In Karl Marx's preface to a Contribution to the Critique of a Political Economy, there is not only the presence of apolyptic rhetoric but also the sense of the critique of apocalypticism. In this short but well thought out preface, we as readers get a real feel for Karl Marx's vision he possessed for the future of mankind and problems human beings maintain.
In this preface an a apocalyptic setting is sensed because of what Marx is preaching. Marx preaches that we the people will become angered by what the the bourgeois are doing (emanating individuals' social conditions of existence) to the proletariats and start a social revolution. This uprising will lead to a complete change in what Marx coins the "superstructure" or the form through which human subjectivity engages with the material substance of society.
Not only is apocalyptic rhetoric present, but also the presence of a critique of apocalypticism. What is present in this great preface is the feeling of a social uprising, yet at the same time, Marx critiques his own subjects of the revolution: mankind. He shows that mankind sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve since closer examination will always show that the problem arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation.
In conclusion, this fine work by Karl Marx really dwells on the bases of apocalyptic rhetoric. His way of writing really lets us readers sense that change is inevitable and we must be ready for it, yet his talent for critiquing really allows us readers to get on a higher level of intelligence. To read the work of a genius like Marx is truly eye-opening and tells us readers that social upheaval is coming.
Ryan I appreciate you bringing our attention back to Marx but in a critique of a possible apocalypticism. In doing this, our attention might be drawn back to the analysis of 'political economy' as it shows itself, and not as some imminently occurring event that is determined. In examining the political economy Marx states that, "The economic conditions of existence of the three great classes [bourgeoise, proletariat, landowning] into which modern bourgeois society is divided are analyzed under the first three headings [capital, landed property, wage-labor]." (p. 6)
ReplyDeleteMarx therefore at the offset critiques this notion of "We The People" for 'The People' are already divided into classes. Who are 'The People' in Marx who upon becoming "angry" at what the "bourgeoise" are doing to the "Proletariat" would then rise up and emancipate individual's social conditions of existence? In fact doesn't Marx state that, "My inquiry led me to the conclusion that neither legal relations nor political forms could be comprehended whether by themselves, or on the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but that on the contrary the originate in the Material Conditions of Life...the anatomy of this civil society, however, has to be sought in political economy." (p. 7)
So from Marx the very 'civil society' that we are all familiar with in the US, we call it 'The People', as in, "'The People' oppose the War' (spoken in legal or political forms) has to be analyzed given the relations of 'production, consumption', and 'law, politics, government' (political economy) that individuals of the three classes enter into with each other, and with the other classes.
"Mankind" as a collection of civil societies (of various Peoples as in 'We the Peoples of the UN'), or as a universal society itself (We Mankind of Earth) would fall into the same issues. So insofar as Marx is critiquing Mankind, he critiques the Ideological definitions of 'Mankind' which are written in bourgeois societies by the class that dominates (the bourgeoise) and thus refers to them and not to other classes (the proletariat), and in the process excluding and exploiting. The critique of apocalypticism lies this all too easy readiness to aggrandize our particular class consciousness onto the consciousnesses of all.
Ryan, first of all, try to come up with a better title next time (a little more probing, a little less generic). Our posts should not read like essays ("In conclusion") jammed into blog form; and they certainly do not have to pay over-the-top homage to the thinkers ("...a genius like Marx..."). I appreciate how you are trying to do justice to the reading, but I think you can make this appear a little less forced.
ReplyDeleteI'm intrigued with your claim: "His way of writing really lets us readers sense that change is inevitable and we must be ready for it, yet his talent for critiquing really allows us readers to get on a higher level of intelligence."—but I need a specific example or quotation to back this up. I'm not convinced that Marx wants people to "get on a higher lever of intelligence"—that sounds too much like a superstructural dalliance.
You state: "He shows that mankind sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve since closer examination will always show that the problem arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation." I want to know more about this "at least"—there seems to be a lot of gray room in between "already present" and "in the course of formation." Which is it, really, (or what stage of gray) do we detect in Marx's writing? Again, a direct quote would have helped.