Was marx a determinist?

[tar1984]

I have to write an essay on this and just want to make sure I don't head down the wrong path.

Firstly there seems to be a couple of stands to determinism. There is the philosophical, fatalist approach that everything is pre-determined, which I guess this would tie in with Marx's historical materialism. The other would be economic determinism, which is linked to the base/superstructure analogy, the idea that the economic relations of a society form the basis for the social relations.

I feel like I should focus on the former, as it would allow me to analyse through the lens of Popper's attack on historicism and the counter arguments to that.

I am not sure if I have nailed this or am all over the place. This course is basically teaching me that my working knowledge of Marxism is pretty basic. I was hoping a bit of discussing from those better versed in the issues could focus my mind before I tackle the reading list properly, plus hopefully be interesting for everyone else too!

 

[Knotted]

Determinism is a doctrine that relates to physics and is not at all related to social/economic/historical theses. I don't believe Marx ever pronounced on the subject. Plekhanov, on the other hand, did espouse determinism as part of his version of dialectical materialism.

 

[tar1984]

Determinism is a doctrine that relates to physics and is not at all related to social/economic/historical theses. I don't believe Marx ever pronounced on the subject. Plekhanov, on the other hand, did espouse determinism as part of his version of dialectical materialism.

Popper seems to be claiming that Marx is applying the methods of the physical sciences to the social world, so he is a determinist.

 

[Knotted]

Popper was talking out of his arse.

 

[SpineyNorman]

No

 

[tar1984]

Popper was talking out of his arse.

Haha

I thought that too. At one point he reckons social classes don't exist in any meaningful sense (something like that anyway, I wish I hadn't returned the book or i'd look it up).

 

[kittyP]

I keep reading the title "Was Marx a taxidermist"

 

[tar1984]

No

I was leaning this way too. If he was a pure determinist then why bother with activism at all.

OTOH are there not elements of determinism in his writing? In 'preface to a critique of political economy' it does seem like he is saying society is destined to go through certain material transformations.

I realise this is fairly entry level stuff for most on here, but I have never worked through these debates before.

 

[tar1984]

I keep reading the title "Was Marx a taxidermist"

That would have been a better thread

 

[SpineyNorman]

I was leaning this way too. If he was a pure determinist then why bother with activism at all.

OTOH are there not elements of determinism in his writing? In 'preface to a critique of political economy' it does seem like he is saying society is destined to go through certain material transformations.

I realise this is fairly entry level stuff for most on here, but I have never worked through these debates before.

I can see how a reading of the manifesto or the preface to a contribution to the critique of political economy (the former an agitational pamphlet, the latter a heavily condensed summary of his philosophical conclusions to date - only a few pages - which is bound to over-simplify and mislead) could lead people to thinking he was a determinist - and some (IMO horribly wrong) interpretations of Marxism - like those of Althusser - certainly do smack of determinism. Asking whether Marx was a determinist is, IMO, just another way of phrasing the question of how Marx viewed the relationship between structure and agency.

And he definitely wasn't, as even the most cursory reading of his more historical works clearly shows. Have you ever read The Eighteenth Brumaire of Luis Bonaparte? Worth reading for its own sake, it's brilliantly written, but it also gives an idea of how Marx viewed history, causation and so on. Especially the first chapter, which contains about 5 memorable quotes that I'd heard before reading it but never realised they were coined by Marx (Online here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm)

Also worth reading his Theses on Feurbach which is very short but also quite difficult to get your head around at first - well worth the effort though. (here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm)

 

[laptop]

If you want to risk going horribly wrong in an interesting way, you could ask what they mean by "determinism"

In physics, by the 1890s Henri Poincaré had shown that, though the movements of bodies under Newtonian mechanics are fully determined, if there are three (or more) of them there's no fucking way you can say what will happen. He'd discovered chaos, it was later realised.

http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Mathematicians/Poincare.html
http://www.wolframscience.com/reference/notes/972d - three-body problem

Then there's the other meaning of "determinism", in philosophy not physics - roughly equivalent to "there is no free will"... endless fun

How many words you got?

 

[tar1984]

I can see how a reading of the manifesto or the preface to a contribution to the critique of political economy (the former an agitational pamphlet, the latter a heavily condensed summary of his philosophical conclusions to date - only a few pages - which is bound to over-simplify and mislead) could lead people to thinking he was a determinist - and some (IMO horribly wrong) interpretations of Marxism - like those of Althusser - certainly do smack of determinism. Asking whether Marx was a determinist is, IMO, just another way of phrasing the question of how Marx viewed the relationship between structure and agency.

And he definitely wasn't, as even the most cursory reading of his more historical works clearly shows. Have you ever read The Eighteenth Brumaire of Luis Bonaparte? Worth reading for its own sake, it's brilliantly written, but it also gives an idea of how Marx viewed history, causation and so on. Especially the first chapter, which contains about 5 memorable quotes that I'd heard before reading it but never realised they were coined by Marx (Online here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm)

Also worth reading his Theses on Feurbach which is very short but also quite difficult to get your head around at first - well worth the effort though. (here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm)

Thanks man, that is extremely helpful. I haven't read either of those, but I will.

 

[tar1984]

If you want to risk going horribly wrong in an interesting way, you could ask what they mean by "determinism"

In physics, by the 1890s Henri Poincaré had shown that, though the movements of bodies under Newtonian mechanics are fully determined, if there are three (or more) of them there's no fucking way you can say what will happen. He'd discovered chaos, it was later realised.

http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Mathematicians/Poincare.html
http://www.wolframscience.com/reference/notes/972d - three-body problem

Then there's the other meaning of "determinism", in philosophy not physics - roughly equivalent to "there is no free will"... endless fun

How many words you got?

2,500 max. Quite a short essay, so I am trying to work a focused narrative/structure out in my head first.

I realise it's important to define determinism before I start, and I'm not sure on exact definitions yet. The lecture notes are pointing to the philosophical meaning - do we have free will or is everything pre-determined. I also recall the tutor dropping a pen on the table to show how it is predetermined that gravity would make it fall or something

 

[Idris2002]

It depends what you mean by "determinist". I would suggest you include a short review of the evolution of the concept, regardless of whether or not you think Marx was one or not. This is not always easy in a 2500 word job, I know.

 

[Idris2002]

As for Popper, he wasn't really arguing against Marx, but against the party line emanating from the Kremlin at the time, which was a strongly determinist variant of Marxism, which took deterministic perspectives of Second International Marxism to their ultimate extreme. You might usefully distinguish between Marxism and what Marx actually wrote.

You could also have a look at the passages in Capital where he talks about new technologies being introduced into 19th Century British industry in response to the ebb and flow of the class struggle within capitalism.

 

[tar1984]

It depends what you mean by "determinist". I would suggest you include a short review of the evolution of the concept, regardless of whether or not you think Marx was one or not. This is not always easy in a 2500 word job, I know.

Good idea. I have a general idea of what I mean by determinist in my head, but fucked if I could really nail it down right now.

As for Popper, he wasn't really arguing against Marx, but against the party line emanating from the Kremlin at the time, which was a strongly determinist variant of Marxism, which took deterministic perspectives of Second International Marxism to their ultimate extreme. You might usefully distinguish between Marxism and what Marx actually wrote.

You could also have a look at the passages in Capital where he talks about new technologies being introduced into 19th Century British industry in response to the ebb and flow of the class struggle within capitalism.

Well this complicates things a bit more. I am pretty sure I am expected to use Poppers arguments against Marx as the basis of this essay (since the first couple of lectures focused on this). I'm sure it won't hurt to draw the distinction though.

 

[Idris2002]

Good idea. I have a general idea of what I mean by determinist in my head, but fucked if I could really nail it down right now.



Well this complicates things a bit more. I am pretty sure I am expected to use Poppers arguments against Marx as the basis of this essay (since the first couple of lectures focused on this). I'm sure it won't hurt to draw the distinction though.

One useful thing might be to J.D. Bernal's 1930s quote that "communism is a scientific certainty" (or words to that effect) - Bernal was a working scientist, but also a loyal Moscow-liner. I suspect there's nothing in the writings of Marx himself which would be comparable to that kind of extreme determinism.

 

[SpineyNorman]

You could also have a look at the passages in Capital where he talks about new technologies being introduced into 19th Century British industry in response to the ebb and flow of the class struggle within capitalism.

Also the last section of Volume I (fortunately IMO the most enjoyable and easy to read section) where he talks about primitive accumulation - discusses the role of the state in Britain in terms of what academic wankspeak might refer to as agential interventions (ie not the predetermined unfolding of the logic of social structures but the product of free will, albeit constrained within structurally imposed limits).

Another example of Marx not being a determinist, more along the lines of the eighteenth bruimaire, would be The Civil War in France (about the Paris commune).

 

[SpineyNorman]

Good idea. I have a general idea of what I mean by determinist in my head, but fucked if I could really nail it down right now.



Well this complicates things a bit more. I am pretty sure I am expected to use Poppers arguments against Marx as the basis of this essay (since the first couple of lectures focused on this). I'm sure it won't hurt to draw the distinction though.

What I'd do is concede that Popper's criticisms are valid when applied to some forms of Marxism, and maybe talk a bit about them in relation to the Comintern's Marxism and that of Althusser (I had to do something similar last year and I've got a few journal articles saved that critique Althusser from a Marxist perspective so if you want a look at them PM me with your email and I'll send them over) but since the question asks whether Marx was a determinist you really need to look at his own writings. Or something.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Not gonna answer the question (Marxology is a fruitless task!) - but a book chapter recommendation:

http://copac.ac.uk/search?author=stedman jones&title=cambridge history&sort-order=ti,-date&rn=1

chapter 17.

(nb. this is not a recommendation of everything Stedman Jones has ever written - but it's pretty clear headed in terms of connections between Marx and Engels, determinism and materialism)

 

[8115]

I would advise that you research determinism a bit better before you think about Marx. You don't seem to have a clear idea what it is in this context, and that'll mean you miss the point of the whole thing.

 

[8115]

Firstly there seems to be a couple of stands to determinism. There is the philosophical, fatalist approach that everything is pre-determined, which I guess this would tie in with Marx's historical materialism. The other would be economic determinism, which is linked to the base/superstructure analogy, the idea that the economic relations of a society form the basis for the social relations.

I've just refreshed my memory on Wikipedia. The first is technically called predeterminism I think (doubt Marx would have too much to say about that) and the second is causal determinism I think, which I think is the big gun of all the different kinds of determinism.

(My memory is bad and I studied this shallowly 10 years ago so sorry if the above is incorrect).

 

[butchersapron]

I would advise that you research determinism a bit better before you think about Marx. You don't seem to have a clear idea what it is in this context, and that'll mean you miss the point of the whole thing.

No, a question that requires a 2500 word answer really only requires you assume they're talking about the 150 year tradition of accusations of (political economic and historical) determinism targeted at marx - and they're pretty easy to grasp. Do not go on about logical or scientific or philosophical determinism as they are pretty much irrelevant here.

As for the question, you can'r do much in that space but you can make case for yes, for no, for yes within limits and only at certain levels and when analysing certain forms of phenomena. Each position is littered throughout his work. Whatever you do, do include the Engels quote that i'm going to post in a minute when i can locate it.

 

[butchersapron]

Can't find the exact engels quite i want - it was about fully (or as far as possible) understanding a prior determining factor or set of factors and, in turn, their prior determinations the better to understand and control the future. That any determinism in their work is profoundly anti-deterministic. This letter is worth a read as well. (only short) as is this one.

 

[tar1984]

No, a question that requires a 2500 word answer really only requires you assume they're talking about the 150 year tradition of accusations of (political economic and historical) determinism targeted at marx - and they're pretty easy to grasp. Do not go on about logical or scientific or philosophical determinism as they are pretty much irrelevant here.

As for the question, you can'r do much in that space but you can make case for yes, for no, for yes within limits and only at certain levels and when analysing certain forms of phenomena. Each position is littered throughout his work. Whatever you do, do include the Engels quote that i'm going to post in a minute when i can locate it.

Yeah I am certain this is just about assessing the liberal critiques of marxism.

So I am looking at economic determinism here, the concept that relations of production are the dominant social relationship?

 

[tar1984]

Thanks for all reading recommendations, they will come in really useful.

 

[butchersapron]

Yeah I am certain this is just about assessing the liberal critiques of marxism.

So I am looking at economic determinism here, the concept that relations of production are the dominant social relationship?

Sounds like that to me - as all the other determinisms he's accused of flow from that accusation of economic determinism or are hidden versions of the sam). (In the way that most other things about capital can be found in the form of the commodity most other critiques of marx can be found in this idea of economic determinism).

 

[tar1984]

I would advise that you research determinism a bit better before you think about Marx. You don't seem to have a clear idea what it is in this context, and that'll mean you miss the point of the whole thing.

I thought I had a clear idea, but I have confused myself by thinking about it

 

[tar1984]

Sounds like that to me - as all the other determinisms he's accused of flow from that accusation of economic determinism or are hidden versions of the sam). (In the way that most other things about capital can be found in the form of the commodity most other critiques of marx can be found in this idea of economic determinism).

Ok that makes sense. I feel like there is a separation between economic determinism and historical determinism - in that it's one thing to say the base influences the superstructure, but another to make historical predictions about stages of history.

I can see how they are part of the same thing, but you could accept one without the other.

 

[8115]

Economist determinism means economics (not, say, politics or geography) is the predominant factor (in the social sciences?).

Historical determinism means that the past determines (to a significant extent) the future.

(I think)

I assume that the alternative to historical determinism is the idea that chaos is a significant factor.

(I think)