Thanks for sharing that. Below is an admonition from your forwarded message that you, Carroll Cox, may benefit from.
> In contrast to the “Marxism” that Marx rejected, with its > identity-defining certainties, this critical, unfinished Marx has an > extremely stimulating and subversive effect. Which of his analyses and > concepts are useful, what can help to change the world, and what can’t, is > not fixed for all time. One will always have to constantly discuss and make > new judgements: “De omnibus dubitandum.” -raghu. On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Carrol Cox <[email protected]> wrote: > -raghu wrote: I don't know about "obviously Marxist" though. > > Michael Heinrich would agree. > > Carrol > > < > http://forhumanliberation.blogspot.com/2015/06/1867-michael-heinrich-je-ne-suis-pas.html > > > > By Michael Heinrich, libcom.org, April 4, 2015 > > > Whoever visits the grave of Karl Marx at Highgate Cemetery in London > encounters a gigantic pedestal upon which a gigantic bust of Marx is > enthroned. One has to look up at him. Directly under the bust, “Workers of > all lands unite” is written in golden letters, and further down, also in > gold, “Karl Marx.” Below that, a simple, small headstone is placed within > the pedestal, which names without pomp and gold those buried here: besides > Karl Marx, there is his wife Jenny, his grandson Harry Longuet, and his > daughters Eleanor and Helene Demuth, who led the Marx household for decades. > > Marx selected the plain headstone himself after the death of his wife. > Showing off was not his thing. He explicitly asked for a quiet funeral > restricted to a small circle. Only eleven people took part. Friedrich > Engels was able to prevent plans by the German Social Democratic Party to > erect a monument to Marx at the cemetery. He wrote to August Bebel that the > family was against such a monument, since the simple headstone “would be > desecrated in their eyes if replaced by a monument”. (MECW 47, p. 17) > > Around 70 years later, nobody was left to protect Marx’s grave. The > present monument was commissioned by the Communist Party of Great Britain > and unveiled in 1956. Only cemetery regulations prevented it from being > even bigger. The Marxists had asserted themselves against Marx. > > “Je ne suis pas marxiste,” stated Marx, rather annoyed, to his son-in-law > Paul Lafargue, when the latter reported the doings of French “Marxists.” > Engels had circulated this statement numerous times, including in letters > to newspapers – definitely for public consumption. Marx’s distance from > Marxists is also expressed in other comments. When he stayed in France in > 1882, he wrote to Engels that “the 'Marxistes' and 'Anti-Marxistes”' […] at > their respective socialist congresses at Roanne and St-Étienne” had “both > done their damnedest to ruin my stay in France.” (MECW 46, p. 339) > > In any case, Marx did not aspire to “Marxism.” But not only that; when the > German economist Adolph Wagner was the first to deal with Marx’s theory in > his textbook and wrote of Marx’s “socialist system,” the latter, outraged, > noted in his marginalia that he had “never established a socialist system.” > (MECW 24, p. 533) “Systems” and worldview “isms” were never his thing. One > looks in vain for statements in which he stylizes himself as the founding > father of an “ism.” Besides seeing himself as a man of the “party” (by > which he meant not a specific organization, but rather the totality of > forces struggling against capitalism and for social emancipation), Marx saw > himself as a man of science. Capital, which he regarded as “the most > terrible missile that has yet been hurled at the heads of the bourgeoisie > (landowners included)” (MECW 42, p. 358), he counted among the “scientific > attempts to revolutionize science.” (MECW 41, p. 436) The emphasis on > “scientific” is Marx’s. And, when Marx wrote in the foreword to the first > volume of Capital, “every opinion based on scientific criticism I welcome” > (MECW 35, p. 11), that was not simply rhetoric. Marx was fully aware of the > provisional nature and fallibility of scientific assertions. “De omnibus > dubitandum” – “everything is to be doubted” – he wrote as an answer to the > question as to his life’s motto in a fashionable questionnaire that his > daughter had presented to him. The enormous mass of manuscripts that he > left unpublished, and to some extent considerable revisions of already > published texts bear witness to the fact that he did not exempt his own > work from such doubt. In the history of Marxism, this work was often dealt > with in a different manner. > > Historically speaking, the popularizations among Engels’ later works, > above all his Anti-Dühring, constituted the point of departure for the > construction of “Marxism.” But it’s somewhat one-sided to to make Engels > into the “inventor” of Marxism, as the publishing house Propyläen did when > they gave the German translation of Tristram Hunt’s Engels biography the > subtitle “The Man who Invented Marxism.” The original English edition has > the more accurate title “The Frock-Coated Communist.” It was only under > pressure from Bebel and Liebknecht that Engels confronted in the 1870s the > views of the German university lecturer Eugen Dühring, who was increasingly > winning adherents in German social democracy. Since Dühring claimed to have > assembled a new comprehensive “system” of philosophy, history, economics, > and natural science, Engels had to follow him into all these areas, but not > without emphasizing in the preface that his text “cannot in any way aim at > presenting another system as an alternative to Herr Dühring's “system”” > (MECW 25, p. 6) But this hint was of no use. Historically, Anti-Dühring > became the point of departure for precisely that “system” that became > famous under the name “Marxism.” Its first important representative was > Karl Kautsky. Until the first World War, Lenin also followed it without any > critique. > > Whereas Engels still made fun of Dühring’s claim to a “final and ultimate > truth” (MECW 25 p. 28), now such a pretension, along with all the fantasies > of omnipotence based upon it, was made by many Marxists: “Marxist doctrine > is omnipotent because it is true.” The flattenings invested in social > democratic Marxism before the first World War were continued in the > Marxism-Leninism that became a canonical doctrine in the Soviet Union after > Lenin’s death. > > Just to be clear: my intention is not to discredit every analytical and > political achievement of Kautsky, Lenin, and many other Marxists. If one > wishes to evaluate these achievements, one has to take each case > individually. What I’m talking about are those philosophical > simplifications that are presented as “Marxism,” those mixtures of simple > materialism, bourgeois ideas of progress, and vulgar Hegelianism which are > presented as “dialectical materialism” and “historical materialism” – terms > that one seeks in vain in Marx’s work. > > Now, modern, enlightened, undogmatic Marxists will immediately object that > cults of personality aren’t their thing, and that the old, dogmatic Marxism > isn’t either. Only their own enlightened standpoint should count as > “Marxism,” everything that is unpleasant – from determinist conceptions of > history to the reduction of gender relations to a “secondary contradiction” > to the Stalinist gulag – is supposed to have nothing to do with the true, > real Marxism. However, if one asks what constitutes real Marxism, the air > suddenly becomes thin, and that’s not a coincidence. If one attempts to > substantively flesh out the term “Marxism,” one is necessarily confronted > with a dilemma. If one inserts too much content, then the determination > becomes too concrete and easily ends up contradicting subsequent science. > “Lysenkoism” is only the most well-known example of this. But if one leaves > thing at a vague, general level, then there is a danger that what is > presented as Marxism remains at the level of platitudes: everything real is > material, history develops through contradictions, etc. > > For some Marxists, Georg Lukács counts as the one who cut the Gordian > knot. Even if some individual results of Marx’s theory proved to be false, > according to Lukács, his “method” remained: maintaining “materialist > dialectic” as a research method was supposedly the core of “orthodox > Marxism.” Even disregarding the fact that there is little agreement among > Marxists as to what actually constitutes this dialectical method that > people so readily speak of, it’s also not any kind of real recommendation > for a method to cling to it even if it leads to incorrect results. I’m in > no way contesting that there are reasonable concepts of materialism and > dialectic. However, I doubt that one can put together the foundations of an > ontology or an all-encompassing method from them. > > If one cannot offer a substantive determination of Marxism, there always > remains the possibility of using the term in a purely descriptive way. > Thus, one definition for the keyword “Marxism” is that “Marxism encompasses > all practices which in the last 150 years positively, or in the sense of a > continuity, refer to the works of Karl Marx as well as the authors and > activists who have subsequently referred to Marx.” A few sentences later, > there is talk of the “harassment of Marxism at the hands of Stalinism and > Fascism.” Apparently, Stalinism is not counted as part of Marxism, although > it definitely positively referred to “the works of Karl Marx,” and most > contemporaries never doubted that Stalinism was part of Marxism, among them > not a few critical spirits, such as Ernst Bloch. If one retroactively > excludes Stalinism from Marxism, understood in a descriptive sense, then > one proceeds in a manner no different from Stalin, who also attempted to > erase those who fell out of grace from historical records and old > photographs. > > The fact that it’s not easy for Marxists to determine what “Marxism” > actually is, is also Marx’s fault. One has to admit, he didn’t make it easy > for them. His work consists not only of a number of texts that he > published, but also numerous manuscripts that were unpublished in his > lifetime. All of the fundamental theoretical projects that Marx pursued > remained unfinished. Unpublished manuscripts such as the “Economic and > Philosophical Manuscripts” of 1844 or the omnibus from 1845/46 that became > known as “The German Ideology” are unfinished and fragmentary. Many of the > published texts are either provisional summaries, such as the “Communist > Manifesto” of 1848, or are part of unfinished projects such as the first > book of the “Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy” (1859) or > the first volume of “Capital.” (1867/1872) Political analyses such as the > 18th Brumaire (1852) or “The Civil War in France” (1871) deal > comprehensively with their respective topics, but the theory of the state > and politics that Marx aspired to are touched upon only implicitly and > incompletely. Marx not only left behind one unfinished project, he left > behind a number of unfinished projects. No wonder that the discussion of > these projects, their respective range, their gaps, and their relationship > to each other has provided rich material for debate, and still does. > > Furthermore, Marx’s posthumous works were only published little by little > (and are still being published). Every generation of readers was confronted > with a different oeuvre of Marx, and on multiple occasions in the 20th > Century, it was proclaimed that now – finally – one would get to know the > real Marx. However, the posthumous works were usually strongly revised by > the respective editors before publication. That was already the case for > the second and third volumes of “Capital” published by Engels, and it’s > even more so the case for the “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts” and > “The German Ideology” published in the 1920s and 1930s. The texts of Marx > and Engels were published for the first time completely and without such > editorial interventions in the second “Marx Engels Gesamtausgabe” (MEGA) > published since 1975, but at the moment only half of it abides. > > In the historical development of the various Marxisms, however, the texts > of Marx and Engels play a limited role anyway. Early on, people were > satisfied with a few striking formulations, such as that about history > always being a “history of class struggles”, or of “communism” as “the real > movement that abolishes the present state of things.” The contexts in which > Marx made these statements, and how they might have been modified by later > developments of Marx’s theory – were of less interest. For Marxism, Marx > was not interesting as a thinker who was constantly learning and developing > his theoretical conceptions, but rather as somebody who produced final > truths – “Marxism.” > > Many modern, enlightened Marxists also maintain a certain distance toward > an exact engagement with Marx’s work. Frequently, it is emphasized that one > does not wish to “conduct philology,” but rather deal with Marx > politically. Not infrequently, however, the distancing from philology > serves primarily the goal of maintaining undisturbed one’s own notion of > Marx’s theory and Marxism. If, for example, one refers with regard to the > concept of praxis in the Theses on Feuerbach, which many regard as the > central concept of Marx’s theory, to the specific context of the debate > with Feuerbach and the Young Hegelians, which robs the Theses on Feuerbach > of their status as a foundational document, or if one emphasizes that in > the case of the “Communist Manifesto,” Marx’s actual engagement with > capitalism begins afterward and even rejects some of the theses of the > manifesto, then one does not make many friends. The same is the case if one > notes that not every statement in “Capital” is carved in stone, that for > example there are indications that in the 1870s, Marx might have regarded > more critically the “law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall” > formulated in the 1864/65 manuscript of the third volume of Capital. Then > this is all decidedly too much “philology.” > > Again, to be clear: the fact that the critique of capitalism is not > exhausted in philology is banal. However, the fact that if one wishes to > work with Marx’s concepts, one has to first appropriate them critically and > not just in a superficial textbook manner, is just as banal. But more often > than not, it is precisely such a critical appropriation that is lacking. > > One final point: among critical social scientists, and in particular the > Assoziation für kritische Gesellschaftsforschung [Association for Critical > Social Research – translator’s note], Michel Foucault enjoys a certain > popularity. His analyses of the relationship between power and knowledge > are enthusiastically referred to. However, Marxists – even the modern, > undogmatic ones – have a hard time conceiving of Marxism as just such a > power-knowledge complex. At the conference organized by the AkG, Marxism as > a means of domination was not a topic of discussion. > > It was discussed with regard to Marxism in the GDR. But it’s not just > Stalinism and the history of authoritarian communist parties that belong to > this topic, where the history of Marxism is always also a history of > exclusion and domination. In left groups and in university seminars in the > West, the supposed certainties of “Marxism” also produced numerous > demarcations between that which was considered “still” or already “no > longer” Marxist, what was included or excluded from discourses and social > practices. > > Even if some would like to think so, the microphysics of power do not stop > where (western) Marxism begins. The “short summer of academic Marxism” > (Elmar Altvater) that existed in West German universities in the 1970s, and > which some still miss, was to a large extent a pseudo-prosperity which > rested upon discursive effects of power. In order to demonstrate that one > was cutting edge, one knew – regardless of what the topic was – to at least > throw in a short reference to “the contradiction between use value and > exchange value.” A lot of analyses of Marx’s theory and subsequent > contributions building upon it were composed in this period that are worth > reading, but also a huge amount of nonsense. > > Marx himself, in any case, did not seek final certainties. He was far more > interested in the critical business of undermining certainties in order to > open up new spaces for thought and action – in which it’s not immediately > clear what the correct result will be. > > In contrast to the “Marxism” that Marx rejected, with its > identity-defining certainties, this critical, unfinished Marx has an > extremely stimulating and subversive effect. Which of his analyses and > concepts are useful, what can help to change the world, and what can’t, is > not fixed for all time. One will always have to constantly discuss and make > new judgements: “De omnibus dubitandum.” > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
