Chris Cutrone
The Last MarxÂist
A reÂsponse to Mike Macnair
.
Whatever one thinks of Chris Cutrone or PlatyÂpus, the orÂganÂizÂaÂtion’s conÂtroÂverÂsial rhetÂorÂic, methÂods, and antics, the folÂlowÂing is an exÂcelÂlent esÂsay and reÂsponse in the (still onÂgoÂing) exÂchange between PlatyÂpus and the CPÂGB. This was first presenÂted at the School of the Art InÂstiÂtute of ChicaÂgo, JanuÂary 11, 2014. A video reÂcordÂing is availÂable here, an auÂdio reÂcordÂing availÂable here.
.
Still readÂing Lukács? The role of “critÂicÂal theÂoryâ€
.
Why read Georg Lukács today? EsÂpeÂcially when his most famÂous work, HisÂtory and Class ConÂsciousÂness, is so clearly an exÂpresÂsion of its speÂcifÂic hisÂtorÂicÂal moÂment, the aborÂted world reÂvoluÂtion of 1917-19 in which he parÂtiÂcipÂated, atÂtemptÂing to folÂlow VladiÂmir LenÂin and Rosa LuxÂemÂburg. Are there “philoÂsophÂicÂal†lesÂsons to be learned or prinÂciples to be gleaned from Lukács’s work, or is there, rather, the danger, as the ComÂmunÂist Party of Great BriÂtain’s Mike Macnair has put it, of “theÂorÂetÂicÂal overkill,†styÂmieÂing of politÂicÂal posÂsibÂilÂitÂies, closÂing up the struggle for soÂcialÂism in tiny auÂthorÂitÂariÂan and politÂicÂally sterile sects founÂded on “theÂorÂetÂicÂal agreeÂment?â€
Mike Macnair’s artÂicle “The philoÂsophy trap†(2013) arÂgues about the isÂsue of the reÂlaÂtion between theÂory and pracÂtice in the hisÂtory of osÂtensÂible “LenÂinÂism,†takÂing isÂsue in parÂticÂuÂlar with Lukács’s books HisÂtory and Class ConÂsciousÂness (1923) and LenÂin (1924) as well as with Karl Korsch’s 1923 esÂsay “MarxÂism and philoÂsophy.†The isÂsue is what kind of theÂorÂetÂicÂal genÂerÂalÂizÂaÂtion of conÂsciousÂness could be deÂrived from the exÂperÂiÂence of BolshevÂism from 1903-21. I agree with Macnair that “philoÂsophÂicÂal†agreeÂment is not the propÂer basis for politÂicÂal agreeÂment, but this is not the same as sayÂing that politÂicÂal agreeÂment has no theÂorÂetÂicÂal imÂplicÂaÂtions. Rather, the isÂsue is whethÂer theÂorÂetÂicÂal “poÂsÂiÂtions†have neÂcesÂsary politÂicÂal imÂplicÂaÂtions. I think it is a truÂism to say that there is no sure theÂorÂetÂicÂal basis for efÂfectÂive politÂicÂal pracÂtice. But Macnair seems to be sayÂing nothÂing more than this. In subÂorÂdinÂatÂing theÂory to pracÂtice, Macnair loses sight of the poÂtenÂtial critÂicÂal role theÂory can play in politÂicÂal pracÂtice, speÂcificÂally the task of conÂsciousÂness of hisÂtory in the struggle for transÂformÂing soÂciÂety in an emanÂcipÂatÂory dirÂecÂtion.
A cerÂtain reÂlaÂtion of theÂory to pracÂtice is a matÂter speÂcifÂic to the modÂern era, and moreover a probÂlem speÂcifÂic to the era of capÂitÂalÂism, that is, after the InÂdusÂtriÂal ReÂvoluÂtion, the emerÂgence of the modÂern proÂletÂariÂanÂized workÂing class and its struggle for soÂcialÂism, and the crisis of bourÂgeois soÂcial reÂlaÂtions and thus of conÂsciousÂness of soÂciÂety this enÂtails.
CritÂicÂal theÂory reÂcogÂnizes that the role of theÂory in the atÂtempt to transÂform soÂciÂety is not to jusÂtiÂfy or leÂgitÂimÂate or provide normÂatÂive sancÂtion, not to raÂtionÂalÂize what is hapÂpenÂing anyÂway, but rather to criÂtique, to exÂplore conÂdiÂtions of posÂsibÂilÂity for change. The role of such critÂicÂal theÂory is not to deÂscribe how things are, but rather how they might beÂcome, how things could and should be, but are not — yet.
The politÂicÂal disÂtincÂtion, then, would be not over the deÂscripÂtion of realÂity but rather the quesÂtion of what can and should be changed, and over the dirÂecÂtion of that change. Hence, critÂicÂal theÂory as such goes beyÂond the disÂtincÂtion of anaÂlysÂis from deÂscripÂtion. The isÂsue is not theÂorÂetÂicÂal anaÂlysÂis propÂer to pracÂticÂal matÂters, but, beyÂond that, and of course inÂcorÂporÂatÂing this, the isÂsue of transÂformÂing pracÂtices, and doÂing so with actÂive agency and subÂjectÂive reÂcogÂniÂtion, as opÂposed to merely exÂperÂiÂenÂcing changed pracÂtice as something that has already happened. InÂdeed, capÂitÂalÂism itÂself is a transÂformÂatÂive pracÂtice, but that transÂformÂaÂtion has eluded conÂsciousÂness, speÂcificÂally with reÂgard to the ways change has happened, and politÂicÂal judgÂments about this. This is the speÂcifÂic role of theÂory, and hence the place of theÂorÂetÂicÂal isÂsues or “philoÂsophÂicÂal†conÂcerns, in MarxÂism. It canÂnot be comÂpared to othÂer forms of theÂory, beÂcause they are not conÂcerned with chanÂging the world — not conÂcerned with the politÂics of our chanÂging pracÂtices. Lukács charÂacÂterÂized this disÂtincÂtion of MarxÂism from “conÂtemÂplatÂive†or “reÂified†conÂsciousÂness, to which bourÂgeois soÂciÂety had othÂerÂwise sucÂcumbed in capÂitÂalÂism.
If osÂtensÂibly “MarxÂist†tendÂenÂcies such as those of the folÂlowÂers of Tony Cliff have botched “theÂory,†which unÂdoubtedly they have, it is beÂcause they have conÂflated or rendered inÂdisÂtinct the role of critÂicÂal theÂory as opÂposed to the politÂicÂal exÂiÂgenÂcies of proÂpaÂganda: for orÂganÂizÂaÂtions dedÂicÂated to proÂpaÂganda, there must be agreeÂment as to such proÂpaÂganda; the quesÂtion is the role of theÂory in such proÂpaÂganda activÂity. If theÂory is deÂbased to jusÂtiÂfyÂing proÂpaÂganda, then its critÂicÂal role is evacÂuÂated, and inÂdeed it can mask opÂporÂtunism. But then it ceases to be propÂer theÂory, not beÂcomÂing simply “wrong†or falsÂiÂfied but rather ideoÂloÂgicÂal, which is a difÂferÂent matÂter. This is what happened, acÂcordÂing to Lukács and Korsch, in the 2nd/SoÂcialÂist InÂterÂnaÂtionÂal, resÂultÂing in the “vulÂgarÂizaÂtion†of MarxÂism, or the conÂfuÂsion of the forÂmuÂlaÂtions of politÂicÂal proÂpaÂganda inÂstead of propÂerly MarxÂist critÂicÂal theÂorÂizÂaÂtion.
The theÂory and pracÂtice of “proÂletÂariÂan soÂcialÂismâ€
.
A note on the term “proÂletÂariÂat:†This was Marx’s neoÂloÂgism for the conÂdiÂtion of the post-InÂdusÂtriÂal ReÂvoluÂtion workÂing class, which was anaÂlogÂous — but only in metaÂphorÂicÂal anaÂlogy! — to the AnÂcient RoÂman ReÂpubÂlic’s class of “proÂletÂariÂans:†the modÂern inÂdusÂtriÂal workÂing class was comÂposed of “citÂizens without propÂerty.†In modÂern, bourÂgeois soÂciÂety, for inÂstance in the view of John Locke, propÂerty in obÂjects is deÂrived from labor, beÂcause labor is the first propÂerty. Hence, to be a laborer without propÂerty, to be a workÂer without propÂerty in one’s own labor, is a self-conÂtraÂdicÂtion in a very speÂcifÂic sense, in that the “exÂproÂpriÂation†of labor hapÂpens as a funcÂtion of soÂciÂety: in Marx and EnÂgels’s view, this is a funcÂtion of a self-conÂtraÂdictÂory form of soÂciÂety. A modÂern “free wage-labor†workÂer is supÂposed to be a free conÂtracÂtuÂal agent with full rights of ownÂerÂship and disÂposÂal over her own labor in its exÂchange, its buyÂing and selling as propÂerty, or, more simply, as a comÂmodÂity. This is the most eleÂmentÂary form of right in bourÂgeois soÂciÂety, from which othÂer claims, for inÂstance, inÂdiÂviduÂal right to one’s own perÂson and equalÂity beÂfore the law, flow. If, acÂcordÂing to Marx and EnÂgels, the conÂdiÂtion of the modÂern, post-InÂdusÂtriÂal ReÂvoluÂtion workÂing class or “proÂletÂariÂat†exÂpressed a self-conÂtraÂdicÂtion of bourÂgeois soÂcial reÂlaÂtions, this was beÂcause this set of soÂcial reÂlaÂtions, or “bourÂgeois right,†was in need of transÂformÂaÂtion: the InÂdusÂtriÂal ReÂvoluÂtion inÂdicÂated a poÂtenÂtial conÂdiÂtion beyÂond bourÂgeois soÂciÂety. If the workÂers were exÂproÂpriÂated, even though their conÂtracÂtuÂal right to disÂpose of their own labor was already and still conÂtinÂued to be sancÂtioned by law, acÂcordÂing to Marx and EnÂgels, this was beÂcause of a probÂlem of the value of labor at a greatÂer soÂciÂetÂal level, not at the level of the inÂdiÂviduÂal capÂitÂalÂist firm, not reÂduÂcible to the level of the conÂtracÂtuÂal reÂlaÂtion of the emÂployÂee to her emÂployÂer, which reÂmained “fair exÂchange.†The wage conÂtract was still bourÂgeois, but the value of the labor exÂchanged was unÂderÂmined in the greatÂer (globÂal) soÂciÂety, which was no longer simply bourÂgeois but rather inÂdusÂtriÂal, that is, “capÂitÂalâ€-ist.
The struggle for soÂcialÂism by the proÂletÂariÂat was the atÂtempt to reÂapproÂpriÂate the soÂcial propÂerty of labor that had been transÂformed and “exÂproÂpriÂated†or “aliÂenÂated†in the InÂdusÂtriÂal ReÂvoluÂtion, which Marx and EnÂgels thought could be achieved only beyÂond capÂitÂalÂism, for inÂstance in the value of acÂcuÂmuÂlated past labor in sciÂence and techÂnoÂlogy, as what Marx called the “genÂerÂal (soÂcial) inÂtelÂlect.†An obÂjectÂive conÂdiÂtion was exÂpressed subÂjectÂively, but that obÂjectÂive conÂdiÂtion of soÂciÂety was itÂself self-conÂtraÂdictÂory and so exÂpressed in a self-conÂtraÂdictÂory form of politÂicÂal subÂjectivÂity, “proÂletÂariÂan soÂcialÂism.†The greatest exÂemÂplar for Marx and EnÂgels of this self-conÂtraÂdictÂory form of politÂics aimÂing to transÂform soÂciÂety was Chartism, a moveÂment of the high moÂment of the InÂdusÂtriÂal ReÂvoluÂtion and its crisis in the 1830s-40s, whose most poinÂted politÂicÂal exÂpresÂsion was, inÂdicÂatÂively, uniÂverÂsal sufÂfrage. The crisis of the bust periÂod of the “Hungry ’40s†inÂdicÂated the matÂurÂaÂtion of bourÂgeois soÂciÂety, in crisis, as the preÂcedÂing boom era of the 1830s already had raised exÂpectÂaÂtions of soÂcialÂism, politÂicÂally as well as techÂnicÂally and culÂturÂally, for inÂstance in the “UtoÂpiÂan SoÂcialÂism†of FourÂiÂer, Saint-SiÂmon, Owen et al. (as well as in the “Young HegelÂiÂan†moveÂment takÂing place around the world in the 1830s, on whose scene the youngÂer Marx and EnÂgels arÂrived beÂlatedly, durÂing its crisis and disÂsolÂuÂtion in the 1840s).
One must disÂtinÂguish between the reÂlaÂtion of theÂory and pracÂtice in the reÂvoluÂtionÂary bourÂgeois era and in the post-InÂdusÂtriÂal ReÂvoluÂtion era of the crisis of bourÂgeois soÂciÂety in capÂitÂalÂism and the proÂletÂariÂat’s struggle for soÂcialÂism. If in the bourÂgeois era there was a proÂductÂive tenÂsion, a reÂflectÂive, specÂuÂlatÂive or “philoÂsophÂicÂal†reÂlaÂtion, for inÂstance for Kant and Hegel, between theÂory and pracÂtice, in the era of the crisis of bourÂgeois soÂciÂety there is rather a “negÂatÂive†or “critÂicÂal†reÂlaÂtion. Hence, the need for MarxÂism.
As the FrankÂfurt School MarxÂist CritÂicÂal TheÂorÂist Theodor AdÂorno put it, the sepÂarÂaÂtion of theÂory and pracÂtice was emanÂcipÂatÂory: it exÂpressed the freeÂdom to think at variÂance with preÂvailÂing soÂcial pracÂtices unÂknown in the AnÂcient or MeÂdiÂevÂal world of traÂdiÂtionÂal civilÂizÂaÂtion. The freeÂdom to reÂlate and arÂticÂuÂlate theÂory and pracÂtice was a hallÂmark of the reÂvoluÂtionÂary emerÂgence of bourÂgeois soÂciÂety: the comÂbined reÂvoluÂtion in soÂciÂety of politÂics, ecoÂnomÂics, culÂture (reÂliÂgion), techÂnique and philoÂsophy — the latÂter unÂder the rubÂric “EnÂlightÂenÂment.†By conÂtrast, RoÂmantic soÂcialÂism of the early 19th cenÂtury sought to re-uniÂfy theÂory and pracÂtice, to make them one thing as they had been unÂder reÂliÂgious cosÂmoÂlogy as a total way of life. If, acÂcordÂing to AdÂorno, MarxÂism, as opÂposed to RoÂmantic soÂcialÂism, did not asÂpire to a “unity of theÂory and pracÂtice†in terms of their idenÂtity, but rather of their arÂticÂuÂlated sepÂarÂaÂtion in the transÂformÂaÂtion of soÂciÂety — transÂformÂaÂtion of both conÂsciousÂness and soÂcial beÂing — then what AdÂorno reÂcogÂnized was that, as he put it, the reÂlaÂtion of theÂory and pracÂtice is not once-and-for-all but rather “flucÂtuÂates hisÂtorÂicÂally.†MarxÂism, through difÂferÂent phases of its hisÂtory, itÂself exÂpressed this flucÂtuÂation. But the flucÂtuÂation was an exÂpresÂsion of crisis in MarxÂism, and ulÂtiÂmately of failÂure: AdÂorno called it a “negÂatÂive diaÂlectic.†It exÂpressed and was tasked by the failÂure of the reÂvoluÂtion. But this failÂure was not merely the failÂure of the inÂdusÂtriÂal workÂing class’s struggle for soÂcialÂism in the early 20th cenÂtury, but rather that failÂure was the failÂure of the emanÂcipÂaÂtion of the bourÂgeois reÂvoluÂtion: this failÂure conÂsumed hisÂtory, unÂderÂminÂing the past achieveÂments of freeÂdom — as AdÂorno’s colÂleague WalÂter BenÂjamin put it, “Even the dead are not safe.†HisÂtorÂicÂal MarxÂism is not a safe legÂacy but sufÂfers the viÂcisÂsitudes of the present. If we still are readÂing Lukács, we need to reÂcogÂnize the danger to which his thought, as part of MarxÂism’s hisÂtory, is subÂject in the present. One way of proÂtectÂing hisÂtorÂicÂal MarxÂism’s legÂacy would be through reÂcogÂnizÂing its inÂapÂplicÂabÂilÂity in the present, disÂtanÂcing it from imÂmeÂdiÂate enÂlistÂment in present conÂcerns, which would conÂcede too much already, unÂderÂminÂing — liÂquidÂatÂing without reÂdeemÂing — conÂsciousÂness once already achieved.
The diÂviÂsion in MarxÂism: Lukács with LenÂin and LuxÂemÂburg as “orÂthoÂdoxâ€
.
The title of Lukács’s book HisÂtory and Class ConÂsciousÂness should be propÂerly unÂderÂstood dirÂectly as inÂdicÂatÂing that Lukács’s studÂies, the variÂous esÂsays colÂlecÂted in the book, were about class conÂsciousÂness as conÂsciousÂness of hisÂtory. This goes back to the early Marx and EnÂgels, who unÂderÂstood the emerÂgence of the modÂern proÂletÂariÂat and its politÂicÂal struggles for soÂcialÂism after the InÂdusÂtriÂal ReÂvoluÂtion in a “HegelÂiÂan†manÂner, that is, as pheÂnomÂena or “forms of apÂpearÂance†of soÂciÂety and hisÂtory speÂcifÂic to the 19th cenÂtury. Moreover, Marx and EnÂgels, in their point of deÂparÂture for “MarxÂism†as opÂposed to othÂer variÂetÂies of HegelÂianÂism and soÂcialÂism, looked forÂward to the diaÂlectÂicÂal “AufÂhebung†of this new modÂern proÂletÂariÂat: its simÂulÂtanÂeous self-fulÂfillÂment and comÂpleÂtion, self-negÂaÂtion, and self-tranÂscendÂence in soÂcialÂism, which would be (also) that of capÂitÂalÂism. In othÂer words, Marx and EnÂgels reÂgarded the proÂletÂariÂat in the struggle for soÂcialÂism as the centÂral, key pheÂnomenÂon of capÂitÂalÂism, but the sympÂtoÂmatÂic exÂpresÂsion of its crisis, self-conÂtraÂdicÂtion and need for self-overÂcomÂing. This is beÂcause capÂitÂalÂism was reÂgarded by Marx and EnÂgels as a form of soÂciÂety, speÂcificÂally the form of bourÂgeois soÂciÂety’s crisis and self-conÂtraÂdicÂtion. As HegelÂiÂans, Marx and EnÂgels reÂgarded conÂtraÂdicÂtion as the apÂpearÂance of the neÂcesÂsity and posÂsibÂilÂity for change. So, the quesÂtion beÂcomes, what is the meanÂing of the self-conÂtraÂdicÂtion of bourÂgeois soÂciÂety, the self-conÂtraÂdicÂtion of bourÂgeois soÂcial reÂlaÂtions, exÂpressed by the post-InÂdusÂtriÂal ReÂvoluÂtion workÂing class and its forms of politÂicÂal struggle?
This latÂter part is key, for Marx and EnÂgels reÂgarded the politÂics of proÂletÂariÂan soÂcialÂism as a form of bourÂgeois politÂics in crisis and self-conÂtraÂdicÂtion. This is what it meant for Marx and EnÂgels to say that the obÂjectÂive exÂistÂence of the proÂletÂariÂat (“propÂerÂtyÂless†workÂers) and its subÂjectÂive struggle for soÂcialÂism were pheÂnomÂena of the self-conÂtraÂdicÂtion of bourÂgeois soÂciÂety and its poÂtenÂtial AufÂhebung.
The struggle for soÂcialÂism was self-conÂtraÂdictÂory. This is what Lukács emÂphasÂized and ruÂminÂated on in HisÂtory and Class ConÂsciousÂness. But this was not oriÂginÂal to Lukács or achieved simply by Lukács’s readÂing of Marx and EnÂgels, but rather meÂdiÂated through conÂsidÂerÂaÂtion of and atÂtempÂted actÂive parÂtiÂcipÂaÂtion in the politÂics of LenÂin and Rosa LuxÂemÂburg: LenÂin and LuxÂemÂburg provided acÂcess, for Lukács as well as othÂers in the nasÂcent 3rd or ComÂmunÂist InÂterÂnaÂtionÂal, to the “oriÂginÂal MarxÂism†of Marx and EnÂgels. For Marx and EnÂgels reÂcogÂnized that soÂcialÂism was inÂevÂitÂably ideoÂloÂgicÂal: a self-conÂtraÂdictÂory form of politÂics and conÂsciousÂness. The quesÂtion was how to adÂvance the conÂtraÂdicÂtion.
As an actÂive parÂtiÂcipant in the project of the ComÂmunÂist InÂterÂnaÂtionÂal, for Lukács in his books HisÂtory and Class ConÂsciousÂness and LenÂin (as well as for Karl Korsch in “MarxÂism and philoÂsophy†and othÂer writÂings circa 1923), the inÂterÂvenÂing MarxÂism of the 2nd or SoÂcialÂist InÂterÂnaÂtionÂal had beÂcome an obstacle to Marx and EnÂgels’s MarxÂism and thus to proÂletÂariÂan soÂcialÂist reÂvoluÂtion in the early 20th cenÂtury, an obstacle that the politÂicÂal struggles of LenÂin, LuxÂemÂburg and othÂer radÂicÂals in the 2nd InÂterÂnaÂtionÂal sought to overÂcome. This obstacle of 2nd InÂterÂnaÂtionÂal MarxÂism had theÂorÂetÂicÂal as well as pracÂticÂal-politÂicÂal asÂpects: it was exÂpressed both at the level of theÂorÂetÂicÂal conÂsciousÂness as well as at the level of politÂicÂal orÂganÂizÂaÂtion.
It is imÂportÂant to note that the 2nd InÂterÂnaÂtionÂal MarxÂism had beÂcome an obstacle. InÂdeed, acÂcordÂing to LuxÂemÂburg, in ReÂform and ReÂvoluÂtion (1900) and in LenÂin’s What is to be Done? (1902) (the latÂter of which was an atÂtempÂted apÂplicÂaÂtion of the terms of the ReÂviÂsionÂist DisÂpute in the 2nd InÂterÂnaÂtionÂal to conÂdiÂtions in the RusÂsiÂan moveÂment), the deÂvelÂopÂment of proÂletÂariÂan soÂcialÂism in the 2nd InÂterÂnaÂtionÂal had proÂduced its own obstacle, so to the speak, in beÂcomÂing self-diÂvided between “orÂthoÂdox MarxÂists†who reÂtained fiÂdelÂity to the reÂvoluÂtionÂary politÂics of proÂletÂariÂan soÂcialÂism in terms of the ReÂvoluÂtions of 1848 and the ParÂis ComÂmune of 1871, and “ReÂviÂsionÂists†who thought that politÂicÂal pracÂtice and theÂorÂetÂicÂal conÂsciousÂness of MarxÂism deÂmanÂded transÂformÂaÂtion unÂder the altered hisÂtorÂicÂal soÂcial conÂdiÂtions that had been achieved by the workÂers’ struggle for soÂcialÂism, which proÂceeded in an “evolÂuÂtionÂary†way. Eduard BernÂstein gave the clearest exÂpresÂsion of this “ReÂviÂsionÂist†view, which inÂdicÂatÂively was inÂfluÂenced by the BritÂish FaÂbiÂanÂism (by BernÂstein’s parÂtiÂcipÂaÂtion in workÂing class politÂics while livÂing in politÂicÂal exÂile in the U.K.) that led to the conÂtemÂporÂary formÂaÂtion of the LaÂbour Party, and found its greatest politÂicÂal supÂport among the workÂing class’s trade uniÂon leadÂers in the 2nd InÂterÂnaÂtionÂal, esÂpeÂcially in GerÂmany.
MarxÂism of the Third InÂterÂnaÂtionÂal
.
LenÂin, LuxÂemÂburg, and Lukács and Korsch among othÂers folÂlowÂing them, thought that the self-conÂtraÂdictÂory nature and charÂacÂter — oriÂgin and exÂpresÂsion — of proÂletÂariÂan soÂcialÂism meant that the latÂter’s deÂvelÂopÂment proÂceeded in a self-conÂtraÂdictÂory way, which meant that the moveÂment of hisÂtorÂicÂal “proÂgress†was self-conÂtraÂdictÂory. LuxÂemÂburg sumÂmarÂized this view in ReÂform or ReÂvoluÂtion, where she poinÂted out that the growth in orÂganÂizÂaÂtion and conÂsciousÂness of the proÂletÂariÂat was itÂself part of — a new pheÂnomenÂon of — the self-conÂtraÂdicÂtion of capÂitÂalÂism, and so exÂpressed itÂself in its own self-conÂtraÂdictÂory way. This was how LuxÂemÂburg grasped the ReÂviÂsionÂist DisÂpute in the MarxÂism of the 2nd InÂterÂnaÂtionÂal itÂself. This self-conÂtraÂdicÂtion was theÂorÂetÂicÂal as well as pracÂticÂal: for LuxÂemÂburg and for LenÂin the “theÂorÂetÂicÂal struggle†was an exÂpresÂsion of pracÂticÂal self-conÂtraÂdicÂtion. LeÂon TrotÂsky exÂpressed this “orÂthoÂdox MarxÂist†view shared by LenÂin and LuxÂemÂburg in his 1906 ResÂults and ProÂspects, on the 1905 ReÂvoluÂtion in RusÂsia, by pointÂing out that the “prereÂquisÂites of soÂcialÂism†were self-conÂtraÂdictÂory: that they “reÂtarded†rather than proÂmoted each othÂer. This view was due to the unÂderÂstandÂing that proÂletÂariÂan soÂcialÂism was bound up in the crisis of capÂitÂalÂism which was disÂinÂtegÂratÂive: the struggle for soÂcialÂism was caught up in the disÂinÂtegÂraÂtion of bourÂgeois soÂciÂety in capÂitÂalÂism. For LuxÂemÂburg, LenÂin and TrotÂsky conÂtra BernÂstein, the crisis of capÂitÂalÂism was deepÂenÂing.
One of the clearest exÂpresÂsions of this disÂinÂtegÂratÂive proÂcess of self-conÂtraÂdicÂtion in LuxÂemÂburg, LenÂin and TrotÂsky’s time was the reÂlaÂtion of capÂitÂalÂism as a globÂal sysÂtem to the politÂicÂal diÂviÂsions between naÂtionÂal states in the era of “monoÂpoly capÂitÂal†and “imÂperÂiÂalÂism†that led to the World War, but was already apÂpreÂhenÂded in the ReÂviÂsionÂist DisÂpute at the turn of the 20th cenÂtury as exÂpressÂing the need for soÂcialÂism — the need for proÂletÂariÂan politÂicÂal reÂvoluÂtion. LenÂin and LuxÂemÂburg’s acaÂdemÂic docÂtorÂal disÂserÂtaÂtions of the 1890s, on the deÂvelÂopÂment of capÂitÂalÂism in RusÂsia and PoÂland, reÂspectÂively, adÂdressed this pheÂnomenÂon of “comÂbined and unÂeven†deÂvelÂopÂment in the epoch of capÂitÂalÂist crisis, disÂinÂtegÂraÂtion and “deÂcay,†as exÂpressÂing the need for world reÂvoluÂtion. Moreover, LenÂin in What is to be Done? exÂpressed the perÂspectÂive that the ReÂviÂsionÂist DisÂpute in MarxÂism was itÂself an exÂpresÂsion of the crisis of capÂitÂalÂism maniÂfestÂing withÂin the soÂcialÂist workÂers’ moveÂment, a preÂlude to reÂvoluÂtion.
While it is conÂvenÂtionÂal to opÂpose LuxÂemÂburg and LenÂin’s “reÂvoluÂtionÂary soÂcialÂism†to BernÂstein et al.’s “evolÂuÂtionÂism,†and hence to opÂpose LuxÂemÂburg and LenÂin’s “diaÂlectÂicÂal†MarxÂism to the ReÂviÂsionÂist “mechÂanÂicÂal†one, what is lost in this view is the role of hisÂtorÂicÂal dyÂnamÂics of conÂsciousÂness in LenÂin and LuxÂemÂburg’s (and TrotÂsky’s) view: this is the pheÂnomenÂon of hisÂtorÂicÂal “reÂgresÂsion†as opÂposed to “proÂgress,†which the “evolÂuÂtionÂary soÂcialÂism†of BernÂstein et al. asÂsumed and later StaÂlinÂism also asÂsumed. The most imÂportÂant disÂtincÂtion of LuxÂemÂburg and LenÂin’s (as well as TrotÂsky’s) “orÂthoÂdox†perÂspectÂive — in Lukács’s (and Korsch’s) view, what made their MarxÂism “diaÂlectÂicÂal†and “HegelÂiÂan†— was its reÂcogÂniÂtion of hisÂtorÂicÂal “reÂgresÂsion†— its reÂcogÂniÂtion of bourÂgeois soÂciÂety as disÂinÂtegÂratÂive and self-deÂstructÂive in its crisis of capÂitÂalÂism. But this proÂcess of disÂinÂtegÂraÂtion was reÂcogÂnized as afÂfectÂing the proÂletÂariÂat and its politÂics as well. BenÂjamin and AdÂorno’s theÂory of reÂgresÂsion began here.
HisÂtorÂicÂal reÂgresÂsion
.
The quesÂtion is how to propÂerly reÂcogÂnize, in politÂicÂal pracÂtice as well as theÂory, the ways in which the struggle for proÂletÂariÂan soÂcialÂism — soÂcialÂism achieved by way of the politÂicÂal acÂtion of wage-laborers in the post-InÂdusÂtriÂal ReÂvoluÂtion era as such — is caught up and parÂtiÂcipÂates in the proÂcess of capÂitÂalÂist disÂinÂtegÂraÂtion: the exÂpresÂsion of proÂletÂariÂan soÂcialÂism as a pheÂnomenÂon of hisÂtory, speÂcificÂally as a pheÂnomenÂon of crisis and reÂgresÂsion.
This hisÂtory has mulÂtiple reÂgisters: there is the prinÂcipÂal reÂgister of the post-InÂdusÂtriÂal ReÂvoluÂtion crisis of bourÂgeois soÂciÂety in capÂitÂalÂism, its crisis and deÂparÂture from preÂcedÂing bourÂgeois soÂcial reÂlaÂtions (those of the priÂor, pre-inÂdusÂtriÂal eras of “coÂoperÂaÂtion†and “manÂuÂfacÂture†of the 16th, 17th and 18th cenÂturÂies, in Marx’s terms); but there is also the reÂgister of the dyÂnamÂics and periÂods withÂin capÂitÂalÂism itÂself. CapÂitÂalÂism was for Marx and EnÂgels already the reÂgresÂsion of bourÂgeois soÂciÂety. This is where Lukács’s (and Korsch’s) perÂspectÂive, deÂrived from LuxÂemÂburg and LenÂin’s (and TrotÂsky’s) views from 1900-19, what they conÂsidered an era of “reÂvoluÂtion,†might beÂcome probÂlemÂatÂic for us, today: the hisÂtory of the post-1923 world has not been, as 1848-1914 was in the 2nd InÂterÂnaÂtionÂal “orÂthoÂdox†or “radÂicÂal†MarxÂist (as opÂposed to ReÂviÂsionÂist) view, a proÂcess of inÂcreasÂing crisis and deÂvelÂopÂment of reÂvoluÂtionÂary politÂicÂal neÂcesÂsitÂies, but rather a proÂcess of conÂtinÂued soÂcial disÂinÂtegÂraÂtion of capÂitÂalÂism without, however, this beÂing exÂpressed in and through the struggle for proÂletÂariÂan soÂcialÂism.
It is imÂportÂant to note that Lukács (and Korsch) abanÂdoned rather rapÂidly their 1923 perÂspectÂives, adÂjustÂing to deÂvelÂopÂing cirÂcumÂstances of a non-reÂvoluÂtionÂary era.
Here is where the probÂlemÂatÂic reÂlaÂtion of Tony Cliff’s politÂicÂal project to Lukács (and Korsch), and hence to LenÂin, LuxÂemÂburg and TrotÂsky, may be locÂated: in Cliff’s perÂspectÂive on his (post-1945) time beÂing a “non-reÂvoluÂtionÂary†one, deÂmandÂing a project of “proÂpaÂganda†that is reÂlated to but difÂfers sigÂniÂficÂantly from the moÂment of LenÂin et al. For the ClifÂfites and their orÂganÂizÂaÂtions, “politÂicÂal pracÂtice†is one of proÂpaÂganda in a non-reÂvoluÂtionÂary periÂod, in which politÂicÂal acÂtion is less of a dirÂectly pracÂticÂal but rather of an exÂemÂplary-proÂpaÂgandÂistÂic sigÂniÂficÂance. This has been muddled by “moveÂment-buildÂing.â€
This was not the case for LuxÂemÂburg, LenÂin, and TrotÂsky, whose politÂicÂal pracÂtice was dirÂectly about the struggle for power, and in whose pracÂticÂal project Lukács’s (and Korsch’s) “theÂorÂetÂicÂal†work sought to parÂtiÂcipÂate, ofÂferÂing atÂtempts at claÂriÂficÂaÂtion of self-unÂderÂstandÂing to reÂvoluÂtionÂarÂies “on the march.†Cliff and his folÂlowÂers, at least at their most self-conÂscious, have known that they were doÂing something esÂsenÂtially difÂferÂent from LenÂin et al.: they were not orÂganÂizÂing a reÂvoluÂtionÂary politÂicÂal party seekÂing a bid for power as part of an upÂsurge of workÂing class struggle in the conÂtext of a globÂal moveÂment (the 2nd InÂterÂnaÂtionÂal), as had been the case for LenÂin at the time ofWhat is to be Done? (1902), or LuxÂemÂburg’s Mass Strike pamphÂlet and TrotÂsky in the RusÂsiÂan ReÂvoluÂtion of 1905. Yet the ClifÂfites have used the ideas of LenÂin and LuxÂemÂburg and their folÂlowÂers, such as Lukács and Korsch as well as TrotÂsky, to jusÂtiÂfy their pracÂtices. This presents cerÂtain probÂlems. Yes, LenÂin et al. have beÂcome ideoÂloÂgicÂal in the hands of the ClifÂfites, among othÂers — “LenÂinÂism†for the StaÂlinÂists most promÂinÂently. So the quesÂtion turns to the status of LenÂin’s ideas in themÂselves and in their own moÂment.
Mike Macnair points out that Lukács’s (and Korsch’s) works circa 1923 emÂphasÂized atÂtack and so sought to provide a “theÂory of the ofÂfensÂive,†as opÂposed to LenÂin’s arÂguÂments about the neÂcesÂsitÂies of “reÂtreat†in 1920 (as against and in criÂtique of “Left-Wing†ComÂmunÂism) and what Macnair has elseÂwhere deÂscribed as the need for “KautÂskyÂan paÂtience†in politÂicÂally buildÂing for proÂletÂariÂan soÂcialÂism (as in the era of the 2nd InÂterÂnaÂtionÂal 1889-1914), and so this limÂits the perÂspectÂive of Lukács (and Korsch), after LenÂin and LuxÂemÂburg (and TrotÂsky), to a periÂod of “civil war†(1905, 1914/17-19/20/21). In this, Macnair is conÂcerned, rightly, with “theÂory†beÂcomÂing a blinder to propÂer politÂicÂal pracÂtice: “theÂorÂetÂicÂal overkill†is a matÂter of over-“philoÂsophÂizÂing†politÂics. But there is a difÂferÂence between actÂive camÂpaignÂing in the struggle for power, whethÂer in atÂtack or (temÂporÂary) reÂtreat, and proÂpaÂgandÂizÂing, to which MarxÂism (at best) has been reÂlegÂated ever since the early 20th cenÂtury.
However, in raisÂing, by conÂtrast, the need for a conÂscious openÂness to “emÂpirÂicÂal realÂity†of politÂicÂal exÂperÂiÂence, Macnair sucÂcumbs to a linÂear-proÂgressÂive view of hisÂtory as well as of politÂicÂal pracÂtice, turnÂing this inÂto a matÂter of “lesÂsons learned:†it beÂcomes a quantÂitÂatÂive rather than qualÂitÂatÂive matÂter. Moreover, it beÂcomes a matÂter of theÂory in a conÂvenÂtionÂal rather than the MarxÂist “critÂicÂal†sense, in which the deÂscripÂtion of realÂity and its anaÂlysÂis apÂproach more and more adÂequate apÂproxÂimÂaÂtions.
LenÂin, LuxÂemÂburg, and TrotÂsky, and so Lukács (and Korsch), as “orÂthoÂdox†as opÂposed to “reÂviÂsionÂist†MarxÂists, conÂceived of the deÂvelÂopÂment of conÂsciousÂness, both theÂorÂetÂicÂally and pracÂticÂally-orÂganÂizÂaÂtionÂally, rather difÂferÂently, in that a neÂcesÂsary “transÂformÂaÂtion of MarxÂism,†which took place in the “peÂcuÂliÂar guise†of a “reÂturn to the oriÂginÂal MarxÂism of Marx and EnÂgels†(Korsch), could be an asÂset in the present. But that “present†was the “crisis of MarxÂism†1914-19, which is not, today, our moÂment — as even Cliff and his folÂlowÂers, with their noÂtion of “proÂpaÂganda†in a non-reÂvoluÂtionÂary era, have reÂcogÂnized (as did Lukács and Korsch, in subÂsequently abandonÂing their circa-1923 perÂspectÂives).
So what is the status of such ideas in a non-reÂvoluÂtionÂary era?
Korsch and the probÂlem of “philoÂsophyâ€
.
Karl Korsch, Lukács’s conÂtemÂporÂary in the 3rd InÂtl., whose work Macnair deÂlibÂerÂately and exÂpliÂcitly puts aside in his atÂtack on the probÂlemÂatÂic legÂacy of Lukács’s books HisÂtory and Class ConÂsciousÂness and LenÂin for the ClifÂfites, offered a pithy forÂmuÂlaÂtion in his 1923 esÂsay on “MarxÂism and philoÂsophy,†which is that “a probÂlem which suÂperÂsedes present reÂlaÂtions may have been forÂmuÂlated in an anÂteriÂor epoch.â€
This is a non-linÂear, non-proÂgressÂive and reÂcursÂive view of hisÂtory, which Korsch gleaned from LuxÂemÂburg and LenÂin’s conÂtriÂbuÂtions to the ReÂviÂsionÂist DisÂpute in the 2nd InÂterÂnaÂtionÂal (e.g., ReÂform or ReÂvoluÂtion,What is to be Done?, etc.; and TrotÂsky’s ResÂults and ProÂspects). It has its oriÂgins in Marx and EnÂgels’s view of capÂitÂalÂism as a reÂgressÂive, disÂinÂtegÂratÂive proÂcess. This view has two reÂgisters: the self-conÂtraÂdicÂtion and crisis of bourÂgeois soÂcial reÂlaÂtions in the transÂition to capÂitÂalÂism after the InÂdusÂtriÂal ReÂvoluÂtion; and the disÂinÂtegÂratÂive and self-deÂstructÂive proÂcess of the reÂproÂducÂtion of capÂitÂalÂism itÂself, which takes place withÂin and as a funcÂtion of the reÂproÂducÂtion of bourÂgeois soÂcial reÂlaÂtions, through sucÂcessÂive crises.
Marx and EnÂgels reÂcogÂnized that the crisis of capÂitÂalÂism was moÂtivÂated by the reÂproÂducÂtion of bourÂgeois soÂcial reÂlaÂtions unÂder conÂdiÂtions of the disÂinÂtegÂraÂtion of the value of labor in the InÂdusÂtriÂal ReÂvoluÂtion, proÂduÂcing the need for soÂcialÂism. The inÂdusÂtriÂal-era workÂing class’s struggle for the soÂcial value of its labor was at once reÂgressÂive, as if bourÂgeois soÂcial reÂlaÂtions of the value of labor had not been unÂderÂmined by the InÂdusÂtriÂal ReÂvoluÂtion, and poinÂted beyÂond capÂitÂalÂism, in that the realÂizÂaÂtion of the deÂmands for propÂer soÂcial value of labor would mean overÂcomÂing labor as value in soÂciÂety, transÂformÂing work from “life’s prime need†to “life’s prime want:†work would be done not out of the soÂcial comÂpulÂsion to labor in the valÂorÂizÂaÂtion proÂcess of capÂitÂal, but rather out of inÂtrinsÂic deÂsire and inÂterest; and soÂciÂety would provide for “each acÂcordÂing to his need†from “each acÂcordÂing to his abilÂity.†As AdÂorno, a later folÂlowÂer of Lukács and Korsch’s works circa 1923 that had conÂverÂted him to MarxÂism, put it, getÂting beyÂond capÂitÂalÂism would mean overÂcomÂing the “law of labor.â€
Korsch’s arÂguÂment in his 1923 esÂsay “MarxÂism and philoÂsophy†was foÂcused on a very speÂcifÂic probÂlem, the status of philoÂsophy in MarxÂism, in the dirÂect sense of Marx and EnÂgels beÂing folÂlowÂers of Hegel, and Hegel repÂresÂentÂing a cerÂtain “end†to philoÂsophy, in which the world beÂcame philoÂsophÂicÂal and philoÂsophy beÂcame worldly. Hegel anÂnounced that with his work, philoÂsophy was “comÂpleted,†as a funcÂtion of reÂcogÂnizÂing how soÂciÂety had beÂcome “philoÂsophÂicÂal,†or meÂdiÂated through conÂcepÂtuÂal theÂory in ways preÂviÂously not the case. Marx and EnÂgels acÂcepÂted Hegel’s conÂcluÂsion, in which case the isÂsue was to furÂther the reÂvoluÂtion of bourÂgeois soÂciÂety — the “philoÂsophÂicÂal†world that deÂmanÂded worldly “philoÂsophy.†The disÂputes among the HegelÂiÂans in the 1830s and ’40s were conÂcerned, propÂerly, with preÂcisely the politÂics of the bourÂgeois world and its dirÂecÂtion of change. The probÂlem, acÂcordÂing to Korsch, was that, post-1848, there was a reÂcruÂdesÂcence of “philoÂsophy,†and that this was something othÂer than what had been pracÂticed either traÂdiÂtionÂally by the AnÂcients or in modÂernÂity by reÂvoluÂtionÂary bourÂgeois thinkers — thinkers of the reÂvoluÂtion of the bourÂgeois era — such as Kant and Hegel (also Rousseau, John Locke, Adam Smith, et al.).
The reÂcruÂdesÂcence of philoÂsophy in the late 19th cenÂtury was, acÂcordÂing to Korsch, a sympÂtom of the failÂure of soÂcialÂism in 1848, but as such exÂpressed a genuÂine need: the neÂcesÂsity of reÂlatÂing theÂory and pracÂtice as a probÂlem of conÂsciousÂness unÂder conÂdiÂtions of capÂitÂalÂism. In this reÂspect, MarxÂism was the susÂtainÂing of the KanÂtian-HegelÂiÂan “critÂicÂal philoÂsophy†but unÂder changed conÂdiÂtions from the bourÂgeois-reÂvoluÂtionÂary era to that of capÂitÂalÂism. Korsch anaÂloÂgized this to the reÂcruÂdesÂcence of the state in post-1848 BonaÂpartism, which conÂtraÂdicted the bourÂgeois-reÂvoluÂtionÂary, libÂerÂal proÂgnosÂis of the subÂorÂdinÂaÂtion of the state to civil soÂciÂety and thus the state’s “withÂerÂing away,†its funcÂtions abÂsorbed inÂto free soÂcial reÂlaÂtions. This meant reÂcogÂnizÂing the need to overÂcome reÂcruÂdesÂcent philoÂsophy as anaÂlogÂous to the need to overÂcome the capÂitÂalÂist state, the transÂformÂaÂtion of its neÂcesÂsity through soÂcialÂism. “BonaÂpartism in philoÂsophy†exÂpressed a new, late found need in capÂitÂalÂism to free soÂciÂety.
As Korsch put it, the only way to “abÂolÂish†philoÂsophy would be to “realÂize†it: soÂcialÂism would be the atÂtainÂment of the “philoÂsophÂicÂal world†promÂised by bourÂgeois emanÂcipÂaÂtion but beÂtrayed by capÂitÂalÂism, which renders soÂciÂety opaque. It would be preÂmaÂture to say that unÂder capÂitÂalÂism everyÂone is already a philoÂsophÂer. InÂdeed, the point is that none are. But this is beÂcause of the aliÂenÂaÂtion and reÂificÂaÂtion of bourÂgeois soÂcial reÂlaÂtions in capÂitÂalÂism, which renders the KanÂtian-HegelÂiÂan “worldly philoÂsophy†of the critÂicÂal reÂlaÂtion of theÂory and pracÂtice an asÂpirÂaÂtion rather than an acÂtuÂalÂity. NonÂetheÂless, MarxÂist critÂicÂal theÂory acÂcepÂted the task of such modÂern critÂicÂal philoÂsophy, speÂcificÂally reÂgardÂing the ideoÂloÂgicÂal probÂlem of theÂory and pracÂtice in the struggle for soÂcialÂism. This is what it meant to say, as was forÂmuÂlated in the 2nd InÂterÂnaÂtionÂal, that the workÂers’ moveÂment for soÂcialÂism was the inÂherÂitÂor of GerÂman IdealÂism: it was the inÂherÂitÂor of the reÂvoluÂtionÂary proÂcess of bourÂgeois emanÂcipÂaÂtion, which the bourÂgeoisÂie, comÂpromÂised by capÂitÂalÂism, had abanÂdoned. The task reÂmained.
TransÂformÂaÂtion of MarxÂism through “reÂturn†to Marx — and reÂturn to the bourÂgeois reÂvoluÂtion
.
LenÂin, LuxÂemÂburg, and TrotÂsky, “orÂthoÂdox MarxÂists†of the 2nd InÂterÂnaÂtionÂal who radÂicÂalÂized their perÂspectÂives in the crisis of the 2nd InÂterÂnaÂtionÂal and of MarxÂism in world war and reÂvoluÂtion 1914-1919, and were folÂlowed by new conÂverts to MarxÂism such as Lukács and Korsch, were subÂjects of a hisÂtorÂicÂal moÂment in which the crisis of bourÂgeois soÂciÂety in capÂitÂalÂism was exÂpressed by soÂcial and politÂicÂal crisis and the moveÂment for “proÂletÂariÂan soÂcialÂist†reÂvoluÂtion, beÂginÂning, after the InÂdusÂtriÂal ReÂvoluÂtion, in the 1830s-40s, the atÂtempt to reÂvoÂluÂtionÂize soÂciÂety centÂrally by the wage-laborers as such, a moveÂment domÂinÂated from 1889-1914 by the pracÂticÂal politÂics as well as theÂorÂetÂicÂal conÂsciousÂness of MarxÂism. — However, we must reÂcogÂnize today that that moÂment was lost.
Why would Lukács and Korsch in the 20th cenÂtury reÂturn to the oriÂgins of MarxÂism in HegelÂianÂism, in what Korsch called the conÂsciousÂness of the “reÂvolt of the Third EsÂtate?,†a proÂcess of the 17th and 18th cenÂturÂies (that had already beÂgun earliÂer)? PreÂcisely beÂcause Lukács and Korsch sought to adÂdress MarxÂism’s reÂlaÂtion to the reÂvolt of the Third EsÂtate’s bourÂgeois glorÂiÂficÂaÂtion of the soÂcial reÂlaÂtions of labor, and the reÂlaÂtion of this to the demoÂcratÂic reÂvoluÂtion (see for exÂample the Abbé Sieyès’s reÂvoluÂtionÂary 1789 pamphÂlet What is the Third EsÂtate?): how MarxÂism reÂcogÂnized that this reÂlaÂtion between labor and demoÂcracy conÂtinÂued in 19th cenÂtury soÂcialÂism. In Lukács and Korsch’s view, proÂletÂariÂan soÂcialÂism susÂtained just this bourÂgeois reÂvoluÂtion, alÂbeit unÂder the changed conÂdiÂtions of the InÂdusÂtriÂal ReÂvoluÂtion and its capÂitÂalÂist afÂterÂmath. Mike Macnair acÂknowÂledges this in his foÂcus on the EngÂlish EnÂlightÂenÂment “maÂterÂiÂalÂism†of John Locke in the 17th and 18th cenÂturÂies and the BritÂish Chartism of the early 19th cenÂtury, their inÂtrinsÂic conÂtinuÂity in the demoÂcratÂic reÂvoluÂtion, and Marx and EnÂgels’s conÂtinuÂity with both. But then Macnair takes Kant and Hegel — and thus Lukács and Korsch folÂlowÂing them — to be counter-EnÂlightÂenÂment and anti-demoÂcratÂic thinkers acÂcomÂmodÂatÂing autoÂcratÂic politÂicÂal auÂthorÂity, drawÂing this from Hume’s alÂleged turn away from the radÂicÂalÂism of Locke back to Hobbes’s politÂicÂal conÂserÂvatÂism, and Kant and Hegel’s alÂleged afÂfirmÂaÂtion of the PrusÂsiÂan state. But this leaves out the cruÂcially imÂportÂant inÂfluÂence on Kant and GerÂman IdealÂism more genÂerÂally by Rousseau, of whom Hegel reÂmarked that “freeÂdom dawned on the world†in his works, and who criÂtiqued and deÂparÂted from Hobbes’s soÂciÂety of “war of all against all†and built rather upon Locke’s view of soÂciÂety and politÂics, susÂtainÂing and proÂmotÂing the reÂvoluÂtion in bourÂgeois soÂciÂety as “more than the sum of its parts,†reÂvoluÂtionÂary in its soÂcial reÂlaÂtions per se, semÂinÂal for the AmerÂicÂan and French ReÂvoluÂtions of the later 18th cenÂtury. CapÂitÂal, as the conÂtinÂued soÂcial comÂpulÂsion to wage-labor after its crisis of value in the InÂdusÂtriÂal ReÂvoluÂtion, both is and is not the RousseauÂian “genÂerÂal will†of capÂitÂalÂist soÂciÂety: it is a self-conÂtraÂdictÂory “mode of proÂducÂtion†and set of soÂcial reÂlaÂtions, exÂpressed through self-conÂtraÂdictÂory conÂsciousÂness, in theÂory and pracÂtice, of its soÂcial and politÂicÂal subÂjects, first and foreÂmost the conÂsciousÂness of the proÂletÂariÂat.
Marx and EnÂgels’s point was the proÂletÂariÂat’s critÂicÂal reÂcogÂniÂtion of the self-conÂtraÂdictÂory charÂacÂter of its struggle for soÂcialÂism, in what Marx called the “loÂgicÂal exÂtreme†of the role of the proÂletÂariÂat in the demoÂcratÂic reÂvoluÂtion of the 19th cenÂtury, which could not, acÂcordÂing to Marx, take its “poÂetry†from the 17th and 18th cenÂturÂies, as clearly exÂpressed in the failÂure of the reÂvoluÂtions of 1848 (“AdÂdress to the CentÂral ComÂmitÂtee of the ComÂmunÂist League,†1850), Marx’s famÂous forÂmuÂlaÂtion of the need for “reÂvoluÂtion in perÂmanÂence.†What this means is that the demoÂcratÂic reÂvoluÂtionÂary asÂpirÂaÂtions of the wage-laborers for the “soÂcial reÂpubÂlic†was the self-conÂtraÂdictÂory deÂmand for the realÂizÂaÂtion of the soÂcial value of labor after this had already taken the form of acÂcuÂmuÂlated capÂitÂal, what Marx called the “genÂerÂal inÂtelÂlect.†It is not the soÂcial value of labor, but rather that of this “genÂerÂal inÂtelÂlect†which must be reÂapproÂpriÂated, and by the wage-laborers themÂselves, in their disÂconÂtents as subÂjects of demoÂcracy. The onÂgoÂing demoÂcratÂic reÂvoluÂtion renders this both posÂsible and suÂperÂfluÂous in that it renders the state both the agency and obstacle to this reÂapproÂpriÂation, in post-1848 BonaÂpartism, which promÂises everything to everyÂone — to overÂcome the “soÂcial quesÂtion†of capÂitÂalÂism — but provides nothÂing, a diÂverÂsion of the demoÂcratÂic reÂvoluÂtion unÂder conÂdiÂtions of self-conÂtraÂdictÂory bourÂgeois soÂcial reÂlaÂtions: the state promÂises emÂployÂment but gives unÂemÂployÂment beÂneÂfits or subÂsidÂizes the lost value of wages; as AdÂorno put it, the workÂers get a cut of the profits of capÂitÂal, to preÂvent reÂvoluÂtion (“Late capÂitÂalÂism or inÂdusÂtriÂal soÂciÂety?†AKA “Is Marx obÂsolÂete?,†1968). Or, as AdÂorno’s colÂleague, the dirÂectÂor of the FrankÂfurt InÂstiÂtute Max Horkheimer put it, the InÂdusÂtriÂal ReÂvoluÂtion and its conÂtinÂued soÂcial ramiÂficÂaÂtions made not labor but the workÂers “suÂperÂfluÂous.†This creÂated a very danÂgerÂous politÂicÂal situÂation — clearly exÂpressed by the cataÂstrophÂic events of the 20th cenÂtury, meÂdiÂated by mass “demoÂcratÂic�� moveÂments.
MarxÂism in the 20th cenÂtury
.
In the 20th cenÂtury, unÂder the presÂsure of mass demoÂcracy — itÂself the resÂult of the class struggle of the workÂers — the role of the state as self-conÂtraÂdictÂory and helpÂless manÂager of capÂitÂalÂism came to full fruition, but not through the self-conÂscious activÂity of the workÂing class’s politÂicÂal struggle for soÂcialÂism, conÂfrontÂing the need to overÂcome the role of the state, but more obÂscurely, with perÂverse resÂults. LenÂin’s point in The State and ReÂvoluÂtion (1917) was the need for the reÂvoluÂtionÂary transÂformÂaÂtion of soÂciÂety beyÂond “bourÂgeois right†that the state sympÂtoÂmatÂicÂally exÂpressed; but, acÂcordÂing to LenÂin, this could be acÂcomÂplished only “on the basis of capÂitÂalÂism itÂself†(“Left-Wing†ComÂmunÂism: An InÂfantÂile DisÂorder, 1920). If the workÂing class among othÂers in bourÂgeois soÂciÂety has sucÂcumbed to what Lukács called the “reÂificÂaÂtion†of bourÂgeois soÂcial reÂlaÂtions, then this has been comÂpletely natÂurÂalÂized and can no longer be called out and reÂcogÂnized as such. For Lukács, “reÂificÂaÂtion†reÂferred to the hyÂpoÂstatÂizÂaÂtion and conÂserÂvatÂizÂaÂtion of the workÂers’ own politÂics in proÂtectÂing their “class inÂterest,†what LenÂin called mere “trade uniÂon conÂsciousÂness†(inÂcludÂing that of naÂtionÂalÂist comÂpetÂiÂtion) in capÂitÂalÂism, rather than rising to the need to overÂcome this in pracÂtice, reÂcogÂnizÂing how the workÂers’ politÂicÂal struggles might point beyÂond and tranÂscend themÂselves. This inÂcluded demoÂcracy, which could ocÂcult the soÂcial proÂcess of capÂitÂalÂism as much as reÂveal it.
One pheÂnomenÂon of such reÂificÂaÂtion in the 20th cenÂtury was what AdÂorno called the “veil of techÂnoÂlogy,†which inÂcluded the apÂpearÂance of capÂitÂal as a thing (as in capÂitÂal goods, or techÂniques of orÂganÂizÂing proÂducÂtion), rather than as MarxÂism reÂcogÂnized it, a soÂcial reÂlaÂtion, however self-conÂtraÂdictÂory.
The anti-MarxÂist, libÂerÂal (yet still quite conÂserÂvatÂive) HeideÂgÂgeriÂan politÂicÂal theÂorÂist HanÂnah ArenÂdt (and an antÂagÂonÂist of AdÂorno and othÂer MarxÂist “CritÂicÂal TheÂorÂists†of the FrankÂfurt School, who was however marÂried to a former ComÂmunÂist folÂlowÂer of Rosa LuxÂemÂburg’s SpartaÂcus League of 1919), exÂpressed well how the workÂing class in the 20th cenÂtury deÂveloped after the failÂure of MarxÂism:
The modÂern age has carÂried with it a theÂorÂetÂicÂal glorÂiÂficÂaÂtion of labor and has resÂulÂted in an acÂtuÂal transÂformÂaÂtion of the whole of soÂciÂety inÂto a laÂborÂing soÂciÂety. The fulÂfillÂment of the wish, thereÂfore, like the fulÂfillÂment of wishes in fairy tales, comes at a moÂment when it can only be self-deÂfeatÂing. It is a soÂciÂety of laborers which is about to be libÂerÂated from the fetÂters of labor [by techÂnicÂal autoÂmaÂtion], and this soÂciÂety does no longer know of those othÂer highÂer and more meanÂingÂful activÂitÂies for the sake of which this freeÂdom would deÂserve to be won. WithÂin this soÂciÂety, which is egalÂitÂariÂan beÂcause this is labor’s way of makÂing men live toÂgethÂer, there is no class left, no arÂisÂtoÂcracy of either a politÂicÂal or spirÂituÂal nature from which a resÂtorÂaÂtion of the othÂer caÂpaÂcitÂies of man could start anew. Even presÂidÂents, kings, and prime minÂisÂters think of their ofÂfices in terms of a job neÂcesÂsary for the life of soÂciÂety, and among the inÂtelÂlecÂtuÂals, only solÂitÂary inÂdiÂviduÂals are left who conÂsider what they are doÂing in terms of work and not in terms of makÂing a livÂing. What we are conÂfronÂted with is the proÂspect of a soÂciÂety of laborers without labor, that is, without the only activÂity left to them. Surely, nothÂing could be worse. (The HuÂman ConÂdiÂtion [Vita AcÂtiva], 1958.)
ComÂpare this to what HeideÂgÂger offered in Nazi-era lecÂtures on “OverÂcomÂing metaÂphysÂics,†that, “The still hidÂden truth of BeÂing is withÂheld from metaÂphysÂicÂal huÂmanÂity. The laÂborÂing anÂimÂal is left to the giddy whirl of its products so that it may tear itÂself to pieces and anÂniÂhilÂate itÂself in empty nothÂingÂness†(The End of PhiloÂsophy, ed. and trans. Joan StamÂbaugh [UniÂversity of ChicaÂgo Press, 2003], 87); and, in “The End of PhiloÂsophy and the Task of ThinkÂing†(1964), the place of Marx in this proÂcess: “With the reÂversal of metaÂphysÂics which was already acÂcomÂplished by Karl Marx, the most exÂtreme posÂsibÂilÂity of philoÂsophy is atÂtained†(BaÂsic WritÂings, ed. DavÂid FarÂrell Krell [New York: HarÂperÂCollins, 1993], 433 ). But this was HeideÂgÂger blamÂing MarxÂism and the “metaÂphysÂics of labor†chamÂpioned politÂicÂally by the bourÂgeois reÂvolt of the Third EsÂtate and inÂherÂited by the workÂers’ moveÂment for soÂcialÂism, without reÂcogÂnizÂing as Marx did the self-conÂtraÂdictÂory charÂacÂter in capÂitÂalÂism; HeideÂgÂger, for whom “only a god can still save us†(1966 inÂterÂview in Der Spiegel, pubÂlished posthumÂously May 31, 1976), and ArenÂdt folÂlowÂing him, deÂmonÂized techÂnoÂloÂgized soÂciÂety as a dead-end of “WestÂern metaÂphysÂics†alÂlegedly goÂing back to the SoÂcratÂic turn of ‘sciÂence†folÂlowed by PlaÂto and ArÂisÂtotle in ClasÂsicÂal AnÂtiquity, rather than reÂcogÂnizÂing it as a sympÂtom of the need to transÂform soÂciÂety, capÂitÂalÂism and its need for soÂcialÂism as a transÂitionÂal conÂdiÂtion of hisÂtory.
This was the resÂultÂing flat “conÂtraÂdicÂtion†that reÂplaced the priÂor “diaÂlectÂicÂal†conÂtraÂdicÂtion of “proÂletÂariÂan soÂcialÂism†reÂcogÂnized by MarxÂism, whose theÂorÂetÂicÂal reÂcovÂery, in the conÂtext of the crisis of MarxÂism in the moveÂment from the 2nd to 3rd InÂterÂnaÂtionÂals, had been atÂtempÂted by Lukács and Korsch. What ArenÂdt called merely the (obÂjectÂive) “huÂman conÂdiÂtion,†the “vita acÂtiva†and its perÂverse niÂhilÂistÂic desÂtiny in modÂern soÂciÂety, was, once, the (subÂjectÂive) “diaÂlectÂicÂal,†self-conÂtraÂdictÂory “standÂpoint of the proÂletÂariÂat†in MarxÂism, as the “class conÂsciousÂness†of hisÂtory: the hisÂtorÂicÂal need for the proÂletÂariÂat to overÂcome and abÂolÂish itÂself as a class, inÂcludÂing its own standÂpoint of “conÂsciousÂness,†its reÂgressÂive bourÂgeois deÂmand to reÂapproÂpriÂate the value of labor in capÂitÂalÂism, which would both realÂize and negÂate the “bourÂgeois right†of the value of labor in soÂciÂety. SoÂcialÂism was reÂcogÂnized by MarxÂism as the raisÂing and adÂvanÂcing of the self-conÂtraÂdicÂtion of capÂitÂalÂism to the “next stage,†moÂtivÂated by the neÂcesÂsity and posÂsibÂilÂity for “comÂmunÂism.†What ArenÂdt could only apÂpreÂhend as a baleÂful teÂlos, the soÂciÂety of labor overÂcomÂing itÂself, MarxÂism once reÂcogÂnized as the need for reÂvoluÂtion, to adÂvance the conÂtraÂdicÂtion in soÂcialÂism.
When MarxÂists such as AdÂorno or Lukács can only sound to us like ArenÂdt (or HeideÂgÂger!), this is beÂcause we no longer live in the reÂvoluÂtion. AdÂorno:
AcÂcordÂing to [MarxÂist] theÂory, hisÂtory is the hisÂtory of class struggles. But the concept of class is bound up with the emerÂgence of the proÂletÂariÂat…If all the opÂpresÂsion that man has ever inÂflicÂted upon man culÂminÂates in the cold inÂhuÂmanÂity of free wage labor, then…the arÂchaÂic siÂlence of pyrÂamÂids and ruÂins beÂcomes conÂscious of itÂself in maÂterÂiÂalÂist thought: it is the echo of factÂory noise in the landÂscape of the imÂmutÂable…This means, however, that deÂhuÂmanÂizÂaÂtion is also its opÂposÂite. In reÂified huÂman beÂings reÂificÂaÂtion finds its outÂer limÂits…Only when the vicÂtims comÂpletely asÂsume the feaÂtures of the rulÂing civilÂizÂaÂtion will they be capÂable of wrestÂing them from the domÂinÂant power…Even if the dyÂnamÂic at work was alÂways the same, its end today is not the end. (“ReÂflecÂtions on Class TheÂory,†1942.)
Lukács:
[As Hegel said,] dirÂectly beÂfore the emerÂgence of something qualÂitÂatÂively new, the old state of afÂfairs gathÂers itÂself up inÂto its oriÂginÂal, purely genÂerÂal, esÂsence, inÂto its simple toÂtalÂity, tranÂscendÂing and abÂsorbÂing back inÂto itÂself all those marked difÂferÂences and peÂcuÂliÂarÂitÂies which it evinced when it was still viÂable…[I]n the age of the disÂsolÂuÂtion of capÂitÂalÂism, the fetÂishÂistÂic catÂegorÂies colÂlapse and it beÂcomes neÂcesÂsary to have reÂcourse to the “natÂurÂal form†unÂderÂlyÂing them…As the antÂagÂonÂism beÂcomes more acute two posÂsibÂilÂitÂies open up for the proÂletÂariÂat. It is givÂen the opÂporÂtunÂity to subÂstiÂtute its own posÂitÂive conÂtents for the empÂtied and burstÂing husks. But also it is exÂposed to the danger that for a time at least it might adÂapt itÂself ideoÂloÂgicÂally to conÂform to these, the empÂtiÂest and most decÂadÂent forms of bourÂgeois culÂture. (“ReÂificÂaÂtion and the conÂsciousÂness of the proÂletÂariÂat,â€HisÂtory and Class ConÂsciousÂness, 1923.)
Why still “philoÂsophy?â€
.
The probÂlem today is that we are not faced with the self-conÂtraÂdicÂtion of the proÂletÂariÂat’s struggle for soÂcialÂism in the politÂicÂal probÂlem of the “reÂified forms†of the workÂing class subÂstiÂtutÂing for those of bourÂgeois soÂciÂety in its “decÂadÂence.†We reÂplay the reÂvolt of the Third EsÂtate and its deÂmands for the soÂcial value of labor — at best, but, really, reÂpeat the early bourÂgeois ProtÂestÂant ChrisÂtiÂan deÂmand for soÂcial “justice,†however more nebÂuÂlously. We do not have ocÂcaÂsion to reÂcogÂnize the “emptiÂness†of bourÂgeois soÂcial reÂlaÂtions of labor, its value evacÂuÂated by techÂnicÂal but not politÂicÂal tranÂscendÂence. InÂdeed, now we have lost sight of the probÂlem of “reÂificÂaÂtion†at all as Lukács meant it.
As Hegel scholÂar Robert PipÂpin has reÂcently conÂcluded, in a forÂmuÂlaÂtion that is emÂinÂently agreeÂable to Korsch’s perÂspectÂive on the conÂtinuÂation of philoÂsophy as a sympÂtom of failed transÂformÂaÂtion of soÂciÂety, in an esÂsay adÂdressÂing how, by conÂtrast with the oriÂginÂal “Left-HegelÂiÂan, MarxÂist, FrankÂfurt school traÂdiÂtion,†“the probÂlem with conÂtemÂporÂary critÂicÂal theÂory is that it has beÂcome inÂsufÂfiÂciently critÂicÂalâ€: “PerÂhaps [philoÂsophy] exÂists to reÂmind us we haven’t gotÂten anyÂwhere†(“On CritÂicÂal InÂquiry and critÂicÂal theÂory: A short hisÂtory of non-beÂing,†CritÂicÂal InÂquiry 30 [Winter 2004], 416-417). The quesÂtion is the propÂer role of critÂicÂal theÂory and “philoÂsophÂicÂal†quesÂtions in politÂics. In the abÂsence of MarxÂism, othÂer thinkÂing is called to adÂdress this — for inÂstance, ArenÂdt (or worse: see Carl Schmitt).
ReÂcogÂnizÂing the poÂtenÂtial politÂicÂal abÂuse of “philoÂsophy†does not mean, however, that we must agree with HeideÂgÂger, that, “PhiloÂsophy will not be able to bring about a dirÂect change of the present state of the world†(Der Spiegel inÂterÂview). EsÂpeÂcially since MarxÂism is not only (a hisÂtory of) a form of politÂics, but also, as the Hegel and FrankÂfurt School scholÂar GilÂlian Rose put it, a “mode of cogÂniÂtion sui genÂerÂis†(reÂview of the EngÂlish transÂlaÂtion of AdÂorno’s NegÂatÂive DiaÂlectics [1973] in The AmerÂicÂan PolitÂicÂal SciÂence ReÂview 70.2 [June 1976], 598-599). This is beÂcause, as the late 19th cenÂtury soÂciÂoloÂgist Émile Durkheim put it, (bourÂgeois) soÂciÂety is an “obÂject of cogÂniÂtion sui genÂerÂis.†FurÂtherÂmore, capÂitÂalÂism is a probÂlem of soÂcial transÂformÂaÂtion sui genÂerÂis — one with which we still might struggle, at least hopeÂfully! MarxÂism is hence a mode of politÂics sui genÂerÂis — one whose hisÂtorÂicÂal memory has beÂcome very obÂscure. This is above all a pracÂticÂal probÂlem, but one which reÂgisters also “philoÂsophÂicÂally†in “theÂory.â€
The probÂlem of what Rousseau called the “reÂflectÂive†and Kant and Hegel, after Rousseau, called the “specÂuÂlatÂive†reÂlaÂtion of theÂory and pracÂtice in bourÂgeois soÂciÂety’s crisis in capÂitÂalÂism, reÂcogÂnized once by hisÂtorÂicÂal MarxÂism as the critÂicÂal self-conÂsciousÂness of proÂletÂariÂan soÂcialÂism and its self-conÂtraÂdicÂtions, has not gone away but was only drivÂen unÂderÂground. The reÂvoluÂtion oriÂginÂatÂing in the bourÂgeois era in the 17th and 18th cenÂturÂies that gave rise to the modÂern philoÂsophy of freeÂdom in RousseauÂian EnÂlightÂenÂment and GerÂman IdealÂism and that adÂvanced to new probÂlems in the InÂdusÂtriÂal ReÂvoluÂtion and the proÂletÂariÂanÂizÂaÂtion of soÂciÂety, perÂvertÂing “bourÂgeois right†inÂto a form of domÂinÂaÂtion rather than emanÂcipÂaÂtion, and exÂpressed through the BonaÂpartist state’s perÂverÂsion of demoÂcracy, which was reÂcogÂnized by MarxÂism in the 19th cenÂtury but failed in the 20th cenÂtury, may still task us.
This is why we might, still, be readÂing Lukács. | §
BackÂground readÂings:
.
ReadÂings for teach-in on the ComÂmunÂist Party of Great BriÂtain’s camÂpaign against Lukács and its stakes for PlatyÂpus as a project.
Mike Macnair, “The philoÂsophy trap†11/21/13
Chris Cutrone, “DeÂfendÂing MarxÂist HegelÂianÂism against a MarxÂist criÂtique†8/11/11
Georg Lukács, OriÂginÂal PreÂface (1922) to HisÂtory and Class ConÂsciousÂness (1923)
ArtÂicles in exÂchange oriÂginÂally pubÂlished in Weekly WorkÂer JanuÂary 24-March 14, 2013. [PDF]
James TurÂley, “The anÂtiÂnomÂies of Georg Lukács†1/24/13
Chris Cutrone, “ReÂgresÂsion†1/31/13
James TurÂley, “Dummy†2/21/13
Chris Cutrone, “Nota bene†2/28/13
James TurÂley, “BaÂcon†3/7/13
Lawrence ParkÂer, “Lukács reÂloaded†3/7/13
Chris Cutrone, “UnÂreÂloaded†3/14/13
SupÂpleÂmentÂal readÂing:
Chris Cutrone, “GilÂlian Rose’s ‘HegelÂiÂan’ criÂtique of MarxÂism†3/1/10
Pingback: Walking between precipices: An interview with Ernesto Laclau | The Charnel-House
Pingback: The Marxist hypothesis: A response to Alain Badiou’s Communist Hypothesis | The Charnel-House
Pingback: Wages for masturbation? Burning questions of our movement | The Charnel-House
Pingback: Althusser’s reading of Marx in the eyes of three of his contemporaries: George Lichtheim, Alain Badiou, and Henri Lefebvre | The Charnel-House