GUEST LECTURER EVENT - The Real Marx: How Marx May Discomfort Marxists

 

05/11/19

 

Attendance = 63

 

Lecturer – Dr Matthew Johnson – m.johnson@lancaster.ac.uk

 

Outline – Aims demonstrate relevance of the work of Marx that has often been neglected/ misunderstood

• The relevance of Marx
• The futility of theology
• His historicism + materialism in context of forthcoming election
  • Rejection of Marx + materialism has imperiled the left – relevance of Marx lies in the way we try to develop change
  • Practical implications of ignoring his work

Marx and progress

• Builds on western philosophy – concerned with human capabilities + human capacity for development – argues that human nature is to be productive
  • Central to this = work
    • Today -> understood as labour -> fulfillment of task/contractual obligation
      • Arts -> close to worthless -> no monetary value in todays society
• Nature as determinate
  • We engage with nature in order to satisfy needs
• Seperation of mental and physical labour
  • Start as hunter gatherer’s -> all one
    • -> develop capacity for agriculture -> people are no longer dependant on immediate satisfaction of basic needs
      • Now able to devide labour between mental and physical
      • Argues that this technology is monopolized
        • Gains benefit from other’s labour through this
  • Distinction between substructure and superstructure of society
    • Substructure – modes of production as determinate
    • Superstructure as means of reification and conservation
      • Superstructure changes in accordance with the substructure
      • E.g. feudal society no longer became the most efficient means of production -> with advancement of technology
        • Causes tension -> it is the people who own the tech vs the land owners
          • Held back
        • Feudalism depends upon being within one place
          • While profits, after development of technology that allows for easy travel, means that more money is made off of movement of labour
            • Mobile workforce = necessary
        • IDEOLOGY AS ARTICULATION OF CLASS INTEREST -> Forces revolutions -> ideological change
    • False consciousness -> reason why there is not a revolution = people are misconceived about best means of promoting their interests

Marx and progress

• History as class conflict -> argues that the shift in human history is caused by ideological change
  • History has been linear in the new world
  • People have become progressively more able to satisfy basic needs
  • In each historical stage, have gained better position to promote own needs
    • Superstructual stuff comes after
• Recognition that humans require institutions
  • Marx’s work depends on a commitment to utopism
    • = nonsense
    • What Marx actually talks about -> depends upon institutions in capitalist society as human nature can be perverted
• Marx looks at capitalism IN AWE
  • He is not anti-capitalist -> obsessed with it -> capitalism can foster creativity
    • Constant need for new labour + new markets -> ability to expand around the world
      • Capacity for growth only satiated when globe is filled
    • However… destroys good and bad
      • Destroys traditional communities + cultures
        • But also gives protection from natural disasters (example of British colonialization of India)
      • But creates foundation for a better world
      • However… exploits workers -> fails at promoting realizing capabilities
        • But requires capitalist expansion first to move on from capitalism
    • Argued that all human beings have an innate potential for growth
      • Argues racism is fundamentally linked to capitalism
        • Without ideology of competition -> difference in ability born from genetic differences

Surprising Marxists:

• Blair, Mandelson, Reid, Blunkett
  • Capitalism offers the potential for reconciliation of objective and subjective needs
  • Political careers = motivated by creating systems that allow for the expansion for capitalism
    • Became somewhat Leninist -> saw ‘stagnant’ societies like Iraq, Afghanistan, etc
      • Wanted to change them to capitalist -> by changing structure of elite from within
        • Promoting democratic change
      • But… was very destructive, obviously. But effective
  • Remainism – Marxist element to it -> if we just create an institution and allow free market to operate within, people will develop a consciousness within this framework
    • But this doesn’t work -> unless people have their needs satisfied
      • And people’s needs aren’t satisfied
    • GET’S THIS WITH LEAVERS TOO
      • Dom Cummings = best Leninist J
        • Managed to destroy a party he wasn’t even a part of
        • + gets Munira Mirza, a communist, to write their manifesto

 

Adoption of post colonialism

• Not the answer.
  • Talks of change, while achieving no change
  • Colonialism = binary -> e.g. white good/powerful, black bad/weak
    • Horrendous racial hierarchy
  • Challenge = overcome this binary
    • What’s happened -> inversion of binary -> black good/weak, white bad/powerful
    • Finds things like: white studies, language suppression
• In real terms:
  • Inequality is increasing
  • Suffering around the world is increasing
• Social mobility = tokenism
  • Aid as guilt amelioration       

 

The outcomes in discourse

• All white people are guilty
  • This post-colonial discourse consolidates this binary
  • + no white self-interest is legitimate
    • E.g homeless/poorest -> this doesn’t make sense to them – how are they privileged?
  • Brexit as illegitimate
  • Dissolution of class agency -> caused by capitalism
    • Gift to capitalism -> all the Tories have to do -> your self-interest is legitimate
      • Suddenly become the party of the poorest
      • Despite being a vacuous claim

In practice

• Labour has failed to introduce Marxist analysist of ideology
  • Adoption of post-colonialism will likely prevent a labour majority
    • prevent socialism
    • prevent class consciousness
    • prevent attempts to challenge colonialism
    • prevent challenge to racism
    • self-defeating and self-refuting
      • Marx wouldn’t have fallen into these traps J

Discussion

• Q1 – Sees a lot of same tendencies in American politics – what is fundamentally different between here, and in America
  • Answer -> very similar -> choice between person is really dangerous vs someone who buys ethically sourced clothing and is somehow hated because of that
    • Issues of labour caused by adoption of past conservative policies
    • A Marxist would say they are parallel
• Q2 – what is your objection to cultural Marxism?
  • Answer -> It’s not Marxist.
• Q3 – way Marx views nature –> used to satisfy needs. How do you see this view of nature in the context of this environmental crisis?
  • Answer -> marx saw that humans had a destiny to dominate nature vs his idea that parts of nature can be commodified
    • Needs ways to take from nature that is productive
• Q4 – Human rights – French revolution – if Marx was back alive now, what would he see as capitalist
  • Says that human rights can’t be sustained
• Q5 – what good has Marxism brought us?
  • Marx has inspired, to some degree, fanatism -> must apologise for it
    • Marxists haven’t accepted that his ideology can justify all manors of horrors
      • Had intellectuals in England saying that the suffering in the USSR was worth it
  • Response = no idea -> need to go back in history -> what has socialist countries given us? Suffering? Technology?
  • Q5.5 -> labour relations, labour rights, etc
    • Response -> not actually Marxist, may prevent progress
• Q6 – believe that nothing would change if lab our will come to power if in capitalist society. How do you interpret this far right movement? Who is responsible?
  • Cameron changed our lives. Would have been different if Gordon Brown society
    • Life expectancy going down
  • There is a choice, and there is a difference. You’re misunderstanding electoral politics
• Q7 – past few decades -> state autonomy, etc -> did Marx see himself as a global citizen? Or communist agenda = better
  • Was a global citizen – definition of someone who was mobile = marx -> thought international relations was incredibly important and done through institutional means
• Q8 – say it is necessary to adopt Marxist analysis – how would it be sufficiently effective?
  • Some competence in labour would be nice
    • Corbyn = British socialist, not Marxist
• Q9 – Zizek? Marxism = failure -> trying to act on history without understanding it first
  • Usually = yes. But! World may not exist in 20 years
• Q10 – what is Marx’s view on inequality
  • Wouldn’t have vacuous conceptions of equality
    • Only achieve it when we reconcile peoples objective and subjective interests
  • Q10.5 – example of post war period - reconciled labour + conservative despite Marx saying it was impossible