Saturday, July 16, 2022

Is Revolutionary Marxism dead for ever? Yes


At Marx's funeral in Highgate cemetery on March 17th 1883 there were only 11 or 12 mourners present. Marx "had established no place of significance in the politics and intellectual life of Britain.Indeed, at his death Marx did not have a lot to show for his life’s work: his major political effort since the failure of the 1848 revolution, the First International, had foundered by 1873."

Marxism as a mass ideology was the subsequent creation of Engels as populariser, fueled by developments within capitalism at the end of the nineteenth century which led to the development of mass trades unions and social-democratic parties. These organisations found in Marxism a thoroughgoing critique of a still-harsh capitalism and the hazy promise of a utopian future for the working masses.

The disintegration of the Russian feudal-autocratic state in 1917 was inappropriately theorised by Lenin and Trotsky as the template for revolutionary transition in the advanced capitalist countries. This template endures in the contemporary Trotskyist movement. 

Few believe in it now.

---

The intractable problems of Marxism include: the nature of nationalism; the enduring centrality of the family; the lack of revolutionary consciousness within the working class; the inability to theorise the existence of necessary, structural contradictions between the forces and relations of production within capitalism; and the reasons for the easy restoration of capitalism within the former USSR - rather than the expected transition to democratic socialism. 

These all point to the limitations of the framework Marx originated and which his Leninist and post-Leninist successors deepened and extended.

It is the hallmark of a (self-serving) ideology that it refuses to confront those questions which intellectually embarrass it. Truth is bypassed in favour of group cohesion and narrow groupish interests. That is exactly how Marx defines an ideology: he did not expect Marxism itself to succumb - a failure of analysis on his part.

In his economic and philosophical writing Marx freely admitted that he was abstracting away from human nature. His interest was sociology: those human relationships and interactions which underpin and constitute generalised commodity production, the defining feature of the capitalist mode of production. His worker and capitalist archetypes were psychological ideal-types, exemplifying the social requirements and dynamics of their roles: they were deliberately not cast as rounded human beings. 

An unfortunate simplification.

In the twenty-first century, we know a great deal more about human drives and behaviours. The limitations of natural solidarity - as evidenced in revealed behaviour - are seen in preferences for family and friends. Loyalty to abstract causes - often laudable - is  often more about advertising personal worth (commitments to honour, sacrifice, ethics) than an exceedingly-scarce generalised altruism. In an atomised society this substitutes for the more organic status markers available in traditional societies.

An observation: I observe this to be the case, I do not express a normative opinion although Marx himself was a fan, seeing the destruction of all traditional forms of social life as an essential engine of progress, most notably in that famous passage in the Communist Manifesto.

---

The scale of the capitalist economy - now thoroughly global - far outstrips the span of emotional or cognitive commitment of any individual worker, capitalist or petit-bourgeois. The Marxist dreams of conscious social relationships to organise and regulate the economy more equitably than the operations of the market have failed whenever tried: so-called socialist economic formations collapsing into bureaucratism and nepotism.

It was noteworthy that the experiments in workers control of factories in the old Yugoslavia were prone to takeovers by the managerial elite and/or profitability failures due to the inability to rationalise the workforce.

Change in a dynamic economy requires a measure of brutality - but the turkeys don't care to vote for Christmas.

In the absence of a compelling narrative of transition to a post-capitalist economy (what means? what ends?), any plausible road to a communist future has simply evaporated, no longer existing in any sense recognizable to the original Marxist tradition.

Identity politics - Wokeism - represents the final abandonment of the central (and correct) Marxist tenet that specific economic relations constitute the foundation of any viable society. In Wokeism we see a withdrawal from any radical critique of capitalism, its replacement by assertions of utopian egalitarianism (equality of outcomes) in ways that actually support the endless capitalist project of labour-supply flexibility.

A globalised capitalism works best with rational, low-touch states which establish a minimally-obstructive framework for production and exchange at all geographical scales, minimising transaction costs. Borders with their irritating bureaucracy and tariffs should be eschewed; all social groups encouraged to present themselves freely to the labour market. 

The Progressive manifesto writes itself.

The Woke vanguard, the SJWs, occasionally push things too far - as young zealots often do - and have to be reined in. The media sees to it.

---

There will be no more significant Leninist-style revolutionary parties earnestly striving to lead the struggling masses to an opaque victory. The revolutionary Marxist project is just too decoupled from reality - although it took the failures of the 1970s, 80s and 90s to finally appreciate it.

Use the power of the state as a countervailing force against capitalism's well-known divisive excesses by all means - the revisionist social-democrats have been advocating that since before Edouard Bernstein.

The author who best understands the potential for it all to go wrong in the future is surely S. M. Stirling: I point you in the direction of The Domination of the Draka and in particular, its fourth volume, Drakon - featuring Homo Drakensis/Homo Servus: genetic masters and slaves.

Why wouldn’t they - if they could?

Wednesday, July 13, 2022

A Sociobiological take on Absurdism

Albert Camus

According to Wikipedia:

"Absurdism is the philosophical theory that existence in general is absurd. ... An important aspect of absurdism is that the absurd is not limited to particular situations but encompasses life as a whole. ... An important component of the absurd on the practical level concerns the seriousness people bring toward life. This seriousness is reflected in many different attitudes and areas, for example, concerning fame, pleasure, justice, knowledge, or survival, both in regard to ourselves as well as in regard to others. 

But there seems to be a discrepancy between how serious we take our lives and the lives of others on the one hand, and how arbitrary they and the world at large seem to be on the other hand. The collision between these two sides can be defined as the absurd. This is perhaps best exemplified, for example, when the agent is seriously engaged in choosing between arbitrary options, none of which truly matters."

Yes, the universe doesn't care.

So what should the Absurdist do in a universe without meaning? According to Camus, "there are three possible responses to absurdism: suicide, religious belief, or revolting against the absurd."

Camus prefers option 3, although according to his own criteria this also makes no sense.

---

Philosophers tie themselves in knots because they operate only in the realm of ideas. When a problem is intractable, it invariably means that we've reached the limits of the paradigm itself. 

Like those irremovable infinities in physics.

A better approach is to generalise: is life absurd to a housefly? To ask the question seems to involve a category error (perhaps houseflies don't have elaborated intuitions regarding the absurdity of existence?). 

Bear with me.

In a natural sciences paradigm, houseflies are an instance of a biological system which exploits free energy - prevalent on Earth - to sustain a Darwinian process of self-replication. Living things are what you may well get in physics given the boundary conditions on this planet. 

So you might as well - or as uselessly - ask whether the universe itself is absurd. Good luck with that, as you ponder something from nothing.

Absurdism only becomes real when human beings - who, as articulate social mammals, readily self-understand as purposeful, causal and meaning-driven - apply this essential framework of social life to the ultimate underpinnings of what it is to be human.

When framed like this, Absurdism is the pessimistic pseudo-answer to the pseudo-question: "What is the Meaning of Life?".

The answer is that the whole concept of "meaning" (= purpose) is in the end ungrounded, and thus unanswerable. The better question is to ask why we carry on doing what we do, to which the answer is that our rationality is the slave to our desires, which in a Darwinian sense are optimised for the survival of our descendants (and hence, usually, ourselves). 

If there were any Absurdists who cared to take the suicide route, then the genes which encoded such excessive rationalism were lost to the gene pool.

---

Why am I reading Camus ('The Plague')? 

Because the hero of Jerry Pournelle's military-SF book "Prince of Mercenaries" (John Christian Falkenberg) recommends it to the main POV character, Prince Lysander of Sparta. 

Good advice.

---

Postscript (20th July 2022)

I finished The Plague and was struck both by its immersion in the plague-ridden city of Oran - the compelling reactions and sentiments of the unfortunate inhabitants - and the conceptual responses of the author's main protagonists.

In the presence of arbitrary death, the priest, Father Paneloux, asserts an 'all-or-nothing' Christian faith, a faith without reason or understanding; the traveller, Tarrou, is a disillusioned left-wing activist and seems to have reconciled himself to an abstract humanism based on 'sympathy' (rather Buddhist, I thought); the hero, Dr. Rieux, seems to put his trust not so much in grand abstractions as in the individual: the conscious, feeling personality to be protected from suffering and death.

If Absurdism is the rebuttal of all grand schemes for humanity, perhaps Dr Rieux's way is best, grounded as it is in the specifics of being human that predate knowledge, memory or competencies: the raw experience of waking up in the morning without even knowing where or who you are ... but knowing nevertheless that you are

Being human may be absurd, but we are human - that is our point of departure, not the standpoint of the cold universe. That I think is Camus's philosophy here: our values come from our emotions, not our intellects.

Thursday, July 07, 2022

Correspondence with my co-blogger


I am too busy to write fiction - the success of NUPES has opened up all kinds of possibilities for the French Left. But my co-blogger's recent thoughts are perhaps of some interest below.

Adam Carlton.

---

A wave of A.I. experts left Google, DeepMind, and Meta—and the race is on to build a new, more useful generation of digital assistant

This is probably worth keeping an eye on. If they can make the concept work it's rather transformational.

At last, you get to speak to a human-level agent rather than navigating endless menu trees and then waiting 30 minutes to speak to an incompetent…

---

How the Left fell for capitalism - Progressives were always part of the corporate elite

I liked this article - a goodish critical framework - although as a wannabe-leftist the author still cleaves to the 'Standard Social Science Model'. The heavily-ideological SSSM delivers the utility of progressive leftism to the interests of the most advanced, technocratic and global forces of contemporary capitalism.

An ideology is a set of ideas which appear objective and coherent but which justify and legitimate the existing order of society by occluding essential aspects of the truth. Progressive Leftism is such an ideology.

The correct starting point for a science of human affairs is rooted in the biology of our particular hyper-social primate species. But sociobiology is so subversive in its implications that it was sadly cancelled decades ago.

Interesting that sociobiology is as lethal to political Marxism (Leninism, Trotskyism etc) as it is to elite-friendly progressivism!

---

My own view of Marxism, Adam, is that Marx's economic analysis of capitalism (generalised commodity production, labour power not labour, capital - and economic categories in general - as social relationships not 'things') is spot on.

His rather diffuse political ideas about future communism were methodologically unsound (see Popper's critique of historicism) and fatally undermined by Marx's essentially blank slate view of human nature. That's why I agree with E. O. Wilson's classic epitaph for Marxism: "Great theory; wrong species".

He meant that communism works for ants and bees as they are genetic clones. Humans are not.

At least not till the Draka engineer the rest of humanity in that direction 😨🤔… or perhaps the Chinese…