Re: [Marxism] Religion, the proletariat, Marxism, and revolution

[Haines Brown <brownh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> "I believe we have to sharply distinguish (early) Marx and Marxism."
> 
> If that is so, why does Marx refer in the ultra-canonical 1859
> preface (rarely read in full) to that brilliant summation of his
> early thought, the CHPR:I, which is an inspiration to class
> struggle.

James, you may have misunderstood my point. I have no disagreement
with your defense of the early Marx. However, what one person (Marx)
thought can't be assumed to be the same as a (working-class) class
ideology. However indebted working-class ideology might be to Marx,
the two are not the same thing.

For one thing, Marx offers a scientific grasp of capitalist dynamics
from the perspective of a particular time, place and circumstance,
which makes him necessarily one-sided. The working class on the other
hand is universal, and so in principle not one-sided.

> "Marxism" is basically Kautsky and Plekhanov, which included social
> Darwinism and that French materialism from which Bentham drew his
> individualistic hedonism. "Actually existing socialism" and its
> ideology should indeed be sharply distinguished from both early and
> late Marx, but the question of which has the greater validity is to
> say the least open to dispute -- although I think its wide variety
> of behaviours and motivations perhaps contains elements of authentic
> Marx.

I'm not sure I quite follow this. Are you suggesting that Marx's
thoughts soon enough became codified and canonical for defining what
"Marxism" means?

Well, there may be some truth in this, but it nevertheless leaves me
feeling uncomfortable.

As an intellectual tradition, hasn't Marxism been used to refer to a
wide variety of currents which share little in common? That there once
existed a kind of orthodoxy does not mean that folks choosing to
differ with it cease being Marxists. Or at least I, who has little
confidence in the soundness of his own ideas, finds it wise to be
charitable when it comes to unconventional notions.

But all this I present as an issue in intellectual history. "Marxism"
can also be used to refer to the ideology characteristic of the modern
working class, whatever the ideas that happen to be its content.

I suppose I'm distinguishing here an empiricist and a functionalist
definition of Marxism. However, I'd prefer to avoid both and see
Marxism instead as a _process_ that combines an empirical dimension (a
set of ideas) with the causal potency resulting from working-class
struggle. This approach has been used, although I feel not in a
particularly cogent way.

So I end with two issues that I suspect need further exploration and
about which I'm not at all confident. One is to reconcile the fact
that a specific time, place and circumstance gave rise to Marx,
ensuring that he has a particular perspective (such as "Eurocentric",
but we might also consider a reduction of "working class" to
"proletariat") that played a central role in the formation of the only
ideology that is specific to the modern working class, and as such is
a universal. On the other hand, to the extent he is a member of the
working class and a social being, he acquires the possibility for
achieving a certain universality. But the answer here may be found in
the next issue:

The other issue is whether "Marxism" need be defined in
empiricist/functionalist terms, or if these conventional approaches
might be reconciled as aspects of a process. I was tempted to explore
this idea here, but I've no doubt everyone would either not understand
what I was saying or view it as a waste of time and energy. In either
case, boring.

Haines Brown      

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism