21st Centuary Socialism

It is evident that Marxism is a very complexed set of arguments, weaved together within the general context of social reform through revolution. In a very real sense, the end justifies the means. But the 'means' employed by Marxian thinking, should not be treated (as it is often the case), as a perfect dogma, that has no capacity for improvement or refinement. Part of the problem resides in the dichotomisation of 'Marxism', (in its various guises), and the prevelant and hitherto successful 'Capitalist' system. Inshort, the latter is seen to be working, (regardless of the abstract concept of 'fairness'), whilst the former, although historically viewed as existing via the USSR, the PRC, and possibly Cuba, has either collapsed, morphed into a Capitalist State, or has been embargoed to the margins of world affairs.

Traditional Marxists (and not those adhering to Gramsci), have not had much of a coherent response to these changing events. However, two clear intellectual positions have become clear; 1) Marxist theory must be adhered to stronger than ever, as though it were a religion without a god. 2) The collapse of Coomunist rule in the USSR, and the development of blatant Capitalism (free of the hindrance of Democracy) in China, are the results of Marxist thinking not being applied correctly, or as Marx 'originally' intended.

The latter view has led to a concretisation around every word Marx has written, as though something were amiss with the orignal interpretations that have obviously failed in their attempt to build a just society within a Marxist framework. An alternative view might hold that the original theory, although heading in the right direction, requires further development - and that this process of self-examination, should be constant and equal.

A problem with regard to the traditional Marxist theory of ‘Materialism’, is that it ignores the innate human potential that may be viewed as the ‘subjective’, or that which represents and reflects the inner existence of a human being. The theory itself excludes the possibility of a valid and contributing driving force to physical life, originating from the conscious processes of the human mind.

The Marxist theory of Materialism, postulates that ‘matter’ creates ‘mind’. Matter both pre-exists physical being (i.e. ‘birth’), and post-exists the physical death process. In other words, individual lives come and go throughout the ages, but the physical matter of the universe continues to exist for all time. Life simply arrives and departs within a material framework. There is nothing beyond the ‘material’, and therefore no such entity exists, as a Marxist theory of Metaphysics.

The Marxist theory further asserts that the conscious state of an individual, group or class, is determined and dependent upon the relationship of that between the individual (or group) and the economic means of production. Working from this premise, the argument is further developed, whereby the outer circumstance of the physical world, serve to create the inner structures, (i.e. psychological states) of the inner (i.e. subjective) world.

This is a determinist model that suggests that ‘we are how we live’, and as a consequence, no other theory can be allowed, that might suggest a differing view, or offer a modification of the original theory. This situation may have been arrived at by both Marx and Engels, as a reflection of their requirement for Marxist theory to be considered ‘scientific’ – and therefore appealing to the intellectual mind and the academic community of their time. As a consequence, the Marxist theory of Materialism is a ‘closed system’ that can not, as a matter of definition, allow for any other view. In this sense, this Marxist theory of social science, attempts to mimic the clarity of thought developed by such subjects as Physics, Science and Chemistry – which of course, make full use of the ‘scientific method’ and the ‘closed system’.

The Marxist theory of Materialism is, of course, philosophy rather than science in the classical sense. Furthermore, it is a speculative philosophical theory – unlike classical science, it has not historically proven its central assertions. Whereas, that which can not be proven by the use of the scientific process, is discarded as incorrect, or viewed as a methodological ‘error’. In this sense, Marxist materialism treats humanity as the passive bystander in the living process. A passive bystander that is acted upon by the social structures surrounding the economic process the individual experiences.

This implies that the individual has no potential ability to contribute to (and possibly change) the outer social structures, through the agency of ‘will’. A ‘will’ generated from within, and possibly the product of hitherto ‘unrecognised’ inner processes, existing free of the influence of the material determinism of external phenomena. From this perspective, it can be deduced that an individual may well be subject to very powerful and oppressive external forces, but yet remain inwardly free of the influence of these forces.

This capacity to remain inwardly free may not be the case for all beings. However, the potential for such a situation to exist, should not be beyond the remit of Marxist theory. To maintain a form of self-determination, whilst experiencing oppressive social forces, can be interpreted as the product of the attribute, of the human requirement to ‘transcend’. This attribute also serves as the basis of human spirituality – which has often become distorted by established religion. Therefore, the human spiritual urge, can not be fully explained by the Marxist theory of Materialism. The spiritual urge, together with the social structures it has created, can not be fully explained as merely the internalisation of outer material forces. That is, the reflective mirroring conscious processes, that are believed to be the product of the relationship between the individual and the means of production. If it were, it would mean that the inner urge to ‘transcend’ outer circumstances, would be potentially imprinted in the outer material itself. Marxist materialist theory would have to allow therefore, that in the oppressive outer forces of the social contract, the implicit requirement to ‘transcend’ is present.

As it is not in the interests of the ruling and dominating elite, to have the social structures they have created, (and that serve their elitist purposes) transcended, it would be reasonable to believe that ‘transcendence’ is not part of the social fabric they have created. It logically follows therefore, that this urge to transcend does not originate in the material of the outer circumstances, but instead is a product of an internal psychological archetype. An archetype that even if not triggered by the external culture one is born into, nevertheless remains as a potential, and may well serve some kind of creative purpose through other social functions. This is where Marxist theory has to tread carefully. There must be a distinction between religious institutions that have gained political power, and have entrapped people in a self-limiting net of social superstition and undeveloped argument, and the legitimate pursuing (by individuals) of a spiritual path of self-development, that has no institutions or establishments, and is not interested in the securing of outer political power or in the pursuing of economic oppressive structures.

Hard to understand it, but you're right.
__
My site about essay service

Thank you for your comment. Originally, it was intended that this article be published in a leftwing, radical philosophy journal - but the editors declined to publish, using pure sophistry as an excuse. They felt that the definition of 'materialism' in the essay moved from one definition to another. However, they did not address the central premise that materialism as a philosophy is illogical and contains within itself, its own downfall.

This attitude found in the Left is one of denial and lacks any sense of self-observation. There can be no constructive advance in Leftwing thinking without self-awareness. The Left is riddled with intellectual point-scoring at the expense of other Leftwingers. This is a form of intellectual imperialism. Those who are of the most need of Leftwing policies are invariable the socially and culturally deprived, these people, that is the masses are usually not in a position to possess the skills to intellectually combat the Left or the Rightwing. Recently, I was in a meeting of the Communist University in South London. We listened for an hour or two to a very interesting Bulgarian speaker, talking about the collapse of the Soviet Union. At the end of the sesion, we moved around the room, each of us present, giving our opinion. The last person to speak was an old hand - a party member for some time. Instead of giving his own opinion, as each of us had done, he instead moved around the room, deconstructiong and criticising each one of the speakers, more or less in-turn.

This gave this person an apparent and undeserved intellectual advantage, and yet it is deceptive. He did not give his own opinion at all, but gained kudos from anyone else's intellectual effort. He basically made an opinion out of disagreeing with everyone else. His attitude was condescending and undemocratic. Due to the structure of the meeting, he could not be criticised as the meeting came to an abrupt end. This is an example of intellectual sophistry on the Left, and serves to explain in-part why the left is so disparate and disconnected both from itself and greater society at large. We are forced to intellectually defend ourselves from our fellow Leftwingers, instead of pulling collectively together. Intellectual bullying has come to replace true social compassion in the UK. This betrays the underclass - the very proletariat the Left claims that it exists to free.

Interesting argument, but I felt it was a bit anecdotal and sweeping in places. Marx, and I'm sorry to go back to him, wrote that people MAKE their own history, but not just as they please, not under circumstances of their own choosing.He made this point in his fascinating discussions of French history. It seems a balanced view of structure and agency. We are constrained by our economic, social circumstances and so on, but our choices still have some influence on the future. I agree Gramsci was a great thinker though it is some time since I read him.
I think the main problem of the left is not that it is undemocratic or dogmatic (it doesn't seem to stop the right winning century after century) though these are not positive where true, but that it is too often inward looking and prone to internal fighting.Even more important, we are simply losing. That's the main problem because it leads to demoralisation, despair and giving up. Therefore it is probably just a case of preserving socialist principles until the time when more people are open to them. Materialism is probably not the main problem, and after all either Marx or Engels argued that you have to eat before you can think!
Best wishes etc.

Karl Marx - and I am happy to return to him - is absolutely spot-on in his assessment of the relation of people to finance. The privileged few exploit the many. This is the essence of the writings of the great man. From this 'sweeping' observation, Marx then fills-in the gaps to what is essentially his economic theory of exploitation of the masses. What is called 'Marxism' however, has little to do directly with Karl Marx himself, who is known to have been unhappy with many assumptions that others were extrapolating from his teachings. So-called 'Marxists' have continued to see things in the writings of Marx that are not there, and then to build social policies upon these misconceptions. This is all held together with a large dose of 'denial' regarding the social carnage that has ensued in many countries claiming to be 'Communist'.

Materialism is philosophically absured. A material world can not be known to exist, without a Mind to perceive it. Quantum Physics has clearly shown that the 'perceiver' and the 'percieved' are infact one and the same entity. Marxism without a Mind is a recipy for disaster and social disorder. Marx wrote very little about religion, and what he did write seems aimed primarily at Britain's state religion of the Church of England. the idea that religion should not hold politcal power, as mirrored by Lenin - does not necessarily mean that religion should not exist or indeed serve a crucial developmental function in the Mind of a good Communist. Mao, and other Soviet leaders believed that ALL religion, in ALL its guises was wrong and should be wiped-out, either by removing its institutions, or murdering its adherents.

The old style Marxists have had their day, but one can not help but feel that Karl Marx himself has never been interpreted correctly. His economic and social observations have been developed far beyond any direction that he may have taken. His work was essentially that of interpreting the past. From this interpretation, he believed that he saw historical trends that are set to repeat themselves over and over again. From this observation of the past, Marx believed that the future could be 'predicted'. Furthermore, both he and Engels believed that this 'prediction' was 'scientific', when infact it is purely philosophical in nature.

The human Mind is not an error - after-all it has created Marxism and many other fine examples of the use of the intellect. The human psyche does not stem from 'matter', as later Marxists assumed. These later layers of dogma have concretised Marxism into a virtually unworkable model in the nodern world. That is to say that the original teachings and intentions of Karl Marx has been distorted by self-appointed interpreters of his message. The rightwing wins because it is pragmatic. It knows that Greed and hatred are natural trends int he Minds of the people - it simply devises strategies to appeal to this hatred, whilst White middle class Marxists sit in rooms and measure one another's intellectual understanding of the just what Marxism might 'be'. The rightwing meanwhile, are pro-active and engage thw working class in their prejudices. Racism and anti-Islamic feelings run wide today and the rightwing encourages, creates and uses them effectively. The intellectual snobbery that abounds in the leftwing, together with its antipathy toward other leftwing groups is exactly why the rightwing appears to prevail. In-short, the rightwing acknowledges the Mind as existant and uses it. Modern Marxists have to stop living in the pass, abandon the 'cult of personality' that riddles the ledtwing and radically re-assess the teachings of Karl Marx. The acknowledgement of the validity of the Mind is crucial for this process to work, or Marxism will slip quietly into the annals of history.

'[If we have chosen the position in life in which we can most of all work for mankind, no burdens can bow us down, because they are sacrifices for the benefit of all; then we shall experience no petty, limited, selfish joy, but our happiness will belong to millions, our deeds will live on quietly but perpetually at work, and over our ashes will be shed the hot tears of noble people. Marx, Letter to His Father (1837)]'

There are Marxisms not Marxism- I'm sure we agree there. However, all this mind stuff seems straight out of Hegel. A material world can be assumed to exist because otherwise you would not type on your PC or laptop and assume someone would read it.Making predictions is bad social science, but Marx did not only make predictions because he wrote we MAKE our own history. It is necessary to understand the past as much as possible, because otherwise the risk of repeating mistakes is much bigger.Personally, I am neither a Marxist nor middle class but it is irritating to see any thinker misrepresented. And if I was a middle class Marxist it would have no bearing on the veracity or otherwise of my arguments. The so-called 'essence' of Marx, that the many are exploited by the few, is not actually his essence because many thinkers grasped this before him. Marx combined French politics, German philosophy and English economics and fused it into a philosophy of interpretation and change. Engels possibly damaged this by helping to create 'dialectical materialism' and applying it to the natural world etc. but what later Marxists have done with it is largely up to them. It was not whether they were materialists or not which made some of them heroic geniuses and others bloodthirsty tyrants. It is necessary to move from the abstract to the concrete and back again to understand what may or may not be going on. Socialists often want to reassess Marx for their own glory when what other things socialists could be doing is a much more illuminating thing.I'm not sure why you mention religion, it is at best a divisive distraction (and at worst death to the intellect) which exacerbates conflicts.

The PC you mention can not work itself. Matter without consciousness, matter just remains inert. This does not have to necessarily equate consciousness with 'spirit' (Hegel), and limit every criticism of Marxian thinking to the self-proclaimed and self-limiting dichotomy of Marx V Hegel. It is far more fundamental than that, and to deny a conscious aspect to the world, is, I believe a misreading of Marx himself.

Furthermore, it is illogical. Human awareness creates perception and through that perception, manipulates 'matter'. Awareness is the key. Obviously, if people are viewed merely as non-conscious automatons, then the materialist view would be correct, accept of course, that no such view would be forth-coming, as there would be no higher mental faculties to create it.

Furthermore, a Eurocentric bias to the world tends to prejudge the 'world'. Why should Hegel be the only relevant view of a spiritual or conscious universe? The 'opiate' of the Judeo-Christian tradition that Marx briefly criticised has grown inot a blanket denial of the relevance of the religious impulse. This is ironic, when one considers the 'religious-like' archetype triggered by the 'cult of personality' actively engaged throughout the Soviet world. A 'great leader' represents a Pope, and the Soviet government represents the new church. The old forms of religion are attacked and destroyed, whilst the 'new religion' is allowed full reign without criticism or contradiction. Like the archaic church it has replaced, grave consequences await anyone who contradicts it.

A further distinction has to be made here. Spirituality does not necessarily have to equate with 'religion', if religion has been reduced to a political, oppressive entity. By all means, these corrupt institutions should be removed from political power. They should possess no social power whatsoever, other than to serve as a moderating factor for one's personal development. For instance, such as cultivating compassion for others, a trait readily observable in the writings of Karl Marx himself.

It seems a philosophically unlikely that inert matter developed an awareness of itself. Without 'awareness', there is no knowledge of the existence of matter.

'[If we have chosen the position in life in which we can most of all work for mankind, no burdens can bow us down, because they are sacrifices for the benefit of all; then we shall experience no petty, limited, selfish joy, but our happiness will belong to millions, our deeds will live on quietly but perpetually at work, and over our ashes will be shed the hot tears of noble people. Marx, Letter to His Father (1837)]'