Thread by @AlsoACarpenter

“How am I working from Marxist categories?”

“Because you argue from the Marxist category of oppressor vs. oppressed.”

This is getting old. What follows is a long (though rough and much too short) summary of Marx and the place of “oppressor/oppressed" in his system. 1/

2/ To begin with, it is a mistake to see Marx’s system as moral philosophy, a set of desired goals, or a prescription for justice. It is, at bottom, a Hegelian project of description and explanation.

3/ Marx is attempting to explain the whole breadth of human history, its teleology, and eschatology. Just as Hegel described all human history in terms of dialectical forces driving mankind toward the discovery of Spirit/Mind, ending the individual’s alienation from the same, ...

4/ ... so Marx describes all human history in terms of a material dialectic, ending with man realizing his gods, ideologies, etc., are simply products of mankind’s alienation from his own material self—the only real being.

5/ In Marx’s system, the basic, existential, human question, endeavor, nature (whatever) is the means of his own material existence. There will be no religion or philosophizing if man does not eat (to put it crudely).

6/ Thus, all other human endeavors and ideologies of necessity flow from this. Marx argues from history that the means/materials of production—i.e., the tools, materials, labor, etc.—determine the mode of production, i.e., the organization of labor and productive methods, ...

7/ ... like slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, etc. Further, and most importantly, the “ideology” or “superstructure” of social existence is born from and reinforces the superstructure. Thus, religion, philosophy, science, mathematics, art, etc., all exist as ...

8/ ... necessary products of the mode and organization of production in one’s given place in history. As the materials of production change, the modes change, and the ideological superstructure changes as a result.

9/ Each new epoch of history results from dialectical forces inherent in the mode of production which lead to conflict and change, man steadily moving toward the realization and ultimate destruction of his own self-alienation.

10/ Marx locates his own epoch in the story as the, sort of, penultimate step in this progress. The mode of production, Capitalism, though able to produce vast amounts of goods, has its own inherent dialectic wherein the minority bourgeoisie extract “surplus labor” from the ...

11/ ... majority proletariat, ultimately leaving the latter impoverished, dehumanized, and alienated from his own life (his labor). Religion, philosophy, art, science, are all necessary by-products of this system, in the form that they are found at the time;

12/ ... both products and reinforcements of the system, contributing to its preservation. But the inherent dialectic—man alienated from his own material existence by the mode of production and its superstructure—is, as always, tenuous and ultimately leads to own destruction,

13/ ... in this case, the self-consciousness of the proletariat, inevitably resulting in the overthrow of the system and advancement into the eschaton community.

14/ In short, Marxism was not a system that developed philosophy around the idea of breaking up society into oppressor and oppressed, arguing that the former are bad and the latter good, and then working out from there.

15/ Rather, the oppressor/oppressed narrative operates only within the critique of the current mode of production, capitalism. Oppressor/oppressed is not a multi-applicable concept, it is the specific economic relationship between the capitalists and the workers inherent ...

16/ ... in the current mode of production, which itself is simply the necessary result of the current materials/means of production. Further, Marx builds no moral system around this specific critique of this specific mode of production.

17/ It is an active debate among Marxist scholars whether he even had or advanced a concept of justice at all! Justice, many argue from Marx, is part of the superstructure and is only meaningful within a system where retribution is necessary as a result of the materials and ...

18/ ... mode of production. Further, it is this precise point of Marx’s system that has almost universally been rejected.

19/ The Frankfurt School (and the like) were actually born in response to the failure of Marx’s eschatological predictions to materialize when supposedly all the pieces were in place.

20/ And last, there are some generally ideas that have endured from Marx’s system that are of undoubted value to sociological explanation, e.g., the very idea that the brass tacks existence of individuals trying to feed themselves and their family might in many cases drive ...

21/ ... their aesthetic appreciation and religious dedications as much, sometimes more, than their dispassionate objective reasoning from eternal principles.

22/ I for one am very comfortable arguing that the integration of race-based chattel slavery and Southern Christian society had much to do with folks’ theological commitments at the time, even though they may appear totally unrelated.

23/ I also believe that much of our cultural taste reflects something like the “fetishism of commodities,” in large part due bourgeoisie the necessity of accumulating capital, contrary to most agrarian, tribal societies of the past (for example).

24/ But I entirely reject the historical materialism of Marx, his dialectic, his eschatology, and his deterministic relationship between materials of production, mode of production, and ideological “superstructure.”

25/25 As a historico-eschatological description, Marx’s system directly contradicts the Biblical historico-eschatological description—and more importantly, the ethical requirements & redemptive provision of the latter.

I hope this was helpful, & that Marx scholars will be nice.

Tweet #20: *general (not generally)

Tweet #22: Meaning, synthesizing Southern "Christian" society with race-based slavery drove some theological development.