Excerpt from: Deconstructing Karl Marx & Communism
No matter how loosely or stringently one interprets Marx’s theory of economic determinism – be it as the dominant ideologies reflecting the ruling classes’ material interests, or as meaning that each mode of production corresponds to a trademark superstructure – it constitutes a discrediting metaphysical problem for Marxism as a communist benchmark.
The economic determinism of The German Ideology states that the “dominant ideas” of every epoch are nothing more than “the dominant material relations grasped as ideas,” in other words: the ideas of the ruling classes – the people who control the means of production. Besides the dominant ideas, there exist other ideas as well (such as revolutionary ideas). The power imbalance between rulers and the ruled eventually leads to the formation of a large, exploited class. This class keeps the system running but enjoys none of its benefits; from it “emanates the consciousness of the necessity of a fundamental revolution.” Marx adds that this “communist consciousness” may arise in other classes too, “through the contemplation of the situation of this class.” Thus, all non-proletarian communist theories are legitimized as developed by the intellectual class in contemplation of the material conditions of said exploited class.
The power dynamic is clear: the ruling classes (capitalists, bourgeoisie) have the dominant ideas justifying their material supremacy, and revolutionary ideas brood among the oppressed class (the proletariat). Both sets of ideas are determined by the economic conditions of the respective parties.
However, this power imbalance will be flipped upside down as soon as the proletariat emerges victoriously from the revolution. Instead of slaving away for pennies, the revolutionaries will have seized the means of production: all private property belongs to them now. If Marx’ theory of economic determinism indeed describes a law; if the ideology of a class is determined by its material conditions, then the ideology of the victorious revolutionaries is bound to transform to correspond to their newfound riches – or at least be re-interpreted. In accordance with the law of economic determinism, more self-serving ideas come to determine the thinking of the new ruling class, just as it always has in the past.
Marx’ theory of economic determinism perfectly explains why all communist revolutions have ended in dictatorships and why they failed to establish “real communism”: As soon as their material conditions changed, the thinking of the revolutionaries changed accordingly (including the Marxist idea that the proletarian dictatorship must abolish itself).
Marx at one point believed that electricity would be the material productive force that would come into conflict with the existing relations of production and lead to a social revolution. As we know now, electricity did not trigger a revolution – but some future new technology might. It is, however, as yet unknownwhich technology or “material productive force” will come into conflict with the relations of production. From this follows that it is impossible to predict the future mode of production, for the post-revolutionary mode of production will likely attribute a central role to this as-yet unknown revolution-triggering “material productive force”. Yet this is exactly what Marx does: he has already determined in advance that the future mode of production will be a communist one (characterized by communal ownership and labor freedom). Because economic determinism only describes a mechanism, it cannot predict outcomes of unknown factors. In other words, Marxism is an arbitrary determinism based on the wishful thinking of its author - not on the economic determinism it so ostentatiously propagates. The baselessness and self-contradictory nature of the predicted communist future within the Marxist conceptualization of the world has here been exposed.
If an as yet unknown material productive force will be central to the future mode of production then the superstructure, the ways of thinking, and the ideologies of that future world will necessarily “correspond” to that as yet unknown material productive force. What guarantees that our current communist theories will resemble the ideologies of the future world, when the economic premise from which they flow remains as yet unknown? Will future ideologies even be compatible with current communist views regarding private property, labor division, etc.? Will current communist theories conform to post-revolutionary reality? Marx’ economic determinism not only discredits his claims about the inevitability of communism, it nullifies the legitimacy of the idea that existing communist theories can reliably serve as a guide to communism.
The alternative is that Marx’ determinism has it wrong and Marxism can veritably lead the path to a truly communist world. This would mean that the doctrine of Marxism endures as an ideology despite a fundamental change in material conditions for the revolutionaries, and they would abolish labor division, private property, and all class distinctions in spite of having become the ruling group.* To phrase it differently, either Marxism cannot function as a doctrinal guide for communism, or Marx’ materialistic determinism is an erroneous theory. In the latter case we are left with the perplexing situation that an erroneous philosophical system would lead to communism.[1]
Marxists may retort by claiming: “It doesn’t matter whether the post-revolutionary ideology changes or not, Marxism can still serve as a doctrinal ‘midwife’ to speed up the arrival of communism. Marxism is proto-communism.” Of course, this statement can only be considered valid when the revolution indeed brings about “real communism”. But none of the revolutions that used Marxism as a doctrinal midwife have birthed a classless society – au contraire, after the revolution the communist ideology invariably turned into an excuse to consolidate the new leaders’ power and property, which proves our point – and, to some extent, Marx’ economic determinism.
As a last resort, or perhaps as a first, Marxists might proclaim the entire discussion invalid because revolutionary thought is an awakening of “real consciousness” (as opposed to alienated consciousness); guided by their awakened consciousness, revolutionaries are no longer bound by the dictates of economic determinism, which only describes the actions of an alienated species. But then why did the revolutionaries in all of previous history not establish a classless society if their thinking was liberated from alienation? With a classless society nowhere in sight after so many attempts, the claim that Marxist thinking would be a manifestation of any kind of “real consciousness” continues to be unsubstantiated.
If Marxism is an unstable precursor for communism, as it has certainly proven itself to be, then it also can’t be used as a criterion to distinguish “real communism” from “not real communism”.
Check out the blog
*Marx said the proletariat would rise as one great mass, and this mass would seize power as one. But this will never occur as such in practice: not everyone is equally brave or equally combative. just as every war has its heroes, warriors, and foot soldiers, there will always be a vanguard that takes the most risks and ultimately gains power. These are the revolutionary heroes who are lauded by the rest of the insurgents, even though they cheer for one another. But there will always be a vanguard, an elite group that fights the decisive battle. And this group alone will come to power in the first instance. What they thereafter do with their power should be determined by the law of economic determinism.
[1] The historical impact that Marxism has had on the world further disproves its materialistic conception of history; its worldwide influence has amply demonstrated that ideas do matter in determining history, and can even determine the economic base, as it did in the USSR, PRC, and other “communist” nations.