Marxism or Socialism?
Marxists often claim that Marxism is scientific in nature. It is based on materialism and they can refer to the initial successes of the former Soviet Union in the field of science and technology as evidence. A systematic consideration of pertinent facts suggests that this is not true.
This was written (initially) in response to an article written by Joseph Stalin: see Anarchism-or-Socialism (http://www.marx2mao.org/Stalin/AS07.html).
Marxism assumes the whole to be more important in the relationship of ‘part to whole’ and seeks to manipulate the whole rather than the part. Stalin writes in his article:
The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated.
A fallacy in this argument is the assumption that ‘the masses’ is an entity whose existence is independent of individuals. This is contrary to the fact that ‘masses’ or society a group of individuals and is, in significant part, formed by individuals on the basis of common interests and goals.
To the dismay of Marxists (delight, surely? wouldn’t they rather anarchists agreed with them?), we would not count this as a fallacy as we do realize that human beings, being highly social animals, are heavily dependent on the unseen bonds of what we call “society”. So, that aside, should we examine the part or the whole?
Let us first ask ourselves what the primary goal or motive that leads us to consider any form of socialism. To reform society? There are lots of reasons.One goal is to find a solution for a system. Sorry, what does this mean? Do you mean a system of government? Whatever our solution may be, it must somehow manipulate the system to arrange it in an orderly fashion. Why? What about SelfOrganisation?
So wouldn’t it be a logical and scientific approach to emphasise the ‘whole’ rather than the ‘part’, as the second would be manipulated indirectly as we manipulate the whole?
Here lies the actual problem: MarxIsts ignores that the one manipulating the whole is not an outsider to this whole but himself a part of it.
( Another problem here is that there are many other people trying to manipulate “the whole” at the same time, often by manipulating “the part”. Secondly, the most obvious ways to manipulate the whole is with a) totalitarian control (as used by Stalin) or b) highly centralised influence (e.g. television) )
( What is the source of this quote? Stalin?)
Taking this point into consideration, our answer for the previously stated question would most certainly be ‘no’. It would be illogical for the part to manipulate the whole. (Why?) Recalling that we are talking of humans here, we also realize that it would be extremely unethical as well. So the Marxists’ approach of manipulating the whole of society rather than the part is flawed. ( This argument (minus the stuff about logic) can be used against NorthAmerican-like influence-based OligArchy. )
The reader should note that AnArchists do not, after showing other’s solution to be flawed, think of their solution as flawless.
Let us now analyze the Anarchist’s approach of ‘manipulating the part to manipulate the the whole’.
Reconsidering the points presented before ( Which ones? ), Anarchism seems both logical and ethical. We could be wrong in our LogicalDeduction s as there may be many ImplicitFallacies in our RationalArgument s.
Thus, it would be better to turn to PracticalExperience s and PracticalExperiment s.For this purpose, we begin our search for the approach adopted by most of the scientists of our time.
The whole and part in PhysicalScience
In our search, we find that it is the Nanotechnology which is thought by some scientists to be the key for bringing all our dreams of a new SocialOrder to reality.One approach in science to manipulate the matter that the MaterialIst believes exclusively constitutes the universe is by controlling individual atoms, not the matter of which they are part. The manipulation of atoms en-masse by scientists has been happening for a long time. Chemists have added together elements, removed atoms and added them, but only by the billions or billions of billions. All of these manipulations have occured homogeniously. This is where the difference comes: society is very far from homogeneous, and Stalin sought to introduce a homogeneous system of control.
Looking at all this, we are not only surer of the scientific nature of AnarchIsm, but we also come to realize that the logical basis of the MarxIst’s approach is in doubt, even if the one manipulating the whole is not considered a part of it. (Why is it in doubt, sorry? Have I missed something?)
In his campaign against anti-AuthoritArian ideas within the First International, KarlEngels asked, in a letter written in January 1872, “how do these people [the anarchists] propose to run a factory, operate a railway or steer a ship without having in the last resort one deciding will, without a single management?”
This line and the next should be deleted as soon as this article is nearing completion.
Summary of sections
- how can part -> whole DONE
- Centralized vs de-centralized systems
- FreeSoftware (example)
- NanoTechnology (example) DONE
TakeDown.NET -> “Marxism-OR-Socialism”