A critical analysis of Marxism by Daniel Robinson

I've titled this lecture Marxism dead but not forgotten and I think here perhaps there are echoes somewhere within me of an American boy of the 1950s assuming that if it's Marxism it's bad and that's the end of it it's very difficult to bring a balanced entirely neutral perspective to bear on Karl Marx or Marxism we do associate much of the second half of the 20th century politically with the writings and teachings of Karl Marx and I think in this we probably either pay him too much credit or heap far too much scorn on him much of what comes down to us as Marxism is by way of mouths a tongue and Lenin and Stalin and the like and in these characters there is very little that matches up with the depth of Marx's own systematic writings I'm also somewhat reluctant to talk about Karl Marx in a series of lectures titled great ideas and philosophy chiefly because Karl Marx was quite assiduous in declaring that he was not a philosopher indeed he had a certain well I don't want to call it contempt for philosophy but he thought philosophy had an expiration date on it he thought that philosophical speculation was really an activity that goes on because of the undeveloped nature of societies because of the purely habitual modes of social organization but indeed a successful scheme of social revolution would put an end to that in fact one society was on a footing that bore some relationship to reality philosophical speculation would go the way of tarot cards and astrology Marx regarded himself as a social scientist making contributions chiefly to economic and social theory he regarded his method and his mode of explanation as drawn from the sciences and specifically not philosophy nonetheless his ideas have animated philosophical discourse only since the time they were recorded on paper and there are whole departments in fact until quite recently whole departments in Central Europe and in what used to be called the Soviet Union devoted to little more than composing glosses on one or another Marxist tract so there's no doubt whatever but that Karl Marx thought what he was doing his principal contributions that is would be to that part of the history of ideas in which we find philosophy itself his protestations to the contrary notwithstanding Marxist dates are 1818 to 1883 he was born in Prussia to a middle class family that claimed a long line of rabbis to preserve his successful law practice Marx's father had converted to Protestantism his son Karl followed in his father's footsteps matriculating in Bonn University's Faculty of Law at the age of 17 and it was there that he met and became engaged to a daughter of the aristocracy Jenny von Westphalen shortly after his studies take place at the University of Berlin where he joins the young Hegelians of momentous event in his intellectual development his radicalism made an academic career impossible but found a nurturing medium in journalism so at the young age of 26 he is appointed editor of the Heiner Schatz item and he will guide it quickly toward dissolution at the hands of Prussian authorities want to get a newspaper closed down at this time Marx is the chap you want as your editor well the editor of the paper sort of an enlargement of Liberty next in France from which in about two years he was expelled here's Marx again his movements with faithful Jenny and a growing family were frequent sometimes fitful until he finally would settle in London actually he's buried in Highgate Cemetery in London so you do get the picture of this fellow born to be a revolutionary and finding no home genial to his presence very long now his contributions as a scientist social or otherwise I would have to judge them to be negligible when compared with their influence little of what Marx offered would even be testable and such predictions as he made when at all specific were disconfirmed with extraordinary regularity Marx's estimation of himself as a scientist therefore I would have to say is is an exaggeration or perhaps an expression of an aspiration more than an achievement he earns less dubiously the title of non philosopher if this is some sort of distinction for he did pay rather little attention to systematic philosophies and the abiding problems in philosophy let's take as an example the mind-body problem which surely is an abiding problem in philosophy how is human nature to be understood is it ultimately a Conger ease of biological physiological processes the brain being Century centrally responsible for thought action and the like or is there something of transcendence about our humanity such that we rise above the level of mere matter well when Marx briefly engages an issue like this you can almost feel his impatience why in the times he lives in any one would pause to consider a matter of that kind simply amazes him amidst the European revolutions of 1848 the idea of sitting around and asking a question like that would have struck Karl Marx as an example of how a feat thought and thinkers had become by the mid 19th century now he does pause in the Holy Family to record his satisfaction with of all solutions gasps Cindy's solution to the mind-body problem recall what gasps Cindy's position was it was a thoroughgoing materialistic theory of mind a physiological theory of mind and mental life note that Marx's PhD dissertation his doctoral dissertation was on Democritus and Epicurus the title of the dissertation was quote the difference between the Democratic and the epicurean philosophy of nature close quote in his draft of a new preface to the dissertation he says this about Pierre Gassendi quote Gassendi freed Epicurus from the interdict which the fathers of the church had placed upon him he seeks to accommodate his Catholic conscience to his pagan knowledge and Epicurus to the church which certainly was a wasted effort close quote so again you see the reaction against religion the idea that kasundi is trying to achieve some sort of rapprochement between a pagan materialist philosophy and the Church of which he was a member of the whole project was wasted but at least what we see in Marx is the solution to the mind-body problem as far as he's concerned is already in its materialistic so he was at least early on interested in materialistic philosophies in the stricter sense of materialism surely taking on a project like that for a doctoral dissertation shows not only an interest in such questions but an early allegiance to a particular approach to solving problems of that kind and perhaps it also reveals the influence of his teacher Feuerbach whose own war on religion and tradition was as incessant as was Marx's Marx in 1844 would declare feuerbach to be quote the true Conqueror of the old philosophy close quote as a leader of the young Hegelians Feuerbach attacked what he identified as Hegel's idealism he agitated for a more thoroughly logical understanding of human nature and he relentlessly assailed religion and its social influence his essence of Christianity reduces reality to man and nature with no room left over for what he takes to be the fantastic ontology of the religious mind it would not be too much to say no feuerbach no Marx well both were materialists but if we were to classify Marx as a materialist it would be a different kind of materialist it would be what he himself referred to as a dialectical materialist more in the tradition of Hegel Marx and Engels claimed to have quote stood Hegel on his head close quote but they were both early admirers of and intellectual disciples of hegelian philosophy the difference between a dialectical materialism and the sort I've spoken of in lectures in this series is that the latter tends to be grounded in mechanistic considerations considerations that would be quite at home for example with Newtonian science or with Galileo or with the atomism of Democritus or whatever cures dialectical materialism is different it retains the materialistic ontology of philosophical materialism but then accounts for all change in terms of what the struggle of opposites it's on this basis that progress becomes possible change through conflict the same forces are at work within societies where under the laws now of historical materialism human character is shaped by the material modes of production Hegel recall based reality itself on the dialectic with the absolute idea realizing itself through human human history now in Hegel's philosophy there occurs a transcendent and not a material mode of progress it's not at the level of mere earthly materiality that progress takes place the absolute stands at the rational foundation of historical developments so it's reason realizing itself in human history thus the Hegelian scheme is a cosmic scheme based on some abstract rational or intelligent precept that does its silent work in the world historical processes now become emblems as it were or bits of evidence of what's taking place behind the scenes Marx and Engels dismiss the idealism declaring Hegel to be quote standing on his head and accepting for themselves the duty to place Hegel's feet back on terra firma so one begins by abandoning the whole field of absolute egos and absolute ideas and attaching oneself instead to a dialectical materialism in which the events of the social and political world are brought about by factors which are at base not transcendent but economic economic forces are not the sole determinants of human Dyne of social dynamics and individual behavior but they are the dominant forces as biological entities people are motivated from the first by the needs of the body not by philosophical or moral abstractions but by the creature needs that arise from their very materiality the Darwinian model was a source of inspiration here Karl Marx wrote that quote Darwin's work serves me as a natural scientific basis for the class struggle in history he went so far as to dedicate the SKA Peto to Darwin we have no evidence to suggest that Darwin was in any way pleased by this now in proposing that it's economics that imposes change on societies and on prisons Marxism represents a reversal of the traditional way of looking at how systems and institutions come about Aristotle for example argued that the political and legal framework of society will shape the moral character of citizens and that this and surely not anything economic represents the decisive factor in social life so on an Aristotelian account the laws and institutions of the polis are established to achieve certain ends in the right polis these are the ends of virtue for Thomas Aquinas law is recall an ordinance of reason promulgated by one who has the good of the community at heart or who is responsible for the good of the community social organization on this understanding is again based on ends that serve the dictates of conscience the economics of the situation would be just a surface phenomenon and not at the center of objectives of this sort now the Marxist version turns this quite around what you begin with are the productive resources that our tribal Enclave a small community or indeed an entire Empire might claim for itself this inevitably recruits the physical powers of a laboring class the laboring class becomes an instrument by which production becomes possible now in the process things are produced more efficiently by cooperation as the agricultural yield works to the advantage of all in time however possession of property is taken this establishing class distinctions between the propertied class and the laborers who are working the property it becomes necessary for the property class to devise some means by which to safeguard their possessions hence this same class proceeds to write the laws and exact the punishments so for the marxist law is a class concept a class tool arising from the material interdependencies of bourgeois and purl arian classes with the rise of capitalism and the disappearance of feudal society the process works in an almost mechanical way now suppose we want to accumulate capital which is what capitalism is all about we want to accumulate wealth now the way you accumulate wealth is by seeing to it that you can sell something for a price that exceeds the cost of producing it well what this requires is that the cost of producing it which is primarily the cost of labor has to be kept as low as possible relative to the price that will be charged for the product in question the difference between the cost of the labor involved in producing something and the price that is won in selling it just is the profit this is what you're trying to amass well now suppose it turns out that everybody in the world can make shoes well of course if everyone in the world can make shoes then no one has to buy shoes if it were the case that a large number of people in the world were making shoes there would be far too many shoes for the number of feet in the world now you begin to see that the price you will be able to get for a pair of shoes drops as the supply becomes entirely disproportionate visa vie the need for the item so within a capitalist system it becomes necessary to control the means of production to make sure that production does not significantly outstrip need this requires an accumulation of power over the primary mode of production what is the primary mode of production labor so what you now have is the formation of sharply distinguished classes there is a laboring class but the laboring class now is understood to be a kind of device it's like an assembly line it's like a system of pulleys labor is something that makes things just as machinery makes things as with machinery it's necessary to keep labor as it were good repair and also make provision for replenishing the supply of it and this is precisely what wages are all about wages aren't paid out of some consideration of obligation or decency wages instead are the means by which labour is preserved indeed wages become the means by which labor reproduces itself you form a laboring class which in almost clone like fashion is kept in such a condition of life that its offspring are likely to enter the same mode of employment engage in the same productive enterprises and be kept at a subsistence or slightly above subsistence level in order for the productive resources of the society to be used to their fullest my oh my now if you happen to be at the top of the food chain so to speak in this enterprise you've got to see to it that your interests are protected your interests are protected chiefly by law so there is a hand in glove relationship between those who are most successful at forming capital and commanding the productive resources of the community and those who are responsible for writing and indeed implementing the laws they are mutually self-serving they are observing each other serving important ends the legislative and executive activity within such a context might just be another of the tools for the exploitation of the laboring classes certainly at this point you understand what the Marxist interpretation what the Marxist philosophy of law is going to look like and it's it is alive and well in many of our law schools now the reaction to unionization in the 19th century was just the sort of datum that Marx could add deuce in support of his theory the idea that the law is being used fairly to distribute resources and to compensate persons in proportion to the value of their work was routinely violated everywhere that Marx everywhere in the European world what Marx found in feudal society was a system in which the pattern of dependencies was rather more homogeneous than what would obtain when capitalism replaced feudalism I I might mention at this point that Marx has a surprise at well perhaps not surprisingly Marx has a very positive attitude toward feudal societies and the medieval world itself has to be replaced but he he does see in it something that is replaced by capitalism in the worst sense of being replaced the feudal lord is not a mass in capital he's not amassing power he seeks instead to attain a kind of status compatible with a certain religious worldview at least at the public and social level then his aim is to preserve what has been achieved to do this however he recognizes not only the need for labor but recognizes also the very nobility of labour he lives within a society in which class structure is not a measure of a person's worth but a reflection rather of what the divinely intended order of the cosmos would bring about now Marx has his criticism of feudal society not to mention of the church it served but for all the criticism that he heaps on modern economic systems and on modern society itself he does pause in his writings to make comparisons with a feudal mode of economy and social organization those comparisons are I say always to the advantage of the feudal society its economics its mode of social organization on Marx's account the movement from feudalism to capitalism is quite complex the two existing side-by-side for periods of time the undoing of feudal society arises from its very success for with security and life's Basics provided there is a growing desire for new goods as the feudal estate proper I'm sorry prosperous there's greater opportunity for trade and this brings to the attention of the laboring class possibilities previously hidden again the dialectic now there are feudal guilds that are formed by skilled laborers who will limit production to keep prices high against this are the rising expectations associated with economic security rising expectations that can be met only by manufactured goods produced in quantity at rates that the feudal craftsmen couldn't possibly match but manufacturing requires now a division of labor and essentially the end of craftsmanship itself the unskilled laborer replaces the craftsmen and capital formation proceeds at an accelerating clip thanks now to cheaper labor and the concentrated ownership of the very modes of production what does this lead to well unchecked the rich get richer the poor get poorer and alas revolution is the only remedy QE D now what is capital well according to the labor theory of value in capitalism labour produces more than what is paid for it and the surplus or remainder or difference yields capital of course this works only insofar as there are consumers according to the theory for capitalism to survive it must continue to expand the consumer class must be increased I often wonder what marks if revived and traipse through a contemporary shopping mall say the Mall of America might say he might just smile and declare himself utterly vindicated the main point however is this unlike a feudal mode of production the progressive capitalistic mode of acquisition of wealth the formation of capital has to grow which means it has to create appetites for products since the basic necessities of life finally can be satisfied one time around how many shoes do you need after all how much food has to be in the larder how many shirts can you get through a week with and so forth how many toothbrushes how many cars can you cram into that garage in time you finally have to start producing things utterly unrelated to any consideration of survival so you must create consumerism you must create a consumer of ethos and to do this of course you have to rely on certain characteristics of individuals that render them ever more pliable ever more concerned with considerations of status and class so class structure becomes an integral part of a capitalist economy because it has to do with the most basic impulse and that's the one of self-identity one's self-image one's sense of fellowship and worth you know I am what I buy I know I am what I am able to buy now the model for this kind of psychology Marx draws from the history of religions he famously declared religion to be the quote opiate of the masses now I've sometimes said to students that in fact for the better part of three quarters of a century Marx is teaching at least as rendered by Mao Stalin Lenin and company really functioned precisely as an opiate staggeringly large numbers of persons put up with a form of life that many would have revolted against and put up with it not merely because there were tanks on the street but because they accepted a theory according to which that form of life was a necessary stage in some sort of some alleged evolutionary process now this is a kind of self numbing a kind of intellectual numbing that religion has rarely achieved and I might say rarely attempted to achieve but what did Marx have in mind in condemning religion as an opiate of the masses well he was a revolutionary within a world of powerful centers committed to the status quo the great obstacle to a revolutionary enterprise is complacency and one source of complacency is the belief that prevailing conditions are natural or right or divinely ordained if you are convinced that your current situation is but an instance in an immense sea of time and that all the important things are going to happen after this purely meager earthly interval well you've already become tolerant of your situation in life religion redirects focus from the here and now to the then and there and the there is untouchable and the then is unreachable until you perform that necessary act of dying so the opiate effect is this you begin to take less seriously the day-to-day affairs of your life and you begin to place the highest premium on a set of values that inevitably are promulgated by classes above your own it's the masses who find religion to be an opiate the upper classes the most influential classes the moneyed classes the aristocratic classes don't have particularly good records of religious credulity this is where you find skeptical philosophers cynics men of the world but the churches are just the right place to have people reassured but there's some future reward that will be theirs so Marx sees not just a convenient aid to a particular economic system but a deliberate motivated attempt on the part of the powers to keep the masses in place through some sort of mythos a set of Rights and rituals a set of superstitions futuristic promises all of it grounded in something absolutely unreal but entirely serviceable for the purposes now you begin to change this only by recognizing that you're a victim of it the class consciousness becomes the necessary engine of revolutionary change and progress the first thing you've got to recognize is that you've been exploited that being manipulated that in fact those who are availing themselves of your labor are doing and paying you wages are doing so not in your interest but in the interest of preserving a system in which they happen to be successful their success depends centrally on your failure your failure to change anything materially about the nature of your life and social arrangements so what is needed of course is a revolutionary change and that revolution cannot be bloodless because the powers are not relinquish the Xin power do not relinquish power power is taken from them revolutionary upheavals then are the only basis upon which an economic and social stasis is impelled to change and indeed compel to change in the ordinary run of things science and technology alone radically alter the means of production if you step back from this for a moment forget the drama of classes in conflict and vulgar capitalists attempting to amass wealth just step back for a moment and consider how the world of the late Renaissance and 17th century the realms of Science and Technology how those worlds were changed by Science and Technology how the cotton gin changes things or an automobile Marx provides a theory that really leaves no room at all for the revolutionary changes brought about technically and scientifically without any blood being led at all and as far as the static status of a laboring class consider only the Western democracies of the past century to see how mobile persons are within that framework his is a deterministic theory and this inevitably is defeated by actual persons living real lives according to terms they articulate for themselves

Channel: Arts Exclusive

Views: 1,743

Rating: 4.8545456 out of 5

Keywords: philosophy, marx, dialectical materialism, hegel, germany, capitalist, proletariat, economy, labour, classless, modern philosophy, western philosophy, capitalim, communism, nsbm, socialism, marxist philosophy, engels, communist

Id: 9yudRet_qQ4

Length: 30min 53sec (1853 seconds)

Published: Tue Feb 12 2019