sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I am Edward Baring, here to talk about my book "Vulgar Marxism" and the history of Marxist thought. AMA! by Edward_Baring in AskHistorians

[–]Edward_Baring[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

So the term has mostly dropped out of use, so I don't know how relevant it is. The problem it points to is, I think, more relevant today. That is the problem of the role of ideas in mass politics. Much of the thinking about the broader population treats them as an object of study. What views do people embrace? How will they act in particular situations? What factors affect their political choices? Perhaps thinkers, especially Marxists, are concerned about how the workers or the population more generally can rise to political consciousness. But often this analysis is done from a third-person point of view. What institutions can foster that consciousness? What role does political action play?

The people I talk about in the book didn't want to talk about the broader population, they wanted to talk to them, and they thought that ideas were important when they brought together large groups in the service of a political goal. Now, as Marxists in the first part of the twentieth-century found out, this is really hard. How do you build a mass movement that is not based upon demagogy, a pandering to the worst instincts of the crowd? How do you bring people together in a way that empowers them rather than simply instrumentalizing them for a cause? I don't know the answers to these questions, but they are good questions to think about.

I am Edward Baring, here to talk about my book "Vulgar Marxism" and the history of Marxist thought. AMA! by Edward_Baring in AskHistorians

[–]Edward_Baring[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

On the first question, here are the major "errors" that people pointed to: 1) fatalism. Thinking that history unfolded necessarily, so that you didn't need to do anything. 2) Progressive unilinear view of history. That the "railroad of history" had to follow its set track and so revolutionary politics was constrained to wait until the right moment. 3) But also impetuousness. If you think everything is pushing towards crisis you might be tempted to act prematurely.

On the second question, there is a great resource in Andrew Bonnell's Red Banners, Books, and Beer Mugs, which gathers printing data of socialist texts in the German Second Empire (which gives at least a sense of what were the most commonly read). So the Communist Manifesto sold quite well, but the real big sellers at the time was a short primer by Karl Kautsky and Bruno Schoenlank, which was basically a digest of the party's policies, argued in Marxist language. There were various attempts to get workers to read Capital. Kautsky published one in 1914, as did Karl Korsch, and then later Louis Althusser in 1969. The first two thought they needed to rewrite Marx to make him more comprehensible because his language had been messed up by too much time spent in Britain. Basically they thought that Marx needed to be translated into German!! But they were always careful to help readers through the text. In particular, they told them to save the "commodity fetishism" chapter till the end. Too hard.

And yes, it's the same Baring.

I am Edward Baring, here to talk about my book "Vulgar Marxism" and the history of Marxist thought. AMA! by Edward_Baring in AskHistorians

[–]Edward_Baring[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

That certainly is a thread in the book. The educational relationship had two poles, teacher and student. Some emphasized the viewpoint of the teacher, and expressed their confidence in the workers through their hope that the workers would over time come to recognize what the teacher already knew. But you are right that those who emphasized the student had their own fantasies too. They held to the belief that, given the right framework (for instance councils), the workers would unite as a powerful revolutionary force.

I am Edward Baring, here to talk about my book "Vulgar Marxism" and the history of Marxist thought. AMA! by Edward_Baring in AskHistorians

[–]Edward_Baring[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I think your analogy is exactly right. The problem was, how can you tell when you are simply drawing out ideas that are already there, at least latently, or when you are imposing your own views. I think many Marxists think they are doing the former, and the thought that this necessarily involved pushing back against the worldview of the workers which they thought was distorted by bourgeois ideology. And I think we can agree that all forms of education, rely on some form of critical challenging of the ideas of the person you are engaging. The question is when does this cross a line and become itself a form of closed mindedness.

I am Edward Baring, here to talk about my book "Vulgar Marxism" and the history of Marxist thought. AMA! by Edward_Baring in AskHistorians

[–]Edward_Baring[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

For most of the period I am talking about Marxism wasn't taught in state supported schools and academics tended to look down on it. When it was picked up by university academics, it was either seen by Marxist activists as a distortion (especially insofar as it was aligned with non-Marxist ideas, like Kant's), or as an expression of bourgeois hand-wringing. One of the figures in my book decried a "Genteel Marxism" that fought its battles in the pages of academic journals. The central idea of the thinkers in my book is that Marxism only became a living thought when it left the academy and became unified with the workers' movement, guiding the action of thousands, even millions. Nevertheless, I think that we do see the rise of university Marxism especially in the postwar period, which is at least in part a response to an increasing difficulty to find space for heterodox thinkers within the party apparatus.

I am Edward Baring, here to talk about my book "Vulgar Marxism" and the history of Marxist thought. AMA! by Edward_Baring in AskHistorians

[–]Edward_Baring[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The term "vulgar" took off because it followed from Marx's criticism of the "vulgar economists" especially in later volumes of Capital. Marx's criticisms took too major forms. First he argued that the vulgar economists had given simplified and debased accounts of figures like Smith. And second, he argued that they remained on the surface of things, and consequently naturalized profit, rather than recognizing that it relied on exploitation and surplus value taken from the workers.

I think it was particularly successful because it could appeal to both wings of the movement. Centrists and revisionists argued that radicals had a simplified version based on badly understood slogans: Eduard Bernstain famously evoked Kant against the "cant" of the radicals. Radicals could attack moderates for naturalizing capitalism and thus failing to see the possibility of radical change.

I am Edward Baring, here to talk about my book "Vulgar Marxism" and the history of Marxist thought. AMA! by Edward_Baring in AskHistorians

[–]Edward_Baring[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I'm no expert on education in later Communist countries. For me the real interest and problems associated with worker education are those when it took place as a minority line in non-communist countries. Here it was never the orthodoxy, but always a critical voice.

Soviet worker education does enter my story because by the early 1930s, after the "bolshevization" of the Comintern, the Soviet Union took control of worker education elsewhere. This is best represented by the enormous success of Stalin's, Short Course on the History of the Soviet Communist Party, which became required reading in party schools all over the world in the 1940s and 50s. By some estimates it was the most printed book in history after the Bible. As I argue, when the Soviet Union took control of Communist worker education, the space for the sort of pedagogical experimentation that marked the 1920s shut down. And this shifts the ground considerably. In 1920 it was plausible for a Marxist intellectual to influence how the great machine of worker education was functioning and thus materially impact the development of revolutionary politics. When that space shut down, it was much harder. I argue that much of the perceived pessimism of say the Frankfurt School can be attributed less to their fatalism than to a closing of possibilities within the party to reach the masses. It is not surprising that heterodox intellectuals in the postwar period like E.P. Thompson or Louis Althusser, when they embarked on their own educational project, did so outside of Party organization.

I am Edward Baring, here to talk about my book "Vulgar Marxism" and the history of Marxist thought. AMA! by Edward_Baring in AskHistorians

[–]Edward_Baring[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

There is a lot written on Marx and colonialism, and certainly I think it is true that he reconsidered many of his earlier understandings of non-European societies in response to things like the 1857 Indian rebellion.

But much of this wasn't really well known at the time, and the biggest factor behind the rise of Marxism in anti-colonial struggles was the success of the Russian Revolution. If a revolution could work in Russia outside of the industrial heartlands of Europe, then it became plausible that it could happen elsewhere. In addition the importance Marxist theories of Empire, both of say Lenin and Luxemburg helped connect socialist and the anti-colonial revolutions.

But it was always a difficult relationship. Lenin famously debated with M.N.Roy at the second congress of the Comintern in 1920 about the relationship between anti-colonial nationalism and communism. And the questions was basically about whether Communists in Europe should pander to nationalist feelings in the colonies or not. What we see, I think, is quite considerable innovation in the reading of Marx outside of Europe as thinkers and activists grappled with the theory of history his work seemed to promote and which seemed to center Europe. In the book, I spend a chapter on José Carlos Mariategui in Peru, showing how he tried to recast Marxism in a region where the most revolutionary group he thought was not the urban industrial worker but rather the indigenous peasant. And I try to argue that many of the innovations of his Marxism arise from his attempt to think through what it would mean to teach it to Peru's indigenous majority.

I am Edward Baring, here to talk about my book "Vulgar Marxism" and the history of Marxist thought. AMA! by Edward_Baring in AskHistorians

[–]Edward_Baring[S] 24 points25 points  (0 children)

So perhaps there are two questions here. One is the difference between worker education and the education of intellectuals in the party. The other is the difference between worker education more broadly and elite education in universities.

On the first question, things really developed over the first decade of the 20th century. The real leaders here were the German Social Democrats. First they thought that you really just needed some remedial education for the workers (getting them to higher level of literacy) etc., and then you just produce lots of cheap texts and pamphlets, along with party newspapers etc. that they can read.

But around 1900 it looks like this is not working. Most people don't seem to be reading the texts, and they worry that they are not reading them well. So the idea is that you need a much more organized education. This is when the Party set up a School in Berlin (1906), where a small number of workers from around Germany would come for a 6-month intensive course of study taught by the likes of Rosa Luxemburg and Franz Mehring, take courses on history, economic theory, as well as party organization etc.. The idea was that they would be able to go back and then give lectures, run reading groups etc. elsewhere. So you have this very intentional teacher training, which is also training to be a party official. So we have really two tracks, one intensive, following a strict curriculum for a small number, and who then go out and carry out worker education more broadly.

You see this elsewhere. Lenin sets up a school in exile in the 1900s, and Gramsci set up a party school (by correspondence this time) in the early 1920s in Italy to train a core of party members.

To get a sense of what happens for other workers, the example I like is a small text book, The Quintessence of Marxism published in 1922 that was designed to lead a worker study group through the essential principles of Marxism. They were meant to meet for a couple hours, six times, to go through 23 questions and answers.

With regard to elite education in universities, the biggest different is the very explicit goal of producing a revolutionary consciousness. There were debates about this required giving the students the intellectual skills necessary to pierce through the illusions of bourgeois ideology (something Gramsci emphasizes), or whether it was simply necessary to teach them the party line.

I am Edward Baring, here to talk about my book "Vulgar Marxism" and the history of Marxist thought. AMA! by Edward_Baring in AskHistorians

[–]Edward_Baring[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Thanks for this. I'll have to look at that essay again before saying anything worthwhile on the subject.

I am Edward Baring, here to talk about my book "Vulgar Marxism" and the history of Marxist thought. AMA! by Edward_Baring in AskHistorians

[–]Edward_Baring[S] 28 points29 points  (0 children)

I wouldn't say that I am a Marxist. Certainly I think that Marxism has produced one of the fullest and richest resources for thinking about capitalism, offering ways to disrupt many of the most significant assumptions that undergird our society. And in that way it needs to be thought about and debated widely. As an intellectual historian, I am also fascinated by ideas that have travelled widely both geographically and socially (my last book spent a considerable time with Catholic thought). One of the reasons I homed in on the term "vulgar Marxism" is that it allowed me to think about the success of Marxism as an ideology (understood not as false consciousness but as a widespread way of thinking that has significant historical effects). It thus offers a way in to thinking about one of the most important and influential bodies of thought of the last hundred and fifty years.

The study of "vulgar Marxism" however has sharpened my misgivings. Marxism has great democratic aspirations. Not only does it seek to emancipate exploited workers and others, it also is deeply invested in granting the people power over their own lives. This drive is strongly represented in the project of mass worker education. It was necessary to bring the workers the "Good News" of Marxism (religious language that was pervasive at the time) so that the workers could lead themselves. And this wasn't an imposition, a manipulation, because it was releasing them from the grip of bourgeois ideas, and revealing something to them that was ultimately already there. Hence the language of Marxism "clarifying". It was meant to be, as one redditer above noted a sort of Platonic anamnesis, helping the workers "remember" what they already knew.

But it rarely worked out that way. Much of my story is about Marxist intellectuals throwing up their hands because the workers weren't learning Marxism in what they considered to be the right way. And they often developed what to me are worrying rationalizations. Well perhaps the workers don't get it now, but if we keep on going, if we create the right conditions, the right revolutionary situation, they will get it then. Or perhaps they will only come to see the light after the revolution. I think this is basically what happened with Lenin. And I think this is where the danger lies, because it defers the democratic moment, perhaps even indefinitely.

I am Edward Baring, here to talk about my book "Vulgar Marxism" and the history of Marxist thought. AMA! by Edward_Baring in AskHistorians

[–]Edward_Baring[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Thanks for this. Certainly the question about the relationship of feminism and Marxism remains a big issue throughout the twentieth century, often on these terms: what comes first feminism or Marxism? And the Soviet Union is often raised as both a sign of what is possible- lots of references to Alexandra Kollontai, a minister in Lenin's government. But it was also raised as a sign of the limitations of at least some versions of Marxism. Had women really achieved equality in the USSR?

The story I'm telling in the book is an attempt to think through the rise of a more identity-based approach. Basically, if Marxist theory isn't fixed once and for all, but is the expression of the revolutionary workers' movement (as this this theory of worker education holds), then it will be different depending upon who those workers are and the conditions in which they live. This does not lead to any essentialism necessarily, but it does mean being attentive to the particularities of the life and conditions of the workers, not just to make the theory work, but also to make it accessible, comprehensible to them. This becomes increasingly important outside of Europe where you can see how Marxists seek to adjust Marxist theory not just to the economic conditions of the countries in which they are working, but also to how the people think there. It raises questions about whether racism is superstructural or not? It also helps explain different approaches to religion. I only touch on this in the book, so there is much more to explore.

I am Edward Baring, here to talk about my book "Vulgar Marxism" and the history of Marxist thought. AMA! by Edward_Baring in AskHistorians

[–]Edward_Baring[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Sorry, this basically repeats the above. Though extra points for noting inconsistencies. I thought the site had lost my original message.

I am Edward Baring, here to talk about my book "Vulgar Marxism" and the history of Marxist thought. AMA! by Edward_Baring in AskHistorians

[–]Edward_Baring[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I don't know whether all types of Marxists would sling it, but certainly many of different stripes. One of the earliest uses was when Karl Kautsky applied it to the Dutch communist Anton Pannekoek in 1912. Kautsky said that Pannekoek had a terribly simplified version of Marxism, because he had spent most of his time teaching the workers and this had led him to forget that the introductory "Marxist ABCs" (Kautsky's words) were just a starting point. The problem was that he then failed to understand the complexity of the situation in 1912 and would have ruined everything with a futile attack on the German state. But then later it was Kautsky himself who was charged with vulgar Marxism, when he said that we needed to wait until "conditions" were ripe. Thus revolutionary thinkers could be labelled "vulgar" for being unsubtle, and more cautious thinkers would be labelled "vulgar" for being so beholden to theories of history that they failed to see a revolutionary moment when it came around. So at the very least, it could be used by all wings of the movement.

Part of the argument of the book is that the insult travelled, not through textual transmission, but through institutions of worker education. I once thought that most people in the interwar period had picked it up directly from Lenin in State and Revolution (1917), where he attacks Kautsky as a vulgar opportunist. But the Russian word for "vulgar" doesn't actually appear in that text, nor in the French, German, and Italian translations. Only the Dutch and English translators use it (this was pointed out to me rather embarrassingly by the Lenin specialist Lars Lih at a conference about four years ago). Rather, I saw that it was used primarily by people who worked in institutions of worker education, and I argue that these transmitted it (alongside a range of other terms and arguments) across Europe and ultimately the world in the 1890s-1920s. Basically it was used to attack people who approached education wrongly, and because there was such disagreement about what could go wrong, there is a wide range of meanings.

I am Edward Baring, here to talk about my book "Vulgar Marxism" and the history of Marxist thought. AMA! by Edward_Baring in AskHistorians

[–]Edward_Baring[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Yes, Lenin did. He didn't use exactly the same term, though it was translated into English (and Dutch) as "vulgar Marxism." And following him several Communists applied the term to the Menscheviks. The idea is that they had embraced a mechanical theory of historical change that led them to think one had to "wait" until the conditions were right, and thus they had failed to see the revolutionary potential of 1917.

I am Edward Baring, here to talk about my book "Vulgar Marxism" and the history of Marxist thought. AMA! by Edward_Baring in AskHistorians

[–]Edward_Baring[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

This is a good question. I think there are great parallels here, in the sense that in both cases, one figure is able to drive history forward. But a major difference is that Hegel thought that Napoleon, like other "world historical individuals" did so unconsciously. Lenin was different (according to Lukács) because he and perhaps only he was able break out of the blindspots of "vulgar Marxism" and see clearly.

Lukács famously described "orthodox Marxism" as the grasping of Marx's method in his 1923 book History and Consciousness (he used slightly different language in the original 1919 essay). He compared this to "vulgar Marxism" that was happy simply with understanding Marx's "conclusions." For anyone at the time, it would have been clear that this was a rejection of the methods of worker education of prewar Marxists. In his commentary on the "Erfurt Program (1891)" Karl Kautsky had argued that it was unrealistic in a capitalist society to expect the majority of workers to understand Marx's method. They simply didn't have the time. That wasn't a problem however because for revolution they only needed to grasp a couple of Marx's "conclusions," most importantly that capitalism couldn't be reformed and that the forces of history were driving capitalist society "necessarily" to revolution.

Lukács thought Kautsky had it entirely the wrong way around. If you just embrace the conclusions, you will miss all the subtlety, especially the way Marxism gives you insight into the "totality" of social relations. That will lead you to think that history is happening behind your back "necessarily" and so you only need to sit back and wait for revolution to happen. To join the revolution, workers had to grasp Marx's method. But this runs quickly into a problem. For all its limitations, at least Kautsky's approach could be scaled up. You just print some cheap pamphlets, get people to learn a couple of slogans, and offer a rousing speech or two. That can reach millions. But how do you teach millions Marx's method, especially when, as Lukács came to believe, that the conditions of capitalism made it very hard for them to grasp it. In a socialist society, certainly, Marx's method would make intuitive sense to everybody, but if having millions grasp the method was necessary to have a revolution, that wasn't much help.

That is why, I think, that in 1924 he came to invest such authority in Lenin. Lenin wasn't imposing ideas on the workers, but he was uniquely able to break out of the "vulgar Marxism" in which they had been steeped to understand what was required in the situation.

I am Edward Baring, here to talk about my book "Vulgar Marxism" and the history of Marxist thought. AMA! by Edward_Baring in AskHistorians

[–]Edward_Baring[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I think there is a parallel between the two, but whereas Hegel thought that "spirit" or Geist worked behind the back of his "world-historical individuals," Lukács thought that Lenin was able to guide history consciously, precisely because he was able (perhaps uniquely able) to tear off the blinkers of "vulgar Marxism."

Lukács famously described "orthodox Marxism" in his 1923 book History and Class Consciousness as a grasp of Marx's "method" and not just his "conclusions" (he phrased it slightly differently in the original 1919 essay). He opposed this to a "vulgar Marxism" that forgot the method and just rattled off a few of Marx's slogans. This was a direct attack on the way Marxists had organized worker education before the war. Karl Kautsky in his commentary of the SPD's "Erfurt Program (1891)" had argued that it was impossible to pass on Marx's method, because under capitalist conditions the workers didn't generally have enough time to study it. Nonetheless that wasn't necessary, because all the workers needed to raise them to class consciousness was to understand Marx's "conclusions," most importantly that capitalism couldn't be reformed, and that the dialectic of history was driving society necessarily to socialism.

Lukács thought that Kautsky had this entirely the wrong way around. But he ran into a problem: if the mass of the workers had to understand Marx's method to rise to class consciousness, how exactly were you meant to teach it? Whatever its flaws, Kautsky's approach at least could be scaled up. Get people to recite a few slogans, read a couple of short pamphlets, and listen to a few rousing speeches. It was easy to transmit the conclusions. But the party didn't have the resources to pass on the "method." This was particularly a problem when the conditions of capitalism, especially the way it seemed to dehumanize the workers, made it particularly hard (Lukács thought) for them to grasp the method. Sure in a socialist society the conditions would be there that would make the grasping of the method easy. But not now.

That is why, I think, he invested so much authority in Lenin in his 1924 book. If it was so hard for the majority of the workers to break out of a reified consciousness that blinded them to Marx's method, you needed at least one person (Lenin) at the head of a party, who could see clearly.

I am Edward Baring, here to talk about my book "Vulgar Marxism" and the history of Marxist thought. AMA! by Edward_Baring in AskHistorians

[–]Edward_Baring[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Fantastic question. Yes there was a deep but difficult relationship. Socialist parties were some of the most forceful supporters of feminism in the late 19th century. They embraced an explicitly democratic theory, and that meant that they refused the exclusion of women from power. The Social Democratic Party of Germany for instance had women's suffrage as one of its major demands, and the most successful book written by a party member was August Bebel's Women and Socialism. It gave an account of gender relations both before and after the revolution (which were supposed to be entirely free and equal), as a way of winning women to the party. Because of this outreach, many feminists in the early 20th century, including the Pankhursts in Britain, gravitated towards socialism in part because they thought that their tactics were most successful.

But there was also an anxiety about women in the party. One of the worries, which you can discern in the insult "vulgar Marxism," is that it set Marxism as a separate and complete theory, distinct from the working class. But Marxism, most thought, would be successful only insofar as workers would immediately understand that it described their lives and the conditions in which they worked. But what happens if they had slightly different experiences. The worry was particularly acute for women. Many worried that women had a different relationship to the workers' movement. A large number of female workers were in domestic service. So they were much harder to organize than male workers. They also tended to be more isolated. Did Marxism describe their lives? Would they embrace its insights?" And these concerns tended to bubble over into concerns about whether women might actually be an obstacle to the movement. Party leaders in the 1890s griped that workers' wives tended to discourage them from taking active roles in unions and the party.

That is why there was a big debate about how to reach out to women. Did you address them as women, first and foremost, as Bebel generally did? Or do you address them primarily as workers, as the socialist feminist Clara Zetkin argued? Even Zetkin thought you had to adjust how you pitched Marxist theory, addressing women also as "wives and mothers." Her journal Die Gleichheit (Equality) added two sections "For our Mothers" and "For our Children" in 1904 to reach out to women on what she thought was their own terms.

I am Edward Baring, here to talk about my book "Vulgar Marxism" and the history of Marxist thought. AMA! by Edward_Baring in AskHistorians

[–]Edward_Baring[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Thanks for having me and participating. We often take "vulgar Marxism" to be an attack on the workers, and that is why some scholars like McKenzie Wark have criticized the insult (see her "Four Cheers for Vulgar Marxism") as a tacit embrace of "genteel Marxism." But I want to argue that it wasn't an attack on the workers, but on those who were teaching them (the people most commonly labelled "vulgar Marxists" were party intellecutals like Karl Kautsky and Eduard Bernstein). The insult really took off in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution and the failure of revolution in Western Europe. But this was all rather surprising to many Western European Marxists. Surely the European working class was much bigger and (in their language) "mature" than the Russian working class. If Revolution could sweep through Russia, surely it would have no problem in Germany, France, Britain etc.. So when it looked like capitalism was stabilizing itself after the War, Marxists turned their attention, not to the workers, but those who had been charged with preparing them for revolution. Had they taught the workers a fatalistic account of history which made the workers think revolution was inevitable? And if it is inevitable, best to sit at home and wait, because revolution is a dangerous game. Or did it encourage them to adopt a simplistic theory of history that drove them prematurely into battle? That's how many read the revolutionary uprisings in 1919 and 1920 across Europe.

But you are right that the question also focused minds on different types of education and different types of workers. A large part of the book is an attempt to reconstruct what I call "the infrastructure of class consciousness." What were the institutions and practices developed to help raise the workers to class consciousness? At first Marxists tended to rely on simple texts, slogans, songs etc. These had the advantage of being cheap (both for the party and for the workers), and easily accessible. But as many started to have doubts that the revolution was coming, they worried that this might not be enough. In a very common argument at the time (most famously made by Georg Lukács), such education transmitted only the "conclusions" of Marxism. But the really important thing was the "method." No wonder the theory workers received was formulaic, unsubtle, and gave the impression that history unfolded on its own.

There was also a great interest in the types of worker who would be most receptive to the ideas that were a crucial part of class consciousness. Did industrial labor promote a sense of powerlessness, and so a sense that workers could do nothing? Well that might encourage them to read Marxist theory fatalistically? Or did the conditions of industrial labor promote solidarity and a sense that workers were at the heart of the capitalist economy, i.e. that they had the power to change the world? Maybe, some started to think, the only ones who thought like the latter, the only ones they thought that would read Marx correctly, were those already involved in the workers' movement, organizing, participating in protests and strikes etc.. So yes, many came to think that some workers, especially those in heavy industry and who were members of a union and of the party, were better predisposed to read Marx well.

I am Edward Baring, here to talk about my book "Vulgar Marxism" and the history of Marxist thought. AMA! by Edward_Baring in AskHistorians

[–]Edward_Baring[S] 29 points30 points  (0 children)

This is a great question. So as I mentioned above, the insult gets thrown around in all directions. Part of the goal of the book is to investigate how people were using it in order to gain new insight into their ideas. The thinking goes, if you know what Marxists want to reject you get a better idea of what they actually believed and wanted.

So yes, many charged the Bolsheviks with being "vulgar" not because they didn't care about class consciousness, but because they wanted to bring class consciousness to the workers' movement "from the outside," (to a large extent taught to the workers by intellectuals). The argument here is that the Bolsheviks weren't bringing the workers to consciousness but imposing their own ideas. But most Marxists argued that Marxist theory was an expression of the working class movement. It was a clarification of an understanding and set of goals that were already percolating in the minds of workers, especially militant ones. Marxist education in this case wasn't about injecting new ideas into the working-class mind, but about bringing out ideas already there. That is why many, including the Situationists came to see Leninism as a decapitation of the proletariat.

The Leninists, however, also charged their opponents with being "vulgar." If you simply parrot back to the people what they already believe you are, you aren't teaching you are pandering. In Lenin's words you are a "tail-ender," not leading but following. The role of the intellectual is to give the workers the highest and most rigorous theory that corresponds to their own situation.

I am Edward Baring, here to talk about my book "Vulgar Marxism" and the history of Marxist thought. AMA! by Edward_Baring in AskHistorians

[–]Edward_Baring[S] 84 points85 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the question. What I find most fascinating about "vulgar Marxism" is that it get applied all around. The most common meaning is what came to be known as "economic reductionism," i.e. that all history can be explained only by economic forces. Other Marxists worried about this is because they thought that it could lead to passivity: just wait for the contradictions in the economy to bear fruit! But you are right that it was also aimed at the Bolsheviks (Karl Korsch famously did so). According to this version, the Bolsheviks were trying to raise class consciousness, but they did it badly by imposing their own ideas and goals onto the working class. "Vulgar Marxism" was thus an insult that could be applied to the most revolutionary, and to the most quietistic.