MARXISM and THE- PROBLEM of DETERMINISM by Bruce G
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Marxism and the problem of determinism Authors Marshall, Bruce Gordon, 1944- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 01/10/2021 21:53:13 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/318050 MARXISM AND THE- PROBLEM OF DETERMINISM by Bruce G, Marshall A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree MASTER OF ARTS In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1968 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis, has "been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable with out special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quo tation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Bean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the pro posed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED s M- Irf/j APPROVAL.BY. THESIS DIRECTOR This thesis has been approved on the date shown belows Ronald D. Milo Date Doctor of Philosophy TABLE OF CONTENTS , . - Page A<BSX BA-CJl 0 O o 0 0- 6 O O 0 0 0 0.0 O 0 a O 0 O 0 0 o IT CHAPTERS I, INTRODUCTION . „ , . „ „ , » . 0 „. „ „ 0 . 1 II. THE CRITICISM , o . „ . 3 III. EVALUATION OF THE CRITICISM . „ 0 *■. 8 Historical Determinism and Free-Will » . 8 Mechanism and Historical Determinism . » 16 IV. THE MARXIST CONCEPT OF FREEDOMi AN INTERPRETATION , . 0 . 0 = . 0 , , . 26 LIST OF REFERENCES »•, . » » . = „ . „ 0 . 4l iii ABSTRACT This thesis is a defense of Marxism on what is per haps its most persistent point of criticisms the charge of determinism, Xsaiah Berlin is presented as the principal critic, although there are, indeed, many others. The thesis has a negative as well as positive purpose, The negative side of the thesis is twofold. In the first place, it holds that historical determinism can never be logical grounds for fatalism. In the second place, it argues that those who fear that universal causality is destructive of human freedom are seriously misconceiving the free-will problem. The fear of mechanism, it is argued, is a mere bogy and a baseless fear. The positive side of the thesis is an effort to interpret the Marxist concept of freedom. Three elements fundamental to the Marxist concept of freedom are distin guished: (1) social context, (2) knowledge of social and historical causation, and (3) material social condition. Many other conceptions of freedom ignore one or another of these elements and are thus one-sided and incomplete. iv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Marxism as a philosephieal doctrine has been criti cized on a number of grounds0 One major criticism is that Marxism is "deterministic.* However» if "determinism" is taken in its most common philosophical form as the doctrine of universal causation, it is at once evident that the critics of Marx are confusing determinism with fatalism. When determinism and fatalism are equated, a great number of philosophical issues are bluntly ignored. Fatalism "denies that human beings have the power to change the course of events." (Hospers 1953» P« 322) The logic behind fatalism seems to be that if something is going to happen, it will happen, and if it is not going to happen, then it will not happen. It is easy to see how the critic of Marx who con fuses determinism and fatalism will conclude that Marxism is destructive of human freedom. The thesis presented here is that the critics of Marx who charge that Marxism is a pernicious doctrine de structive of free-agency are mistaken. Such critics, it will be argued, erroneously search for a small area of in determinism, where the "will"'may have a free reign. Again, it is not hard to see that the critic who equates determinism with fatalism, will seek to. identify human freedom with indeterminismo Surely there is something which needs_to he ex plained in McFadden0 s contention that fatalism "logically follows” from Marx0s determinism, (McFadden 1939» P= 2*0) McFadden can make such a claim only because he has ignored the problems of determinism and presupposed that determinism is fatalistic, Isaiah Berlin, our chief critic here, also passes from Marxian determinism to fatalism at the expense of blur ring the issues at hand, Marxism, as well as a host of other historical theories which are ”in one sense or another, forms of determinism,” says Berlin, implies "that the indivi dual ■s freedom of choice is ultimately an illusion,” (Berlin 1954, Po 20) The following, chapter will deal with Berlin's criticism in some detail. CHAPTER II THE CRITICISE Berlin0 s Historical Inevitability is an attempt' to classify, as well as to criticize, what Hr=. Berlin considers to he the major deterministic theories of history, "The notion that one can discover patterns or regularities in the procession of historical events," (Berlin 195^» P« 5) says Berlin, is quite natural to those impressed by the advance of modern science. This belief in historical regu larity may be divided into two theories of history8 per sonal theories and impersonal theories. Personal theories of history stress the efficacy of individuals in the course of history, while the impersonal theories emphasize "large numbers of unspecified persons," (Berlin 195^» P, 6) Of the impersonal theories, which agree that history obeys laws, three types of theory may be distinguished8 (1) teleological, (2) transcendental and (3) scientific. An historical explanation for the teleological theory of history consists in defining the goal towards which history is progressing. To explain an event on this account is to discover its purpose, Needless to say, such a theory is "profoundly anti-empirical," (Berlin 195^» p, 14) To the transcendental theory, -pattern is of prime Importance„ Such a theory posits a "permanent, trans cendent reality, "above,* "outside,0 or "beyond*"" (Berlin 195^o P» 15) Explanation, on this account, says Berlin, in volves "pattern" rather than "goal0" Such a view pre supposes an ultimate structure of reality which is permanent - c and unchanging. Lastly, there is the scientific conception of his tory, Although this view rejects metaphysics, it too has a metaphysico This view holds "that all that exists is necessarily an object in material nature, and therefore susceptible to explanation by scientific laws." (Berlin 195^o Po 18) This view holds that nothing is, in principle, incapable of measurement and calculation. Social engineer ing on this account, says Berlin, is nothing but the "physiology of every feeling and attitude and inclination." (Berlin 195^ P° 19) Moreover, "what all these concepts— metaphysical and scientific alike— have in common ... is the notion that to explain is to subsume under general formulae, (Berlin 195^0 Po 19), "Why," for the teleologist is answered by re ference to the end. The transcedental1st answers "why" in terms ©f pattern, and for the historical scientist, "why" means "resulting from what causes?" (Berlin 195^» P» 19) Berlin does not hesitate to inform his reader that: All these theories are, in one sense or another, forms of determinism, whether they he teleological or scien tific, And one common characteristic of all such outlooks is the implication that the individual's freedom of choice is ultimately an illusion, that the notion that human beings could have chosen otherwise than they did usually rests on ignorance of facts, (Berlin 195^» P° 20) It is further,argued that each of these three forms of historical determinism admits of two different versions, the one optimistic and benevolent and the other pessimistic and malevolent. The optimistic version, we are told, is.humanitarian and is exemplified by Owen, Fourier, Comte, Shaw and others. These theories are "generously disposed towards all mankind, (Berlin 195^'$ P» 22) and really attempt to lift man out of his ignorance, misery and sorrow. The pessimistic version of determinism "is a good deal less amiable in tone and feeling," (Berlin 195^9 P« 22) although it too may be optimistic about the final outcome, (Berlin 195^> P° 22) Both Hegel and Marx belong to this category, each believing that historical advances "always take the form of violent cataclysmic leaps, destructive revolutions which, most often with fire and sword establish a new order upon the ruins of the old," (Berlin 195^? P» 22) To clear up the matter of where Marx stands on all these questionable distinctions, we are later assured that Marx represents a version of the "materialistic or scien tific interpretation" (Berlin 195^» p. 71) of history. To summarize, for Berlin, Marxism puts forth an im personal view of history which is materialistic or scienti fic in the sense that it holds everything to be matter and thus the subject of scientific law. (Berlin 195^» P- 18) For this view, "Why?" means "resulting from what causes?" (Berlin 195^» P= 18) Thus, every historical event is ex plained in terms of causes and effects. However, Berlin does not stop here, for the charge that .Marxism is deter ministic in the sense that it affirms historical (or uni versal) causation is hardly a "charge" at all. Such a charge will turn few readers against Marxism.