Branko’s conclusions seem to me very weak: either there is a fundamental theory that applies without exception, or it’s all arbitrary, and God help us. Surely a viable social theory must be more nuanced than that. Marx’s theory continues to interest us because it conceptualizes better than any other the capital order we live in, including its ability to cover the developments after Marx (imperialism, the worker as consumer, capitalism as the world system, etc.). Moreover, it allows us to conceive the idea of a transition to a post-capital society, something mankind is in dire need of, if it wants to survive. Whether Marx held a stadial theory of history seems a minor matter; much more important is that in his concept capitalism, once started, will spread to the whole world, whatever the initial conditions in any particular country. 150 years after, we can certify that, indeed, the prediction was correct. What now?
We know in his more productive years Marx - intentionally - did not dwell much on the transition. In his later years, he did think about it; probably his life experience was a factor, having been emarginated from the actual worker’s movement, after giving it its ideology. Certainly the idea of the organized workers, schooled in the factory, taking over the system by a political revolution, subjecting the society to planning, and going on from there, does not do justice to Marx’s complexity of thought – and is patently obsolete now. A social revolution is what he was after, a new mode of production the seeds of which must be sown already in capitalism; the political revolution was only to be the seal placed on a long process of incremental change, just like the French revolution after centuries of bourgeois build-up. History has been different: the revolution in the weakest link, its failure in the West, socialism in one country, and, on the other side, the extraordinary vitality of capitalism, capable of reinventing itself at every step using its opposite, the socialist movement, as its propulsion. Marxism is dead, long live Marx.
I presented the two alternatives in intentionally stark terms. I do agree that any social theory has to be more nuanced that the stark dichotomy I use. My key point was that by highlighting too much Marx's "openness" to different paths to socialism as Musto does (which makes Marx seem very modern), we have to realize that it also overemphasizes voluntarist politics that have had disastrous effects in several historical cases.
The private letter format allows for speculations and more personal views than the official publication format. I'm sure that if we scrutinize private correspondence of any liberal economists we will find a lot of self-doubt, existential crisis and embarrassing stuff.
For purely scientific purposes, we should always limit ourselves to officially published, i.e. finished, writings. When judging modern scientists, we always limit ourselves to peer-reviewed articles, theses, and stuff said or published in seminars et al. - Marx should receive the same treatment.
So, unless one's goal is to produce a biography of the man himself, one should never use Marx's letters as proof or counterproof for anything he published willingly and officially in life, excluding the exceptional case of the last two volume of Capital, which had an exceptional editor (Engels).
Marx was a scientist. He developed a theory, which built a model. A model is not a crystal ball or a receipt, but a scientific scheme with which we can describe and predict what happens in the real world. For example, we learn Clapeyron's simplified formula for gases in high school, which uses the ideal gas as a presupposition (the unidimensional gas particle). Is it absolutely real? No. Does it describe nature well enough so we can understand the concept and predict a lot of things, to a stage beyond human immediate observation? Yes.
Science is not and was never intended to be the absolute truth. The truth is the truth, it exists regardless of the human will, therefore it doesn't require explanation or justification - it simply is. Science is the human understanding of truth to the point to be humanly useful. It build models of truth, not truth.
And reality, as we can observe it right now, points to the direction Marx's theory and its model are scientifically true. The model of capitalism he built in his magnum opus (Capital, the three volumes) is being confirmed, the more data we collect and interpret on capitalism.
Although he never came close to a theory of socialism/communism - he lived long enough to barely finish his theory on capitalism and History - the few axioms he logically deduced from it are being confirmed at a historical scale: the only revolutionary class is the (industrial) proletariat; socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat; revolutions can only happen violently; it will have to have a superior stage of the development of the productive forces; and so on.
Marx was an extremely consistent philosopher throughout his entire life. Logically, he was indestructible (which is not surprising, since he was a Ph.D. in Philosophy with an specialization in Logic). He never changed his mind and his theory stands the test of time even though countless attempts have been made to dismantle it (since Jevons and the Austrians to the present-day Neoclassicists and Neo/Post-Keynesians). So far, I have not read any counter-theory that could even make a dent to Marx's theory (and I've read a lot, even Bohm-Bawerk's infamous article).
It is also important to highlight the fact that, before 1917, Lenin's interpretation of Marx was considered extremely heterodox by the Marxist circle which was centered in Germany. Lenin was considered a curious and irrelevant case of russified Marxism at the best; an outright ignorant Asiatic barbarian at worst. He was absolutely not taken seriously by the Social-Democrats, and mocking him and the Bolsheviks was one of Rosa Luxemburg's favorite pastimes. The Bolsheviks were considered, by and large, a bunch of lunatics during the beginning of the 20th Century -- to the point the Kaiser allowed Lenin to return to Russia during WWI because he thought that would sabotage the Russian Empire from within (he was right in the sense that it sabotaged Russia as the Crown; he was wrong in the sense that it would sabotage Russia as the People).
The Bolsheviks only became the "holotype" of Marxism in the years following 1917, after the "revolutions" in the West crumbled one by one. By 1923, no serious Marxist in Western Europe doubted the Bolsheviks had found the "correct formula". Nothing like the instinct of self-preservation to change an adult's mind.
1. The discussion on the role of obschina was erroneous, as it is clear now. Current research quite clearly shows that obschina in the way it existed by the middle of the 19th century hasn't formed naturally, because it was advantageous economically, but under fiscal pressure from the state around Peter the Great time. This information simply wasn't available to the participants of this discussion back then, plus it happened before advent of institutionalism as a way of thinking, plus they were clearly projecting the then current state of affairs backwards, not realizing that obschina evolved and changed quite a lot.
In short, the discussion was pointless.
2. It is generally a funny point that Marxes clear non-dogmatism sat very badly with Soviet Marxists, since they were treating all that Marx said as dogma by 1960's at the latest, but practically after the 1937-38 purges. This paradox is very visible in anything that treats on post-Capital Marx body of work. In fact, it was widely avoided exactly for that reason, with quite a few stories of promising young scientists being forced to change careers becasue they steered onto that minefield in their post docs.
Good review, the book sounds a bit similar to Teodor Shanin's 'Late Marx and the Russian Road' which I picked up at a bookshop recently but have still yet to read properly.
In terms of the distinction you draw between Fabianism and Leninism, I wonder if there might not be a third way that is exists today, which could be called 'Fabio-Leninism': seize control of a underdeveloped state, initiate capitalist reforms, then retain control of political power and the 'commanding heights' of the economy in the hope that when the conditions are right for communism you still have access to the levers of power to initiate reforms.
I think this partly describes modern China, or at least one interpretation of what they understand themselves to be doing with their path of reform since Deng.
By the way, did you ever read Marx's Revenge by Meghnad Desai? Another one I picked up and have yet to read properly, but seems like a very interesting 'ultra-fabian' interpretation of Marx written during the heyday of globalization (early 2000s).
Branko’s conclusions seem to me very weak: either there is a fundamental theory that applies without exception, or it’s all arbitrary, and God help us. Surely a viable social theory must be more nuanced than that. Marx’s theory continues to interest us because it conceptualizes better than any other the capital order we live in, including its ability to cover the developments after Marx (imperialism, the worker as consumer, capitalism as the world system, etc.). Moreover, it allows us to conceive the idea of a transition to a post-capital society, something mankind is in dire need of, if it wants to survive. Whether Marx held a stadial theory of history seems a minor matter; much more important is that in his concept capitalism, once started, will spread to the whole world, whatever the initial conditions in any particular country. 150 years after, we can certify that, indeed, the prediction was correct. What now?
We know in his more productive years Marx - intentionally - did not dwell much on the transition. In his later years, he did think about it; probably his life experience was a factor, having been emarginated from the actual worker’s movement, after giving it its ideology. Certainly the idea of the organized workers, schooled in the factory, taking over the system by a political revolution, subjecting the society to planning, and going on from there, does not do justice to Marx’s complexity of thought – and is patently obsolete now. A social revolution is what he was after, a new mode of production the seeds of which must be sown already in capitalism; the political revolution was only to be the seal placed on a long process of incremental change, just like the French revolution after centuries of bourgeois build-up. History has been different: the revolution in the weakest link, its failure in the West, socialism in one country, and, on the other side, the extraordinary vitality of capitalism, capable of reinventing itself at every step using its opposite, the socialist movement, as its propulsion. Marxism is dead, long live Marx.
I presented the two alternatives in intentionally stark terms. I do agree that any social theory has to be more nuanced that the stark dichotomy I use. My key point was that by highlighting too much Marx's "openness" to different paths to socialism as Musto does (which makes Marx seem very modern), we have to realize that it also overemphasizes voluntarist politics that have had disastrous effects in several historical cases.
The private letter format allows for speculations and more personal views than the official publication format. I'm sure that if we scrutinize private correspondence of any liberal economists we will find a lot of self-doubt, existential crisis and embarrassing stuff.
For purely scientific purposes, we should always limit ourselves to officially published, i.e. finished, writings. When judging modern scientists, we always limit ourselves to peer-reviewed articles, theses, and stuff said or published in seminars et al. - Marx should receive the same treatment.
So, unless one's goal is to produce a biography of the man himself, one should never use Marx's letters as proof or counterproof for anything he published willingly and officially in life, excluding the exceptional case of the last two volume of Capital, which had an exceptional editor (Engels).
Marx was a scientist. He developed a theory, which built a model. A model is not a crystal ball or a receipt, but a scientific scheme with which we can describe and predict what happens in the real world. For example, we learn Clapeyron's simplified formula for gases in high school, which uses the ideal gas as a presupposition (the unidimensional gas particle). Is it absolutely real? No. Does it describe nature well enough so we can understand the concept and predict a lot of things, to a stage beyond human immediate observation? Yes.
Science is not and was never intended to be the absolute truth. The truth is the truth, it exists regardless of the human will, therefore it doesn't require explanation or justification - it simply is. Science is the human understanding of truth to the point to be humanly useful. It build models of truth, not truth.
And reality, as we can observe it right now, points to the direction Marx's theory and its model are scientifically true. The model of capitalism he built in his magnum opus (Capital, the three volumes) is being confirmed, the more data we collect and interpret on capitalism.
Although he never came close to a theory of socialism/communism - he lived long enough to barely finish his theory on capitalism and History - the few axioms he logically deduced from it are being confirmed at a historical scale: the only revolutionary class is the (industrial) proletariat; socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat; revolutions can only happen violently; it will have to have a superior stage of the development of the productive forces; and so on.
Marx was an extremely consistent philosopher throughout his entire life. Logically, he was indestructible (which is not surprising, since he was a Ph.D. in Philosophy with an specialization in Logic). He never changed his mind and his theory stands the test of time even though countless attempts have been made to dismantle it (since Jevons and the Austrians to the present-day Neoclassicists and Neo/Post-Keynesians). So far, I have not read any counter-theory that could even make a dent to Marx's theory (and I've read a lot, even Bohm-Bawerk's infamous article).
It is also important to highlight the fact that, before 1917, Lenin's interpretation of Marx was considered extremely heterodox by the Marxist circle which was centered in Germany. Lenin was considered a curious and irrelevant case of russified Marxism at the best; an outright ignorant Asiatic barbarian at worst. He was absolutely not taken seriously by the Social-Democrats, and mocking him and the Bolsheviks was one of Rosa Luxemburg's favorite pastimes. The Bolsheviks were considered, by and large, a bunch of lunatics during the beginning of the 20th Century -- to the point the Kaiser allowed Lenin to return to Russia during WWI because he thought that would sabotage the Russian Empire from within (he was right in the sense that it sabotaged Russia as the Crown; he was wrong in the sense that it would sabotage Russia as the People).
The Bolsheviks only became the "holotype" of Marxism in the years following 1917, after the "revolutions" in the West crumbled one by one. By 1923, no serious Marxist in Western Europe doubted the Bolsheviks had found the "correct formula". Nothing like the instinct of self-preservation to change an adult's mind.
2 points.
1. The discussion on the role of obschina was erroneous, as it is clear now. Current research quite clearly shows that obschina in the way it existed by the middle of the 19th century hasn't formed naturally, because it was advantageous economically, but under fiscal pressure from the state around Peter the Great time. This information simply wasn't available to the participants of this discussion back then, plus it happened before advent of institutionalism as a way of thinking, plus they were clearly projecting the then current state of affairs backwards, not realizing that obschina evolved and changed quite a lot.
In short, the discussion was pointless.
2. It is generally a funny point that Marxes clear non-dogmatism sat very badly with Soviet Marxists, since they were treating all that Marx said as dogma by 1960's at the latest, but practically after the 1937-38 purges. This paradox is very visible in anything that treats on post-Capital Marx body of work. In fact, it was widely avoided exactly for that reason, with quite a few stories of promising young scientists being forced to change careers becasue they steered onto that minefield in their post docs.
Marx wasn't dogmatic enough for you? So sorry.
Good review, the book sounds a bit similar to Teodor Shanin's 'Late Marx and the Russian Road' which I picked up at a bookshop recently but have still yet to read properly.
In terms of the distinction you draw between Fabianism and Leninism, I wonder if there might not be a third way that is exists today, which could be called 'Fabio-Leninism': seize control of a underdeveloped state, initiate capitalist reforms, then retain control of political power and the 'commanding heights' of the economy in the hope that when the conditions are right for communism you still have access to the levers of power to initiate reforms.
I think this partly describes modern China, or at least one interpretation of what they understand themselves to be doing with their path of reform since Deng.
By the way, did you ever read Marx's Revenge by Meghnad Desai? Another one I picked up and have yet to read properly, but seems like a very interesting 'ultra-fabian' interpretation of Marx written during the heyday of globalization (early 2000s).
Very nice comment, thanks. I have not read Desai's book, but have read about it.