Letters

Petty bourgeois?

The letter by Steve Johns (Weekly Worker January 7) outlines three main areas of criticism of my analysis of the Economic and Philosophic Science Review journal. Firstly, the relationship between theory and the material world. Secondly, whether prediction is necessary for explaining political development. Thirdly, the character of sexuality.

In relation to the first point, in contrast to Johns’ claims, I was not trying to suggest that the conflict between different theories represents an idealist autonomy from the material world. On the contrary it is not possible to separate theories from the world: rather the conflict between different theories represents a divergent conceptual mediation and interpretation of the material world. Thus theory is ultimately related to different class interests.

The conflict between different theories occurs throughout all theoretical disciplines, such as between rigid Darwinists (Richard Dawkins) versus moderate (sceptical?) Darwinists (Stephen Jay Gould). The complexity and diversity of theories does not mean we have to become relativist and sceptical: it is still possible to make choices between them in rational terms. The capacity for cognition to make choices is an important reason why we choose to become Marxists in a world dominated by bourgeois ideology.

An additional question needs to be asked. Why is Marxism more coherent and intelligible than rival ideas and theories? My answer would be that Marxism has a better comprehension of the class struggle than rival theories. Marxism is not emphasising class struggle because of dogma, but can show that social structures represent exploitation and oppression that generate class struggle. This does not mean that Marxism is complete and represents absolute truth. Marxism can become one-sided and stagnant. The Marxist approach will only gain support if Marxists defend their perspectives in an open and flexible manner.

Thus in order to be convincing Marxists have to be prepared for dialogue, but to Johns dialogue with non-Marxists is just opportunism and conciliation. Thus Johns’ mention of Aristotle shows the EPSR’s rigid differentiation of theory into ‘Marxism versus reaction’. Aristotle is dismissed as an anti-Marxist thinker, which leads to an effective denial of his contribution towards the development of the law of value, and his role in the development of philosophy is also treated with contempt.

Johns argues that materialism recognises that before theory Marx got to know the world “through conflict, actual material struggle”. But what he is justifying is the view that knowledge at the level of appearance, sensation, experience and intuition is primary. However, this is not theoretical knowledge, and such a standpoint leads to subjective idealism. Marx and Engels had an intellectual background of Hegelianism, and this gave them the theoretical and political confidence to become active adherents in the struggle for bourgeois democratic political change. Subsequently, without this theoretical development it would not have been possible for them to have interpreted the beginning of capitalism in a revolutionary proletarian manner. Johns is reluctant to elaborate upon the intellectual context of the development of Marxism because it would show the limitations in his empiricist standpoint.

With regards to the second main area of criticism John argues: without prediction is capitalism unknowable? In reply I would suggest that an emphasis upon prediction is an expression of ideological consolation about the world, and represents the diversity of idealist illusions that have sustained religion and utopian socialism. In 1916 Lenin predicted that it may be a long time before the next Russian revolution, but getting this prediction wrong did not stop him from being a great revolutionary. Rather what is indicated it how foolish it was to make such a prediction. Bourgeois ideologues sometimes try to discredit Marxism on the basis of producing selective predictions by Marx about the relationship between economic crisis and revolution. This arbitrary procedure does nothing to tell us whether Marxism is an explanatory approach.

Johns maintains that Lenin’s theory of imperialism is connected very closely to prediction. Lenin considered the development of monopoly capital and finance capital as a structural representation of the intensification of the contradictions of capitalism, in particular the contradiction between the increased socialisation of production and the regressive private ownership of the means of production. Lenin’s perspective outlined the potential for international proletarian revolution in the short term, but this analysis did not represent prediction, which is inherently rigid, specific and impressionistic. Prediction is superficial because we can never control, or project what will happen in relation to, human actions in the future. Indeed, human actions can have many unintended consequences that show prediction is a pretext for wishful thinking, because prediction represents the illusion that human activity can defy objective problems and reach its self-proclaimed end.

Contrary to Johns’ claims I was not trying to suggest that it is not possible to understand capitalism. Rather I was arguing that prediction about the effects of crisis, decline and recession, can be virtually impossible because of the anarchic nature of capitalism. But this theoretical problem concerning the accuracy of prediction does not mean the crisis of capitalism cannot be explained. For example, possible causes of the crisis include the role of finance capital, the falling rate of profit and the decline of industrial capital, which has led to the decrease in the objective basis for the production of surplus value in the imperialist countries, and the end to the boom in the expanding capitalist countries. The significance of these developments is not yet generalised, and has not yet brought about trade war, which would signify the onset of global crisis. It is necessary to be cautious in relation to the conclusions of economic analysis. This is not in order to adapt to what exists, but to avoid subjective guesswork. For subjective analysis has more to do with generating false optimism than developing a scientific approach. Possibly one day the EPSR will be able to tell everyone, ‘We told you so’, but this will still not mean that their rigid predictive approach has explained why we have arrived at the situation we are in. Instead they will only be able to tell us that we have arrived.

Having read the EPSR closely for over two years, it presents a catastrophist stance that crisis can lead to trade war, war and the potential for revolution. This approach represents an emphasis upon objective processes that humans can do nothing to alter or modify. Thus the question not asked by the EPSR is: will the capitalist class do nothing in order to try and prevent the onset of world war and revolution? Has the imperialist bourgeoisie not learnt from two world wars, and countless smaller wars, that war leads to political instability and the prospect of revolution, whether this be proletarian or anti-imperialist revolution?

The third area of criticism made by Johns concerns my comment about the complexity involved with regards to understanding sexuality. I was trying to show that Roy Bull’s explanation was antiquated, unscientific and an accommodation to bourgeois ideology. Personally I do not have an alternative theory, because unlike Roy Bull I am not a theoretical expert on sexual orientation.

But one aspect of sexuality not mentioned by Roy Bull and Johns is love. Love is a central aspect of durable relations, and is obviously not limited to one type of sexuality. Human beings seem to have a basic need for love, and it is this need which can advance not only our understanding of sexuality, but also express an aspect of the potential for overcoming capitalism and establishing communism.

Phil Sharpe
Nottingham

Pointless game

In his article on Jesus (Weekly Worker December 17) Jack Conrad reaches the interesting conclusion that “Jesus was a brave - albeit ultra-left - revolutionary who wrongly staked all not on the masses, but a coup and outside intervention” (by the heavenly host of angels).

This conclusion, he admits, is based on “imagination and common sense” - ie, is not based on facts. It could not be, as there are not any. The only historical evidence we have for the existence of Jesus is the christians’ holy book they call the ‘new testament’, which was written more than 50 years - at least - after Jesus was supposed to have lived. But Conrad admits that this is so full of myths, legends, interpolations and redactions that it is quite unreliable as history.

It is, nevertheless, a historical document, but the only facts we can extract from it are that there was a person of that name who was a preacher and teacher in Galilee in the first century of our era. We could probably add that he called on his Jewish co-religionists to repent and change their ways, as the end of the world was nigh. Beyond this we can say nothing. We cannot say, as Conrad’s scenario posits, that he was proclaimed “king of the Jews”, nor that he was executed by the Romans, nor that he led a “mass movement”.

In fact, in view of the fact that he is not mentioned at all by the Jewish historian Josephus (except for forged insertions by later christian scribes), who wrote at the same times as the authors of the new testament, we can conclude that his movement and demise were not significant. Josephus mentions one incident concerning someone who Conrad would perhaps regard as another “brave ultra-left”, a certain Thaddeus, who, he said, tried to take over Jerusalem with only 300 followers. To not have rated a mention in Josephus, the historical Jesus must have been even less significant.

The materialist approach to christianity is not to join in the pointless game of trying to reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus (there is nothing to go on except speculation, but how can you choose between speculations?), but to explain the rise and triumph of the christian religion in Europe and the Middle East in Roman times or, rather, of a universalist religion based on the self-sacrifice of a saviour-god - since, had Jesus never existed, economic conditions would still have required the development of such a religion and we in Europe would have been taught over the past 1,700 years to worship, as the son of a god sent to save us, Mithras, Dionysus, Attis or even Thaddeus.

Adam Buick
West London

Defend Mumia

IBT comrades in Britain are helping to build a public meeting in defence of Mumia Abu-Jamal, to be held at Conway Hall at 7.30pm, Thursday January 28. There will be speakers, discussion from the floor and space for stalls. It is hoped that this meeting will be the launch of a united front coalition to organise further events in defence of Mumia.

Barbara Duke
IBT Britain/Marxist Bulletin

Fascist march

On Saturday January 9 the Nazis of the National Front held their third march against asylum-seekers in Dover. Despite having had barely three days’ notice, anti-fascists were able to mobilise some 60 people to oppose the fascists’ march along the seafront - twice the number mustered by the NF.

Despite the overwhelming police presence, thanks to the efforts of the anti-fascists it took the NF more than three quarters of an hour to march the half-mile from the Eastern Docks to the Western Docks.

The NF say that they intend to keep holding marches in Dover every few months. Local anti-fascists will keep on trying to stop them

Residents Against Racism
Dover