One of The Marxist Problems’
During my recent reading of Jacques Rancieres, The Philosopher and His Poor, I began to take note of a reoccuring issue within the Marxist revolutionary praxis. It begins with Marx’s reversal of the Hegelian dialectic, where the idea no longer existed in a ‘realm’, but was present within the construction of the material world. This is the Hegel-Feurerbach-Marx line of dialectical materialism, which evolved from the Ideal to the Practical.
However, the issue arises in dialectics, that everything is dichotomous (duality) which aids in the materialist perspective, by separating the imitation from the real. This then leads it to leave the realm of the real, especially when talking of the proletariat. The proletariat itself becomes an ideal, a worker that is a philosopher, philosopher-worker.
This is definitively against Plato’s Lie (Ch. 1-2), that division of labor which supposedly allows the:
comparison of practices… intended to mark the incomparable character of natures -
Jacques Ranciere, The Philosopher and His Poor, pg. 16
This is where I do not see the clear break which is needed from this belief in fated ability and constructed ability. Marx, by creating a new group, the “Proletariat”, created an idealized hybrid that did not exist within the material world. Therefore, it substantiated the radical who was willing to leave the shop and propagate the communist message (ibid, pg. 83-84), and no longer work on the trade which was needed for the community.
It becomes then a contradiction, that to free themselves from their chains, the workers need to understand the social interactions around them, but at the same time have no time to study it. However, this could be an overcomplication by the Philosopher and Sociologist, who would then be sophists. Sophists for not recognizing the amorphous character of a human, and the plasticity of the brain.
The amorphous character is expressed well by the argument put forth by Socrates in Meno. This is called the ‘slave-boy’ argument (Meno, pg. 15-21), and shows the ability of a human to know based upon reflection. The mere act of searching and investigating produces the ability to understand, because in order to interact properly the skills needed must be normative, not extraordinary.
The ideal then can exist as an innate pattern within humans as to what they affirm as the correct perceptions of reality. This keeps it in reality and also remedies the issues of sophism, because it does not need to be learned externally. The proletariat does not exist, but rather the people who become enlightened through a critical self-reflection of reality.
Therefore, we can exit from the parameters set by Jacques Ranciere, in that they are set up by parameters that delineate a ‘true’ division of labor, which exists only as an individual is constructed socially. This means it exists only as the result of human interaction and existence. Marx, by creating an idealized ‘worker’, at the same time destroyed the idea of the individual, classifying those wanting for freedom as a supposed non-class of proletarians. This is, I think a fatal flaw.
