The separation of Marxism from leftism only appears paradoxical when you refuse to look at the left from a materialist perspective.
The question is how fundamentally do we understand the left - as a cultural style, an abstract ideology or a concrete social movement with a particular social base representing real-life class interests and alignments? It seems like the only authentically Marxist approach is the latter, but the vast majority of current-day "Marxists" refuse to adopt it, no doubt because they don't want to be exposed (especially to themselves) for what they really are.
You are a rare exception, so keep up the good work - I'm really looking forward to seeing more!
It's hard for me to imagine what "proletarian Marxism" means in terms of political activism, outside of what we've known as "the left" for the past two centuries. But I'm listening . . .
Perhaps the two coexisted at some point (eg, late 19th century German SPD or the Russian Revolution), but certainly even the Left and the labor movement, let alone Marxism, have come largely apart under late neoliberalism.
Very interesting. Your forthcoming history of the “left/right” framing is very important and I look forward to reading it.
For you are spot on: Marxism is not about left or right, and Marx’ thought can’t be placed on the political compass with a single dot. If you had to put it on an x y axis, it would be a hectic scatter of many dots. And this scattering would change as history changed, because Marxist strategy is guided by a historical materialist analysis of a changing capitalist world order.
However, I disagree with what appears to me to be a class reductionist reading of Marx, and a reading that claims that there is one true way of interpreting Marx. I believe a better explanation exists for why so many different political projects lay claim to Marx. It is because Marxism is inherently historical, and historical research is inherently interpretive. It is for this reason that Marxism, like all ideas, is shaped by historical forces. And it is for this reason that one needs Marxism to understand the plurality of Marxisms.
Marx revolutionary praxis was based on an attempted “scientific” study of class forces. This meant that strategy depends on both the historical moment. It is for this reason that you can find so much overlap with Marx politics and so many different political projects — even as he furiously trashed them for being utopian.
He was a “libertarian” in our terms - pro gun rights, opposed to the state, etc - and anarchistic in our terms - pro Paris commune, workers control - etc - a social Democrat - supported the union movement and mass social democratic movements as a form of building the working class’ political power during the non revolutionary period when capital was in a growth phase after 1848. He was also a statist, believing that to overthrow the state workers should first seize the state. But all these strategies depend on a historical materialist analysis.
Historical materialist analysis, though, is inherently interpretive. The same facts, even using all Marx’ concepts, can be used to create different histories and different strategies. This is not a problem for Marxism but part of its power. Marx knew that ideas were shaped by historical forces, just as much as ideas are historical forces.
A Marxist analysis of “the left” can then explain why so many different people claim Marx. It’s not because they have “castrated” him. It’s because their interpretation of history, even when using a Marxian analysis faithfully, is shaped by history. It is shaped partially by their own changing class position.
But these ideas, and social practices, are much more than just worker vs capitalists. They are also gender, sexuality, race, etc. Marxism is not just class forces. It is also about ideas, and identity. Or, it should be. One can’t understand the proletariat without looking at these historical forces also, even if they must be seen as interwoven with the history of class struggle, and the history of capital.
Unfortunately, there is no one real Marxism that could, like slim shady, please stand up. Despite even being aware of being shaped by the bourgeois University, academic Marxism is not “fake Marxism”. Despite being shaped by air conditioned drives to private schools, Jacobin magazine is not “fake Marxism”. Despite the strange contradictions of a general justifying a bloody revolution and civil war, Trotsky was not a “fake Marxist”.
There is no one true Marxism there are many. What is required is to see this diversity within the context of the changing class forces of the global capital.
Thank you for this thoughtful response. I can’t possibly respond to all of your points, but I will say that I am not attempting, as you fear, to lay claim to the one true Marxism. Instead, I am hoping to do just what you suggest, offer an interpretation of Marx that responds to a particular historical/social context.
For any newcomer to Marx, I recommend finding a copy of The Marx-Engels Reader, edited by Robert Tucker, and published by Norton. It's the best introductory anthology.
I wonder whether in the 20th Century bourgeois democracy was made to seem more effective than it was due to the presence of the Soviet Union and the threat of Communism. In Britain for instances the Labour left keep harking back to the success of the Attlee government that founded the NHS, the welfare state and so on. The bourgeois left invariably constructs an endogenous story to explain it. The strength of the Union movement, the dedication and commitment of its political wing etc. At this time tho the Soviet Union was wildly popular, half of Europe was Communist, Italy and Greece nearly followed, and the CP was extremely solid in France. The fact then that Atlee took us into NATO and the leading lights of the British left became wildly and passionately anti Communist and anti Soviet Union tells us much more about what they represented and indeed what was to come…
i can see where you're coming from, but i think that you're equating marxism with a kind of anti-capitalistic centrism, that kinda ignores the definition of leftism (anti-capitalistic, for one).
great work tho, this is a refreshing take on marxism
The separation of Marxism from leftism only appears paradoxical when you refuse to look at the left from a materialist perspective.
The question is how fundamentally do we understand the left - as a cultural style, an abstract ideology or a concrete social movement with a particular social base representing real-life class interests and alignments? It seems like the only authentically Marxist approach is the latter, but the vast majority of current-day "Marxists" refuse to adopt it, no doubt because they don't want to be exposed (especially to themselves) for what they really are.
You are a rare exception, so keep up the good work - I'm really looking forward to seeing more!
It's hard for me to imagine what "proletarian Marxism" means in terms of political activism, outside of what we've known as "the left" for the past two centuries. But I'm listening . . .
Perhaps the two coexisted at some point (eg, late 19th century German SPD or the Russian Revolution), but certainly even the Left and the labor movement, let alone Marxism, have come largely apart under late neoliberalism.
Very interesting. Your forthcoming history of the “left/right” framing is very important and I look forward to reading it.
For you are spot on: Marxism is not about left or right, and Marx’ thought can’t be placed on the political compass with a single dot. If you had to put it on an x y axis, it would be a hectic scatter of many dots. And this scattering would change as history changed, because Marxist strategy is guided by a historical materialist analysis of a changing capitalist world order.
However, I disagree with what appears to me to be a class reductionist reading of Marx, and a reading that claims that there is one true way of interpreting Marx. I believe a better explanation exists for why so many different political projects lay claim to Marx. It is because Marxism is inherently historical, and historical research is inherently interpretive. It is for this reason that Marxism, like all ideas, is shaped by historical forces. And it is for this reason that one needs Marxism to understand the plurality of Marxisms.
Marx revolutionary praxis was based on an attempted “scientific” study of class forces. This meant that strategy depends on both the historical moment. It is for this reason that you can find so much overlap with Marx politics and so many different political projects — even as he furiously trashed them for being utopian.
He was a “libertarian” in our terms - pro gun rights, opposed to the state, etc - and anarchistic in our terms - pro Paris commune, workers control - etc - a social Democrat - supported the union movement and mass social democratic movements as a form of building the working class’ political power during the non revolutionary period when capital was in a growth phase after 1848. He was also a statist, believing that to overthrow the state workers should first seize the state. But all these strategies depend on a historical materialist analysis.
Historical materialist analysis, though, is inherently interpretive. The same facts, even using all Marx’ concepts, can be used to create different histories and different strategies. This is not a problem for Marxism but part of its power. Marx knew that ideas were shaped by historical forces, just as much as ideas are historical forces.
A Marxist analysis of “the left” can then explain why so many different people claim Marx. It’s not because they have “castrated” him. It’s because their interpretation of history, even when using a Marxian analysis faithfully, is shaped by history. It is shaped partially by their own changing class position.
But these ideas, and social practices, are much more than just worker vs capitalists. They are also gender, sexuality, race, etc. Marxism is not just class forces. It is also about ideas, and identity. Or, it should be. One can’t understand the proletariat without looking at these historical forces also, even if they must be seen as interwoven with the history of class struggle, and the history of capital.
Unfortunately, there is no one real Marxism that could, like slim shady, please stand up. Despite even being aware of being shaped by the bourgeois University, academic Marxism is not “fake Marxism”. Despite being shaped by air conditioned drives to private schools, Jacobin magazine is not “fake Marxism”. Despite the strange contradictions of a general justifying a bloody revolution and civil war, Trotsky was not a “fake Marxist”.
There is no one true Marxism there are many. What is required is to see this diversity within the context of the changing class forces of the global capital.
Thank you for this thoughtful response. I can’t possibly respond to all of your points, but I will say that I am not attempting, as you fear, to lay claim to the one true Marxism. Instead, I am hoping to do just what you suggest, offer an interpretation of Marx that responds to a particular historical/social context.
You made me realize I don't know much about Marx aside from the common lore.
What can a beginner start with?
For any newcomer to Marx, I recommend finding a copy of The Marx-Engels Reader, edited by Robert Tucker, and published by Norton. It's the best introductory anthology.
https://wwnorton.com/books/9780393090406
Thank you
I wonder whether in the 20th Century bourgeois democracy was made to seem more effective than it was due to the presence of the Soviet Union and the threat of Communism. In Britain for instances the Labour left keep harking back to the success of the Attlee government that founded the NHS, the welfare state and so on. The bourgeois left invariably constructs an endogenous story to explain it. The strength of the Union movement, the dedication and commitment of its political wing etc. At this time tho the Soviet Union was wildly popular, half of Europe was Communist, Italy and Greece nearly followed, and the CP was extremely solid in France. The fact then that Atlee took us into NATO and the leading lights of the British left became wildly and passionately anti Communist and anti Soviet Union tells us much more about what they represented and indeed what was to come…
i can see where you're coming from, but i think that you're equating marxism with a kind of anti-capitalistic centrism, that kinda ignores the definition of leftism (anti-capitalistic, for one).
great work tho, this is a refreshing take on marxism