This analysis implies that Marxism's stated goals and actual, secret goals were the same.
Take the Marxist definition of "worker" used by Marxist revolutionaries. We think of a guy with a wrench, but, somehow Trotsky considered himself a "worker" as well. Words used by these people do not mean what we think that they mean.
In short, this implies that Marxism was a mask for something else.
The consensus in France among Catholic thinkers has been that the goal of Marxism is the revolution itself. The analysis of the economic structure was to uncover the main agents of revolution. It was understood that the bourgeoisie had been the agents of revolution against the aristocracy in the period 1750 - 1850 and the analysis showed that the proletarians were the most likely agents after 1850. The first international was created to spread communist ideas throughout Europe and the world because Marx and his followers did not want to rely on the political haphazards of one country.
The French Catholic thinkers saw the commonalities between the age of bourgeois or liberal revolutions (the last one being in 1848) and the proposed proletarian revolution. They also warned that a sexual revolution might be proposed after the proletarian revolution because they had observed the corrosive effects of fornication during both the French and Russian revolutions and because women started to be presented as the oppressed group after the First World War : suffragette movements, formation of Planned Parenthood, opening of the first abortion clinics, legal challenge to paternal authority...
The popes Pius XI and XII did listen and pivoted against the nascent trend. However most governments were so anti-Christian by then that they paid no heed to admonestations of the popes.
Unfortunately the French Catholic thinkers were right. The goal is the revolution, no matter the agent.
Yes and no. As I argue (indeed it's one of the pillar arguments) in my (must read) book, The Managerial Class on Trial: objectively Marxism was/is an instant of managerial class ventriloquism. To that extent I'd agree. However, that doesn't change the fact that subjectively there were/are plenty of Hegelian Marxists who (operating however much without self-awareness) were/are true believers. They may not understand their objective historical class function, but they aren't merely cynical exploiters. I should know, I was once one of them. And, as I've pointed out repeatedly in posts on this substack, the majority of major managerial class theorists who have untangled all this were former Marxists who came to recognize (and usually reject) their objective historical class function as Hegelian Marxists.
>the battle lines are not through ownership of the means of production, but through control of the means of production
This is very basic and very important point. I first saw it in Jeffrey Pfeffer's book Power: one's power is measured by how much money one controls, not by how much money one makes.
Interestigly, he speaks almost exclusively about managerial power in the book, despite the generic title (and generic subtitle: "Why some people have it and others don't")
Very insightful. The reality of class conflict is undeniable, as is the urgency of addressing the dangers that the professional and managerial classes pose to organic communities, and we clearly need to understand it without recourse to the dogmatism and partisan posturing of 19th and 20th c. political pamphleteering.
IMO there is a major line of fracture between the oligarchs and the technocrats. The political economy of a re-industrialising society trying to balance the class and sectoral interests at work in a financialised economy has the potential for serious conflict between oligarchs and managers. State-capitalism does not need plutocrats any more than it does small investors, nor is it necessarily comfortable with entrepreneurs.
The regnant ideology (above all the equity agenda, with its support for affirmative action etc) serves to destabilise the professional and managerial classes. The Woke mania, the West's version of the Cultural Revolution, has a Maoist function and disrupts the cohesion and good order of the managers who threaten the ownership class. What, one wonders, will happen once the Woke mania has accomplished the racial and sexual diversification of the technocracy? How soon before the managerial class, highly conscious of it interests and missions, and radicalised by its war against the kulas and the plebs stabilises itself to the point where it is able to turn on its masters?
I see it a little differently. I think the woke thing is a tool of managerial liberalism, exploited by the managerial class to legitimize its own agenda of social control through bureaucratic paternalism and social engineering. However, it is true that there is a dialectical thing going on: to the extent the managerial class serves that ideology through the virtue signaling promotion of individuals based upon woke-cred rather than technical competence, they do threaten to corrupt the expertise-regime which is at the core of their identify and self-rationalization. So I agree there's something like that going on. Thanks for posting the thoughtful comment.
A great piece of writing here, Michael. I just received my shipment of The Managerial Class on Trial and I’m looking forward to the read. I already appreciate the font size choice; it’s easy on my old eyes without making me feel like I’m reading a child’s storybook. :-)
I am heading to Vancouver this morning and heading back Sunday morning. I was unable to figure out how to use Substack to send you a direct message. Nonetheless, I’m bringing all my copies in the hopes we can connect and you’d be kind enough to sign them for my friends. Maybe when I arrive in Vancouver later this afternoon, I’ll set up a Protonmail account so I can share it here. Meanwhile, back to packing...
I filled out the contact form and sent that late morning today. I made it finally; the traffic was brutal.
Funny how we can get so modest about certain things, right? I wonder if some of the authors whose work you reference would have reacted similarly? From my point of view, I think it’s a great personal touch and (whether true or not) ought to incentivize the recipients to read the book for meaning - carefully, in other words.
This analysis implies that Marxism's stated goals and actual, secret goals were the same.
Take the Marxist definition of "worker" used by Marxist revolutionaries. We think of a guy with a wrench, but, somehow Trotsky considered himself a "worker" as well. Words used by these people do not mean what we think that they mean.
In short, this implies that Marxism was a mask for something else.
Hi Rurik,
I read this belatedly.
The consensus in France among Catholic thinkers has been that the goal of Marxism is the revolution itself. The analysis of the economic structure was to uncover the main agents of revolution. It was understood that the bourgeoisie had been the agents of revolution against the aristocracy in the period 1750 - 1850 and the analysis showed that the proletarians were the most likely agents after 1850. The first international was created to spread communist ideas throughout Europe and the world because Marx and his followers did not want to rely on the political haphazards of one country.
The French Catholic thinkers saw the commonalities between the age of bourgeois or liberal revolutions (the last one being in 1848) and the proposed proletarian revolution. They also warned that a sexual revolution might be proposed after the proletarian revolution because they had observed the corrosive effects of fornication during both the French and Russian revolutions and because women started to be presented as the oppressed group after the First World War : suffragette movements, formation of Planned Parenthood, opening of the first abortion clinics, legal challenge to paternal authority...
The popes Pius XI and XII did listen and pivoted against the nascent trend. However most governments were so anti-Christian by then that they paid no heed to admonestations of the popes.
Unfortunately the French Catholic thinkers were right. The goal is the revolution, no matter the agent.
Yes and no. As I argue (indeed it's one of the pillar arguments) in my (must read) book, The Managerial Class on Trial: objectively Marxism was/is an instant of managerial class ventriloquism. To that extent I'd agree. However, that doesn't change the fact that subjectively there were/are plenty of Hegelian Marxists who (operating however much without self-awareness) were/are true believers. They may not understand their objective historical class function, but they aren't merely cynical exploiters. I should know, I was once one of them. And, as I've pointed out repeatedly in posts on this substack, the majority of major managerial class theorists who have untangled all this were former Marxists who came to recognize (and usually reject) their objective historical class function as Hegelian Marxists.
>the battle lines are not through ownership of the means of production, but through control of the means of production
This is very basic and very important point. I first saw it in Jeffrey Pfeffer's book Power: one's power is measured by how much money one controls, not by how much money one makes.
Interestigly, he speaks almost exclusively about managerial power in the book, despite the generic title (and generic subtitle: "Why some people have it and others don't")
Very insightful. The reality of class conflict is undeniable, as is the urgency of addressing the dangers that the professional and managerial classes pose to organic communities, and we clearly need to understand it without recourse to the dogmatism and partisan posturing of 19th and 20th c. political pamphleteering.
IMO there is a major line of fracture between the oligarchs and the technocrats. The political economy of a re-industrialising society trying to balance the class and sectoral interests at work in a financialised economy has the potential for serious conflict between oligarchs and managers. State-capitalism does not need plutocrats any more than it does small investors, nor is it necessarily comfortable with entrepreneurs.
The regnant ideology (above all the equity agenda, with its support for affirmative action etc) serves to destabilise the professional and managerial classes. The Woke mania, the West's version of the Cultural Revolution, has a Maoist function and disrupts the cohesion and good order of the managers who threaten the ownership class. What, one wonders, will happen once the Woke mania has accomplished the racial and sexual diversification of the technocracy? How soon before the managerial class, highly conscious of it interests and missions, and radicalised by its war against the kulas and the plebs stabilises itself to the point where it is able to turn on its masters?
I see it a little differently. I think the woke thing is a tool of managerial liberalism, exploited by the managerial class to legitimize its own agenda of social control through bureaucratic paternalism and social engineering. However, it is true that there is a dialectical thing going on: to the extent the managerial class serves that ideology through the virtue signaling promotion of individuals based upon woke-cred rather than technical competence, they do threaten to corrupt the expertise-regime which is at the core of their identify and self-rationalization. So I agree there's something like that going on. Thanks for posting the thoughtful comment.
A great piece of writing here, Michael. I just received my shipment of The Managerial Class on Trial and I’m looking forward to the read. I already appreciate the font size choice; it’s easy on my old eyes without making me feel like I’m reading a child’s storybook. :-)
Thank you for the kind words on the post and thank you for purchasing the book. I hope it will be of some value to you.
(The font choice might have been a function of my old eyes.)
I am heading to Vancouver this morning and heading back Sunday morning. I was unable to figure out how to use Substack to send you a direct message. Nonetheless, I’m bringing all my copies in the hopes we can connect and you’d be kind enough to sign them for my friends. Maybe when I arrive in Vancouver later this afternoon, I’ll set up a Protonmail account so I can share it here. Meanwhile, back to packing...
There's a link to email me on the About page.
I still feel embarrassed about signing the copies. Don't know why. Just my nature.
But, sure, we can probably arrange something for tomorrow afternoon, if that works for you.
I filled out the contact form and sent that late morning today. I made it finally; the traffic was brutal.
Funny how we can get so modest about certain things, right? I wonder if some of the authors whose work you reference would have reacted similarly? From my point of view, I think it’s a great personal touch and (whether true or not) ought to incentivize the recipients to read the book for meaning - carefully, in other words.
No, I'm pretty sure that I'm uniquely neurotic in that regard. See you later today.