lecture 9 - marxism

• classical marxism • gramscian/cultural • vanguardism (bolshevik)

Marx is an ideolog, he has normative statements, a political program but, Marx is also a political scientists with a specific view of how the world is

foundational ontology (there is an objective truth, it isn’t always observable) mixed epistemology: critical realism (social/political phenomena and structures can be directly observed/measured) different methodology based on the specific question

idea that the way the economy is structures determines what happens in history economy drives history the economic base (mode of production: technologies, instruments or forces of production) determines the political, legal and cultural superstructure

idea that the proletariat is brainwashed by the people are made to believe something is in their interest, while it isn’t requires there to be something like a real interest, an objective interest discinents of what a worker beliefs is in their interest and what is objectively in their interest - they are made to believe that it is in their interest to work hard, to go to church

exploitation is seen as bad (normative) exploitation is also neutrally examined as being necessary and in some way productive part of capitalism capitalism: leading to ever greater total wealth and at the same time ever more extreme exploitation capitalism: one class of people exploits another

this is an element of exploitation that makes the proletariat active working class is oppressed into a working class relationship workers are alienated from the product of their labour + from workers to each other + from workers to their species-being (human potential)

• history of all existing society is the history of class struggles changes in society are outcomes of particular economic developments/organisations (new economic organisation->tensions (antithesis vs thesis)) every economic organisations is the result of tensions in the last economic organisations capitalism -> socialism -> marxism (Marx thinks this has no tensions and thus will lead to no further change) rising wealth + rising exploitation -> rising alienation + socialist revolution if this is true: 1. tension to marx’ normative project: if socialism/marxism naturally arrives, why would he have to defend it so much ideologically? it is weird to say that something is good/bad or that it has to be done if it will naturally happen 2. we can’t have a socialist revolution when we don’t have the final stage of capitalism (alienation, totalized surplus)

• foundational ontology + critical realist epistemology (takes seriously the causal power of some superstructural ideas, even if they’re not directly measurable/visible) challenged by: - Russian Revolution (1917-1923) - later ‘cultural’ Marxists like Gramsci

• communist: Mensheviks (minority) and Bolsheviks (Lenin, Trotsky) were divided on the question of the vanguard (professional revolutionaries organizing the revo is enough to start a revolution OR that there was a mass organisation neccesary): whether or not they should cooperate with the anti-Tsarist liberal movement • Mensheviks think Russia is not ready for a socialist revolution (not enough wealth e.g.): we can’t skip steps • Bolsheviks: Russia has a division of classes, it has exploitation and alienation and the kind of workforce that can be drawn on, that the size of Russia is enough to create enough wealth post-revolution

emphasized the role of ideology marxism: ideology is the result of economic organisation the bourgeoisie rules not only by controlling the means of production, but by hegemonic ideology (dominant ideas, ideals, religion) move back towards the importance of ideas gives more scope for (revolutionary) agency and contingency: spread ideas

• Marx and Engels thought that capitalism would gradually erode nationalism implies: they aren’t explicit in their condemnation of colonialist imperialism: they think the exploitation of the workers in the colonies is simply another form of capitalist exploitation, just like exploitation in e.g. a country

• greater wealth for bourgeoisie + basis for revolution • alienate

• Marx calls imperialism the latest phase of capitalism • Lenin/Bolsheviks starts to push for national self-determination in the post-Colonial context (he seeks for allies + there is a clearer distribution between states: we can’t have one big revolution if there are some countries already communist exploitation and core-periphery idea that colonized people should unite against colonizers

• alienation, false-consciousness, ideology, and hegemony can be used to analyze colonial relations • some post-colonial actors were Marxist or neo-Marxist intersectional thesis: to be anti-colonial, you need to be anti-capitalist as well (and vice-versa) but: tension between Marxist historical materialism/universalism and intersectional perspectives : lose determinism of classical marxism

Bolsheviks move away from both economic determinism and critical realism, they say human behaviour (in the form of a vanguard) can trigger wide scale changes, a socialist revolution. in this way it allows for greater contingency: not all conditions of classical marxism have to be met to have a revolution, contingency in the form of human behaviour can play a big role this moves towards interpretivism: greater role for understanding of human behaviour

large alienated proletariat + social surplus value aka a workforce and finance/wealth for the revolution + the marxist society after the revolution