Marx Refuted by Colin Wilson
Half a century ago it would probably have been true to say that most western 'intellectuals' were sympathetic to Russia and the 1917 Revolution. They may have had their doubts about Lenin and Stalin and Trotsky, and they may in practice, have preferred to live in the West; but they nevertheless felt that Capitalism is fundamentally rather wicked and that the Russians probably did the right thing in overthrowing it. They had that slightly guilty attitude that most of us feel when we hear a television appeal for starving refugees; that perhaps we ought to sell the colour TV and second car but that in practice we are too weak and lazy, and that it wouldn't make much difference anyway...
Since those early days, the west has had the chance to see communism in practice in many countries in the world, and to observe that it always seems to result in oppression and totalitarianism. From the Stalin purges to the Vietnam boat people and the takeover of Cambodia, the face of Communism seems invariably brutal. So there are nowadays far less people ready to argue - as Shaw did in the 1930s - that you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. Yet there is still a widespread feeling that the principles of socialism are probably good, and that for some odd reason, it is the practice that always seems to go wrong. After all, the history of Christianity is nearly as horrific, but no one lays the blame on its founder.
But is Marxism a sound theory that is betrayed by its practitioners? Would it actually work if human beings were less imperfect? Since the 1930s, doubts have been growing steadily. In 'The Open Society and its Enemies', Karl Popper argued that oppression was inherent in the whole socialist theory from the moment Plato decided that poets were too dangerous to live in his ideal Republic. Camus scandalized French intellectuals by asserting, in 'L'Homme Revolte', that terror is an inevitable consequence of revolutionary socialism, and that all such revolutions are bound to degenerate into tyranny. His most passionate opponent, Satre - that romantic anti-authoritarian - attempted to create a form of Marxism based on individual freedom, but abandoned the attempt after the first volume. And most Marxist commentators are now willing to admit that Marx was wrong about many central issues, and that some of his most important prophecies - like the increasing alienation of the workers, the polarisation of the social classes, and the 'withering away' of the State - were simply unrealistic guesses.
In spite of which, a great many 'men of goodwill. continue to feel that there is something fundamentally wrong with Capitalism. and therefore fundamentally right about Socialism. This is not an issue to which they devote much thought; but it seems to be based on a vague conviction that the continued existence of the poor and under-privileged remain the chief propaganda weapon of the Marxists, a little reflexion shows that Capitalism is no more responsible for them than is Communism. Both Capitalism and Communism are theories about the distribution of wealth. But wealth has to exist before it can be distributed. According to Marx this was no problem. Once the workers took over the means of production, there would be more than enough wealth to go round. Yet, in practice, this has never happened. From Russia to China, Poland to Cuba, from Angola to Mozambique, the hallmark of every Marxist state in the world is low productivity, which is due in turn to bureaucratic centralism with its inevitable inefficiency and corruption. Ex-Communists like Bukovsky and Koliakovsky assert that these are inherent in the nature of Marxism.
All socialist systems are based on this pleasing notion that there is plenty of wealth and that the only problem is to distribute it fairly and prevent the greedy from taking more than their share. This is contradicted by the fact that the creation of wealth - or anything else - is always an individual enterprise. Give a man an aim, an objective, and tell him he can achieve it by effort, and he will work until he drops. Tell a man he is part of a group, and that everything he earns belongs by right to 'society', and you destroy his mainspring of purpose. Marxism fails to grasp - or prefers to ignore - the most basic psychological truth about human beings; that their 'productivity' depends upon an essentially individual creativity - the urge to 'self-actualisation'. It cannot, by its nature, be socialised or mechanised.
How is it possible for intelligent individuals to overlook anything so fundamental? The answer can be found in a passage from the Communist historian of science, JD Bernal: "... we have in the practice of science the prototype for all human common action. The task which the scientists have undertaken - the understanding and control of nature and of man himself - is merely the conscious expression of the task of human society... In science men have learned to subordinate themselves to a common purpose without losing the individuality of their achievements... In science men collaborate not because they are forced to by superior authority or because they blindly follow some chosen leader, but because they realise that only in this willing collaboration can each man find his goal."
In spite of the slip of the tongue about the control of human beings, this may be taken as a good example of woolly-minded liberal thinking about communism; he fixes his mind firmly upon an idealised picture of scientists collaborating on some great enterprise, and tells us that this ought to apply to all human society. He takes care not to fix his sights on the actuality of modern society, with its millions of workers streaming into factory gates or football matches; that would reveal to him that his picture of scientists collaborating on atomic research is inapplicable. Scientists belong to the tiny percentage of people whose work is truly 'individual' and therefore satisfying. In a modern technological society, it is inevitable that the work of the majority should be repetitive and not particularly fulfilling. But this does not mean that the worker is bound to be 'alienated'. If labour relations are good, if his life outside the factory or office fulfills his personal needs, then repetitive labour is no hardship - just as in my own case, the repetitive labour of pounding on a typewriter for several hours a day is no hardship compared to the satisfaction of being allowed to say what I like. Marx was mistaken to believe that the labourer in a capitalist society will become more and more alienated. What has happened is that the labourers have become increasingly middle class, with cars and colour televisions to provide a degree of fulfilment that is not to be found in the factory. This is the truth of the matter, the 'law' of capitalist society, and Marx was quite simply wrong about it. (He was wrong for the same reason as Bernal - because he preferred to fix his eyes on his own abstractions, instead of observing human beings.) It is the business of any reasonable society to offer its citizens as much 'fulfilment' as possible. But nothing can ever turn them into scientists working together on a great enterprise. The scientist belongs, of necessity, to a very small class whose work produced individual fulfilment.
The passage from Bernal is quoted in a paper by Paul Ostreicher, who, having based his argument on this false analogy, goes on to assert; "Economic injustice is the fundamental problem. Without economic justice, a call for population control...is unrealistic and lacks credibility." So the picture of an ideal society as an assemblage of scientists leads to a proposition about what is wrong with capitalist society; that the average worker cannot play his creative and individualistic role because he is too poor. So the wicked rich must be stopped from grabbing more than their share, and the surplus value be distributed among the workers, permitting them all to become creative individuals. Ostreicher is frank enough to admit that a worker in Eastern Europe is likely to be just as alienated as one in the West, and that communism has not yet found the practical answers. But he goes on hopefully to suggest that the "Chinese experiment", with the "devolution of power on the commune pattern, with local people in touch with nature can lead to a genuinely organic development." This was written in 1975, before the workers of China began to show the same dissatisfaction with communist ideology as the workers of Poland, and before Mao's successors found it necessary to dilute the pure Marxist doctrine with infusions of democracy and individual freedom.
It is easy enough to see how a bored worker might feel deprived of his rightful freedom in an assembly line, but more difficult to understand how 'intellectuals' like Bernal and Ostreicher - who after all, themselves belong to the 'individualistic elite' - can deceive themselves with false analogies about scientists or artists. The answer seems to be that intellectuals are inclined to identify their own vaguely idealistic aims with any theory that promises revolutionary change. The existentialist philosopher, Berdyaev, describes in his autobiography how he became an early convert to Marxism; "What struck me above all was the prospect of a spiritual revolution; a rising of the spirit, of freedom and meaning, against the deadly weight, the slavery and meaninglessness of the world." And he adds: "When I was a small boy, the sight of a government building or state institution filled me with abhorrence, and I desired its immediate destruction." We can understand how a child would feel this way about large buildings (particularly schools), but it is less easy to understand how an intelligent person can carry this attitude into adulthood. We simply have to recognise that a few human beings never grow up emotionally. Many intellectuals start off from a position of anti-authoritarianism because they personally feel threatened by people in authority who are more stupid than they are. The sensible solution would be to use their intelligence to rise from a position from which stupid people cease to be a threat; but vagueness and incompetence may prevent this from happening: in which case, the 'revolutionary' attitude may persist for life. It was Berdyaev's own experience of the actual revolution - of 1917 - that finally taught him what many intellectuals fail to grasp: that while capitalism may show inadequate regard for the individual, socialism regards him with suspicious hostility. Capitalism tolerates its intellectual rebels and even gives them academic appointments, socialism suppresses them.
Socialism, of course, existed long before Marx, in St Simon, Fourier, Proudhon and the rest. This was liberal socialism, idealistic socialism, based upon a vaguely rebellious attitude to authority and a vague idealism of the kind we have noted in Bernal and Ostreicher. Oddly enough, Marx spent much of his life exploding this kind of socialism, denouncing it as a dream, a wish-fulfillment fantasy based on emotion - in short as unrealistic. Many non-socialists find it hard to understand why Marx devoted so much energy and fury to attacking fellow socialists. The answer is that he believed that bad doctrine drives out good. He claims to have replaced this vague, emotional socialism with a scientific variety based upon ineluctable laws of social development. His opponents objected that Marx's socialism was just as unworkable as the previous kind because it was just as unrealistic, and prophesied that in practice, a Marxian state would turn out to be just as authoritarian, just as repressive, as the old regime. A rigid social theory requires a centralised bureaucracy to impose it and coordinate its activities. And centralised bureaucracy tends to be sluggish and inefficient by nature - because it is centralised and reacts too slowly to economic needs - and corrupt because it requires bribery to oil the wheels.
Marx rejected these accusations as reactionary libels, and there can be no doubt that he was sincere. He genuinely believed that the triumph of the proletariat would bring about an increase in individual freedom and the eventual withering away of the state.
History has shown him to be wrong. It has shown him to be as vague, idealistic and woolly-minded as the colleagues he attacks so bitterly. At the moment (1985), it seems unlikely that the outcome will be the total destruction of communism and its sudden replacement by a system that permits more individual freedom. Communism may be suffering from hardening arteries, but it is clearly not dying. No doubt the communist state would suffer the same fate as those it replaced if it stayed around long enough. What seems to be happening is a gradual, cautious swing back towards capitalism. Some of the most successful countries in the Eastern bloc have mixed economies. China has experienced its own revulsion against Maoism. The Soviet Union itself seems to be slowly recognising that efficiency is more important than Marxist doctrine. 'The Economist' reports that a decree of January 17, 1981 calls for the encouragement of more private plots of land and that although Russia's 'private plots' are only 3% of the total farming land, they produce one-quarter of the country's agricultural output.
So, in a sense, it is superfluous to try and refute Marx: his work has been refuted by the actuality of communism.
Black Lives Matter
Stephen Lawrence was a young black man who was murdered in South London in 1993. There have been many such cases involving victims and killers of all races but this one was famous for being bungled by a racist police force. But according to local gossip their reluctance to prosecute had more to do with corruption than racism. The father of one of the killers was a notorious drug dealer with plenty of money.
The decision to commemorate Stephen's death was taken by a dishonest Tory government rocked by the Windrush deportation scandal and desperate to improve its image. But most people will see through their hypocrisy. It was Theresa May as Home Secretary who helped to create the present climate.
Violent crime has increased as a result of police cuts and a ban on 'Stop and Search'. The police and the courts are crippled by 'political correctness' and the government has resorted to patronising gestures, such as 'Stephen Lawrence Day'. If they were dedicated to law and order they would prosecute all killers regardless of political considerations. All lives matter and we should all be protected by the police from robbers and terrorists.
Brexit
The UK will leave the European Union on Friday 29 March 2018, but there will be a transition period until 31 Dec 2020. By then we should have signed a trade deal with the EU and sorted out the Northern Ireland border.
According to the 'Brexiteers', we shall then blossom as an international trading nation and regain our independence. But the 'Remainers' predict an economic downturn followed by political instability. Nobody knows what will happen because we have never been in this situation before. What we do know is that our location will not change. We will still be a European country situated between Ireland and France. We will still speak a Germanic language heavily influenced by French. We will still share the history, culture, and destiny of Europe. And we will still trade with our near neighbours.
The European argument has obscured many problems that have nothing to do with the EU. The UK population is expected to reach 70 million by 2026 but we still need immigrant labour. Skills shortages are now being addressed by the government but for years we imported doctors, nurses and engineers rather than training them. If you are in any doubt about this a visit to your nearest hospital should confirm that we are dependant on foreign labour. When we leave the EU it will harder for Poles and other Europeans to come here to work. But the Tories have already made plans to import more workers from Africa and Asia.
When we leave the EU we will still be members of NATO and our 'independent nuclear deterrent' will still be under American control. There is no plan to reform our armed forces; they will still be committed to enforcing American foreign policy,
We were told that we would 'get our country back' but that doesn't apply to immigration, which will still be governed by supply and demand, or defence, which will continue to be dictated by America. And we will still to buy our oil with dollars and equip our aircraft carriers with American aircraft.
Some Brexiteers want to retrieve our 'ancient weights and measures'. But we are unlikely to go back to quarts and firkins, or rods, poles and perches. The brutal truth is that 'independence' is a myth in a global economy. If we want to export manufactured goods they must conform to international standards. There is no point in telling foreigners that our cars do fifty miles to the gallon when they have no idea what miles and gallons are. The days of selling obsolete Morris Minors to grateful Australians are over.
It is twelve thousand years since the ice retreated and groups of reindeer herders reached the British Isles. They were followed by Iberians, Celts, Romans, Saxons, Danes, and Normans. They merged together to form the British people who went on to pioneer the Industrial Revolution and build a mighty empire with a formidable navy. But history can't be rewritten; we are what we are and a temporary distraction like Brexit will not change us. There will be many trials and tribulations in the coming years but in the great scheme of things it will make no difference. We will still be Europeans.
Frank's Latest Campaign
Veteran patriot Frank Walsh is challenging Wandsworth Council's decision to grant planning permission for an intrusive block of flats opposite his home. He has displayed a notice on his front door together with a supply of leaflets and started a campaign on Facebook. At the age of 92, most people would be happy to put their feet up but he is still posting his unique blog 'Our Voice' - www.ab4ps.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
All articles are by Bill Baillie unless otherwise stated. The opinions of guest writers are entirely their own. This blog is protected by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: "We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share our ideas with other people."
In spite of the slip of the tongue about the control of human beings, this may be taken as a good example of woolly-minded liberal thinking about communism; he fixes his mind firmly upon an idealised picture of scientists collaborating on some great enterprise, and tells us that this ought to apply to all human society. He takes care not to fix his sights on the actuality of modern society, with its millions of workers streaming into factory gates or football matches; that would reveal to him that his picture of scientists collaborating on atomic research is inapplicable. Scientists belong to the tiny percentage of people whose work is truly 'individual' and therefore satisfying. In a modern technological society, it is inevitable that the work of the majority should be repetitive and not particularly fulfilling. But this does not mean that the worker is bound to be 'alienated'. If labour relations are good, if his life outside the factory or office fulfills his personal needs, then repetitive labour is no hardship - just as in my own case, the repetitive labour of pounding on a typewriter for several hours a day is no hardship compared to the satisfaction of being allowed to say what I like. Marx was mistaken to believe that the labourer in a capitalist society will become more and more alienated. What has happened is that the labourers have become increasingly middle class, with cars and colour televisions to provide a degree of fulfilment that is not to be found in the factory. This is the truth of the matter, the 'law' of capitalist society, and Marx was quite simply wrong about it. (He was wrong for the same reason as Bernal - because he preferred to fix his eyes on his own abstractions, instead of observing human beings.) It is the business of any reasonable society to offer its citizens as much 'fulfilment' as possible. But nothing can ever turn them into scientists working together on a great enterprise. The scientist belongs, of necessity, to a very small class whose work produced individual fulfilment.
The passage from Bernal is quoted in a paper by Paul Ostreicher, who, having based his argument on this false analogy, goes on to assert; "Economic injustice is the fundamental problem. Without economic justice, a call for population control...is unrealistic and lacks credibility." So the picture of an ideal society as an assemblage of scientists leads to a proposition about what is wrong with capitalist society; that the average worker cannot play his creative and individualistic role because he is too poor. So the wicked rich must be stopped from grabbing more than their share, and the surplus value be distributed among the workers, permitting them all to become creative individuals. Ostreicher is frank enough to admit that a worker in Eastern Europe is likely to be just as alienated as one in the West, and that communism has not yet found the practical answers. But he goes on hopefully to suggest that the "Chinese experiment", with the "devolution of power on the commune pattern, with local people in touch with nature can lead to a genuinely organic development." This was written in 1975, before the workers of China began to show the same dissatisfaction with communist ideology as the workers of Poland, and before Mao's successors found it necessary to dilute the pure Marxist doctrine with infusions of democracy and individual freedom.
It is easy enough to see how a bored worker might feel deprived of his rightful freedom in an assembly line, but more difficult to understand how 'intellectuals' like Bernal and Ostreicher - who after all, themselves belong to the 'individualistic elite' - can deceive themselves with false analogies about scientists or artists. The answer seems to be that intellectuals are inclined to identify their own vaguely idealistic aims with any theory that promises revolutionary change. The existentialist philosopher, Berdyaev, describes in his autobiography how he became an early convert to Marxism; "What struck me above all was the prospect of a spiritual revolution; a rising of the spirit, of freedom and meaning, against the deadly weight, the slavery and meaninglessness of the world." And he adds: "When I was a small boy, the sight of a government building or state institution filled me with abhorrence, and I desired its immediate destruction." We can understand how a child would feel this way about large buildings (particularly schools), but it is less easy to understand how an intelligent person can carry this attitude into adulthood. We simply have to recognise that a few human beings never grow up emotionally. Many intellectuals start off from a position of anti-authoritarianism because they personally feel threatened by people in authority who are more stupid than they are. The sensible solution would be to use their intelligence to rise from a position from which stupid people cease to be a threat; but vagueness and incompetence may prevent this from happening: in which case, the 'revolutionary' attitude may persist for life. It was Berdyaev's own experience of the actual revolution - of 1917 - that finally taught him what many intellectuals fail to grasp: that while capitalism may show inadequate regard for the individual, socialism regards him with suspicious hostility. Capitalism tolerates its intellectual rebels and even gives them academic appointments, socialism suppresses them.
Socialism, of course, existed long before Marx, in St Simon, Fourier, Proudhon and the rest. This was liberal socialism, idealistic socialism, based upon a vaguely rebellious attitude to authority and a vague idealism of the kind we have noted in Bernal and Ostreicher. Oddly enough, Marx spent much of his life exploding this kind of socialism, denouncing it as a dream, a wish-fulfillment fantasy based on emotion - in short as unrealistic. Many non-socialists find it hard to understand why Marx devoted so much energy and fury to attacking fellow socialists. The answer is that he believed that bad doctrine drives out good. He claims to have replaced this vague, emotional socialism with a scientific variety based upon ineluctable laws of social development. His opponents objected that Marx's socialism was just as unworkable as the previous kind because it was just as unrealistic, and prophesied that in practice, a Marxian state would turn out to be just as authoritarian, just as repressive, as the old regime. A rigid social theory requires a centralised bureaucracy to impose it and coordinate its activities. And centralised bureaucracy tends to be sluggish and inefficient by nature - because it is centralised and reacts too slowly to economic needs - and corrupt because it requires bribery to oil the wheels.
Marx rejected these accusations as reactionary libels, and there can be no doubt that he was sincere. He genuinely believed that the triumph of the proletariat would bring about an increase in individual freedom and the eventual withering away of the state.
History has shown him to be wrong. It has shown him to be as vague, idealistic and woolly-minded as the colleagues he attacks so bitterly. At the moment (1985), it seems unlikely that the outcome will be the total destruction of communism and its sudden replacement by a system that permits more individual freedom. Communism may be suffering from hardening arteries, but it is clearly not dying. No doubt the communist state would suffer the same fate as those it replaced if it stayed around long enough. What seems to be happening is a gradual, cautious swing back towards capitalism. Some of the most successful countries in the Eastern bloc have mixed economies. China has experienced its own revulsion against Maoism. The Soviet Union itself seems to be slowly recognising that efficiency is more important than Marxist doctrine. 'The Economist' reports that a decree of January 17, 1981 calls for the encouragement of more private plots of land and that although Russia's 'private plots' are only 3% of the total farming land, they produce one-quarter of the country's agricultural output.
So, in a sense, it is superfluous to try and refute Marx: his work has been refuted by the actuality of communism.
Black Lives Matter
Stephen Lawrence was a young black man who was murdered in South London in 1993. There have been many such cases involving victims and killers of all races but this one was famous for being bungled by a racist police force. But according to local gossip their reluctance to prosecute had more to do with corruption than racism. The father of one of the killers was a notorious drug dealer with plenty of money.
The decision to commemorate Stephen's death was taken by a dishonest Tory government rocked by the Windrush deportation scandal and desperate to improve its image. But most people will see through their hypocrisy. It was Theresa May as Home Secretary who helped to create the present climate.
Violent crime has increased as a result of police cuts and a ban on 'Stop and Search'. The police and the courts are crippled by 'political correctness' and the government has resorted to patronising gestures, such as 'Stephen Lawrence Day'. If they were dedicated to law and order they would prosecute all killers regardless of political considerations. All lives matter and we should all be protected by the police from robbers and terrorists.
Brexit
The UK will leave the European Union on Friday 29 March 2018, but there will be a transition period until 31 Dec 2020. By then we should have signed a trade deal with the EU and sorted out the Northern Ireland border.
According to the 'Brexiteers', we shall then blossom as an international trading nation and regain our independence. But the 'Remainers' predict an economic downturn followed by political instability. Nobody knows what will happen because we have never been in this situation before. What we do know is that our location will not change. We will still be a European country situated between Ireland and France. We will still speak a Germanic language heavily influenced by French. We will still share the history, culture, and destiny of Europe. And we will still trade with our near neighbours.
The European argument has obscured many problems that have nothing to do with the EU. The UK population is expected to reach 70 million by 2026 but we still need immigrant labour. Skills shortages are now being addressed by the government but for years we imported doctors, nurses and engineers rather than training them. If you are in any doubt about this a visit to your nearest hospital should confirm that we are dependant on foreign labour. When we leave the EU it will harder for Poles and other Europeans to come here to work. But the Tories have already made plans to import more workers from Africa and Asia.
When we leave the EU we will still be members of NATO and our 'independent nuclear deterrent' will still be under American control. There is no plan to reform our armed forces; they will still be committed to enforcing American foreign policy,
We were told that we would 'get our country back' but that doesn't apply to immigration, which will still be governed by supply and demand, or defence, which will continue to be dictated by America. And we will still to buy our oil with dollars and equip our aircraft carriers with American aircraft.
Some Brexiteers want to retrieve our 'ancient weights and measures'. But we are unlikely to go back to quarts and firkins, or rods, poles and perches. The brutal truth is that 'independence' is a myth in a global economy. If we want to export manufactured goods they must conform to international standards. There is no point in telling foreigners that our cars do fifty miles to the gallon when they have no idea what miles and gallons are. The days of selling obsolete Morris Minors to grateful Australians are over.
It is twelve thousand years since the ice retreated and groups of reindeer herders reached the British Isles. They were followed by Iberians, Celts, Romans, Saxons, Danes, and Normans. They merged together to form the British people who went on to pioneer the Industrial Revolution and build a mighty empire with a formidable navy. But history can't be rewritten; we are what we are and a temporary distraction like Brexit will not change us. There will be many trials and tribulations in the coming years but in the great scheme of things it will make no difference. We will still be Europeans.
Frank's Latest Campaign
Veteran patriot Frank Walsh is challenging Wandsworth Council's decision to grant planning permission for an intrusive block of flats opposite his home. He has displayed a notice on his front door together with a supply of leaflets and started a campaign on Facebook. At the age of 92, most people would be happy to put their feet up but he is still posting his unique blog 'Our Voice' - www.ab4ps.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
All articles are by Bill Baillie unless otherwise stated. The opinions of guest writers are entirely their own. This blog is protected by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: "We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share our ideas with other people."
