Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
Marx expanded upon the traditional Hegalian notion of synthesis and the end of history. This implicit recognition of progress represents a belief in a blank slate. You get more of this from Das Kapital, the Manifesto was just a tract, mainly written by Engels. Marx's theory of species-essence expounded upon his belief that humans could essentially be the producers of their own future/nature.
I don't really want to get into a deep discussion on Marx, as I've only read stuff regarding his view on human nature, but the implicit assumption of man being a blank slate is definitely there and is definitely a result of his reading of Hegal.
Mao and Lenin were theorists in the Marxist tradition, but they also believed in the Marxist synthesis of praxis. Both put their own specific theories, tailor-made for rural peasantry, into action and revolution. Stalin was definitely a Marxist, he differed with Trotsky on the nature of the revolution. Stalin believed it needed to be completed in Russia before turning into a global class struggle.
|
This is the second thread in as many days that has become super-theoretical for me!
I didn't say Stalin wasn't a "Marxist," I said he wasn't a "
real Marxist." What I meant by that is that Stalin's interpretation was flawed. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool marxist can't turn their head away from the atrocities committed by Stalin--he was a bad, bad man. Was he an honest realization of the Marxian notion of a post-capitalist, post-class society? Hardly. All he did was replace the older class system with a newer one that was faceless and bureaucratic, but no less oppressive. Stalin's view was one where the individual's needs are subverted to protect a collective authority enforced by the apparatchiks of the state. Marx valued the individual far more--to him, the erasure of the subject was capitalism's greatest crime.
It strikes me that your analysis must be based on an indirect theoretical interpretation of Left Hegelianism. I infer from your comments that you haven't actually encountered Hegel directly. So: a specific question or two about your logic here, which I'm hoping you can clarify for me.
1. How do you get from teleology (the end of history) to a blank slate? One is a historical interpretation of the Hegelian dialectic. The other sounds like enlightenment liberalism, not left Hegelianism--though "tabula rasa" could be aristotelian for all it matters. In fact, it seems to me like the existence of the dialectic contradicts the notion of human nature as a blank slate.
2. That humans can be the producers of their own nature hardly sounds like the erasure of the individual that you seem to fear.
For my money, Marx wasn't a bad guy. He was optimistic--and as for history, he was wrong--demonstrably wrong in hindsight. But his heart was in the right place.
Stalin? Pure evil. Mao? Castro? These are/were not good people. Whatever ideological flag they chose to rap themselves in doesn't change that.