This post is the fourth part of a biweekly series posting chapters of Frank Cunningham’s Understanding Marxism: A Canadian Introduction (Toronto: Progress Books, 1981). Through these excerpts, readers will come to understand the basics of Marxist theory through a Canadian lens in a digestible, accessible, and easy-to-understand way. As 2021 marks 100 years of the communist movement in Canada, and as more young workers and students become interested in Marxism, we hope that this educational series will benefit our readers.
The following chapter (Ch. 5 of Understanding Marxism) debunks some other prominent theories: that society progresses and changes due to the “battle of ideas”, due to bigotry, or due to great individuals. It also discusses Marxist approaches to environmentalism and issues of sexism, homophobia, racism, and ethnic discrimination.
The original text is available to borrow through Archive.org. It has been amended minimally to include links to relevant texts, to update vital information, and to remove notes relevant only to the physical book.
In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels wrote that all previous history has been the history of class struggle. They meant that the movement and development of history could only be understood by seeing how ruling classes strive to maintain their control of the means of production against the interests of other classes in society. They also meant that these means of production have created the possibility and the necessity for the emergence of new ruling classes. Major changes in history have occurred when a new class organizes itself as a class, succeeds in taking political power away from a previous ruling class and uses this power to consolidate its own domination over production.
The historical materialist insists that in striving to understand people’s problems it is necessary first to look at the conditions of life and work they have to contend with in a class-divided society. For example, some people attempt to explain the main problems of farmers by appealing to abstract conflicts, such as “industry versus agriculture” or “urban versus rural life”. Marxists look at the effects on farmers of the big urban development corporations, agri-business and retailers like Loblaws and Dominion (RY-JM note: now Metro), whose class interests lead them to spoil the land, squeeze out family farms and monopolize food production and distribution, solely for private profit.
Similarly, the massive cutbacks in higher education across the country are often explained by such statements as: “society over-extended itself in the 1960s and now cannot provide jobs for college graduates, so it must cut back on education.” Marxists have always been suspicious of explanations that refer to “society” in general. They note instead that through provincial governments the large corporations urged rapid university and college expansion in the 1960s — at the taxpayer’s expense. At that time they anticipated a need for more highly-skilled workers. Now the same corporations are failing to provide jobs and have created the inflationary situation that leads to cutbacks.
Marxists maintain that unless you examine the class interests and other economic factors behind these problems, you will not root out their causes and organize change. There are several alternatives to this point of view. The most popular ones agree that the movement of history must be understood in terms of struggle, but they deny that economic, class struggle is the most important. A full criticism of each of these theories is not possible in this work, so I will only indicate how historical materialism differs from them in order to better explain the Marxist view.
Struggle of Everyone Against Everyone Else
One popular non-Marxist view of society contends that there is a constant struggle among a multitude of “interest groups”. In political science circles this theory is called the theory of “power politics” (RY-JM note: nowadays, this is more or less related to what is termed “identity politics”). Since the 1950s it has become a dominant theory in North American universities and is promoted as an alternative to Marxism. This theory maintains that there are as many interest groups, all fighting it out — big business, labour unions, community groups, service organizations, religious groups, social clubs, and so on. History is understood as the changing relations of interest groups as they come into conflict with one another.
On its theoretical side the power politics theory promotes views we have already criticized: it is a version of the theory that everyone is naturally selfish and joins “interest groups” to further selfish ends. On the practical side, this theory does not help one to understand contemporary society. Capitalists control the nature and extent of production in a society. They hire and and fire thousands of workers at a time and pour huge amounts of money into political campaigns. It is absurd to consider this powerful force as just one interest group among others, along with some community group or social club. And, despite anti-union propaganda, event the largest trade unions command only a fraction of the wealth held by big corporations.
To the Marxist it is incorrect to see the dominant class in a society as just one interest group among others. A society’s dominant or ruling class determines the nature of the society as a whole. It controls the government, determines the major principles around which society is organized (for private profit in our society), and is respondible for the existence and nature of many of the other groups in society. These groups are either organized by a ruling class to serve its ends or are organized by people to combat its bad effects on their lives. Moreover, this theory conveniently forgets the large majority of the population, such as unorganized workers, who are not in any “interest group” at all, but who are nonetheless locked in daily struggle with their bosses.
Big Guys Versus Little Guys
Prior to the one-day general strike, or “day of protest”, in October 1976, all the pro-business newspapers carried the expected articles, editorials, and interviews denouncing the strike. One theme they pushed hard was that the strike was selfishly planned by “big labour” with no regard for the interests of the unorganized “little guys”. This line played on a theory that is widespread in pro-capitalist social science. Fascist movements have also used it to attract people who feel alone and isolated. The theory maintains that the basic struggle in society is between the individual and big, impersonal organizations or bureaucracies.
Pro-business newspapers are quick to drag the theory out against unions but do not fall all over themselves to condemn Stelco, Bell Telephone, the Liberal or Tory political parties, and other organizations that obviously do run roughshod over individual working people. Also, while it is true that some trade unions are large, they cannot be compared with the large corporations. Even if unions had the economic strength of corporations, it would be incorrect to see them as equally oppressive, as any worker who can remember the days before many trade unions were built can tell you.
True, under right-wing leadership some unions have pursued narrow and selfish policies, and there is a constant struggle within most unions on the part of rank-and-file members against sell-out union bureaucracy and for greater democracy. The October 14 strike itself was the result of pressure from rank-and-file unionists. Top Canadian Labour Congress leadership for the most part resisted the pressure as long as they could. But by and large the trade union movement does not set itself against individual working people. Since they know that there is strength in numbers, most trade unions actively attempt to organize the unorganized — the more unorganized workers there are, the lower bosses can pay.
Literature and movies also reflect this theory of big guys versus little guys when they create heroic, but usually doomed individuals who find themselves confronted by a mindless “machine”. It doesn’t make much difference what the machine is — a corporation, the state, or a union.
The grain of truth in this theory is that individuals under capitalism are frustrated by most of the big organizations they come into contact with. Corporations, the government, and the civil service have no way of dealing with individual needs and complaints, and in fact do not care about individuals’ well-being. Their main concern is promoting private profit and maintaining the status quo. Their message is loud and clear: we are all helpless victims of an impersonal machine and nothing we can do will change anything. But to a Marxist, the most foolish thing working people can do is to give up hope or to attempt to fight these organizations alone. People must unite, thus becoming strong enough to challenge oppressive forces. And to do this we need very clear and specific ideas about just who these oppressive forces are. It doesn’t help much to be told that the enemy is “bigness” in general.
Struggle Among Leaders
Perhaps the most popular bourgeois theory about history, and the one most often taught in Canadian schools, is that it is a series of struggles among individual leaders. When ancient history is taught we read about the intrigues of men like Alexander and Caesar. When contemporary politics is discussed it is in terms of the personalities of politicians. Marxists do not ignore the crucial roles that individuals can play in certain situations. For instance, in a revolutionary situation someone with the leadership skills of Lenin might make a big difference.
However, it would be wrong to conclude from this that the whole of history can be explained by seeing what great individuals are around and what they think and do. In the first place, what needs to be examined are the situations in which people can play key roles. Lenin did not create a revolutionary situation in Czarist Russia. This was done by economic oppression, participation of Czarist Russia in World War I, a long history of progressive and revolutionary struggles on the part of the people and many other factors. In the second place, Lenin did not lead the Russian Revolution alone. The workers, peasants, and intellectuals who formed the Bolshevik Party led the revolution, even though Lenin certainly played a very important role within that party. An effect of the “great man” approach to history is that it leads people to single out some one individual in a social movement and to ignore the rest.
To see how incorrect this approach is, one needs to look at the realities behind the rise of individual leaders and their decisions. To take one example, Nazism and World War II are often explained as a result of Hitler’s ability to dupe the German people. But if you look at the actual history of Germany in the 1930s you find that the rise of Nazism there depended on many economic and political factors — severe economic depression, divisions on the left, the devastation of the war. One important factor was that capitalists, who feared socialist revolution, poured huge sums of money into the Nazi party.
It usually doesn’t matter how much bourgeois politicians differ in what they say or what kind of personalities they have. [Pierre Elliott] Trudeau was supposed to be the great defender of individual freedom — and a slightly radical person. This image did not keep him from imposing the War Measures Act in 1970, which subjected all of Canada to martial law. In 1974 Trudeau won an election over his Tory rival, Stanfield, in a bitter struggle over the policy of “wage and price controls” (better known to working people as simply “wage controls”), where he opposed the controls. As these words are being written, we have wage controls imposed by none other than P.E. Trudeau.
Yet another example of the same sort of thing is the succession of U.S. Presidents who, despite their different parties, different policies, and different personalities, all continued to escalate the war in Vietnam until the U.S. was defeated. The truth is that when the capitalists who dominate the Canadian economy find it in their interests to have wage controls and when U.S. ruling circles wanted to pursue the war, it was of secondary importance who happened to be Prime Minister or President at the time.
Struggle of Ideas
Another alternate theory is that the struggle of ideas is primary. Advocates of this view point to the fact that in every period of history there have been contesting ideas in philosophy, science, religion, and art. Marxism does not underestimate the importance of the battle of ideas in history. In all periods of history there have been bitter struggles between theories favouring progress and revolution and those favouring the status quo. Indeed, Marx and Engels saw their own works as a part of this struggle. But the existence of that struggle wasn’t the issue. The issue is whether the battle of ideas is the fundamental cause of historical change. Marxists ask where these ideas come from that people struggle over. And the historical materialist finds that they come out of a society’s economic class structure and struggles.
Marx and Engels looked back over the history of ideas and found that the dominant beliefs of any period — the ideas taught in schools, preached in churches, published in the news — have been those promoted to further the interests of the dominant class. When feudal lords were dominant the leading ideas were that some people (the feudal lords) were born better than other people (like serfs who worked for them), and the best thing people could do was to keep their natural place in life. When capitalists became the dominant class, the leading ideas were that free enterprise, rugged individualism, and competition were the natural state of things. Leading ideas under socialism are those promoting cooperation and the dignity of labour.
Because of these facts Marx and Engels criticized pro-socialist “Utopian” theorists of their time. Utopian socialists saw the battle of ideas as primary, which meant that in their political work they limited themselves to fighting for educational reforms and programs to enlighten political leaders. These Utopians thought that if only the leaders of a society could be convinced that their pro-capitalist ideas were wrong, then they would convert the society to socialism. What the Utopians failed to understand was that pro-capitalist ideas are not the cause of capitalism. Rather they are tools used by capitalists to maintain their class position. Of course it is necessary to combat these ideas among working people, thus striving to take away one of the capitalists’ tools, ut by itself this battle cannot end the capitalist system.
Humans versus Nature
Some environmentalists have recently expressed the view that the primary struggle is with nature. It is argued that whatever differences humans may have among themselves, these are not as great as the antagonism between humans and nature. This is especially so, they say, since humans have overpopulated the earth, polluted the air and water, and in general let technology run rampant.
Now, Marxists do not deny that humans have to struggle in the face of nature. In very long-range terms, it might be seen as the primary one, since the use of tools and the division of nature come from the need to stay alive in a hostile physical environment; and long after class struggle has disappeared, the struggle with nature will continue. Engels even remarked that in this conflict humans will ultimately lose, since the sun will not last forever. But the question is whether or not the struggle between humans and nature has been the primary one in written history and especially at the present time.
To see that it is not, one needs to ask: what is responsible for the spoilage of nature and how can it be stopped? To the Marxist, and many current environmentalists, the major source of the waste and destruction of our natural environment has been capitalist greed for profit and the characteristic lack of long-range planning. It is true that using throw-away bottles and driving oversized cars contribute to pollution. But somebody has to produce throw-away bottles and oversized cars. Capitalists introduced these commodities into the world, and they continue to profit from them. Moreover, the worst spoilage of nature is industrial pollution, which cannot be compared to the pollution caused by individual consumers. Even though relatively inexpensive techniques are available to recycle industrial waste and filter the smokestacks, industrialists refuse to use them, since this would cut into profits. They continue to pour industrial waste into waterways and poison into the air of our cities
(RY-JM note: In the 2020s, we see increasing emphasis on reusable items, paper straws, and other individual-centred “green solutions”. While there is no question that decreasing use of plastic and individual waste can make some difference to an individual’s environmental footprint, corporations — and other big polluters, like imperialist militaries — are now using these “green solutions” to mask the fact that they are the biggest producers of waste and air pollution. Although these “green solutions” should be adopted in favour of rampant use of plastics and other non-biodegradable materials, individuals still make only a small fraction of the world’s waste in comparison to capitalist industry, mass extraction and exploitation of natural resources, and the military, which all continue their usual operations. It is also useful to note that many of these small-impact “green solutions” are inaccessible to those kept poor under capitalist societies, in both the “developed” and “under-developed” nations, and those without financial means to “upgrade” to reusable products are thus forced to continue to use the wasteful and environmentally-harmful products that capitalist industry produces.)
For the Marxist it is important to keep one’s priorities straight in waging any struggle. Now that the large segments of the capitalist world are more or less adequately industrialized and the under-developed world needs to start building its own industry, research teams like the Club of Rome, financed by large corporations and pro-capitalist governments, have begun calling for a world freeze on industrialization. Such sudden respect for the conflict with nature is suspicious.
The theory of historical materialism is essential in guiding an effective battle against the spoilage of nature. In the first place, this theory identifies the main offenders — those who produce for profit. Public opinion should be focused on those people and the government forced to legislate against them. In the second place, such long-range coordinated work will be necessary to reverse the effects of 200 years of spoilage that only a socialist organization of society is up to the task.
Races, Nations, Sexes
Some people hold that the primary antagonisms are not between economic classes, but between races, ethnic groups, nations, or sexes. The long history of racial oppression and wars between nations have a long history, and the special subjugation of women is well known, at least by women. It should be noted that each of these views has a right-wing version. White supremacists often maintain that the key struggle in history has been to keep their race “pure”. Super-nationalists like the Nazis in Germany or right-wing national chauvinists in the U.S. have believed that the most important force of history has been the drive of their respective nations to fulfill a God-given destiny. And to many male chauvinists the struggle between the “male principle” and the “female principle” is central. For instance, Sigmund Freud once wrote that women are a major threat to “civilization”, because they are too emotional and lack male rationality.
Racism, national chauvinism, and sexism are the attitudes, respectively, that some race, nation, or sex is naturally superior or inferior to others. Ethnic discrimination — for example the discrimination of Anglo Canadians against Italian Canadians and others — carried with it an attitude in some respects much like racism.
Marxists have been among the leaders in struggles against these attitudes and their effects on people. But, as in the case of pollution, the question is what is primary for understanding history and what is primary for bringing change. The Marxist view is that these things are supported and to a large extent created by ruling-class needs in class society. Marxists also claim that while changing the class structure of society from capitalism to socialism does not automatically eliminate these things, it is absolutely necessary if they are finally to be completely eliminated from human history.
(RY-JM note: In the 21st century, a significant chunk of the ruling class has realized that attitudes of national, racial, or sex-based chauvinism “turn off” consumers. So, we see an increasing prevalence of discourse related to commercial “representation”. A significant group of capitalists now use progressive imagery to their advantage (like “pinkwashing”, or other similar concepts) while still denying their workers, many of whom are racialized, or part of gender or sexual minorities, a living wage and basic rights. Some companies who claim to be “progressive” even funnel funds into right-wing lobbying groups and political campaigns! This can even be seen in imperialist armies, who outwardly claim to be proponents of ethnic, racial, gender, or sexual equality but continue to violently “intervene” in other countries.)
Racial and ethnic antagonisms. The main problem with the theory that racial and ethnic antagonisms are the key to understanding society is that these antagonisms are not found everywhere through human history. I will discuss racism here, but the same arguments apply in the case of ethnic discrimination. It is a matter of debate among anthropologists and historians when racism first appeared in human history. As a widespread phenomenon it is only found relatively recently with the introduction of the slave trade and colonization. Racism became a prevalent attitude when it served a class interest to create antagonism between races. Slave traders and those who owned slaves had to regard slaves as inferior forms of life, in order to justify such human misery. It serves the interests of imperialists to regard the people of the places they pillage as inferior.
Look at places where racism and racial struggle are obvious and ask: who gains and who loses? In [Apartheid] South Africa, where racism is official government policy, the white minority industrialists have become rich thanks to having a large work force of Blacks who must work for starvation wages. Similarly, in the U.S., Blacks, Mexican Americans, and Puerto Ricans have been sources of cheap labour for capitalists. Racist attitudes among U.S. white workers have helped big business to keep the labour movement divided and wages down, just as English-Canadian discrimination toward Indigenous, French-Canadian, and immigrant workers has here. Who profited from the low pay and terrible working conditions experienced by the mainly-Chinese workers who built the railroads: the average white Canadian worker or CP Rail? We also know that it has been trading companies like Hudson’s Bay that profited from the outright theft of native people’s land.
Since European countries were the first to become capitalist and to engage in widespread imperialist rampages, it is not surprising that white racism is the most prevalent. But where there are class interests at stake racism is not confined to white people. For example, while people of Japanese descent are subject to racism discrimination in Canada and elsewhere, Japanese capitalism, which was built up by imperialist holdings in China and Korea, among other places, encourages ethnic discrimination in Japan against Chinese and Koreans. In some countries of the West Indies, racial tension between Blacks and people of East-Indian origin serves the interests of reactionary leaders, since it keeps people divided.
National antagonisms. The view that the major antagonisms in history have been between nations stems from the fact that throughout written history there have been wars, and most wars take place between nations. History books are often little more than lists of wars. Other historical events, like scientific discoveries, economic changes, and artistic developments are related to what wars were going on at the time. Just as we needed to ask whose interests are served by racism, we need to ask whose interests are served by war. And it turns out that ruling-class interests are served by both.
The Roman wars against other peoples were not waged for anything as abstract as promoting the “grandeur of Rome”. They were waged so that Roman nobles could gain land, goods, and slaves. The wars among European countries of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were not initiated by popular demand to uphold “national honour”, but were started by the various ruling classes involved in an inter-capitalist fight to secure spheres of economic influence. Some twentieth-century wars have been grabs for markets and some have been capitalist attempts to put down socialism. First was the invasion of the Soviet Union in its early days by England, Germany, France and other countries (even Canada sent a contingent); later was the Korean War, and the most recent has been the war in Vietnam. In all these wars, ruling-class interests have used nations and national sentiments to further their own ends, just as they use racism. (There is also a progressive side to national sentiments, which will be discussed in chapter twelve.)
It is instructive to note that under socialism, while there are still nations and often quite strong national sentiments, there are not the same feelings of national antagonism. Vietnam is the best example. Even while they were being bombed in the most thorough and inhuman way by U.S. planes, the Vietnamese did not blame the American people or the American nation. They held the present rulers of the U.S. responsible, because they understood that national antagonisms there were sparked by ruling-class interests.
The “battle of the sexes”. Antagonisms between men and women and the attitude of sexism that accompanies them are not an obvious component of the economic class structure of society. This is because these antagonisms are literally too close to home. The special problems of women are often felt by them in their very homes, and the men with whom they live are usually completely unconscious of the fact that they treat women as something like servants. Marxism recognizes the special oppression of women, and in fact Frederick Engels was one of the first authors to attempt a scientific explanation of it.
Engels maintained (and much recent anthropology supports him) that in very early societies, men and women held equal positions. Engels argued that the general subjugation of women came into existence only with class society. In our own society it is not hard to see that the subjugation of women serves the interests of capitalists. For one thing women are paid less than men for the same sorts of work, thus providing a pool of cheap labour for business. For another thing, the vast majority of both those women who have jobs and those who do not, have to do the bulk of the work in the home required for feeding their husbands and raising their children. They must tend to the present workers and raise the future ones. These are functions that capitalism needs performed and it is convenient and inexpensive (for the capitalists) to force the burden of this work on individual women.
Sexist attitudes are very deep-rooted. Marxists are just beginning to advance the work Engels started. In my own view, one form sexism takes is the attitude that the only natural way to live is in a male-dominated family where the woman’s primary and only role is confined to child bearing and care. Many families today require two wages, so the woman is compelled to work. However, if she also wants to work, or otherwise to live in a way that doesn’t fit in with her “normal” role, then this is supposed to prove there is something wrong with her. It is this sexist attitude also, in my opinion, that underlies the persecution of homosexuals which has always been typical of conservatives and the right wing. (RY-JM note: This was published in 1981 — it is safe to say that this attitude applies to the entire LGBTQ2s community).
Male chauvinist attitudes and behaviour do not automatically or immediate disappear with the winning of socialism. Nonetheless, the progress that has been made in combating male chauvinism under socialism so far is impressive. Most present-day socialist countries came out of peasant societies with strongly entrenched backward attitudes toward women. For instance, in the Uzbek Republic, a nation of the USSR, women were still [forced to wear] veils at the time of its socialist revolution. But even with very backward attitudes to combat, socialism has made huge advances in the position of women.
While chauvinism in capitalist countries makes it very difficult for women to participate in politics except in rare and exceptional cases, women in socialist countries have increasingly become a significant proportion of the elected leadership in government. In the Soviet Union, for example, more than one third of the deputies to the Supreme Soviet (the body roughly comparable to our Parliament) are women. (In fact, the 1975 chairperson of one of this body’s two chambers — the Soviet of Nationalities — was a woman from the Uzbek Republic). About 70 per cent of Soviet doctors and over 30 per cent of engineers and lawyers are women. In Cuba, where women’s participation in government has also grown, there was recently passed a law that a working woman must do no more than 50 per cent of the housework and child care in her home. The other half must be shouldered by her husband.
These, and comparable examples that can be found in all the socialist countries, do not prove that the position of women and male chauvinist attitudes change immediately. But they do show what a crucial difference a change in the class structure of a country has in the struggle of women to gain an equal place in society.
There are further alternatives to the Marxist approach to history and society, and of course there is more that could be said about each of the views discussed above. They have been selected because they are the most popular alternative theories to Marxism. Undoubtedly they are the most popular because they at least are concrete and reflect some degree of truth. There are national, sexual, and other antagonisms. Large institutions in our society do run roughshod over individual people. There are battles of ideas and conflicts among different interest groups Marxism does not deny that these things exist. Rather it maintains that they cannot be understood unless seen within the context of the class struggle of a society, and that major progress in combating things like national chauvinism, sexism, and so on cannot be made in our society unless working people engage in active class struggle against capitalism and gain socialism.
Chapter Six of Understanding Marxism will be posted on Tuesday, June 29th. Please visit our “Marxism” section for previous chapters.