Marx’s and Lenin’s modes of thinking
(From Ercan Gündoğan, 2011, A Theory of Capitalist Society and Social Dialectics, Lap Lambert, p: 42-4)
In the definition of
ideology and its sphere within the social whole, we argued that it is a mode of
thinking and discourse, which are shared and used spontaneously by the largest
section of individuals in society. It circulates through minds and is adopted
to understand and interpret social relations as well as to react to them.
Systematic production of ideology is realized within a social division of
labour in which there develops specializations or special fields of thinking.
Science, art, philosophy are divided into countless number of
sub-specializations. Social relations under capitalism do not allow the development
of holistic and dialectical thinking and provide only the conditions of
specialization, and the compartmentalization of knowledge. Knowledge of the
whole of the social relations is produced only by few of intellectuals. For
this reason, it is rather rare to face with holistic thoughts and theories.
Masses follows suit and develop partial, local, temporary, practice and
experience based, and divided mode of thinking. Bourgeois ideologues seem to be
just professionally equipped individuals, who are specialized over certain
problems of the social relations. Exceptions are seen only in the theorists who
are connected with the great thinkers of the past such as Adam Smith, Immanuel
Kant, Hegel, Karl Marx, Max Weber or Sigmund Freud. They are followed not only
due to their founder positions, but also their holistic mode of thinking.
A holistic mode of
thinking requires the knowledge of the social whole, its history and geography
connections between individual and social spheres. It produces knowledge by
connecting the individual and local spheres into a whole or dividing the whole
into its components.
Marx’s and Lenin’s mode of
thinking is not only holistic but also dialectical, which puts class relations
to the center of social analysis and sees classes in all social struggles,
conflicts and fights as well as in social change. This is not a reductionism of
all social phenomena to class relations, but is the attempt to reveal class
contents of the social relations and interpret them for a scientific revolutionary
program. Classes already exist so do their struggles. Class domination exists
so does the struggle of other classes against it. Class phenomena are
recognized by other theorists and scientists, but only in different contexts
and conceptualizations. Smith sees only the owners of factors of production;
Hegel gives priority to the state; for Weber, classes are nothing but different
income groups. To understand the strategic meaning of classes in Marxian
theory, the passage below should be examined; he stated in his letter to J.
Weydemeyer in 1852:
“And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for
discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long
before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this
class struggle and bourgeois economists, the economic economy of the classes.
What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in
the development of production (historische
Entwicklungsphasen der Production), (2) that the class struggle necessarily
leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, (3) that this dictatorship itself only
constitutes the transition to the abolition
of all classes and to
a classless society .
“Ignorant louts like Heinzen, who deny not merely the
class struggle but even the existence of classes, only prove that, despite all
their blood-curdling yelps and the humanitarian airs they give themselves, they
regard the social conditions under which the bourgeoisie rules as the final
product, the non plus ultra [highest point attainable] of history,
and that they are only the servants of the bourgeoisie. And the less these
louts realize the greatness and transient necessity of the bourgeois regime
itself the more disgusting is their servitude...”[1]
Before Marx, bourgeois
historians and economists already recognize and examine the classes. The
question is not whether they exist or not. Class struggle is not also a fact
discovered or suggested by Marx. However he reveals and formulates the relation
of classes with the historical phases of economic development and inevitability
of the proletarian dictatorship as a result of class struggle and then the
abolishment of class relations. Logically, he sees the bourgeois regime as a
transient necessity. Marx’s all critical political economy and political analyses
deal with class conflicts and struggles which take place between the transitory
bourgeois social relations and socialist system towards which class struggle is
oriented.
Inevitability of the
proletarian dictatorship is based on the ultimate result of class struggle
between capitalists and workers.
