HARD QUESTIONS FROM MARX - Jersey Flight

When people think of Marx, sadly they think of historical "Marxism." This serves to poison the well against legitimately considering what Marx actually said; after this one reads Marx with colored glasses. Just because people have used Marx's ideas to bring about destruction does not mean that Marx's ideas are false or inherently dangerous. They are dangerous in the hands of dangerous people, even as they are oppressive if they are used oppressively. They are most certainly dangerous to the ruling class's monopoly of power, as they threaten emancipation from ruling class control, they threaten to destabilize and abolish ruling class power.

"For Marx, the revolutionary process was far more complicated, requiring ongoing education of the proletariat. For example, it was crucial for him that the proletariat acquire class consciousness because, without this consciousness, it would not come to the realization that the entire capitalist system must be abolished and replaced by a system that operates in the interests of working people, as opposed to a small, extremely wealthy minority. In other words, without class consciousness, members of the proletariat assume that their miserable condition is a function of their own individual initiative, or lack thereof, or simply bad luck, as opposed to resulting from naked class exploitation. But class consciousness is not simply gained instinctively since the bourgeoisie, for example, is relentlessly on a campaign to assert ideological hegemony by arguing that capitalism represents the highest achievement in individual freedom, fairness in the distribution of wealth, etc." Ann Robertson, The Philosophical Roots of the Marx-Bakunin Conflict, What's Next, December 2003

Sadly, some people are totally oblivious to class distinction, they simply assert that it does not exist.* But the real question here is whether or not "class consciousness" is required to overcome the oppression of capitalism?

Those who think of the economic sphere in terms of bare choice fail to understand the fact that all economic choices are conditioned by a larger economic and social context. Choices made within a system are conditioned by that system. Those who argue for the existence of economic or social autonomy fail to comprehend the system in which they exist.

The question is who the system is setup to work for: those who exploit or those who are exploited?

Is there such a thing as exploitation? {We only ask this question to the most uncritical and naive among us.}

Is capitalism what the capitalist claims it to be, justice, fairness, the "highest achievement in individual freedom?" In order for this to be the case vast individual accumulation must not restrict individual freedom. Such accumulation must not pose a threat to the stability of communal living.

In order for this to be the case man's well-being must be dissociated from his economic standing. In order for this to be the case it must be true that some men have a greater right to the earth.

The hardest question regarding Marx is whether or not one can handle his ideas without seeking to fallaciously poison the well against him? The latter act however, gives testimony to the concrete power of Marx's ideas, which really amount to social and economic discoveries.

If "class consciousness" is required to overcome the oppression of capitalism, then man is wasting his time with mere impulsive reaction (emotional revolution). In this sense Marx targets the apex of social oppression; in this sense Marx, working in the spirit of intelligence, seeks to draw a straight line from oppression to oppressor from bondage to liberation. Instead of merely treating the symptoms Marx targets the disease in hopes of fully eradicating the problem. For those who comprehend the ambitious and deeply humanitarian nature of Marx's program it will be clear that he was one of the greatest human beings to ever walk the face of the earth. 


NOTES-------------

* "...the notion of class entails the notion of historical relationship. Like any other relationship, it is a fluency which evades analysis if we attempt to stop it dead at any given moment and anatomize its structure. The finest-meshed sociological net cannot give us a pure specimen of class, any more than it can give us one of deference or of love. The relationship must always be embodied in real people and in a real context. Moreover, we cannot have two distinct classes, each with an independent being, and then bring them into relationship with each other. We cannot have love without lovers, nor deference without squires and laborers. And class happens when some men, as a result of common experiences (inherited or shared), feel and articulate the identity of their interests as between themselves, and as against other men whose interests are different from (and usually opposed to) theirs. The class experience is largely determined by the productive relations into which men are born—or enter involuntarily. Class-consciousness is the way in which these experiences are handled in cultural terms: embodied in traditions, value-systems, ideas, and institutional forms." E. P. Thompson, Preface to The Making of the English Working Class