PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Answering this question is, I think, linked to understanding why there has been so much written about Marx in the first place. It would be inappropriate on my part to attribute the great volume of secondary literature to a single factor. However, we must consider that the Marx ‘research-industry’ was propelled by an ideological urgency which has historically permeated all questions about Marx and Marxism, especially during the Cold War. Because Marx’s writings were the alleged foundational documents of the Soviet Union, and, for various reasons, have become conflated with Leninism, questions about Marx have traditionally been engulfed in the bigger question of Soviet Communism. Marx’s writings have not been readily separable from the ideological conflict typical of East-West relations for much of this century; therefore, the secondary literature of Marx is larger than we might expect the literature on, say, Thomas Malthus. Unlike the literature surrounding other prominent social thinkers, that focusing on Marx has often been an arena in which the East-West conflict has played itself out.

The politicization of research into Marx has resulted in two general responses in the West. One response has been the vilification of Marx’s writing. With this, the role of Marx’s writings as the foundational documents of the Soviet Union is taken as settled and, consequently, Marx is viewed as an architect of totalitarianism. This reading is inadequate because it so clearly clashes with Marx’s railings against ideology and the subjection of human beings.

Another response has been to adopt a reading of Marx corresponding to what Charles Taylor has called “the view from Dover Beach”. Such a reading is a nostalgic one which longs to recapture a Marx unsullied by Bolshevism and portrays the Soviet Union as a betrayal of blameless ideas. This position is also inadequate because it seems intent on merely absolving Marx and says little about the role which Marx’s ideas may have played in the development of Leninism.

In short, much of what has been written about Marx bears the mark of the ideological debates surrounding the Soviet Union, and, thus, tells us little about Marx in his own right. The purpose of this thesis is to offer for discussion a way of challenging the identity of Marx’s thought and Leninism while avoiding the absolutionist tendency.

Driving a wedge between Marx and Lenin in this fashion has, perhaps, become more feasible in the current ideological climate. More importantly though, distinguishing between Marx, the social theorist, and Lenin, the demiurge of the Soviet state, has become more necessary than ever. It might be argued that, once the ideological urgency has been siphoned off, the popular and academic discussion of Marx will mercifully fade away and some other poor soul will become the focus of café talk. However, in 1994, when it may be argued that Marx’s ideas are irrelevant, Marx actually has much to tell us. At the time when the former Soviet Union and its successor states have abandoned Leninist ideas, the kinds of social problems that concerned Marx have resurfaced with a new virulence. Furthermore, though the Leninist political model has been rejected, my limited experience with Russia suggests that there is considerable ambivalence amongst contemporary Russians about the market-oriented, rights-based alternative. Therefore, there is a justification for the continued study of Marx, not as an ideologue or the father of communism, but as a theorist keenly tuned to social problems which have not changed much since his death. It is because the pieces of the old Soviet empire are facing anew the problems of community, freedom, and human welfare, for which Marx sought solutions beyond the simple affirmation of individual rights and the free-market, that I answer my initial question with an emphatic “yes”.

The process of preparing this thesis has indebted me to many people, especially my thesis committee. Of immeasurable assistance was my supervisor, Dr. Marshall Goldstein. Dr. Goldstein’s suggestions and advice over numerous cups of coffee ensured that this project progressed smoothly from its conception, and prevented it from being more tangential than it might have been otherwise. I am also grateful to Dr. Peter Potichnyj, whose graduate seminar allowed me to work out the earliest outline of this thesis, and Dr. Howard Aster, without whom I would never have encountered some of the problems of contemporary Russian politics in such a vivid fashion or had reason to write this thesis in the first place. All committee members provided valuable recommendations on the manuscript and contributed to the argument which appears in the following pages, although its deficiencies are entirely attributable to me.

Thanks of a different kind are due to the staff and faculty members of the McMaster Department of Political Science, many of whom contributed indirectly to this project but provided reference letters, computer advice, address labels, sharp pencils, etc.

Finally, I wish to thank my parents who still always seem happy to see me, and the friends who provided emergency transfusions at the Phoenix. My greatest debt is to Kathryn Denning who, for many years now, has tirelessly listened to my ideas and read my writing—but is, thankfully, far more comprehensible than Hegel.

Mark E. Knackstedt
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
June 1994