A brief explanation of what Marxism is, its criticisms and refutations of those criticisms.

A brief explanation of what Marxism is, its criticisms and refutations of those criticisms.

Previous Article"Why I, a non-Marxist, study Marx: Marx as a Religious Phenomenon."I talked about Marx in the following section, and will be updating this blog with articles about Marx for some time to come.

So in this article, we will look again at what Marxism is in the first place, and we will also look at criticisms of it and counter-criticisms of it.

This article was written by Masashi Jinno.Theater of World History: The Russian RevolutionIt is.

The reason why I used this book instead of a Marx reference is that the author of this book is a world history instructor at Kawaijuku, and in this book he takes a critical stance toward Marxism.

Marxism" written by Marxists is inevitably a glorification of Marx.

Rather, I thought that a commentary by a non-Marxist would be a better way to get a sense of how Marxism is generally perceived.

And then it would be better to see how Marxists would argue against it, so that each side's position would be clearer.

I believe that by looking at these two, we can see the main points of each argument and each other's weaknesses and problems.

Jono's commentary is written for people with no knowledge of Marx, so it is very easy to understand.

By reading this, you will learn a rough idea of what Marxism is.

This time, all I have are long quotations, but I would like to read them carefully, even though they are long, because it would be difficult to understand Marxism if I summarize it too shortly and simply.

So let's get started.

*By the way, please refer to the following article for a reintroduction of Marx's reference books.

What is socialism in the first place? What is the difference between imaginary socialism and scientific socialism?

In the first place, the modernsocialismsocialismHa,capitalismcapitalismThey are like "children" who are born as "parents" but rebel against their "parents" and try to eat them to death.

capitalismcapitalismIn Europe in the 16th century, just after the beginning of the modern era, the "industrial revolution" began to take off with the Reformation, and grew with the progress of the "first industrial revolution" that emerged in England in the 18th century.

Indeed, the Industrial Revolution brought enormous wealth to society.

However, it is not as if society as a whole has been enriched by it.

Respect for the individual (individualismindividualism), a mindset that values freedom (liberalismliberalism) basedcapitalismcapitalismIn the "just because.capitalistbourgeoisOnly the wealth of the company is monopolized by the company,laborer (labourer)proletarianwill continue to lose weight and decay.

-The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

The social problems that were rapidly becoming more and more serious were the result of the scripture that says, "The world will not be saved....

In response to this, in the 19th century, one after another voices of reform emerged to resolve this social contradiction.

From the United KingdomradiusRobert.. Owen, from France.sadistsun. Count Simon,cCharles.. Fourier, andpPierre..JJoseph.Prudhon.

Initially, their thinking was that "communismcommunismIt was sometimes referred to as "the 'radicalism' of the past," but it was accompanied by a negative image of "radicalism," "impracticality," "extremism," and "dangerous ideology," aspects that made it difficult for it to penetrate the public.

At such a time,pPierre.. A man named Leroux insists.

-We have always practiced "individualism," which emphasizes the importance of each individual in society, and believes that if each individual is happy, then society as a whole will be better off.
However, this quickly turns into selfishness, and it does not work. Recently, however, there have been those who have turned the tables and are calling for "a wonderful structure for society itself, so that each and every one of the people living in that society will be happy. Let us call this "socialism.

."communismcommunismThey disliked the dangerous-sounding name of the "Dangerous", and this easy-to-hear "Dangerous" was the first time they had heard it.socialismsocialismSince then, he has jumped on the word "socialist (person)socialismbegan to call itself "the Thus, around the 1830s, mainly in France, the modernsocialismsocialismwas born.

Listen up, everyone!
The main reason the world has become such a mess is all because of "private ownership"!
If only there were no "private ownership," there would be no difference between the rich and the poor. Therefore, if we build a society without private ownership, a society in which all property is shared by the entire society, the world will be a wonderful place!

However.

The title is admirable, but they could not answer the very fundamental question, "Then, how exactly can we build this 'ideal society'? They could not answer the very fundamental question, "Then, how exactly can we build this 'ideal society'?

-Well, that's the holle,capitalistbourgeoisThe benefits and mercy of the

If only a whole society could be like a brotherhood, where everyone is like a brother and helps each other...

All of them are too fanciful, delusional, and unrealistic.

To begin with,capitalistbourgeoisIf there was such a thing as "grace and mercy" in the world, we would not have such a miserable society as "hungry ghosts devouring dead flesh" from the beginning.

If the society as a whole could be "like brothers in arms," there would be no need for communization in the first place.

It is absolutely absurd.

Newly bornsocialismsocialismwas this childish.

While they were indulging in such "delusions," the "Second Industrial Revolution" eventually emerged (1870s~), and with it,capitalismcapitalismwill also move to the third stage, "monopoly (financial) capitalism.

capitalismcapitalismThe social disorder was further exacerbated by the upgrading of the "new" version of the "old" version, and the gap between the rich and the poor continued to widen.

enemycapitalismis because it has been upgraded,ourselvessocialismmust also be upgraded!

The demands of this social background led to the creation of thescientific...Socialism".

fFriedrich. Engels exclaims.

The socialist argument so far has been very "socialist.imaginaryutopianIn the "In!
They are simply trying to impose their "ideal image" on society!
Socialism in the future must be more rational, logical, and scientific, and we must think in concrete terms about how socialism can be achieved!

Thus,kcurl. Marx andfFriedrich. Engels both stated that socialism was "a .imaginaryutopianfrom ".scientificscientificIt was upgraded to "the first time I saw the world," which was eventually introduced into Russia and branched out into Menshevism, Leninism, and Trotskyism.

Bele Press, Masashi Jinno, Sekai Shishi Gekijo, Roshia Kakumei no Gekijo (World History Theatre: The Violent Shake of the Russian Revolution), p. 17-22

While it is difficult to understand what the difference is between socialism and communism, this explanation was very easy to understand and appreciated.

It was on the basis of this ideological history that Marx and Engels were born.

What is Marxism - Its Beginnings

It was born as a refutation of the "unreality" of fantastical socialism.scientific...It was "socialism. The aberrant ideology of this scientific socialism was "Marxism," and the socialist revolutions that took place in various parts of the world in the 20th century were all either Marxism or a subgenre derived from it.

Therefore, to reiterate, without an understanding of Marxism, there can be no understanding of the Russian Revolution and the 20th century. Therefore, in this section, we will take a closer look at Marxism and what kind of ideology it is.

The protagonist of this act, K. H. Marx, was a Jew born and raised in Germany.

At the young age of 24, he became editor-in-chief of the "Rhine Newspaper," but because of the "anti-government" tone of his articles, he was singled out by the government as a dangerous ideologue, and the following year he was forced to leave the paper and flee his homeland for Paris.

Paris at that time was the cradle of "imaginary socialism.

As he developed a friendship with these fantastical socialists, he also developed a distrust of them.

It was also around this time that I met my lifelong friend F. Engels.

However, because he did not cease his antigovernment activities even after his exile in Paris, he was pursued by the governments of other countries and forced to live in exile from Paris to Brussels, back to Paris again after the February Revolution, then to Cologne, and then to Paris ...... three times. He was forced to live in exile.

And so, the last place I arrived at was London.

After settling down in London, he spent every day at the London Library, reading economic books from morning to night and immersing himself in research.

Well.

As Marx studied British economics day and night at the London Library, he realized something.

Hmm?　Whenever an era is born anew, it is always accompanied by a revolution!
Is this a coincidence?

So we will look at this point in more detail.

With the passing of the Middle Ages and the dawn of the Early Modern period, the political system in Western Europe shifted from "feudalism" to "absolutism," and with this change in the political system, the economic system was dragged along with it.trade...We are moving to "capitalism".

This book does not go into much detail, but the political system "absolutism" that emerged at the beginning of this modern era and the economic system "trade...Capitalism" is one of two things, two sides of the same coin, a "double-headed eagle," so to speak.

Therefore, in the swell of the times, when "absolutism" eventually collapsed and "liberalism" shifted, the economic system followed suit and became "liberal" as well.trade...From "capitalism" to "industry...The transition to "capitalism" is underway.

At that time, when the transition is from absolutism to liberalism, it is a "civil revolution",
trade...When you move from capitalism to industrial capitalism, you have an "industrial revolution",
Both are interspersed with "revolutions".

So what about this next step?

Exactly 100 years after the first industrial revolution, the second industrial revolution emerged from the United States and Germany, and with it, an economic system calledindustry...From "capitalism" to "monopolization...(financial) capitalism".

This time, as in the past, the economic system is moving to a new stage, interrupted by the "Industrial Revolution. Then, as if dragged along by this transition, the political system also moved from "liberalism" to "imperialism.

Here, K. Marx thinks.

Perhaps, when an economic or political system moves to the next stage, it is always accompanied by a revolution?

Various thoughts and knowledge intersected, and in his mind, he connected this with the dialectic of Hegel's philosophy, which he had been fascinated with in his youth.

Bele Press, Masashi Jinno, Sekai Shishi Gekijo, Roshia Kakumei no Gekijo (World History Theater: The Violent Shake of the Russian Revolution), p. 34-38

Marx and Hegel's Dialectic and Against Marxism

I see!
That's what that was all about!

He opens his eyes. According to Hegel's dialectic, everything that develops, grows, and changes must be "agreater (of equal court ranks)statement→directional marker or indicatorfor kimonos: at least 10 m in lengthantithesis→directional marker or indicatorone-tenth of the way from the base to the summit of a mountainsynthesis (in semiconductor technology)He said that progress will be made in the

Since there are no exceptions there, the "monopoly capitalism" that is currently afflicting people "is no less so!" This is what it means.

trade...While capitalism repeats the movement of "positive one-anti-single-unit"industry...Spawned capitalism,
that (something or someone distant from the speaker, close to the listener)industry...Capitalism also repeats the "positive one-against-one-agreement" whilemonopolization...It was only spawning capitalism, he said.

In other words.

He believed that once an era or system is born, it always follows a path of "development," "maturity," and "confusion," and that this "corruption and confusion" would be the "energy source (anti)" that would give birth to the next new era.

To put it another way, an egg hatches into a chick, the chick grows up to become a chicken, and when it matures, the next egg is finally laid.

Just as "chicks" do not suddenly lay eggs,
No matter how much people want to usher in a "new era," no matter how hard they try, no matter how determined they are, institutions that are still in the developmental stage will not suddenly move on to the next stage.

On the other hand, just as a mature chicken always lays eggs, no matter how much we wish to protect the old era, no matter how armed we are, no matter how much we want to protect the old era, no matter how much we want to protect the old era. and no matter how much we wish to arm ourselves,
Once corruption and chaos have progressed and a certain amount of "energy" has built up, no number of people will be able to stop the new era from coming.

There is no room at all for conceptual things such as "desire," "reason," or "spirit.

Whether people want it or not, whether they strive for it or not, a new era will come if the conditions for its birth are in place, and it will never come if the conditions are not in place.

It just works mechanically and physically. That's how it is.

Let me get this straight,

greater (of equal court ranks)statement・・・・Old period (old system)

for kimonos: at least 10 m in lengthantithesis...The energy of rebellion that arises from the corruption and chaos that occurs at the end of an era.

sublation (philosophy)pick up... Revolution

one-tenth of the way from the base to the summit of a mountainsynthesis (in semiconductor technology)New Era (New System)

I guess it's like....

K. Marx thinks.

It is clear that the current "monopoly capitalism" has already passed its maturity stage and is in the terminal stage of corruption and confusion!
Behold!
Right now, there are voices of discontent and resentment (anti) swirling in every corner of society!
In time, the cessation will take the form of a "revolution!

So what specific form will the coming "revolution" take?

There, there, you see, he is a socialist,
Of course, this will take the form of a "socialist revolution!
... and conclude.

He calls what is commonly called the "civil revolution" the "bourgeois democratic revolution" and the coming "revolution to overthrow capitalism" the "proletariat socialist revolution," and concludes.

When the "socialist revolution of the proletariat" is overcome, the "communist stage," a paradise on earth without discrimination, class, rulers, exploitation, war, and the gap between rich and poor, will soon arrive!

However, even he, an opportunist, did not seem to think that "paradise on earth" would appear at once,

One would sandwich an "excessive phase" between capitalism and communism, bridging it.

I thought....

His words give dreams and hope to workers who were forced to live a hard and painful life.

I see." Almost there!
Paradise on Earth is almost here!

However.

Unfortunately, his theories were not in line with workers' expectations, but were full of twists and turns and self-contradictory.

As we have already mentioned many times, the fundamental philosophy of his theory is "dialectical materialism.

In other words, the "human mind (spirit)," its movement of "hopes and desires," and "efforts," which are manifested in actions, have nothing to do with the developmental stage of society. The "spirit" of a person, the "hopes and aspirations" that move them, and the "efforts" that manifest themselves in action have nothing to do with the stage of social development.

Society only moves mechanically with the dialectic of "positive one-against-one".

However, when you get down to the nitty-gritty of this idea, "Marxian theory" itself inevitably ends up having no raison d'etre.

This is because whether or not Marx's theory exists, whether or not it has been published, whether or not people know about it, and whether or not people make revolutions based on it, society moves inorganically based on the dialectic, regardless of such matters.

And if the "time to come" has not yet arrived, no matter how much people aspire, desire, strive, and revolutionize based on Marxian theory, it will all be in vain,
On the contrary, when the "time" comes, the revolution will surely succeed, even if Marx's theory does not exist in the world.

The theory that Marx spent his life constructing has absolutely no significance or meaning in this world.

It is a complete denial of self-existence.

Also, from past experience,
trade...From the capitalist phase through the "revolution",industry...To the capitalist phase
industry...From the capitalist phase through the "revolution",monopolization...To the capitalist phase
Then, in the near future, "we will move from the monopoly capitalist stage to the socialist stage through a 'revolution'!
I understand that you predicted that the next step would be the same, but then, of course, the next step will also be the same,
From the socialist stage, through the "revolution" to the communist stage!
...should be.

Nevertheless, Marx,
Only there," he says, "will the transition take place peacefully, without going through a revolution.

Since they themselves have rejected the "main principles" that had been established up to that point, clear arguments are necessary, but they do not explain the reasons for their rejection.

Further.

The communist phase thus realized is,
A paradise without discrimination, without class, without rulers, without exploitation, without war, without rich and poor, for eternity."
...and claims that this is also a self-denial of his own theory.

In Marxian theory, since the dawn of human history, there have been endless
He argues that the "positive," "negative," and "congruence" have been repeated, and through "establishment," "development," "maturity," and "confusion," the "new stage" has been reached.

Then, of course, there is the communist phase,

It should go through "establishment→development→maturity→confusion" while repeating "right→wrong→agreement," and then stop at a new stage.

Why does the communist phase, as the only exception to the rule, "go on forever" ignoring the dialectic?

Of course, the reasons for this must be clearly stated based on scientific analysis and consideration of how communist societies work.

However, K. Marx did not answer any questions about that either.

Rather than.

Surprisingly, he has not done any "scientific analysis of communist society" itself in the first place.

Since you call yourself "scientific," of course you must have a capitalist and communist system.scientific...I wondered if you have at least analyzed, compared and contrasted, and considered "what is the advantage of the communist system over capitalism?

Just because,

A paradise without discrimination, without class, without rulers, without exploitation, without war, without rich and poor, for eternity."

The only thing that he does is to flicker the "seductive words" of "I'm a good person, but I don't know what I'm going to do.

Why will there be no more discrimination, no more classes, no more rulers, no more exploitation, no more wars, no more rich and poor?

Why does it continue forever?

There is no explanation for this.

Thus, his theory,

1. Apply the law of convenience separately to the convenient part,

2. no mention is made of the self-contradictions that result from it.

It was extremely incomplete: ・・・・.

However.

Still, if every "prophecy" in his book came true, the above "criticism" would be blown away.

After his death, his close friend F. Engels published the second and third volumes based on the manuscripts while "deciphering" them.

The clear answers to these criticisms were written in the manuscripts, but perhaps Engels was just unable to "decipher" them.

So, did his "prophecy" come true?

It was 1917, 34 years after his death.

Finally, the socialist revolution (November Revolution) broke out in Russia and capitalism was overthrown.

It is exactly as he predicted.

However.

How bad is the country where the revolution took place.

He is,

The socialist revolution will come from the "most mature capitalist societies" such as England and France!

... and predicted.

As I have stated over and over again, society is a society,
The dialectical development of "positive -> anti -> congruent" is repeated,
After "establishment, development, maturity, and disruption," it should finally rise to the next stage.

There is only one road.

Marx's fundamental philosophy is that all countries in the world must follow this path without exception, and that a second or third path is completely unthinkable.

From the standpoint of Marx's theory, it would have been "absolutely impossible" for the new government to have jumped from one stage of its "establishment" to the next.

However.

That "absolutely impossible" thing suddenly became a reality with the "Russian Revolution.

At the time, when the success of the Russian Revolution was announced, Marxists around the world rejoiced enthusiastically, saying, "Marxism has triumphed! But in fact, the Russian Revolution was the "gravestone" of Marxism.

According to Marx,
Once a socialist revolution has succeeded, the last thing you want to do is to be a victim of it,
The rest will go through the socialist phase and then straight to the utopia!
There, there are no side streets at all!

The success of the Russian Revolution was supposed to be the start of socialist revolutions all over the world. Socialist revolutions began to take place all over the world.

The socialist states that have emerged from the ranks have all been a hellish hellscape, with not a shadow of an "utopia" to be seen.

These "historical facts" exposed the fact that Marx's theory was fundamentally wrong for the entire 20th century.

Bele Press, Masashi Jinno, Sekai Shishi Gekijo, Roshia Kakumei no Gekijo (World History Theater: The Violent Shake of the Russian Revolution), p38-49.

And immediately after this, the author sums it up in a column as follows

Where were Marx's mistakes and errors?

Marx's mistake

Where did Marx go wrong?

For one thing, as we have seen in this act, Marx's theory was based on "materialist history.

History moves mechanically and physically, without any regard for the "human mind," "will," or "desire.

This is the kind of nonsense that no serious historian would take seriously today, but Marxism was built on such a foundation, which was a "mistake" in the first place.

In other words.

Marxism was "wrong from its starting point".

More to the point.

To begin with, this materialist view of history is based on Hegel's "dialectic," and that dialectic is based on "rationalism.

Reason is wonderful! Reason is all-powerful! Reason is impossible!

Marx constructed Marxism by fully utilizing only his own "reason" and repeating "thought experiments" in his own mind alone, because this "rationalist" philosophy was at the root of Marxism.

However.

That is "overpraise" at best.

It is true that human reason may not be "abandoned.

However, it is also not as admirable as it is praiseworthy.

What one person thinks only in his/her head is full of "holes," of course, but Marx, who blindly believed in the "universalism of reason," could not even understand such a simple thing.

Rather than being "wrong from the starting point," Marxism was "already wrong long before it stood at the starting point."

Bele Press, Masashi Jinno, Sekai Shi Shi Shi Gekijo, Roshia Kakumei no Kensetsu [World History Theater: The Violent Shake of the Russian Revolution], p. 50.

Masashi Jinno's commentary on Marxism, criticisms and possible rebuttals to it from the Marxist side.

Although some of the criticisms were quite harsh, I think that by reading Mr. Jono's commentary, you could get a rough outline of Marxism.

However, as those of you who have been following this blog for some time now will understand, I have been reading with the intention of avoiding relying solely on one side's view as much as possible.

Indeed, Jono's explanation is easy to understand.

However, if you take it for granted, you may miss something important. (In fact, there are some questionable points in this explanation as well.)

The important thing is to take what is said here as a clue and from there look at Marx from an even different perspective. Jono also states in this World History Theater series, "It is important not to take history for granted, but to think for oneself.

I started reading Marx related books last summer of 2021.

The most common objection from the Marxist side is,

Marx is innocent, Lenin, Stalin, and others only used Marx, and it is they, not the Soviet Union, who are to blame. Even though the Soviet Union created concentration camps and purged many people, or because the Soviet Union collapsed, that is not Marx's fault. They misuse Marx and the world does not know the true Marx. The teachings of the true Marx are not in error today."

It is called.

This is also the case with "The Life and Thought of Marx" by John Lewis, published in Japan in 1973, and by Francis Wiener, which came out in 2002.The Life of Karl Marx."This is also the case in Japan. Recently in Japan, "Capitalism in the New Age" by Kohei Saito and others take this position.

Jono and many others have stated that Marxism was proven to be a failure by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Others criticize Marx's theory itself and question its contradictions.

However, when the economic depression actually comes and people's lives become difficult, Marxism always comes back to life. Each time, the Marxist side says, "This is what true Marxism is. Marxism is the true Marxism and what Marx really meant. If we do not follow this teaching, the world will collapse. That is why Marxism is right.

This trend clearly exists, and the fact is that Marx-related books are selling well in Japan today as well.

According to Jono's commentary, Marx is a totally unreliable thinker today.

Yet, in fact, it still attracts many people. What does this mean?

Furthermore, even if it is considered "unbelievable" today, it was once seriously believed throughout the world. It was a fascinating theory and worldview that deserved to be believed by the people of that time. Why did Marx's teachings attract so many people?

That is what we are going to try to figure out in this blog.

Mr. Jono's explanations are very easy to understand. I found it very informative. However, I would like to think carefully about what Marxism actually is, including the historical background, rather than just take it for granted and be done with it.

I cannot draw any conclusions at this stage, but I personally do not agree with the use of Marxism as an "ideology".

But as a thinker who lived in 19th century Europe, his life and ideas are still of an extraordinary scale.

We believe that there is always something that can be seen through studying his thought and life.

From this point forward, this blog will"Learning from the Life and Thought Background of Marx Engels."We will be updating our articles on the subject. The first of these articles is below.

Over the course of 69 issues, we will take a close look at the life and ideological background of Marx and Engels. We hope you will continue to stay with us.

The above is an example of what Marxism is, its criticisms and refutations of those criticisms.

Next Article.

Click here to read the previous article.

Related Articles