On political stances

It is difficult being a Marxist in a capitalist world. Sometimes this makes one think that maybe there is something wrong with the whole enterprise of scientific socialism, that perhaps there is a way to realize the promises of markets with just enough, or just the right kind of, regulatory apparatus. Admittedly this state of mind doesn’t usually last too long, as the state of the world leaves little room for such illusions. However, there’s something perverse in how difficult it is to understand Marxism, explain it to others, and with some luck get them to accept it.

before I started writing, I was thinking of other scientific disciplines, like physics or chemistry. Although political economy is in some respects a difficult discipline in comparison, due to the human factor and the difficulty in isolating confounding variables, it seems strange that Marxism is so difficult to defend as a viable model of the economy. However, thinking longer on it, I suppose it is not more difficult than being a heliocentrist was in its day, or an atomist.

There is a position, that is more closely associated with anarchist groups, that all one needs to do to fight the existing system is denounce it as immoral. These people believe that the immorality of the system can be easily demonstrated and that moral appeals will convince a good amount of the population to support a change. Marxism, in contrast, has a more sophisticated view, based on the idea that the ideological positions people take are largely superstructural, and that they derive from practical experience and, in sum, from the economic realities. I used to think this position was evidently true: without undergoing certain experiences, it will be difficult to embrace a certain position, no matter its logic. So the working class cannot arrive to Marxism by mere pamphleteering, although those pamphlets are key whenever the objective conditions become propitious, and the experiences of the class crystallize in a qualitative change. But to what extent is this true?

I don’t have much of a background in psychology. However, as a rule, people find it easier to believe those things which would be more convenient. So why does Marxism get such a sceptic reception from its natural audience–the working classes–and not quite as much scepticism from what we could call the intelligentsia?

I’m sure I’m not the first person to notice this. In fact, I’ve often read commentary to this effect on Marxmail. However I haven’t found any explanations that were convincing on the reason for this state of affairs. In addition, if the working class must undergo certain experiences in order to be able to comprehend Marxism as a practical direction, and not simply by rote and indoctrination, is there any thing that can be done by Marxists to hasten this day, or is our function simply to keep Marxism alive while the conditions mature for its uptake? In fact, one could think that, if the question is objective and experiential, keeping Marxism alive is of little value, as the class itself will be able to develop an equivalent analysis when it comes to need it. Of course having one ready to be processed might make things go more smoothly, but it is hard to believe that Marx’s genius–great as it may be–would be so unique that the world’s working class could not develop something like it in due course.

In the meantime, while we think on theory and denounce injustice, we remain as powerless as ever, and the world continues moving in very dangerous directions. On the one hand, the limits of nature, certainly not in an absolute sense but very likely under this mode of production, are starting to become uncomfortably close. On the other hand, the resurgence of nationalism seems to echo the warnings from the 1930s, when the world slid from an economic crisis into a world war.

What can we do, aside from what Marxists have been doing for more than a century now? Is there any chance to avert these dangers, and to give a push to the existing objective conditions? Is democratic centralism, or its interpretation, as some suggest, a fundamental subjective obstacle to the realization of a Marxist mass party?

I certainly don’t have good answers for these questions. If I did I would be trying to put them in practice, instead of spending unhealthy amounts of my time polemisizing with capitalists and trying to convince people of the labour theory of value. Something a friend of mine said to me is that we should, as Marxists, make more use of the bourgeois sciences: marketing, psychology, theory of organisation, that kind of thing. It’s a good suggestion in principle, as much as it is hard to put it in practice. Writing this had mostly the purpose of clarifying these problems in my mind, trying to work out the state of play, and inviting people to give me their ideas, although I know that it’s not likely I’ll get a lot of comments. But if you think you have something to say, anything to contribute, please do comment and let me know. What do you think? What Is To Be Done?

Tags: marxism, politics, praxis, theory and practice, witbd