[net.politics.theory] Marxist Method vs. Marxist Ideology

tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (10/08/85)

In article <28200136@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes:
>There  is  Marxist  ideology;  there is also Marxist method - far
>from infallible, but sometimes enlightening.
>
> Consider this: what is the basic tenet of Marxist sociology ? It is
>that  ideology is an expression of class interest. Applied to statist
>ideology, *including modern Marxism*, this reads : it  is the express-
>ion  of self-interest of the New Class of bureaucracy and allied social
>groups (of which your  jackass  instructor  was one of the lowliest
>representatives). In other words: they play Good Shepherd, and they
>*believe it*, but they are really out  to fleece you.

The M-L philosophy from Progress Publishers may put it this way, but
that's pretty crude to my sense.  Sounds more like a justification for
crude state behavior than an analysis of reality.  A more realistic
and historical maxim for ideology, still Marxist, is that ideology is
the publicly expressed history and pattern of compromises and bargains
between classes.  Hegemony = force + consent, as Gramsci would put it.

I'd think that the only time ideology would be an expression of class
interest untainted by compromise and vague language is when the social
order is based on lots of force and little consent.  Doesn't that
describe the whole period, from say 1900 to 1960 or so, in most of
Central and Eastern Europe?  Given that history, is the crudification
of Marxism into a raw justification for force very surprising?  Sad,
yes; surprising, maybe not.

> Taxes are not collected  to  pay  for  "social  needs":  "social
>needs"  are  discovered  to justify taxes. True or false, this is
>what the Marxist method leads to.

Does Jan mean here that whether a declaration of "social need"
reflects a real social need is just a matter of blind luck or
political corruption?  I disagree.  The legitimacy of most officially
Marxist governments rests not on a democratic vote, but precisely on
the fulfillment of some set of social needs.

If these social needs (a fair set is shared almost worldwide between
Marxists [and some of them are very oldfashioned to my eyes]) aren't met,
than calls for revolution are justified in the official ideology.  That's
in part why the more sneaky and corrupt Marxist states hide information
measuring the fulfillment of social needs -- it's a dangerous subject.
And that's in part why democratic states like the US reveal information
about social needs -- it's not a dangerous subject.

> (The term "New Class" in the above sense was coined  by  Milovan
>Djilas  in a book by the same title . The author is a  Marxist,
>but ex-Communist ; he used to be the leading theoretician of Com-
>munist Yugoslavia, then  became one of its convicts).

It should be noted that this "New Class" has nothing to do with
the Western discussion of "new class", i.e. a technical-professional
class.

> Unfortunately, few Marxists read Marx; they don't  suspect,  for
>instance, that the main propositions of the 1st volume of Das Ka-
>pital (on which their whole case is built) are retracted  in  the
>3d volume.
>		Jan Wasilewsky

Isn't it the reverse, Jan, since the 1st volume was written AFTER
the 3d volume?  The 3d volume was just a set of notes edited and
published by Engels. :-) (really, I don't care.  What difference
does it make to the value or lack thereof of Marxist ideas?  I'm
not a great fan of most M economics anyhow.)

Tony Wuersch
{amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw