Why Marxism is not Eurocentric (Stay At Home #35)

Today we're joined by professor of English at John Jay College, Nivedita Majumdar, to argue against the charge that because socialism is Western in its place of origin, it therefore loses relevance in the non-Western world. Instead, because capitalist exploitation and workers' resistance look fundamentally similar all over the world, regardless of cultural or normative differences, Marxism remains an invaluable tool for anyone who seeks justice.

Press like and subscribe!

[LongDefiant]

I love the point that racism loses its power when economic proceeds are shared equally. When racists have no economic power they just become people with bad attitudes.

Echoes of Adolph Reed Jr.

This is a wonderful response to the identitarian politics so prevalent in America today.

[adminwp]

I’ve got to hear this. I’ll listen to this later so I’m liking it so I can find it later.

[non-standardproletarian]

Another question regarding the US left in context of mass movement is this: What role has the dogma of non-violence, and its attending a-historical, decontextualized mythology, played in disarming resistance to capital?

[PalaeoJoe]

This was a good talk, but it did not much engaged with why Marxism is not Eurocentric. She spoke about material conditions and connected things to Marx at the beginning but did not debunk many criticisms about Marxism specifically just socialism generally.

[egee]

this the best one in this series so far, thank you!

[Zakdayak]

Why is socialism constantly connected to Marx? There are other forms.

[hansfrankfurter]

It still remains that Marx and co have a linear constant progress schema that’s based entirely on European history.

I think there’s plenty to learn from the Marxist tradition, but it is Eurocentric insofar as it barely deals with anything outside of Europe except as marginal or to force European conceptual categories on them.

You don’t need to be a Marxist to be a socialist.

[eddielloyd]

Marx didn't just appear in the intellectual landscape out of the blue, his thoughts and assumptions were borne out of the intellectual traditions of Europe and ultimately, in particular the humanist and protestant traditions. The Jacobins themselves take their name from the Couvent des Jacobins de la rue Saint-Honoré, a Dominican monastery, and many of the original French revolutionaries were priests, e.g. Henri Grégoire
, in 1791 the president of the Jacobins was a priest. Only later in the revolution when the more overtly nationalist aspect of it emerged, did the anti-clerical and anti-catholic stuff kick in, which itself is derivative of classic protestant ideas, that national sovereignty trumps papal supremacy.


Marxism was borne of a heavily secularised and industrialised Christian Europe, its claims to universality again derivative of the humanist tradition, and ultimately of Catholic theology. Of course from a Marxist point of view, marketing itself as eurocentric doesn't help its cause around the world but that doesn't make it any the less true. To claim Marxism is universal also assumes the whole world will follow the same economic development into the future. Seeing as the world hasn't shared the same economic history (macro or micro), at least not since we were all hunter-gatherers, this seems unlikely. Economic and cultural divergence, not convergence, has been the rule of history. That and human iniquity.

[adminwp]

Your argument hasn't been made. You are just talking about US and UK. Disappointing. I thought you were talking about Marxism as a Eurocentric and not suitable for the majority world who have lots of traditions often better than European socialism