Seize the means of understanding
Critical thinking and research in the age of the new political divide
Recently I read an article on Linkedin. I know what you are about to say - and you are right, but anyway, I did stumble upon an article on LinkedIn nevertheless. In short, the article presented a critique of Marxism and communism, arguing that these ideologies are fundamentally flawed and inevitably lead to totalitarianism and oppression. It contended that Marxism is overly deterministic and reductionist, ignoring the complexities of human societies and promoting class struggle and social division rather than unity. The article claimed that Marxist-inspired communist states have historically resulted in economic inefficiency, political repression, and human rights abuses, citing "The Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as evidence of the horrors of communist regimes. It sees Marxism as incompatible with individual rights, freedoms, and democracy, arguing that it stifles innovation and efficiency by removing market incentives. The article also briefly mentions Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber) (???) and his anti-technology manifesto, drawing a connection to critiques of modern society.
Now, the problem is not that someone would write a critique about an ideology or two. The problem was the flawed “logic” that the author used to structure their piece. What’s more outrageous is that I am neither a Marxist nor a communist. Furthermore, I believe that everyone has the right to follow any ideology that connects with them (with limits, you know). Within the online arena, I believe that the dialogic arguments we make in the political, professional, and personal spheres are supposed to happen with respect and empathy. Why would my blood boil over such a thing? Is it perhaps that the author was a designer? Do I have unrealistic expectations of designers? Do I believe that most people in a profession should fit into one specific box?
I am not sure of the answer but I somehow felt compelled to clarify some things because at least as designers we brag that we “profess in research” and we “understand systems”. So what does this article get wrong anyway? First and foremost, it’s an overly simplistic and reductionist view of Marxism and communism. The article fails to acknowledge the diversity within Marxist thought. It ignores the many scholars who have integrated insights from feminist, postcolonial, and ecological theories to broaden Marxist analysis beyond purely economic concerns. It also overlooks the complex relationship between Marxist theory and democratic practices, disregarding examples of democratic socialist movements and governments that have attempted to combine socialist economic principles with political democracy. The article's portrayal of human nature as fixed and inherently competitive is also a very narrow-minded view, on the contrary, many Marxist humanists argue for the need for a more complex understanding of human nature as both shaped by and shaping social conditions.
Furthermore, sadly the article neglects the significant role that communist movements in the Global South have played in anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles, as well as in advancing social progress in areas such as women's rights, literacy, and land reform. I understand the author might not come from those areas, but a critique that fails to see those is a bit… bland and short-sighted. It fails to engage with anthropological insights like the existence of "everyday communism" in human social relations. The article also doesn't address the critiques of capitalism offered by Marxist thought, particularly regarding alienation and commodification. Lastly, it overlooks the potential for alternative, decentralized forms of socialist organization, such as worker cooperatives and participatory economics, that many contemporary Marxists advocate for as alternatives to both capitalist markets and centralized state control.
Marxism’s nuanced thought
Marxism and communism are not monolithic ideologies and there’s a vast and significant diversity within Marxist theory. Not only in historical but also in contemporary thought. If you have a little time to spare, you can read more about democratic socialism as one of the many examples and you can also read more Hannah Arendt. As Joseph V. Femia points out, Marx himself favored a participatory model of democracy. Many Marxist thinkers have advocated - very loudly - for democracy. Scholars have extensively argued that Marx's critique of bourgeois democracy was not a rejection of democracy itself, but a call for a more substantive form of popular rule, therefore more participatory.
On the participatory front, many modern Marxists speak about expanding democracy into the economic sphere through worker-owned enterprises and workplace democracy which is a direct opposite to state control. Modern Marxists also stress the importance of direct action and grassroots movements in achieving social change, rather than relying solely on centralized state action. Unlike earlier critiques that saw technology as inherently oppressive, many contemporary Marxists explore how technology can be used to democratize information and decision-making processes.
Marx has left a really nuanced view of human nature. He argued that humans have a fundamental nature (species-being) that includes the capacity for conscious, creative labor. This nature is not fixed, but it rather develops through social and historical processes. In the "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844," Marx writes about how labor under capitalism alienates humans from their species by turning work into a mere means of survival rather than a creative, fulfilling activity. Marx did believe that human nature is shaped by social and economic conditions, but not entirely determined by them.
Let’s explore further the nuance within Marxist thought:
Feminist Marxism, by the brilliant Silvia Federici, integrates Marxist analysis with feminist theory to examine the role of women's unpaid labor in the development of capitalism.
Postcolonial Marxism, as seen in Frantz Fanon's "The Wretched of the Earth," combines Marxist class analysis with insights on colonialism and racism.
Eco-Marxism, explored in John Bellamy Foster's "Marx's Ecology," critiques capitalism's relationship to nature.
Intersectional Marxism, as demonstrated in Angela Davis' work, combines Marxist analysis with insights on gender and race.
Queer Marxism, exemplified by Kevin Floyd's "The Reification of Desire," integrates Marxist theory with queer theory to analyze sexuality under capitalism.
For someone to critique Marxism, and not end up being reductionist themselves, they would have to become more scholarly in their methodology. For example, not distinguishing Marxism from Stalinism would be a grave mistake, since Stalinism was not a logical conclusion of Marxism but an overt perversion of the original ideals. Additionally, many modern Marxists have moved away from the vanguard party (a Leninist concept), which was often associated with the centralization of thought and power.
What about the Global South?
All forms of Marxism and communism do not fit into a neat package of inevitable authoritarian state communism. We cannot ignore libertarian socialist and anarchist traditions that go way back in history. I cannot emphasize enough that there are so many historical and sociopolitical factors that contributed to the development of authoritarian systems. We cannot treat those as the only possible future for all socialist systems. I also cannot expand on those here, there are literally whole libraries about the subject.
Here, it’s crucial to state that there are so many successful democratic socialist movements and governments that have NOT led to totalitarianism. For example, Salvador Allende's government in Chile attempted to implement socialist policies within a democratic framework before being overthrown in a US-backed coup. In the Global South, communist movements have often been deeply intertwined with anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles. These movements have played significant roles in advancing social progress, including women's rights, literacy campaigns, and land reform (see for example the African National Congress, though not strictly communist, it did focus extensively on workers’ rights…).
There are numerous historical and ongoing socialist experiments that challenge the narrative of inevitable authoritarianism. These include (but are not limited to) the Paris Commune (1871), Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities (1994-present), Rojava (2012-present), and the Free Territory of Ukraine (1918-1921).
Several countries and regions have implemented socialist policies within democratic frameworks. Kerala, India, has been governed by democratically elected communist parties for much of its history since 1957, achieving high levels of human development. Chile under Salvador Allende (1970-1973) attempted to implement socialist policies through democratic means.
Schools of critical thought
What would David say? As a self-proclaimed Graeber scholar, I always bring my learnings from his work into my critical thought. David emphasized the importance of cultural and social factors in shaping societies, beyond just economic circumstances. He advocated for direct, participatory forms of democracy, challenging the assumption that Marxism is inherently anti-democratic. Though David, was more anarchist rather than Marxist himself, he argued that true freedom requires not just political rights, but also economic emancipation from exploitative labor practices. He was critical of bureaucratic systems in both capitalist and communist societies, seeing them as sources of alienation and oppression.
David, the anthropologist, argued that human societies have a long history of organizing themselves in non-hierarchical, communal ways that don't fit neatly into either capitalist or state-communist models. This was also according to him the true meaning of communism: any human relationship that operates on the principles of 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs'. David claimed that this form of baseline communism is the foundation of all human sociability and the very condition that makes society possible.
All of us act like communists a good deal of the time. None of us acts like a communist consistently*
– David Graeber
Re-reading Pedagogy of the Oppressed now and Freire’s thought is deep into my mind. Paulo Freire emphasized the need for understanding complex social realities and engaging with different perspectives to achieve mutual understanding. Paulo would urge us to adequately analyze existing power structures and inequalities in capitalist societies, which Paulo saw as crucial for understanding social and political dynamics. He stressed the importance of combining theory with practice (praxis) and the role of dialogue in education and social change.
Looking at the past must only be a means of understanding more clearly what and who they are so that they can more wisely build the future
– Paulo Freire
Political philosopher Murray Bookchin would have a word to say about the need to bring to the front and address the ecological crisis, which he saw as fundamentally linked to social hierarchy and domination. Murray argued that true freedom requires not just the absence of state control, but also freedom from social hierarchy and ecological harmony. He would ask us to consider the historical development of hierarchy and domination, which he saw as crucial to understanding current social problems.
Until society can be reclaimed by an undivided humanity that will use its collective wisdom, cultural achievements, technological innovations, scientific knowledge, and innate creativity for its own benefit and for that of the natural world, all ecological problems will have their roots in social problems
– Murray Bookchin
Capitalism and the worker (T.I.N.A.)
Let’s move on to everyone’s favorite system: Capitalism. It would be funny to talk about capitalism as if we are not the worker… We would be amiss not to talk briefly about the negative impacts and the extractive nature of capitalism in the Global South. Here I find a lot of Marxist critique of capitalist exploitation and the inherent contradictions within capitalism that lead to inequality and economic crises, as potent and sharp. Socialist-inspired policies have led to improvements in living standards, workers' rights, and social welfare. Let’s not start on the vast apparatus of capitalistic states because I will need to write a white paper on that.
There are so many non-centralized approaches to socialist economics, such as market socialism, which combines socialist ownership with market mechanisms. Worker cooperatives, enterprises owned and self-managed by workers, offer another alternative model. Participatory economics, developed by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, proposes a non-market form of decentralized economic planning based on worker and consumer councils.
To wrap this up…
In conclusion, I would have hoped that designers would be more exposed in the importance of nuanced understanding in political and economic discourse. Simplicity might be good in terms of user experience (though not always) however, oversimplification of different schools of thought, here specifically Marxist theories, ignores its rich diversity and overlooks the complex historical contexts that shaped various socialist experiments. Marxist-inspired ideas continue to offer valuable critiques of capitalism and insights into human nature, social organization, and ecological concerns.
For designers, tools like critique and systems thinking underscore the need to look beyond market-driven approaches and consider the broader social implications of our work. They challenge us to think critically about our role in society, to strive for more inclusive and sustainable solutions, and to recognize the political nature of design decisions. When used correctly, designers can develop a more systematic understanding of their responsibilities, leading to more thoughtful, ethical, and impactful work that truly serves the planet, society, and people.