A Political Trinity: Marx's Materialism, Foucault's Pessimism, and the Suffering of Christ
Meeting in the middle for Marxist Theory Monday #004
In his essay “What is Enlightenment?” (1784), Immanuel Kant famously asks, “Have we not all become philosophers?” In his answer, Kant argues that “philosophy” is not a profession but a way of life. As an armchair philosopher - not even an academic - I resonate with appreciation for such sentiments.
That said, traditional philosophy and its societal applications throughout recent centuries have presented unique challenges that I believe are best recognized by way of a thoughtful double-take. The bureaucratic nature of academic institutions, with all of the power dynamics that constitute their structure, have lead recent intellectuals such as Michel Foucault to more skeptical analyses of philosophy.
Fundamental concepts such as truth, knowledge, and justice were, for Foucault, not tangible aspects of society which could be defined, but tools—of manipulation, of deception, and ultimately, the subjection of the least fortunate individuals to the most inhumane forms of torture. Traditional philosophy was viewed by Foucault as a regular means of legitimizing and preserving systems of power and control. This is one of the principal reasons Foucault is considered a pessimist. However true the accusation, I believe his outlook correctly unveils the insidious nature of arbitrary power, as well as its ability to constrain the perimeters of public thought.
My admiration for Foucault is perhaps greater than for any other intellectual figure in history, save for Jesus Christ and Plato, respectively. That said, if the question that defines philosophy and its purpose, as was supposed by the late Alan Watts, is whether or not one ought to commit suicide, then the answer derived from a Foucaultian point of view most certainly leans toward the latter, though he certainly was not an advocate for such a solution. Rightfully so. The problem that remains is, if you take Foucault's account of power seriously on its own, then you can't think of the possibility of a future that is better than the present.
In this fourth edition of Marxist Theory Monday, I will argue that this problem can be solved with two equally necessary additions; Marxism and Christianity. The first offers a reasonable route of physical and political action. Marx firmly understood the nature of his enemy. Christ, on the other hand, loved that enemy. I suspect that both approaches may be necessary for legitimate progress.
I can think of no better remedy for the ails of modern society than a mixture of Foucault’s resistance, Marx’s realism, and Christ’s unconditional love and respect.
To formulate such a remedy, the problems at hand must first be defined in as much detail as possible. Politically, Karl Marx did a fantastic job of this. His evaluation of global capital exposed the infection at the very core of the economic structure. More than the necessary act of empathizing with the plight of the working class, Marx was able to define their suffering, making it identifiable and thus exposing its vulnerabilities to appropriate judgement.
Marx’s fundamental materialism appears, on the surface, oppositional to Foucault’s natural inclination towards abstraction. Using history, archaeology, and genealogy, Foucault showed how systems of power operate on a discursive level, while Marx used a more laconic approach to precisely outline the features of the exploitative ruling system. Despite this apparent difference, the two philosophers are not necessarily mutually exclusive; Foucault's post-structuralist analysis can be incorporated, at the very least, into Marxist theory via focus on the mechanisms of power as they operate through language, discourse, and media.
Furthermore, Foucault’s emphasis on subjectivity and influence can also be aligned with Marx’s notion of false consciousness. False consciousness refers to the distorted way in which individuals understand and perceive their own role in society. Foucault’s classic, Discipline and Punish, is filled with real-world historical examples of false consciousness in action and in rest. As a result we see the materialist and the abstractionist come together in clarity.
Of course, ideology and discourse are not the only tools used by those in power. Physical force and violence are prominently utilized to maintain hierarchical structures and persecute individuals whose behavior, speech, and attitude represent potential threats to the system. This is where Foucault’s emphasis on resistance and subversion meet with the corporeal suffering of Christ.
Jesus Christ was the embodiment of resistance against the systemic violence of the Roman Empire and the arbitrarily dictatorial laws of the Old Testament. His actions, words, and beliefs directly challenged the notion of arbitrary and illegitimate power in general. Not limited to any specific setting but timelessly applicable, the historical reality of his existence, as well as one’s particular spiritual affiliations, become irrelevant in the context of political theory. There is a reason the New Testament often refers to Christ as the Son of Man. These humble literary features of the New Testament set it truly apart from all other literary works.
The Cross thus presents to us the mast of a ship sailing forward. It acknowledges the complexities of power, both in its discursive and physical forms, and provides a framework for resistance and revolution; the physicality involved in justified. The sins have been paid for, metaphorically or otherwise, and the time has therefore come for the liberation of the working class and the modern proletariat.1
So how might we proceed? Fortunately, we have historical examples to learn from. The Civil Rights Movement in the United States, championed by men as great as Frederick Douglass and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., was heavily influenced by both Marxist and Christian beliefs. This synthesis of ideas proved an undeniably powerful force in the fight for abolition of the grotesque institution of chattel slavery.
Technological development has offered the additional resource of information itself. Indeed, this may prove our most vital asset in this ever-evolving world in which we find ourselves. As Kant recognized, many individuals have become “armchair philosophers,” engaging in critical thinking and discourse entirely separate from the recognized academy.
The potential force that accompanies international communication has always existed and has always been a threat to tyrannical power structures. The mass strikes in Kiev and Luxembourg which proceeded the First World War are ample proof, as well as the solidarity between the Irish national armies and the German national mutinies during 1913-1919. Times have changed. Modern technologies offer a relatively simple way to strengthen the working class by way of communication first. If we are to mount a legitimate, perhaps decisive push back against oppressive powers, we must proactively safeguard and promote technological literacy, perhaps as much as traditional literacy itself.
Those of the process of radicalization must remember that our strength lies in our potential unity. By ourselves, every one of us is small; a mere, mortal man in the face of a vast and fortified system of oppression. The article published yesterday was titled ‘There is Nothing New Under the Sun.’ Such sentiments are both true and applicable in all aspects of existence be they spiritual, political, domestic, or mechanistic. And so, it is as true now as it has always been that the working class and the new proletariat must unite in unconditional solidarity. We must recognize our common enemy, and we must think, keeping in mind that a realization does not have to still a man.
Quite the opposite is true. — To think is to act.
-the Shultz Report by M. Shultz
Recommended reading:
What One Can Learn from Kant on Regime Change by Robert R. Clewis
XXI Century Socialism by Alan Woods
Wrong-Doing, Truth-Telling: The Function of Avowal in Justice by Michel Foucault
From Marx to Foucault, via Althusser by Gordon Hull
I make the deliberate distinction between the working class and the modern proletariat for the following reason; though the two groups may and often do coincide, there is an increasing proletarian sector of society which cannot possibly be referred to as the working class. The judicially condemned and the paperless, perhaps better referred to as ‘the afraid,’ constitute this section of society.
The judicially condemned, i.e. those who have been tried and convicted, are not only deprived of their freedom, but also of their right to work and to own property. The paperless, i.e. those who have never been tried, are deprived of all rights. The paperless are condemned by the state without trial, merely on the basis of their undocumented status. They are deprived of their right to work, and of all other rights. They are condemned to a life of poverty and misery.
These most unjustly exploited persons deserve our honest and loving attention as we search for a route upon which we might sail towards something close to justice.