I'll skip Jurriaan's crude and inappropriate attack on the Sandwichperson. awhile back, Jurriaan Bendien wrote: >> ... Characteristic of most of the theories mooted by these authors [a long >> list], is the “disconnect” between (1) Marxism, and (2) the class or elite >> power obtained by Marxist leaders.... The leftist analysts of the “new >> class” (or new elite, or ruling caste) typically assumed, that Marxism is >> “sugar and spice and all things nice”, and that if it isn’t, then it cannot >> be Marxism. With this kind of assumption, it is reasoned that if a new class >> or elite did emerge in actually existing socialist societies, then this >> cannot have had anything to do with Marxism. In this way, Marxism (in >> whatever flavor or variant) is always exonerated….
>> The concept of the New Marxist Exploiting Class aims to overcome this kind >> of implausible interpretation, by specifically emphasizing that the new >> exploiting class was a MARXIST exploiting class, and it exploited ruthlessly >> specifically by applying a MARXIST ideology. The fact that it did so, led to >> a by now legendary cynical humour among the people in Eastern Europe, >> sharply contrasting the lofty rhetoric of the Marxist rulers with the >> oppressive realities of life. >> The implication in NMEC theory is, that Marxism is itself not a “squeaky >> clean” ideology, but already contains the germs of new forms of social >> oppression in the way that it theorizes social reality. >> Sociologically speaking, the New Marxist Exploiting Class usually has its >> main roots among the skilled working class and the lower middle class, >> though it depends on what historical period or country we are talking about. >> … >> We are talking about personalities desirous of wealth, fame, adventure and >> power, who seek to rise out of their class, people with a mixture of motives >> revolving around social envy, status anxiety, contempt for their >> competitors, and moral indignation about unfairness and injustice. What they >> have in common is, that they try to manipulate people’s sympathies for the >> oppressed for the purpose of their own campaign to climb to power, their own >> political career, their own interests. They need not be especially creative >> people, they could just be people who feel good following a doctrine or >> faith, or people who like to spy over the shoulder of their betters, in >> order to find out how they can advance their own position. Formally it looks >> they are overflowing with the milk of human kindness, but in substance they >> are parasitic and extractive. >> The general conclusion of the NMEC analysis is that although the Marxists >> were able to highlight, explain and alleviate some forms of human oppression >> fairly well, the very idea of “Marxism” as an eponymous doctrine was a bad >> and mistaken idea, and that if we want to improve, we have to start again to >> forge a new way of thinking, completely freed from the chatter about “Lenin >> said”, “Trotsky said”, “Mao said” (or “Marx said”!) etc. …<< There are at least two things wrong with this analysis. 1. the idea that "Marxism leads to tyranny" is as old as Marxism itself, an idea put forth by the defenders of the (capitalist) ruling class. (The problem was Marx's carbuncles!) So Marxists have been combating this idea for generations. More importantly, it's _just not true_ that Marxists (or at least those whose thought has been influenced by Marx) have never presented the kind of analysis of a "New Marxist Exploiting Class" that Jurriaan sketches. Look at the work of Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, for example. (By the way, their work often comes off as a form of sectarianism, i.e., saying that "we're the pure ones, while you 'Marxists' are a bad guys, a potential new ruling class." Even though they (eventually) rejected "Marxism," they seem to have embraced some of the worst aspects of the self-styled Marxist movement. I'll let others decide whether or not Jurriaan is following Albert & Hahnel's lead on this.) 2. Jurriaan's version of this analysis goes against historical materialism (which I see as represented best by "the German Ideology" and the "Theses on Feuerbach"). It's not ideas (for example, "Marxism," whatever that is) that make history. Instead, it's people (usually in groups) and more importantly, their actions that make history. Thus, it wasn't fascist ideas that produced the fascist social systems that prevailed in places like Italy between the two World Wars. Similarly, it wasn't liberalism that produced the European imperialist invasion of Africa and elsewhere. (It's true that Marxists sometimes talk as if it's fascist ideas cause fascism, etc. But that's just a matter of sloppy thinking.) People used fascist ideas and ideals to preserve Party unity and the like, but were dropped or reinterpreted when it was convenient. Obviously, the ruling classes of the now-defunct USSR and the old "communist" version of the "People's Republic" of China used words and phrases borrowed from Marx. But two things are crucial. First, the actual practice involved with the Russian Revolution and then later the Chinese Revolution shaped the actual meaning of these phrases. For example, the word "democracy" meant something different to Stalin and Mao than it did to Marx. If you look at the "Marxism" of Stalin, the first is much cruder than that of Marx, Engels, or even Lenin. It was reduced to a bunch of idealist and sterile formulas about "histomat" and "diamat" by the apparatchiks. Mao's ideas are even cruder. Crucially, not only did the "Marxism" of pre-Revolutionary Russian and China differ from the original vision of Marx (because they were put into practice in impoverished countries dominated by imperialism) but the experience of national poverty, civil war, imperialist invasion, and the conversion of Communist Parties into bureaucratic fighting machines shaped "Marxism" into _new forms of nationalism_. In sum, it's much more a matter of history that limits and shapes ideas, changing the meanings of words and theories, rather than ideas that make history. (One thing that's often missed in Orwell's _1984_ is a theme about language. The Inner Party uses all sorts of language that _sounds_ socialist or Marxist, but the _content_ is completely different. "Ingsoc" isn't really English Socialism, for example.) Second, as these "Marxisms" morphed into their nationalist versions, the nature of the people who embraced them changed. The old followers of "Marxism" (such as Bukharin, who Jurriaan mentions) were purged. New folks were attracted to "Marxist" ideas, because they hoped not only to promote the international independence and economic development of their nations but also because it promoted their careers. Isaac Deutscher writes of how after the Russian Revolution, suddenly there were large numbers of former Mensheviks who wanted to join the CP. Even later, folks whose careers benefited from their being ideologically loyal to the Central Committee joined the Party. Of course, the role of these new folks shaped the actual practice of the "Marxism" of the Soviet Union. Just as with corporate hacks under capitalism, the Party careerists clearly wanted to preserve their own careers and would thus push for the CP to be top-down and hold onto its political monopoly. anyway, what's your alternative to "Marxism," Jurriaan? anarchism? liberalism? what? -- Jim Devine / "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
