[Marxism] -ismic doctrine or science? (was: Cockburn contrarianism)

[Isaac Curtis]

On Jan 29, 2008 3:56 PM, Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition <
marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu> wrote:

>  On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:46:46 -0500 (EST), Walter Lippmann wrote:
>
> > Marxism is the application of the scientific method to social and
> > political problems of the world in which we live. Marxism isn't a
> > frozen, religious doctrine.
>
>   Why then not dropping this name "Marxism" (even with a big "M") which
> makes it appear as a doctrine?
>
>   Why not simply talking about science? About a scientific analysis of
> all which exists? Without the slightest fear neither from our own
> discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be, as Charlie Marx
> happend to write in 1843?
>
>   I for my part am not any <name that person>-ist.
>
>
> Comradely yours,
> Lüko Willms
> Frankfurt, Germany
>

In response to Lüko:

I identify as a Marxist for the same reasons that I identify with a handful
of other isms, especially feminism: I have profound respect for their
traditions, both in theory and in practice. Of course we all know many
dogmatic -ists of various -isms who behave as caricatures or their own
traditions, but I have always been much more upset by people who do not
identify with the traditions within which they clearly operate. It's not
difficult to explain that your own identity and your own ideas are unique,
but I find non-identification to be an unhelpful and artificial
estrangement. At its worst, this sometimes operates as a form of
red-baiting: "I'm not a Marxist, but I believe in universal health care," or
"I'm not a feminist, but I believe in a woman's right to choose." At best, a
victory on an important issue is won through an attack on the tradition (and
the movement) that it was supposed to help build. Of course, much more
often, we make these absurd little estrangements in daily conversation,
scoring trivial points in a discussion by disrespecting our comrades, our
history, and our selves.

Even at it's most innocent, this sort of behavior still functions to
reinforce the silly idea that there is some sort of mainstream dogmatic
Marxism to which the more clever among us do not ascribe. In acting like
this, we allow non-Marxists to embrace some of our clearly Marxist ideas
while still maintaining a general hostility to Marxism (and, again, not
Marxism, but an imagined "mainstream" Marxism in which names like Stalin and
Mao and Marx and
everyone-of-us-who-has-ever-accepted-the-term-Marxism-and-whom-you-won't-stand-with
all blur into one). Of course the term Marxism is mildly annoying because of
the deification of a single human being, but this and all sorts of other
more sophisticated positions can be laid out with little effort in any
conversation. "So you are a Marxist?" "Yes, but I am also a lot more than
that..." Hopefully we all are.

Solidarity, (that most easily forgotten of revolutionary watchwords)
Isaac

-- 
Isaac Curtis
Graduate Research Assistant
Department of History
University of Pittsburgh