Karl Marx attacked other socialist and communist schools in “The Communist Manifesto”
The debate over the Marxist heritage is at least as old as Marxism itself. In the nineteenth century, for example, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published a brief work called “The Communist Manifesto.” This remains one of the most influential tracts ever written on economic theory. In that same century, they also published a three-volume work called “Das Kapital.” Some would argue that this is the most talked-about book in the social sciences – or, at least, the work that’s most frequently cited in academic journals of the social sciences. These nineteenth-century works are thus among the most influential books in human history. But Karl Marx debated with others in the budding socialist and communist movements, even attacking many of them in “The Communist Manifesto.” For example, “The Communist Manifesto” contains specific attacks on “reactionary socialism” – including “feudal socialism,” “petty-bourgeois socialism,” and “German, or ‘true,’ socialism” (as it was then called). He also attacks “conservative, or bourgeois, socialism,” although he has more mixed feelings about “critical-utopian socialism and communism” – as he states in the work itself. (Source: Chapter III, Section 3) Thus, the debate over socialism and communism goes back at least as far as the nineteenth century. Nonetheless, it still continues in full force today. Thus, this post will give a brief overview of the debates within the Marxist community, in the years since Marx’s death at age 64. I will have to skip over the original words of Marx himself, since I cover them elsewhere. Therefore, this will include a special focus on both the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and the developments in Marxist thinking since the twentieth-century Russian Revolution.
Karl Kautsky
Vladimir Lenin
Marxism from the death of Karl Marx through the Russian Revolution and First Red Scare
Friedrich Engels continued to edit Marx’s works after Marx’s 1883 death, adding in footnotes to claims made by Marx. Some of them seem to contradict the claims made in the text itself. Regardless of this, this process of posthumous editing subsided somewhat after Friedrich Engels died in 1895. Nonetheless, another of Marx’s works was posthumously published between 1905 and 1910. Specifically, there was a three-volume work called “Theories of Surplus Value,” published by the Marxist theorist Karl Kautsky (but written by Marx). But the biggest development for twentieth-century Marxism came in 1917, with that year’s “Russian Revolution” (technically two revolutions). In that period, the ideas of Vladimir Lenin became particularly important for the future of Marxism. Some later theorists would argue that a more “sympathetic” form of Marxism could be found in the work of Leon Trotsky. But Trotsky gave an ideological defense of the Red Terror, and also worked to suppress the Kronstadt rebellion. Thus, these arguments seem to be a little hard to reconcile with the evidence. Nonetheless, Trotskyism emerged as a distinct school of thought within post-Revolutionary Marxism. But the ideals of Lenin would soon become the most important influence upon the future history of communism. There is a “Leninism” school, and also a “Marxist-Leninist” school. Specifically, “Marxism-Leninism” would become the dominant brand of communism in the Soviet Union – and, later, in many other communist regimes throughout the world. This is somewhat associated with Stalinism, although there are some key differences here. In the United States, there were some intellectuals who defended this brand of communism – although this became somewhat harder to do, when the Soviet Union began its Great Purges in the 1920s and 1930s. This difficulty may also have been owing to the prior “First Red Scare,” which was operating in the period from 1917 to 1920. This was a predecessor to the infamous “Second Red Scare” – the one that we today associate with Joseph McCarthy.
Leon Trotsky
Western attitudes towards Soviet Union and Maoist China, including during McCarthyism
But, during World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union formed one of the most unlikely alliances in human history. Their ideologies were fundamentally incompatible, and both sides knew this. But both sides still knew that this cooperation was necessary, because they had to beat the Nazi threat posed by Hitler’s Germany. Thus, they reluctantly tolerated each other during the wartime period. But, when World War II ended, the alliance started to break down somewhat. The two spheres of influence began to clash in Europe, and the gulag prison camps reached their most reprehensible height. Because of this clash, there was a “Second Red Scare” – the one rightly associated with Joseph McCarthy’s name today. Many people were falsely accused of being spies, and many others were falsely accused of being communists – a serious charge in the McCarthyist era. At the time, this infamous witch-hunt was dramatized in Arthur Miller’s 1953 play “The Crucible.” This made a comparison between the communist witch-hunts, and the earlier Salem witch trials. It should be acknowledged that there were some truly hysterical McCarthyist elements in these witch-hunts. Thus, perhaps partly because of this, some Marxists seem to have concluded that all opposition to Marxism … must somehow be “equivalent” to McCarthyism. I’m not sure exactly how this logic is supposed to work, but so goes the party line. Perhaps partially because of this perception, many American leftists now tend to understate their leftism. Bernie Sanders, who is “merely a socialist,” honeymooned in the Soviet Union. And Barack Obama once said that China’s infrastructure is “vastly superior” to ours (Source: Video record of his comments). The record of China, during (and since) the Maoist era, is not quite so romantic – since it includes a number of mass murders against his own people. But, apparently, the millions of Chinese people who died under Chairman Mao “don’t matter very much” – if his intentions were pure, that is. Indeed, Biden’s senior political adviser Anita Dunn once referred to Mao as one of her “favorite political philosophers.” (Source: Video record of her comments). Apparently, that “Mao” fellow is quite a guy, to listen to her speak. This view helps to explain why a “Maoism” school of thought is also somewhat popular today in Marxist circles.
Joseph McCarthy, the spearhead of the “Second Red Scare”
Marxism takes over the ivory tower, with several different schools of Marxist thought
But more concerning has been Marxism’s takeover of the ivory tower in the West today. For example, one Wikipedia page on Marxism cites several schools of Marxist thought today. Some have already been mentioned herein. But they also include “left communism,” “council communism,” “libertarian Marxism,” and “Western Marxism” (among others). There is also “autonomist Marxism,” “Analytical Marxism,” “De Leonism,” the “Frankfurt School,” the “Praxis School,” and various national forms of Marxism. The latter includes British Marxism, Austro-Marxism, and Eurocommunism. Some Christians have built a Marxist theology, while many atheists have built a Marxist humanism. These also include many postmodern forms of Marxism – such as “structural Marxism,” “post-Marxism,” “Marxist literary criticism,” and even “Marxist feminism.” In more recent years, many Marxists have been trying to sell their beliefs as being “good for the environment.” This is ironic, because China and the Soviet Union both seem to have given rise to somewhat dismal environmental records. Indeed, the poor green record of the Reds … can give one the blues, if the reader will pardon a few puns. (Rather “colorful” puns, if you will.) There has also been a school called “orthodox Marxism,” which attempts to return to the original nineteenth-century ideas of Karl Marx himself. But, as far as I can tell, no environmentalist ideas can be found in the writings of Karl Marx. This seems to be a direction taken after Marx’s death, to merge it with the green movements of the later decades. A certain brand of Marxism is “green on the outside, and Red on the inside” – encouraging the occasional nickname of “watermelons.” Indeed, the environmentalist movement may have since become a haven for Marxist radicals in disguise.
Factory in China, 2008
Many admit that communism has never succeeded, but insist that it will “some day”
But neo-Marxism may be the brand of Marxism that is most popular today. Nonetheless, many in academia identify with more than one of these schools, despite their occasional contradictions. This may be why many neo-Marxists are also postmodernists. The problems of postmodernism are too numerous to be explored here, and they might be better identified in a different post. There may be some contradictions between some of these schools – and, indeed, even within some of these schools. Indeed, there are contradictions in the original ideas of Marx and Engels themselves (as I show here). But one thing is clear: the empirical evidence would seem to indicate that communism failed. That is, it seems to show that communism created more poverty, rather than less (as I show here) – and even led to outright economic stagnation and collapse (as I show in that same post). With this, many Marxists would agree. Thus, many of them have tried to throw out this evidence, saying that “it wasn’t really communism.” I have done an entire post debunking this particular argument (available here), so I won’t spend too much time on it here. Nonetheless, it is interesting that most Marxists would seem to agree that communism does not now have a track record of success. But “surely,” they say, that evidence of success will manifest itself “some day.” A century of failed attempts can just be explained away as “failures of implementation” – failures, apparently, that manifest in every single attempt that has ever yet been made. But “it’ll work some day,” apparently.
Long line for cooking oil – Soviet Romania, 1986
Conclusion: Marxists continue to ignore valid evidence, and embrace utopian fantasies
The problems of socialism might be better dealt with in other posts, to which I link here. But suffice it to say that Marxism remains an ideological force to be reckoned with. It controls the ivory tower, much of the media, and various systems of government throughout the world. It might be dismissed as “hackery,” but it’s far too prevalent for that. The best way to confront Marxism is just to understand what it is, as I have tried to do here. And the most important thing to understand about Marxists … is their willingness to ignore valid evidence. “If you just give us power,” they tell us, “everything will be made right” – just like it was in the Great Purges, the gulag prison camps, and the mass murders of Chairman Mao. The utopian fantasies live on, with an ever-growing gap between intentions and cruel results. “But, surely, it’ll work out some day” … so the fantasy lives on.
Footnote to this blog post:
Most who call themselves “Marxist” tend to be more communist than socialist. That is why I’ve been responding more to communism in this blog post. But, if you’re interested in socialism, I have several blog posts on that subject, to which I link here.
If you liked this post, you might also like:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment