MARX AND CULTURAL STRUGGLE

MARX AND CULTURAL STRUGGLE

Nildo Viana *

Marx did not use the term "cultural struggle" and rarely used the term "culture." Nevertheless it can see in his work important elements that may suggest cultural struggle, both through his analysis of revolutionary praxis as its concrete theoretical practice that expresses a cultural struggle. In this sense, we present a brief analysis of what we can extract from Marx's work that can be understood as a cultural fight or reflection on it.

Marx and reflection on the cultural Struggle

The false interpretation of Marx as "economistic" is an obstacle to understand their thinking and political conception. That, more specifically, obliterates its position on the question of consciousness and its role in the class struggle. Undoubtedly, for Marx, the social is the determining factor in the real plan and therefore the methodology, in which it emphasizes the weight of concrete social relations instead of representations of them. "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being; It is their social being that, conversely, determines their consciousness "(Marx, 1983, p. 25). Or, he said, "Just as one does not judge an individual by the idea that he makes of himself, one can not judge such a period of transformation by the same self-consciousness [...]" (Marx, 1983, p. 25 ).

This methodological assumption is only an expression of the real historical process. However, there is a world of representations, the culture, which is a time of the real and interfere therein. Explain consciousness by social means not think she does not exist or it does not interfere in the real and historical process. According to Marx himself: "The criticism of the gun can not, of course, replace criticism by weapons, material force must be overthrown by material force; but also the theory becomes a material force as soon seizes the masses "(Marx, 2008, p. 103).

Here is a cultural struggle of the element (the production and dissemination of the theory to the underprivileged classes) and a proposition that shows the need for cultural struggle. The role of culture, ideas, representations, the class struggle of the process is presented by Marx on several occasions. The point here is to put the division he makes in the proletariat's self-education process on the one hand, and cultural struggle carried out by the revolutionaries on the other. According to him:

In general, the bumps of the old society further in many ways the development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie live in constant struggle: at first against the aristocracy; later, against the parties of the bourgeoisie itself whose interests conflict with the progress of industry; and always with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles, is forced to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for their help and to drag him well for the political movement. The same bourgeoisie therefore provides the proletariat the elements of their own education, ie weapons against itself (Marx and Engels 1988, p. 75).

This self-education, as stated by some translations, the proletariat benefits from the class struggle and the strengthening individuals of other classes offer to join the proletarian struggle. This occurs through criticism, theory and "elements of culture" that these individuals, usually intellectuals, can offer the proletariat. Criticism is not something self-sufficient, it has a purpose external to itself. Marx explained the role as follows criticism: "the critical plucked the imaginary flowers which adorned the chain, not that man use the chain without any fantasy or consolation, but that is freed from the chains and take the living flower" ( MARX, 1978, p. 106). Criticism has the role of contributing to overcome the illusions and allow the transforming action, the revolutionary struggle.

The theory, in turn, is critical because it is a precondition for criticism. "The need to abandon the illusions about its condition is the demand to give up a condition that requires illusions" (Marx, 1978, p. 106) and that means the need to explain this "condition which needs illusions." The role of theory is to "ascertain the truth of what surrounds us" and expose the illusions and "make the actual oppression even more oppressive, adding to that the awareness of oppression", it must be radical, that is, go to the "root of the problem ". And it can only be realized if it is expression of radical needs. The theory must be an expression of such radical needs that is embodied in the proletariat as it is a social class in which manifests the possibility of human emancipation. To discuss the possibility of this emancipation, Marx says she resides

The formation of a class with radical chains, a class of bourgeois society which is not a class of civil society; a state that is the dissolution of all states; a sphere which has a universal character by its universal suffering and claims no particular right for you, why not commit violence against her any special, if not outright violence; it can no longer appeal to a historical title but simply to human security; that is not in any kind of particular contrast with the consequences, but a universal opposition to the premises of the German state; a sphere, finally, we can not emancipate itself without emancipating all other spheres of society and simultaneously to emancipate all of them; that is, in short, the complete loss of man and therefore can only achieve its goal by the recovery of the man. This dissolution of society as a particular class is the proletariat (Marx, 1978, p. 125).

In this sense, the theory must be an expression of the proletariat and her goal is to achieve a radical transformation of all social relations, of the total. The theory finds in the proletariat its material weapons and the proletariat finds its intellectual weapons in theory. So "as quickly as that thought Ray penetrates the bottom this pure popular solo" occur human emancipation. The theory is that the brain emancipation and the proletariat your heart. The theory can only be abolished with the extinction of the proletariat and this can only be terminated by performing the theory. In this sense, there is an inseparability of theory and proletariat. The proletariat is possibility condition of the theory and it is thanks to him that emerges the real and concrete individuals who produce it, the theoretical representatives of the proletariat.

The goal of the theory is the radical transformation of reality and limits of philosophy is not to have this purpose, for what matters is not only interpret reality, but transform it. But how does this theory? Overcoming the illusions, that is, expressing the reality as it is and showing that it is producing costumes and various forms of illusions. Thus, the criticism goes beyond the illusions and the theory shows its real base, the material foundation of both illusions about human emancipation, whose potential is in the proletariat. The proletariat's theoretical mission is therefore to criticize the illusions, express the social reality and take it to the working class. This is a concrete process that occurs in the class struggle, as "an inevitable phenomenon, founded in the course of development, that people from classes so far dominant join the proletariat fighting and bring her culture elements" (Marx, 2014). Obviously they must be real culture elements, and not fanciful creations, bourgeois prejudices, using eclecticism brought ideas of universities, etc.

These are the reflections of Marx on what we call cultural struggle, the proletariat case. It also addresses the cultural struggle of the bourgeoisie, whose process is the opposite. The bourgeois cultural struggle is carried out by producing ideologies (Marx and Engels 1991), ie illusory systems of thought held by ideologues, some of which are producers asset ideologies and others, most are just breeding liabilities of same. This wishful thinking system serves to legitimize, justify and naturalize the social relations of capitalist society. This is the case of philosophers, scientists and others. Marx focuses on various projects the role of these ideologues and their ideologies. So if the theory aims at radical transformation of social relations, ideology aimed at their conservation. Ideologies, to be played by the ideologues liabilities affect the population and thus, to be accepted, cushion class struggles, causing adherence to capitalist society. When these ideologues themselves allies of the proletariat, instead of elements of culture, which lead are prejudices and eclectic designs that contribute nothing to the workers' struggle. If the theory overcomes the illusions, shows its real basis and expressed as society creates such a need of illusory creations, criticizing both the representations and ideologies as the reality that generate them, ideology, in turn, produces and reinforces illusions. The theory is bound and expressed the proletarian class interests, while ideologies are expressions of the class interests of the bourgeoisie or other conservative classes.

The cultural struggle of Marx

Beyond what he said about what we call cultural struggle, Marx effected concretely. Therefore, it is a complement to understand your position on this issue its concrete practice. The cultural struggle of Marx can be seen through his critique of illusions, especially ideologies; its theoretical production, extremely wide; the process of taking "culture elements" for the proletariat. We will have a brief presentation on these three aspects to demonstrate the effectiveness of cultural struggle by Marx.

Marx's work is essentially critical. In his early writings, it addresses the issue of criticism of religion and later criticism of German philosophy and later criticism of scientific and pseudossocialistas ideologies. His analysis of religion points to show that it is a ground product and that their self-delusion of being the expression beyond just hides its origins in short. It shows the social origins of religion, and explains that it's the real misery that arises the need of religious illusion. But soon it passes the criticism of religion into the criticism of ideologies. In works such as The German Ideology, The Holy Family, among others, he is dedicated to criticism of German philosophy with its ideological character. However, he ends up going to the criticism of other ideologies, such as the British and French socialist economists. Their criticism of Malthus and "vulgar economists" as well as the eclectic and even the classics (Adam Smith and David Ricardo) manifests itself in Capital, Grundrisse, Theories of Surplus Value, etc. Likewise, it performs the criticism of French socialism and pseudossocialismo in general, as seen in the Communist Manifesto, The Poverty of Philosophy, among other works. At various times he advances in other critical concepts, and letters and other places, to aspects of the natural sciences, as in the case of Darwin (VIANA, 2009).

The theory produced by Marx is extremely wide and is inseparable from his criticism. The first element of his theoretical work is his theory of alienation and history. The theory of alienation presented in Paris Manuscripts (also called "Economic and Philosophical" or "1844") is the time of constitution of the concrete foundations of its humanism and communism. The alienated labor is the foundation of the proletarian revolution, the dehumanization It is presented as the key to human emancipation, as this is denying that. The history of the theory is presented in The German Ideology, although in several works he returns to this question, as in the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, among others. Through the elaboration of the concepts of mode of production, social classes, class struggles, among others, he seeks to express the historical movement, founded, from a certain historical moment due to the development of the productive forces, the class struggle. It also develops a theory of capitalism, which can be seen in several works, though in a more structured way in Capital. In this book he explains the secret of capitalist exploitation and its essence, the surplus value production, as well as its consequences and developments, such as capital accumulation and trend the rate of increase. Similarly and inextricably linked to it, it presents a theory of the proletarian revolution, not only analyzing the proletariat as a social class as well as moving towards analyzing their struggles, their revolutionary potential, their experiences, their trends. Also outlines elements, based on historical experiences and rational glimpse provided by the theory (VIANA, 2014), of communist society, as in The Civil War in France and Critique of the Gotha Program, mainly.

The elements of culture that is part of the praxis of proletarian theory and Marx realized that too. What many do not know is that the salary booklets, Price and Profit and Wage Labour and Capital, are the written expression of lectures that Marx gave to workers. He always sought to bring the theory to the labor movement, both through the production itself and its publication as books, but also through documents, letters, conversations, lectures, including circular in AIT - International Workers Association. Two special moments stand out in this process, which is the writing of the Communist Manifesto and his analysis of the Paris Commune, contained in The Civil War in France. In the Communist Manifesto, it synthesizes elements of his theory of history, his analysis of capitalism and class struggle in this society and criticizes the pseudossocialismos and presents the role of communists and programmatic elements to the revolutionary struggle. In The Civil War in France, presents an analysis of the Paris Commune, its obstacles and problems and its historical importance to the revolutionary workers' movement, works disclosed for the proletariat and could serve as inspiration for new struggles. Incidentally, Capital, was to have been made in installments, as the intention of Marx is it to be read by workers.

In this sense, the concrete actions of Marx show an intense cultural struggle, combined with organizational work and other actions, to strengthen the proletarian struggle and the class association of education in the fight against the bourgeoisie and establishment of "free association of producers "Communism.

From Marx to We: The Cultural Struggle Today

We are in another era, and the essence of capitalism - the surplus value production and capital accumulation - remains the same, but its form has changed. There was broad technological development, geopolitical world has changed, the commodification and bureaucratisation of social relations have intensified, the State assumes new form, among many other issues. Marx produced his work during the extensive accumulation regime and move to intensive. In this sense, the subsequent accumulation schemes (conjugated and integral) have not been lived and analyzed by him, unless in their trend information. The workers' struggle of his time occurred in a given context and the conditions today are quite different. The parties and unions supposedly "workers" are bureaucracies that have nothing to do with the revolutionary movement of the proletariat, being more of a hindrance. Similarly, the oligopolists media gained a much larger space and the full accumulation regime, the internet and social networks are gaining ground.

Capitalism finds it increasingly difficult to reproduce. This is part of its history, but the more it develops and demonstrates ability to overcome the crisis and survive, is more wider and deeper difficulties. The revolutionary experiences after the Paris Commune brought issues do not exist in Marx's time, as the threat of bureaucratic counterrevolution. After intensive accumulation regime, a huge bureaucratic class emerges and its most radicalized part, present in smaller parties and trade unions, becomes greedy for power and for that we say "representative of the proletariat." This creates another obstacle to the proletarian struggle: in addition to fighting the capital and its apparatus, the capitalist state also have to get rid of their false "vanguards" and those who say they are on your side.

These and other changes complicates class struggles, especially with the emergence of new ideologies and alleged critical concepts which basically just creates a division and isolation sectors of society rather than lead to a unification that would strengthen the struggle for social change . These isolated struggles of isolated groups, permeated with ideologies such as "gender", "animal liberation," among others, end up being enhanced bourgeois hegemony in social and daily struggles movements, hindering a rise of proletarian and revolutionary struggles.

The cultural struggle thus assumes new tasks. On the one hand, we must fight the internal weakening of Marxism (authentic and not its bureaucratic deformations expressed in Leninism and social democracy), in order to seek an alliance with bourgeois ideologies not to lose ground. Despite the concern not to lose spaces and create unnecessary differences be legitimate, it is necessary to join forces and many are sticking to ideologies and misconceptions for lack of theoretical deepening, information, etc., this is a double-edged sword as it strengthens the it has to be fought.

The internal weakness is one in which the defenders themselves a conception surrender to ideas of opponents, are subject to fads, introject other conceptions thanks to the victimization of groups, that is, an external source process that generates an internal weakening, either by social pressure, either for lack of theoretical training and more developed critical sense. Sometimes this is revealed in the fear of going into shock and it is unpopular. However, a revolutionary is, unless at the time of the revolution, unpopular in nature.

However, this is just one of the new contemporary issues that affect the cultural struggle today. Tasks are much more numerous. One must take "cultural elements" for the proletariat and other sectors of the potentially revolutionary society, and this through books, magazines, newspapers, pamphlets, talks, use of media, internet, etc. However, to be really "elements of culture" is necessary not only to 'information' or slogans, but that has a formative character, providing intellectual tools to interpret and act in class struggles.

Similarly, in order to continue the cultural struggle and collaborate with intellectual self-formation of the population and the militants, the theoretical production and criticism of ideologies and illusory everyday representations is needed. The theoretical production should be encouraged and carried out in order to collaborate with the understanding of concrete social relations of capitalism, its reproduction mechanisms of the contradictions, trends and potential. This is the basis for criticism of ideologies that not only play the role of influencing individuals and intellectuals, including potential challenger, as, through these and other forms, social movements and social struggles. So the criticism of the various ideologies, in various forms and degrees of development, should be performed. On the other hand, criticism of the imaginary, the illusory everyday representations produced by the population, is another necessary element, because it is another obstacle, including the advance of proletarian self-education. We need to move towards spreading true everyday representations and their passage into broader forms of thought and developed.

Similarly, the struggle against the dominant values ​​and bourgeois mentality is another element that should occur, in spite of the strongest obstacles in this case. Criticism of axiology, the dominant values ​​in its various configurations, is an element that must be one of the cultural struggle outbreaks. On the other hand, recognition and discussion of axionomia, the authentic values, it must be falling into abstract humanism, understanding that some of them can be materialized today, but some not, and so it takes a libertarian ethics and theoretical domain. The relationship between theory and libertarian ethics is essential to avoid falling into sentimentality, morality and / or abstract humanism. The materialization of axionomia in the set of social relationships presupposes the overcoming of the capitalist society and this is done through class struggle and therefore only partly it is realized today. The executioners can not be treated with solidarity, despite this being a true value because the converse is not true.

Thus, the elements mentioned by Marx remain valid and must be deepened. Obviously either individual may focus on specific forms of cultural struggle, although the ideal is to act at all. However, if a person collaborates making poetry, that is, performing the cultural struggle through artistic production, since in the proletarian perspective, then it is something to support. Encourage go beyond that is something possible and desirable, but it depends on the psychic of the individual uniqueness, his life history, social conditions, etc., so what should be required is that the content of his artistic production is revolutionary, because if not it does not contribute to the fight.

Just as Marx at one point, went to London library and said thus contribute better with the class struggle, we must recognize the needs, limits, contexts that surround individuals and that freedom in the fight is crucial the struggle for freedom, since the ultimate goal is this, that there is consistency between cultural production and the struggle for social self-management. Marx's going to the London Library was closely related to the production of his work Capital, one of the most important theoretical productions ever made, and of fundamental importance to the proletarian struggle.

In case more organized and collective forms of struggle, it is necessary to critically reflect and draw up action programs for cultural struggle. Thus, production processes and theoretical publication, development of mechanisms and dissemination of criticism, creation of dissemination processes and revolutionary propaganda and articulation of it all engaged in social movements in strike movements, general class struggles.

In short, the cultural struggle is one of the main elements of revolutionary praxis. And it is not separated of all the processes of struggle in society. What praticistas not realize is that every fight has a cultural element involved. A strike movement, claims and actions are permeated by conceptions, representations, etc., in the sense that the needs, information, positions, are products of interpretations and reflections. The same goes for demonstrations and protests, work in neighborhoods, etc. No human action is disconnected consciousness and this is one of the determinations of this process. A worker with bourgeois mentality may be favorable to strike to increase your salary, but will be against it when there is danger of dismissal. Its position is closely linked to their views, values, etc. Similarly, in the same movement, a revolutionary workers can defend the strike, but lacking in arguments, information, etc., for not having enough culture elements to enter the cultural clash established. A third worker can be at one point against the strike because his party offers this guideline and arguments for it, perhaps for electoral reasons or political alliances or even bond with the union and / or government. Such workers may at the same time, be honest and do it for believe his party comrades and lacking in information and culture elements to understand the real motivations behind the position of his party.

A militant who merely go and support, without criticizing, without elements of culture, information, intellectual tools, deep contributes very little or, in some cases, end up reinforcing the bourgeois hegemony in it. He, as the latest example of labor, can also be honest and believe that this is what everyone should do, but end up contributing to the conservative forces, even disguised as reformers or even "revolutionary," end up having supremacy in the process struggle.

Thus, the cultural struggle is a fundamental element of class struggle, both in immediate conjunction with the workers and social struggles in general and indirect, in the world of culture. And the clarification of its importance and its strategic role in the struggle for radical transformation of all social relations, abolishing capitalism and establishing social self-management, is part of the same cultural struggle and disclosure means taking elements of culture for the population in general and for the particular proletariat. In short, the cultural struggle permeates the entire society and awareness of their needs is one of its moments. That means, basically, to proceed to what Marx and others performed, but more reflected and consciously, in order to be properly thought out and inserted in a revolutionary strategy.

References

KORSCH, Karl. Marxism and Philosophy. Porto, Afrontamento 1977.

Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich. The German Ideology (Feuerbach). Sao Paulo, Hucitec 1991.

Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich. Manifesto of the Communist Party. Petropolis: Voices, 1988.

Marx, Karl. The Poverty of Philosophy. 2nd Edition, Sao Paulo, Global 1989.

Marx, Karl. Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. 2nd Edition, São Paulo, Martins Fontes, 1983.

Marx, Karl. Written by Juventud sobre el Derecho. Barcelona: Anthropos, 2008.

Marx, Karl. Introduction to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. In: The Jewish Question. Sao Paulo: Moraes, 1978.

Marx, Karl. The Manifesto of Three Zurich. Magazine Marxism and self-management. Vol. 01, no. 02, July / Dec. 2014.

VIANA, Nildo. Darwin Nu. Magazine Academic Area. Year 8, No. 95, April 2009.

VIANA, Nildo. Karl Marx - The existing merciless criticism. Florianopolis Bookess, 2014.