Showing posts with label marxism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marxism. Show all posts

Friday, October 13, 2006

Marxism in Our Time - Segment One

I transcribed part one of Dr. Francisco Nemenzo's Lecture "Marxism in our Time" presented by the University of the Philippines Podcast Channel. Hearing Dr. Nemenzo lecture on Marx and Marxism reminded me why I became a socialist in the first place.

Here is the transcript
Sabi nga ni Marx, that if you produce a new means of production, new technology, you will have to reorganize the way you work and the way we relate to each other, that's why we are now just learning how to teach using this new technology.

Next to Niccolo Machiavelli, Karl Marx is the most maligned figure in our Social Science II syllabus. But unlike the others who are now immortalized in classical works that only fascinate the specialists, Karl Marx was able to attract legions of followers whose activities has made a tremendous impact in our life. So anyone who does a serious study of the 20th century cannot ignore Marx and the movement he inspired.

Marx however had the misfortune of being known not for what he actually said, but for what others have said about him. Most detractors who malign him, as well as the disciples who adore him have never studied any of his works. So the popular image of Marx is a caricature either drawn by western mass media or by the communist propaganda. My aim in this lecture is to encourage you to read Marx in his own words, to read the original works of Marx. To study the Marxism of Marx and not the Marxism of his detractors and his disciples.

Now if you are really interested, this is a good starter - The Communist Manifesto. It is short, elegantly written and it is available in the National Bookstore, sometimes you can even buy them for 100 pesos. But if you are adventurous, you are really serious, you can try Das Kapital. This is only the first volume, there are 3 more because Das Kapital comes in 4 volumes. That is for those who are really serious.

What I'm going to do this morning, is to highlight his most controversial ideas and to debate with his contemporary critics. The contemporary critics dismiss Marxism outright as a jurassic ideology out of touch with current reality. The basis for this claim is the fact that the communist regimes in Russia, and Eastern Europe has collapsed whilke China and Vietnam have adopted capitalist ways. But those who have actually studied the works of Marx and shared his commitment to the socialist vision find no reason to discard him. They are convinced that his critique of capitalism is even more relevant now than at the height of the cold war. Marxism I think will survive for as long as there is any form of exploitation. As for me, it was not the presence of a formidable Soviet state that attracted me to Marxism but the rigor of his analysis and the eloquence of his advocacy for revolutionary change.

Contrary to what the critics say, Marx did not offer a blueprint for heaven on earth. The Soviet and Maoist systems, were not patterned after a preconceived model of a perfect society. therefore the failure of the systems in Russia and China does not disprove Marx. If it was not to propose a program for creating an ideal society, what was Marx trying to do in his numerous books and articles, which are by the way compiled in 45 different volumes. Well the answer is that he was just trying to analyze capitalism. So if you want to know about socialism or communism, do not bother with Das Kapital. But if you want to know how capitalism works, you have much to learn from Das Kapital. Nowhere in this 4 volume opus magnum will you find a prescription of how a communist society is to be organized and governed.

Marx analyzed capitalism using a methodology that he called Dialectical Materialism. This methodology starts from the axiom that everything changes except change itself. Applied to human society, it assumes that society is in a state of constant flux and the job of social science is to uncover the laws underlying the process of change. But what for? Just as the conventional economists and the professors of business administration study capitalist society for the purpose of managing it more efficiently Marx analyzed capitalism for the purpose of facilitating it's overthrow. as he put it in his 11th theses of Feurbach "Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways, The point however is to change it."

Another axiom of Dialectical Materialism is that the forces of social change are inherent in the society itself. Society consists of antagonistic classes whose interests contradict each other. The struggle between them lies at the root of every historical event that brings about major changes in society. In the life cycle of a given social system like capitalism, piecemeal or evolutionary changes are introduced in response to concrete problems but there comes a point where the system can no longer accommodate further changes without destroying itself. At this point, evolution gives way to revolution. The class struggle according to Marx, is an objective fact, that is, it occurs even if the contending classes are unaware that their interests are irreconcilable. In fact a society to maintain itself, to preserve the status quo, fabricates a myth or what Marx calls an ideology, to make the existing class structure look like the natural order of things. The dominant ideology assuages the conscience of the elite that their priveledges are rightfully theirs. The dominant ideology, also makes the oppressed believe that their duty is to obey their natural superiors.

A revolution only becomes possible, if and when the dominant ideology breaks down and the subordinate classes gain consciousness of their own interests and organize themselves to overthrow existing systems and stand for a new social order. A revolution as Marx used the term is a fundamental change in society. That dramatic moment when the militant section of the subordinate class seizes political power is only the starting point, more crucial is how it rebuilds a new social system upon the ruins of the old.

Marx would not have considered EDSA 1 and EDSA 2 a revolution because both merely replaced the occupant in MalacaƱang. After 2 EDSA's, the Philippine state still pursues essentially the same foreign policies and the same development strategy because it continues to serve the same ruling class.

Marx did not consider the outbreak of violence as the essence of revolution. As a general rule however, the ruling class will not relinquish their wealth and power without a fight thus compelling the subordinate class to fight back. But Marx gave an allowance that in countries with well established democratic institutions, where the leading politicians respect the rules of the game, the revolution may occur peacefully. A social scientist who is not a captive of the dominant ideology, should analyze the existing social system in order to identify the class which radical change could bring, The class in the social system that has no vested interest in its preservation and for that purpose, Marx dedicated/devoted his whole life, suffering extreme deprivation, in order to analyze capitalism.

Saturday, August 19, 2006

Ang hindi lumingon sa pinanggalingan...

How far has Alex Magno gone away from his leftist roots? Very far. He is so far gone that he either forgot or was unwilling to directly attribute a quote from Karl Marx. In his column today, he wrote
"They just thought history would simply do a re-run, forgetting Hegel’s famous injunction: that when history seems to repeat itself, the first time it is a tragedy, the second time it is a farce."
I have always thought this was a quote from Karl Marx but I was taught that Marx borrowed a lot of ideas from Hegel and since Alex Magno was one of the teachers who taught me that, I had to consider that I might be mistaken and Marx actually quoted Hegel. So I googled the quote and found out that I was right. Marx was the originator of the phrase, it was the first sentence in his work "The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte".
"Hegel remarks somewhere[*] that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Caussidiere for Danton, Louis Blanc for Robespierre, the Montagne of 1848 to 1851 for the Montagne of 1793 to 1795, the nephew for the uncle. And the same caricature occurs in the circumstances of the second edition of the Eighteenth Brumaire."
This sentence was followed by my favorite quote from Marx
"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language."