believe that history is determined to develop along the lines of alienation and class consciousness would be a product of such alienation. It was only Engels who tried to downplay the determinist nature of Marx's theory because the 1848 revolution didn't pan out and neither did the Paris Commune which was largely a Proudhonist revolt. All the while immiseration was supposed to be transpiring and yet the worker never experienced such high standards of living in human history. It was only then that Engels started changing his tune by saying that it is not their [ Marx and himself ] that people took the theory to such an extreme and that economic class conflict is the source of historical events if it cannot be explained by anything else.
You're mischaracterizing my argument. I never argued that Marx was not deterministic in his economic or social analysis - I stated, correctly, that the idea of class origin determining personal characteristics was largely of Stalinist origin, being developed as a cudgel to use against "petit-bourgeois" Trotskyists and Bukharinists during the years after Lenin's death. It was taken up by Mao in order to accomplish a similar process within the Chinese Revolution.
If you're going to insinuate that I don't know my own doctrine, at least do me the favor of making sure we're talking about the same thing.