Driftwork

Yesterday in the Guardian Peter Thompson asked ‘how Marxism came to be the dominant theoretical apparatus of socialist thinking from the late 19th century onwards’ and identifies the line of thought:“As arrogant and dogmatic as it sometimes sounds to our ears now, Marx’s USP was that his and Engels’ approach to understanding history was the first to be based on a truly scientific socioeconomic analysis. With a nod towards Darwin, Marx and Engels contended that their analysis of history was akin to a theory of evolution based on the concrete evidence of material facts. They argued that the theories of their rivals, the utopian communists and anarchists as well as the Hegelians and liberals, were based in idealist moral abstractions which dealt in notions of freedom, justice, fairness and equality in what they called the political superstructure of society, while theirs were based on an objective and scientific understanding of the real but largely invisible forces at work in the socioeconomic base.

Now in one sense he only says that this is what Marx and Engels said was distinctive about their approach. But the problem with describing their approach in these terms is that he is answering his own question, for he is explicitly suggesting that it is this aspect of Marxism which explains why it became the dominant thought and theoretical apparatus in socialist thought. I accept that Marx regarded his later theory’s central line of thought as being exactly what as described.

However note this is the same Marx who began his critique of political economy by defining it as “the final denial of humanity” and of course he was right. Those who are arguing for capitalism are defining themselves and everyone as slaves to political economy, as slaves of the market.

This Marx then would have supported his position from this strong moral and ethical core, because for Marx and Engels thinking is nothing if it is not moral. Often Marx refused the simple appeal to ‘notions of freedom, justice, fairness and equality’, but still he utilized these notions all the time.

It is unimaginable that Marxism could have the appeal it has without a convincing vision of a juster and non-exploitative society in which ‘the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all’ which is at the heart of everything. In some sense we can imagine that the core of Marxisms appeal may have been due to the duality of the critique, the first part consisting of a moral and ethical critique of capitalism, with the associated vision of an alternative future and the second part consisting of a claim to base the diagnostic concepts in scientific research on the economic and the social. But its important to understand that without the moral and ethical critique Marx’s understanding of society could not convince anyone.

Having science as a toolbox on your side may be useful, but if science only shows us things that generate social and moral indifference then we would be right to ignore the (mis)understanding. What Marxism demonstrates is that capitalist societies are always in the final analysis unjust.