Following a mini-series of polemics off of Afropessimist attacks on Marxist theory, in 2018 Western Cape based Lindokuhle Patiwe wrote an article published in the AIDC platform which is bizarrely titled Why Marx is not enough. It is bizarre because throughout the attempt, Patiwe looks to discredit Marxist ideas while in other instances he claims to demonstrate a use of Marx‟s method (more on that later) to show different outcomes will be achieved, whatever that is. The thing about the article is that it did not receive as much attention at the time, and, as a fresh debate brews between one camp – supporting of Marxist thought, and another – partly or wholly objecting to Marxist thought (“Blackists”); as the lockdown in response to the rapidly spreading SARS-CoV 2 perhaps takes effect leading to webinars and zoom meetings throughout the country, Patiwe and those agreeing with him demand a response to the forgotten article.
In the article Patiwe makes a lot of claims many of which he does not demonstrate and where he attempts a demonstration one realises one could be doing organising work to combat the virus which threatens working class lives instead.
Of the several claims Patiwe makes, this short article attempts to respond to some of the sticking ones as they follow one another in the course of the article while also setting to highlight errors in interpretation of Marxist ideas. From the outset, the article makes reference to something the author calls a “socio-symbolic order”. It is from there that red flags about what is to come start flashing. Let’s look at the claims.
“Racism and capitalism are the same thing”, argues Patiwe. And where Marx says, “The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened new ground for the rising bourgeoisie,” Patiwe finds evidence that capitalism, colonialism and racism are the same thing and should not be separated. He then summons Hosea Jaffe to buttress the idea. Without evaluating the concept for the time being, the reader is made aware that the quoted passage is from The Communist Manifesto. It appears in a passage which details the development of the first bourgeois class, not colonialism or capitalism. Unless Patiwe believes the bourgeoisie themselves are capitalism itself, I cannot see how the passage supports what the author argues. This is the first distortion.
In addition, nothing of substance is offered to show why racism and capitalism is the same thing. Dictionaries liberally define racism as “a belief that one’s race is superior to others”, while others favour an “institutional definition” where those who control the social, economic and political institutions, use their power to exploit, oppress and even degrade those belonging to a group considered inferior. In the United States, this is seen in the way the police systematically profile young black (and Latino) men based on appearance and usually kill them. It can also be in the form of the criminal justice system, reduced opportunities for employment, economic status and so on. It may also manifest as hate speech against the oppressed group. Capitalism on the other hand is a specific way a society organises its economic production which influences (not determine) the way the society as a whole is organised too. In capitalism the main feature is the private ownership of the factories, land, machines, the raw materials, etc., and all the things used in production while the majority have nothing to sell but their own ability to do work. Somehow, Patiwe finds that all this means racism and capitalism are the same thing.
Patiwe appears to agree with Walter Rodney that the thing to take home is really the methodology Karl Marx used in analysing society, i.e., historical materialism. Patiwe seems to be amazed that there are differences in “outcomes” of analysis of society following a historical-materialist evaluation, but why must the “outcomes” be the same? Development of African and European societies and their histories differ, why should one find surprise that context today differs?
Even so, what must be impressed on comrades such as Patiwe is that class antagonisms still obtain in Africa as in Europe. One only needs to read history prior to the advent of European colonists to Africa. They are sure to find lord and subordinate, king and subject, primary producer and usurper of the surplus product in society and indeed that is what Marx says you should find when he explains, “The history of all hitherto existing society† is the history of class struggles.”
It is confusing why the comrade says, and we quote him, “The failure of many SA Marxists is to negate the methodology of Marx as the fundamental and take the conclusions of Marx, that he arrives at through the use of this methodology, as the fundamental”. For the sake of argument, it would be useful if he can state what conclusions are those lest one is accused of putting words in the mouth of the comrade. And does Patiwe really insinuate that there is no working class in the country called South Africa since he is talking about SA Marxists…forced into a situation where they look for a working class in a society with a mode of production that does not produce a bourgeois class and a working class?
To be sure, following the above-quoted passage, Patiwe continues and exactly says, “Therefore, they are in a constant search of a working class, even in situations where the mode of production of that society does not produce a bourgeoisie and working class.” Where did Patiwe observe this behaviour he accuses SA Marxists of?
I invite Mr Patiwe to literature on the Russian revolution if he thinks that the working class was absent in Russia, to research what class led the soviets. What the Bolsheviks did in Russia was to show the possibility of revolution in a backward country. This is not a material contradiction to Marx. The latter should be understood as theorising a dynamic situation which leads to the end of capitalism absolutely, in other words, throughout the (developed) world, and maybe standing a better chance to overcome the contradictions encountered by the Soviets. The working class is the motive force under capitalism, it was so in Russia.
Patiwe is evidently an idealist, unrelenting, and so he set out to dispute Marx privileging material needs before spiritual ones. He dedicated part of his writing to prove that spiritual needs come before our very own biology! To prove this bizarre claim, Patiwe does something strange in his article, he “evaluates” Marx’s concept of mode of production against that of Jaffe whom he finds sating because there “culture” is catered for, and other intangible things such as ideas, which Marxism actually considers in the concept of the superstructure. Patiwe does not seem to know that.
To drive his point home – that Marx errs in saying “the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas” – he uses billionaires, Messrs Patrice Motsepe and Cyril Ramaphosa not “controlling the ideas of society,” that they “do not control the ideological state apparatus. They do not control knowledge production in the country.” Firstly, one must appreciate that the two men in question are not a class all by themselves.
Secondly, the quote actually refers to the fact that as a class, the bourgeoisie propagates and supports ideas, perspectives, ideology and education which justifies their position in society. All bourgeoisie show a conservative attitude and resist change. I am convinced that Motsepe and Ramaphosa are not teaching against the way things are. They do not challenge ideas crediting them with the creation of wealth in society, for example. In no way did Marx and Engels claim that a condition to be part of the ruling class an individual must “control society’s ideas”; knowledge-production or the rest of what Patiwe alleges needs to happen.
As a departing observation, although Motsepe and Ramaphosa are part of a tiny and really insignificant black owning-class, they actually possess and wield rather massive power in this country. Privately owning freely available minerals; part of wildlife; are able to exploit and fire and hire workers and therefore decide who starves. Patiwe wants us to treat all this as negligible, but for what purpose?
A lot of young activists caught up in anti-Marxist positions attack and ridicule Marx and Marxism without ever having read Marx in his own terms. Others browse over a pamphlet and claim to have understood Marx. One expects that someone who speaks like that is at least able to put together something of theoretical value, but often, as readers of these critiques we do not find anything theoretically appealing, but we find severe lack of understanding. Hopefully, the level of debate around Marxism and it’s claim to be a scientific method towards revolution, can at least be met with a critique with a consistent internal logic, viable in practice, observable in the behaviour of workers under capitalism, or we will be once again wasting valuable time.
lindokuhlethefirst's Blog 