Totality vs. Totalitarianism

["Chris M. Sciabarra" <sciabrrc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Doug Henwood makes a good point when he says that many "Marxists" apply
Marx's theories in a mechanistic manner, and there is some validity to
the suggestion that such mechanism is at the root of totalitarian
applications.  Interestingly, Hayek, Adorno, and the Frankfurt School are in
agreement here -- much of what counts as modern "totalitarianism" is
really a kind of misapplication of reason.  The Frankfurters viewed this
as an instance of applying reason to the totality in an entirely
instrumental, scientiStic, positivistic, mechanistic manner.  Hayek saw
this as a vestige of what he called "constructivist rationalism," which
was based not on contextual, dynamic, internally-relational applications,
but on a "synoptic delusion."  Now... in English ... the instrumentalists
basically view the social totality in utopian terms, as something that
can be changed at will.  They often try to impose Marxian prescriptions
(or other prescriptions) without any understanding of the historical,
cultural, political, social, or even philosophical context within which
change occurs.  As such, instrumentalists think that they can simply step
outside history and design an ideal society with little or no social
consequences.  They view the social totality not immanently, as
dialectics would have it, but from an external, synoptic vantage point.
While Hayek argues that this, in essence, is the basis of modern-day
totalitarianism, his Frankfurt adversaries offer a similar critique of
state socialism and fascism.  So, I would not say, as Siddharth
Chatterjee suggests, that the charge of "totalistic-totalitarian"
tautology is exclusively a right-wing charge.  Unless Chatterjee is
prepared to call the Frankfurt school "right-wing"...
        What needs to be made clear is that there IS an identity  between
a non-dialectically viewed totality and totalitarianism.  To the extent
that modern day statists embrace Marxist ideology, they use that ideology
in an entirely undialectical manner, and seek to bring about changes that
Marx envisioned as being entirely emergent and spontaneous in the broad
progressive march of history, and most importantly, something that is
emergent only out of advanced capitalism, and not "underdeveloped"
quasi-feudal economies.
        When we approach the study of any totality, we need to have a
little humility here... something that even Marx and Engels occasionally
lack.  We are ALWAYS internal to the context that we criticize; our
criticism is ALWAYS immanent to that totality.  And any efforts to rise
above that totality to judge it from the outside, as if we were God-like,
synoptic creatures, is not only futile, but dangerous.
        Dialectics always had a tense relationship with its undialectical
counterpart, something that has been called "strict organicity."  From
the earliest Platonic dialogues, we find dialectic very closely aligned
with "synoptic" views of the whole.  Aristotle helped to clarify some of
the problems with this synoptic approach, and for this, he is properly
credited by Marx, Engels, and even Lenin as a founding father of
dialectical inquiry.  Hegel himself praises Aristotle much, even as Hegel
contributes more to our understanding of internal relations.  The problem
is however, that even Hegel shows a tension between dialectics and strict
organicity.  Though there are many ways in which to interpret his
understanding of Spirit, it has been suggested that Spirit is not
Hegel's dialectics showing, but his monism, which is another way
of ushering the synoptic vantage point back in to dialectical method.  It
was this "mystical" shell that Marx sought to separate from the rational
kernel.  And yet, there are times that Marx's own view of history
reflects a secular version of Hegel's Spirit.  When viewed undialectically
and as a purely deterministic formula, Marx's historical materialism is a
mechanistic application that must be avoided.
        What Marx teaches however, that is of great importance, is that
we can understand the totality by grasping it NOT from a synoptic vantage
point, but from many different vantage points within the totality, thus
helping ourselves in the construction of a richer, more complex portrait
of the interrelationships within that totality.
        I've gone on long enough...
                                        - Chris
==================================================
Dr. Chris M. Sciabarra
Visiting Scholar, NYU Department of Politics
INTERNET:  sciabrrc@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://pages.nyu.edu/~sciabrrc
==================================================


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---