Notes on Marx (Morin)
The central problem with Marx is that for him, science brought
certainty. Nowadays we know that science only provides local,
provisional certainties – theories are scientific in the measure that
they are refutable. When it comes to fundamental questions, scientific
knowledge finds itself faced with inscrutable uncertainties. Marx
thought we needed to do away with philosophy because science supplanted
it, but nowadays, scientific advances have shown that our philosophical
interrogations are absolutely necessary and should be complementary to
our scientific inquiries. Einstein and Kuhn are two great examples.
Marx believed the world obeyed a sovereign dialectic and he thought he uncovered the laws of historical becoming. Nowadays, we are learning that, each in their own way, different levels of organization (the physical, biological, human) evolve based on dialectics of order/disorder/organization containing risks and bifurcations and they are all threatened to be destroyed.
The old determinist/materialist conception of freedom was inconceivable for Marx but now we understand scientifically concepts of auto-production (auto-poesis) and self-organization, so we can understand that individuals and human societies are non-trivial machines, capable of creative and unexpected acts.
Marx’s anthropological conception was unidimensional: neither the imagination nor the myth took part in human reality. The human being was homo faber, he had no inner world, no complexity, he was simply a Promethean producer destined to master nature. Unlike Shakespeare, Pascal, Montaigne, Dostoevsky who conceived of homo sapiens as homo sapiens demens – a complex, multidimensional being who carries within himself dreams, fantasies and prejudices which drive him consciously and unconsciously and which in the latter case he justifies with a logical discourse.
The Marxist conception of society prioritized the means of production and the struggle between classes. The key to power over society was in the appropriation of the forces of production. Ideas and ideologies, such as the idea of a nation, were just illusory superstructures. The state was just an instrument in the hands of the dominant class.
How can we not see today that there is a specific problem with the power of the state, a socio-mythological reality in the nation and a genuine reality to ideas? We can see now that the relations between classes are ‘dialogical’, meaning they are simultaneously antagonistic and cooperative, at some point the antagonism manifests as a struggle between classes and at another, cooperation manifests under collaborations and negotiations.
Marx believed that history was profoundly rational. He was convinced of the historic mission of the proletariat to create a classless society, but history is reliant on hazards, there are determinisms that rattle each other. History doesn’t progress linearly, it progresses through deviances becoming trends. Trends which are always under threat and which have to be regenerated constantly. The belief in acquired, irreversible progress is messianic rather than scientific, whether it was Marx’s vision of the mission of the proletariat or the multiple other messianic narratives which rule today. They are a transposition on earth of the Judaeo-Christian salvation found in Heaven. It’s a tragic and devastating illusion.
Marx ignored the principle of the ecology of action, which says that the more complex an environment is, the easier it is for an action to escape the intention of the actor, because it enters into a process of inter-retroactions in an environment of unpredictability, often leading to the opposite result from the one that was desired.
Marx’s diagnosis of the modern world focused on its capitalist nature and made secondary (if not completely unessential) their characters as states, nations, democracies, techniques, bureaucracies – therefore occulting the complex qualities of socio-historical reality. Bureaucracy, technology, technocracy are no less abstract or real than capitalism. They’re anonymous realities that are no less powerful and which, all being distinct, can be associated closely. In our complex societies, capitalism is one of the dominant traits, but not the only one. In a democratic society, the domination of capitalism can be tempered by syndical action and political action. In an authoritarian or totalitarian society, capitalism can be more controlled than controlling.
Marxism concentrated within capitalism all of the ills of modern civilization. Imperialism’s source was capitalism and the source of wars was imperialism. But imperialism and wars are historical phenomena which precede capitalism by a long shot. The ills that come from the power of money can no longer mask the ills that come from the power of power and which, moreover, maintains corruption through money.
It’s obvious today that capitalism has not been the worst evil, that award goes to the supposed socialism of the USSR, China, Vietnam and Cambodia. The biggest threat on this planet right now holds in alliance two barbarities: one which, coming from deep historical ages, brings war, massacre, deportation, fanaticism, and reproduces through different societies/hierarchies of domination and exploits other people, some of which are proper to capitalism. The other, coming from our techno-bureaucratic industrial civilization, which imposes its cold, mechanical logic. It’s anonymous, ignores individuals, their inner worlds, their feelings, and puts at the hand of the powerful their weapons of destruction and means of manipulation.
Neither the ills which determine fanaticism, racism, nationalism, nor those which determine technique and bureaucracy can be reduced to those which are produced by capitalism. It’s better to have a democratic regime, even a limited one with capitalism, than a totalitarian one without it.
It can be tempting today when we identify/discover new ills caused by globalization to conceive of it as the supreme state of the domination of the capital, which is what many people do to retrieve their Manicheanism. Their mistake shouldn't make us dismiss Marx entirely. Marx has to be surpassed, which is to say, he needs to be integrated in a constellation of thinkers who can inform our reflections, beginning with his aspiration of a system of knowledge that is anthropo-socio-historical. His conception of capitalism has to be integrated in the whole of technical, sociological, democratic, ideological developments of modern history. But we have to abandon any sort of law of history, or providential belief in progress, and the sinister faith in the salvation of humanity. What stays from Marx are the aspirations of a better society, the focus on human liberty, fulfillment and fraternity.
Marx believed the world obeyed a sovereign dialectic and he thought he uncovered the laws of historical becoming. Nowadays, we are learning that, each in their own way, different levels of organization (the physical, biological, human) evolve based on dialectics of order/disorder/organization containing risks and bifurcations and they are all threatened to be destroyed.
The old determinist/materialist conception of freedom was inconceivable for Marx but now we understand scientifically concepts of auto-production (auto-poesis) and self-organization, so we can understand that individuals and human societies are non-trivial machines, capable of creative and unexpected acts.
Marx’s anthropological conception was unidimensional: neither the imagination nor the myth took part in human reality. The human being was homo faber, he had no inner world, no complexity, he was simply a Promethean producer destined to master nature. Unlike Shakespeare, Pascal, Montaigne, Dostoevsky who conceived of homo sapiens as homo sapiens demens – a complex, multidimensional being who carries within himself dreams, fantasies and prejudices which drive him consciously and unconsciously and which in the latter case he justifies with a logical discourse.
The Marxist conception of society prioritized the means of production and the struggle between classes. The key to power over society was in the appropriation of the forces of production. Ideas and ideologies, such as the idea of a nation, were just illusory superstructures. The state was just an instrument in the hands of the dominant class.
How can we not see today that there is a specific problem with the power of the state, a socio-mythological reality in the nation and a genuine reality to ideas? We can see now that the relations between classes are ‘dialogical’, meaning they are simultaneously antagonistic and cooperative, at some point the antagonism manifests as a struggle between classes and at another, cooperation manifests under collaborations and negotiations.
Marx believed that history was profoundly rational. He was convinced of the historic mission of the proletariat to create a classless society, but history is reliant on hazards, there are determinisms that rattle each other. History doesn’t progress linearly, it progresses through deviances becoming trends. Trends which are always under threat and which have to be regenerated constantly. The belief in acquired, irreversible progress is messianic rather than scientific, whether it was Marx’s vision of the mission of the proletariat or the multiple other messianic narratives which rule today. They are a transposition on earth of the Judaeo-Christian salvation found in Heaven. It’s a tragic and devastating illusion.
Marx ignored the principle of the ecology of action, which says that the more complex an environment is, the easier it is for an action to escape the intention of the actor, because it enters into a process of inter-retroactions in an environment of unpredictability, often leading to the opposite result from the one that was desired.
Marx’s diagnosis of the modern world focused on its capitalist nature and made secondary (if not completely unessential) their characters as states, nations, democracies, techniques, bureaucracies – therefore occulting the complex qualities of socio-historical reality. Bureaucracy, technology, technocracy are no less abstract or real than capitalism. They’re anonymous realities that are no less powerful and which, all being distinct, can be associated closely. In our complex societies, capitalism is one of the dominant traits, but not the only one. In a democratic society, the domination of capitalism can be tempered by syndical action and political action. In an authoritarian or totalitarian society, capitalism can be more controlled than controlling.
Marxism concentrated within capitalism all of the ills of modern civilization. Imperialism’s source was capitalism and the source of wars was imperialism. But imperialism and wars are historical phenomena which precede capitalism by a long shot. The ills that come from the power of money can no longer mask the ills that come from the power of power and which, moreover, maintains corruption through money.
It’s obvious today that capitalism has not been the worst evil, that award goes to the supposed socialism of the USSR, China, Vietnam and Cambodia. The biggest threat on this planet right now holds in alliance two barbarities: one which, coming from deep historical ages, brings war, massacre, deportation, fanaticism, and reproduces through different societies/hierarchies of domination and exploits other people, some of which are proper to capitalism. The other, coming from our techno-bureaucratic industrial civilization, which imposes its cold, mechanical logic. It’s anonymous, ignores individuals, their inner worlds, their feelings, and puts at the hand of the powerful their weapons of destruction and means of manipulation.
Neither the ills which determine fanaticism, racism, nationalism, nor those which determine technique and bureaucracy can be reduced to those which are produced by capitalism. It’s better to have a democratic regime, even a limited one with capitalism, than a totalitarian one without it.
It can be tempting today when we identify/discover new ills caused by globalization to conceive of it as the supreme state of the domination of the capital, which is what many people do to retrieve their Manicheanism. Their mistake shouldn't make us dismiss Marx entirely. Marx has to be surpassed, which is to say, he needs to be integrated in a constellation of thinkers who can inform our reflections, beginning with his aspiration of a system of knowledge that is anthropo-socio-historical. His conception of capitalism has to be integrated in the whole of technical, sociological, democratic, ideological developments of modern history. But we have to abandon any sort of law of history, or providential belief in progress, and the sinister faith in the salvation of humanity. What stays from Marx are the aspirations of a better society, the focus on human liberty, fulfillment and fraternity.
Comments
Post a Comment