From: Jurriaan Bendien
In reply to Joseph Green, whose comments you send me: I think he should
try learning to read a book, and not judge it by its cover.
My basic point is that when Engels wrote the text of anti-Duhring, he
was doing so in an environment in which there were many people who
thought of themselves as "scientific socialists". Indeed several utopian
socialists thought of their investigations as "scientific". Engels
sought to promote his own views and those of Marx, on the basis of
argument and evidence, on the ground that they were much superior to
other contenders to the throne of scientific socialism.
The latter-day reinterpretation of the popular pamphlet "Socialism:
Utopian and Scientific" however creates the impression that Marxism is
counterposed to all other socialisms, and that all other socialisms are
unscientific. In other words, that Marxism and scientific socialism are
identical. This does not correspond to historical fact, and creates a
sectarian culture in which socialist thought is stifled by dogma, and
cannot develop beyond regurgitating Marx and Engels over and over again.
And this is the kind of thing which has led to the downfall of Marxism
as an influential intellectual current.
Peter Green does not understand this, and says: "The whole point of the
title "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" is to contrast utopianism to
scientific socialism". This is not even true, because the contrast is
between scientific socialism and utopian socialism. But anyway, let's
not judge a book by its title, let's read it - and let's not just read
it as if it was a holy scripture, but as a text that was made in the
context of a political debate taking place in a certain historical
context.
Mr Derrida made the point once that a text can be "read" in innumerable
different ways, and therefore the text does not have any fixed meaning,
the meaning of the text is changeable and context-dependent. Thus for
example, the biblical quote "blessed are the poor, because they shall
inherit the earth" could be interpreted in several ways, depending on
the context. In fact I could demonstrate conclusively not only that this
is the case, but also that this very biblical quote was actually
retranslated as well, to suit the interests of clerical authorities
(this was pointed out to me by a Jesuit scholar).
Point is, a historical materialist would endeavour to read a text in
full knowledge of the precise historical context in which it was
written, and THAT defines the real meaning that it has. For the rest, an
historical materialist would write his own texts, in full awareness of
the historical context in which he was writing them.
Unfortunately intellectually lazy people and religious fanatics do not
do this, they do not read "around the subject", they do not have an
historical consciousness, which is why most of "Marxism" actually
consists of mythology, of myth-making in which holy texts are used to
interpret other texts and history as a whole, in a most arbitrary and
unscientific manner. In Engels's phraseology, total "bunk".
The lazy pseudo-Marxists, the fake Marxists, in fact take Marxism for
granted, and act arrogantly as though it has explained everything
already, that it has all the answers already. But I do not belong to
that school, I follow Marx in believing that "one must think for
oneself", as Marx recommends in introducing the first volume of Das
Kapital. In fact Marx later said, laconically, "all that I know, is that
I am not a Marxist", referring to the rubbish written by "intellectual
groupies" who admired him, but who failed to do any serious research of
their own, being content to take a few phrases from Marx, and knock this
up into some arbitrary philosophical system of their own.
It is not irrelevant that Engels did not use the term Marxism, as Peter
Green claims. Engels was well aware that the term "Marxism" was being
used, and he tolerated it, but he was very cautious about it, and did
not use it himself. Engels permitted the term historical materialism,
which Marx never used, but onlyin the sense that it signified
aperspective on history that would allow it to be studied
scientifically, instead of being shrouded in (creationist)myths. The
question however which needs to be asked is WHY ? But the learned
academics do not ask themselves this question at all, and at the
salaries they earn, they do not even have to inquire into it.
The real answer to that is that both Marx and Engels utterly resented
the deification of people (cf. their polemic "The Holy Family"), and
utterly resented the fact that their ideas were being used to fabricate
new philosophical and ideological systems without any serious historical
and scientific research being done, and without any serious political
engagement. The attitude which Marx himself had, is very clearly stated
in introducing the first volume of Das Kapital: "every genuine
scientific criticism is welcome, as as for vulgarly prejudiced people,
they can go and take a hike, be on you way, and let people like Peter
Green chatter as they will".
In other words, Marx and Engels never claimed to have latched on to the
philosopher's stone, or the fount of wisdom. What they said was, here
you have an approach, a methodology (the materialist conception of
history) and here you have a result of applying that approach (the
analysis of capital and capitalism). But the matter does not end there,
it starts there. Now we have to do more research, we have to criticise
Marx's theory where it is wrong, we have to develop that theory, and we
have to develop our political practice, and that's the challenge. The
materialist conception of history might well be modified by the results
of the research which it guided.
Peter Green however seems to be confident that "Marxism" has all the
answers to all of the questions already, as codified by Lenin and others
in the Marxist Pantheon, and therefore he does not have to do anything
like Marx and Engels recommend, such as do his own thingking and do his
own research. Instead he accuses me of "going over old ground". But I
have a very good reason for going over old ground, since many of the
so-called "Marxists" lie about history and falsify history, in the most
intellectually lazy manner. This has absolutely NOTHING in common with
the thought of Marx and Engels.
If you want to have examples of real "Marxists", best to study the
writings of people such as Franz Mehring, Paul Lafargue and Rosa
Luxemburg, and if you do this, you will find that do they do not mention
Marxism at all (well, Rosa Luxemburg does refer to Marxists very
occasionally perhaps, but that is only because others popularised the
word).
Peter Green comes out with such marvels as that "It is true that various
charlatans draped themselves in the mantel of "science", but Engels
refuted them, not in order to refute science, but to refute the
unscientific character of the theories they propagated under the banner
of science". In reality, Engels does not call them charlatans, rather he
provides arguments and evidence for saying that they are wrong.
But in reality the problem I am dealing with is somewhat different,
although Peter Green does not understand this, being hung up on words,
and not even attempting to follow my train of thinking, like a true
dogmatic Marxist fanatic incapable of putting themselves in anybody
else's shoes. The problem I am dealing with is the dogmatisation of
socialist thought in the tradition of Marx, and I am tracing this back
to its roots, believing that we need to understand this process, so that
we can arrive at some fresh thinking which is really effective, rather
than being a boring regurgitation of what Marx and Engels (or Lenin)
said. In doing this, I have to recognise the fact that the people who
oppose us are even more dogmatic, and so, I have to delve into the
precise relationship between ideology and science.
I believe that, today, the very notion of "scientific socialism" is a
mistake, just as "Marxism" is really a mistake, even although I have
great admiration for Marx and Engels, read their works regularly, and am
often quite preoccupied with the problems they raised and the way they
sought to answer them. My view is that there is science, of which social
science is a sub-branch, but that socialism refers to a political
movement and a political, economic and cultural goal.
The Marxists are very preoccupied with defending Marx, and various
"authorities" which are supposed to have had the "correct line" after
Marx died, but my own interest in this area is with the socialist
movement and the socialist goal. The questions that interests me, are of
the type: "why are socialists not more effective and successful, when
the whole of modern experience proves what they have been talking about
for 150 years ?".
But of course these questions would be lost on the likes of Peter Green,
who seek the comfort and security of a socialist religion. They prefer
theological authorities. I prefer critical inquiry. And I am very happy
to associate with people who, although they are not certified
"Marxists", are interested in unmasking the idiocy of bourgeois politics
and in finding new ways to advance to socialist movement. I am also
interested in utopian socialists, insofar as they are concerned with
alternatives to the status quo, which brutally exploits people, makes
them ill, and ruins their lives. My motto is the same as Marx's: "every
scientific criticism is welcome; as for those who pander to vulgar
prejudice, be on your way and let people talk."
Personally, I am a socialist, and I have a longstanding interest in
social science. I actually bothered to do a lot of work in that area.
But I do not call myself a scientific socialist, because that would mean
going back to a language which was popular 100-130 years ago. Instead I
profess to be a socialist. But this too would probably not satisfy Peter
Green, who want to verify my ideological and doctrinal consistency in
relation to the holy books of Marx and Engels. But I do not give a fart
about that, if the truth be told.
For the rest, the only Peter Green I like, is the Peter Green who
co-founded the band Fleetwood Mac, a man with a heart who made good
music, in my opinion. But probably this point would be lost on the Peter
Green I am dealing here with as well.
Regards
Jurriaan.
