Simone Weil’s Critique of Marxism By Be Scofield
Simone Weil was concerned. In the name of liberation and revolution power was being abused. Ideological orthodoxy and state bureaucracy were crippling the freedom of the individual to critically engage with the world. New social forces both sacred and secular were promising salvation but delivering oppression. Weil's response was to do what she knew how to do best: think. To think however meant a radical departure from the norm, a fiercely independent critical analysis and most significantly the capability to pause. And it was with this spirit that she critiqued Marxism; one of the fastest growing and powerful political ideologies of her day. Neither her youth nor the religious fervor surrounding this new doctrine prevented her from delivering an unrelenting rebuke, "
That is why it is possible to say, without fear or exaggeration, that as a theory of the workers' revolution Marxism is a nullity. The rest of his theory of social transformation is based on a number of foolish misapprehensions."[i] Weil disagreed with almost every element of Marx’s theory, whether it was his theory of productive forces or the revolutionary potential of the proletariat. Her critique was fuelled by both an intellectual and experiential dimension as she rigorously deconstructed Marx’s theory as well as worked in the factory and participated in labor struggles. Despite her sweeping critique of Marx she still appreciated his contribution and reserved the word “genius” for him. What of Marx did Weil believe was worthy of retaining? How did Weil understand Marx and his theory? What role did power as a source of social examination play for Weil?
For Weil an analysis of societal oppression must begin with examining the nature and quality of work - something that both Marxism and capitalism mostly ignored. It was easy for her to apply a critique equally because both systems emphasized the maximization of production, albeit for different reasons. For Weil this led to the alienation of the worker and increased the mechanization of human labor resulting in less knowledge and understanding of the work being performed. Marx identified the source of oppression with the capitalist exploitation of surplus labor and thus the proletariat ownership of this surplus became a defining principle of revolution. For Weil this analysis ignored the conditions and type of work just as had the capitalist industrial system with its scientific measurements of factory labor. What was important for Weil was the relationship between the individual worker and his or her ability to comprehend the structure of the labor process. It was the connection between the workers intellectual control of his or her actions that concerned Weil the most. “
…An artisan who has his own tools is more independent than a factory worker whose hands become useless as soon as it pleases the boss to stop him from working his machine….To sum up, the least evil society is that in which the general run of men are most often obliged to think while acting, have the most opportunities for exercising control over collective life as a whole, and enjoy the greatest amount of independence.”[ii] Thus, she was able to separate the systems of power relations from the machines and technology used in the work and claimed that any system could just as easily reproduce oppression.
Another pivotal area of disagreement with Marx was his theory of the revolutionary potential of the proletariat. Weil wondered how the disenfranchised workers would transform their consciousness as well as overthrow the ruling class. This question defined Weil’s critique of the Marxist theory of the proletariat revolution. For Weil the revolutionary impulse is developed from a state of consciousness that is significantly diminished by the capitalist system of production. Thus in order to carry through and sustain the revolution certain qualities of mind and attitude are necessary. Despite the tendency for the proletariat to develop a significant solidarity through factory work over and against the bourgeoisie, the oppression experienced in the capitalist system served to dispossess the worker from the revolutionary spirit. Thus any intellectual or knowledge based attempts to instruct these dispossessed workers to understand the proletarian revolution would fall short according to Weil. It must come from a cultivated sense of character and being that is developed in environments conducive to freedom and creativity. Liberty is not some external structural force that can be transferred to the worker according to Weil. Without a genuine spirit of revolution Weil is unable to see how the workers will resist reproducing oppression and the problems of state bureaucracy. She states, “
And yet, though one can see very well how a revolution can “expropriate the expropriators,” one cannot see how a method of production founded on the subordination of those who do the work to those who co-ordinate could do otherwise than produce automatically a social structure of which the distinguishing mark is the dictatorship of a bureaucratic cast.”[iii]
Weil also disputes the teleology found within Marx’s conception of history. Rather than flipping Hegel’s dialectic of the spirit on its head as Marx claimed he was doing, Weil states that he simply injected the material explanation of historical force with a spirit. For her there was simply no basis to accept Marx’s claim that history is unfolding toward greater progress or increased production. Nor is there any reason to accept the 19th cult of progress that promised a positive direction to history. She states, “The whole of this doctrine, on which the Marxist conception of revolution entirely rests, is absolutely devoid of any scientific basis….The term religion may seem surprising in connection with Marx; but to believe that our will coincides with a mysterious will which is at work in the universe and helps us to conquer is to think religiously, to believe in Providence.”[iv] Thus it was a faith in “the historical mission of the proletariat”[v] that provided the mythological backdrop for Marxist ideology. If history, spirit or God is on your side revolution seems more inevitable. It was this sort of belief that led Weil to conclude that Marxism’s “religion of productive forces” served as “an opium of the people.”[vi]
For Weil revolution became a meaningless word. Both because it was used differently by many as well as because the desired revolution never actually manifested the way it was believed it would. She states, “
The word revolution is a word for which you kill, for which you die, for which you send laboring masses to their death, but which does not possess any content.”[vii] In her day violent insurrection was often thought of as a genuine form of revolution - offering a clean break from the previous system of oppression. However, Weil was quick to point out that during the French Revolution the ruling class had already lost the majority of its support by the time of the violent overthrow. Here she points out a contradiction in Marx stating that the visible revolution is primarily based upon the invisible revolution which has already occurred, albeit silently. Weil dismisses any notion of “the sudden reversal of the relationship between forces” and states that it has never occurred throughout history. Weakness cannot be the victor over force, rather a slow process of change occurs. Another example of the problem with notions of revolution is that the Russian Revolution simply transferred the oppressive systems into new hands. Weil states, “
The institutions arising out of the insurrection did not perhaps effectively function for as long as a single morning; and that the real forces, namely big industry, the police, the army, the bureaucracy, far from being smashed by the Revolution, attained thanks to it, a power unknown in other countries.”[viii] Furthermore, Weil asks of Marx “
…why the oppressed in revolt have never succeeded in founding a non-oppressive society?”[ix]
The distinction between revolution and reform was false according to Weil. In some ways she both accepted and rejected these two ways of approaching social change. She criticized reform tendencies for not seeing the radical nature of the critique necessary to bring about change and rejected the idea that violence could lead to drastic change. Thus the change in thinking about social solutions did indeed need to be revolutionary or radical. However, she rejected the notion that society could undergo a quick revolution that would lead to the end of oppression. Weil did however acknowledge the possibility of creating a society with less oppression. Thus, she did accept the possible use of a principle of the lesser evil. However, she was quick to point out that Marx and his followers never clearly defined what would constitute this principle and without this analysis it is impossible to properly examine the situation. Weil states, “
…for as long as the worst and the best have not been defined in terms of a clearly and concretely conceived ideal, and then the precise margin of possibilities determined, we do not know which is the lesser evil, and consequently we are compelled to accept under this name anything effectively imposed by those who dispose force, since any existing evil whatever is always less than the possible evils which uncalculating action invariably runs the risk of bringing about.”[x]
Weil also rejects Marx’s reduction of society to economic forces and argues for a more complex understanding of social life. For example war is distinct from the economy and plays a central role in oppression, “
However much you may resort to all kinds of subtleties to show that war is an essentially economic phenomenon, it is palpably obvious that war is destruction and not production.”[xi] Instead, force is the central determining factor in understanding social phenomenon according to Weil. Systems of production do not determine the level of oppression. Rather, Weil recognizes that regardless of the form of economy whether feudal, capitalism or communism, abuses of power can and will occur. This is simply the nature of existence. No transformation of any economic system can rid the world of the human tendency to exploit. Using the examples of command and obedience Weil points out that despite those in power being less in number they garner a force capable of controlling the masses. One example Weil gives is when one man fights twenty he will certainly lose, but at the command of one white man twenty “Annamite coolies” can be flogged by just a few. Therefore it is the system of force that is most central to understanding society. However, due to ignorance most misplace their critique and a “
veil is thrown over the fundamental absurdity of the social mechanism.”[xii] Many simply accept Marx’s theory of economic determinism. Weil states,
“People would rather believe that Marx has demonstrated the future, and imminent, constitution of a socialist society than study his works to see if they can discover there even the remotest attempt at demonstration.” [xiii]
Whereas Marx believed the bourgeoisie acted primarily to obtain a disproportionate amount of goods Weil believed they acted solely to retain power. And therefore Weil disagrees with Marx on the issue of scarcity. There are many contributing factors to oppression- not simply whether a society has lack of abundance or not. Here again we see power or force as central in Weil’s thought. She states, “
At times war occupies the forefront, at other times the search for wealth, at other times production; but the evil remains the same…[xiv]
We should be mistaken likewise in assuming that oppression to be ineluctable as soon as the productive forces have been sufficiently developed to ensure welfare and leisure for all.”[xv] Weil also disagrees that it is both possible and desirable to overcome scarcity. The idea that work might be unnecessary Weil calls “mad.” This is not surprising granted that work for Weil is a central part of life and a dignified activity when done with understanding and intelligence. However, Weil does recognize the stream of thought in Marx’s early writings, which emphasize the importance of work,
“It has to take from thence precisely that which has been almost forgotten by what is called Marxism: the glorification of productive labor, considered as man’s highest activity; the assertion that only a society wherein the act of work brought all of man’s faculties into play, wherein the man who works occupied the front rank, would realize human greatness to the full. We find in Marx’s early writings, lines concerning labour that have a lyrical accent…This new poetry, appropriate to our time, which forms perhaps its chief claim to greatness, must not be lost. Therein the oppressed must find evoked their own mother-country, which is hope.[xvi]
Therefore Weil disagrees with the orthodox interpretation of Marxism which focused on ideas with Capital and perhaps finds similarities with his earlier writings. *
Related to the issue of scarcity is that of private property. And again Weil fundamentally disagrees with Marx. He believed that once private property was abolished oppression of workers would disappear simultaneously. For Weil this is another false conclusion. Contrary to Marx she believed any societal system of production could produce oppression. Since power was the central tool for oppression in Weil’s analysis and since hierarchies are inevitable oppression will always be reproduced. Whereas private property represented the misuse of surplus labor to Marx it remained a neutral factor for Weil’s understanding of oppression. And thus the ownership of property is secondary to the structure of labor and the organization of power within the workplace.
While Weil offered a meticulous critique of Marx’s theory she did stand approvingly by his materialism, at least in its ability to analyze society.
“Marx was the first to have the twin idea of taking society as the fundamental human fact and of studying therein, as the physicist does in matter, the relationships of force[xvii]….Two things in Marx are solid, indestructible. One is the method which makes society an object of scientific study by seeking to define therein relationships of force; the other is the analysis of capitalist society as it existed in the nineteenth century…He discovered a formula impossible to surpass when he said that the essence of capitalism lies in the subordination of subject to object, of man to thing….[xviii] His mind, though of insufficient range to meet the requirements for creating a doctrine, was capable of ideas of genius.[xix]”
According to Weil Marx accurately described how the workers are enslaved in a wage-earning system which alienates them from their natural intelligible abilities. He also identified the state bureaucracy as an oppressive system of police, military and governmental control. Thus, Weil is in agreement with Marx’s overarching critique of society: the organization of labor and the state keep people in chains. And she approves of his placement of the social as the site of analysis. Weil calls society “essentially evil” and borrowing from Plato the “Great Beast,” which needs to be tamed. Therefore it is fitting that her analysis begins with the collective and that she finds Marx’s method for analyzing society useful. For Marx all phenomena were mitigated and changed through the materialism of the social and on this Weil agreed.
ConclusionFor Simone Weil understanding power was central to analyzing societal oppression. And it was through this lens that she articulated a bold and insightful critique of both Marx and orthodox Marxism. The awe of Marx and the spirit of revolution in the air couldn’t prevent her from delivering an honest analysis of what she viewed as another flawed political system that had swept over the popular imagination. In the name of science and reason Marx proposed a theory that according to Weil was almost entirely devoid of both. Keen to detect and deconstruct the underlying theology of any given political system Weil took Marx to task for what she believed was essentially a religious project. The authority of institutions, political ideologies or state bureaucracies relied upon propaganda of a mythological nature and mass obedience to the “Great Beast;” Marxism was no exception. Despite claiming to have flipped Hegel’s idealism on its head Marx simply relocated his spirit into history says Weil. She clearly illustrates how there is no evidence that society will unfold as Marx speculated. Likewise his understanding of the proletariat revolution is wholeheartedly backwards according to Weil. By the time a powerless group incites revolution they have already achieved a slow but silent ascendancy to power. Additionally no group in the slave position of society has ever simply overthrown their rulers. The abolishment of private property will not end oppression says Weil and the dream of ridding ourselves of scarcity is simply fictitious. Marx simply wedded both the cult of science and the inevitability of industrial progress to his vision with the end result being a hollow but attractive theory of revolution. Since Marx’s goal was to accumulate the exploited surplus labor this led him to a dependence on the factory. This leads to Weil’s most central critiques of orthodox Marxism: its inability to recognize how the quality and nature of work reproduce oppression. For Weil the relationship between the worker and his/her ability to understand the work process is crucial for creating a less oppressive society. While Weil focused on the role power and force played Marx reduced the entire world to the economy.
Despite a critical analysis of Marx and orthodox Marxism Weil appreciated his emphasis on the social as the source for critique. He offered both a trenchant criticism of 19th century industrial capitalism and an excellent critique of how economic and state systems oppress. Therefore his “genius” was entirely reserved for his ability to locate oppression within the social and apply a scientific analysis of it. And in his early writings she was also able to identify a stream of thought that identified productive labor as the bedrock of a healthy society.
Weil’s insightful critique provides insight into the independent nature of her mind and the role that thinking can play in understanding societal oppression. At the time she was writing, Marxism was an almost accepted norm on the left. To speak against it meant going against the grain. Yet beginning in her mid-20’s she articulated a quite thorough critique of an ideology that was quickly gaining religious status. Additionally she applied her critique to capitalism just as fervently and was still able to acknowledge positive elements within both. Her freedom of conscience illustrates her belief in the importance of removing ourselves from the dominant societal narratives. Collective ignorance blinds the masses and most often prevents the radical and bold critiques necessary to lessen oppression. In short our capacity to think is seriously deprived due to the Great Beast and we must struggle to hold on to our individuality. This certainly doesn’t mean that Weil was free from this system herself or that she didn’t fall victim to the same lack of scientific analysis that she chided Marx for. While often distinguishing between Marx and orthodox Marxism in her writings she wasn’t always clear. [this i like, vk]
Additionally she often treated all states with the same disregard, seemingly unable to delineate between various forms of governments. But her critique of totalitarianism still stands as a pioneering voice in the first half of the twentieth century. And her original and independent critique of Marxism is inspiring and important to those seeking to understand power and address systems of oppression; especially in a world based on presentation and a gross obedience to the mass media.
Endnotes:
* In his 1844 Manuscripts Marx never posited the notion of a work free utopian society but these ideas can be found within Capital. Orthodox Marxism ignored his earlier writings. And there is a similarity between Weil’s emphasis on work and Marx’s early writings. See “A Truer Liberty: Simone Weil and Marxism,” p. 48
[i] Weil, Simone. Oppression and Liberty. Routledge, Great Britain. 1958. P. 175
[ii] ibid p. 97
[iii] ibid p. 13-14
[iv] ibid p. 43
[v] ibid p. 43
[vi] ibid p. 165
[vii] ibid p. 53
[viii] ibid p. 74
[ix] ibid p. 55
[x] ibid p. 58
[xi] ibid p. 134
[xii] ibid p. 134
[xiii] ibid p. 132
[xiv] ibid p. 65
[xv] ibid p. 67
[xvi] ibid p. 144
[xvii] ibid p. 162
[xviii] ibid p. 155
[xix] ibid. p. 161
http://www.commonsensereligion.com/2010 ... rxism.html 
), also i think the point "the case for "Marxism" as a religion; with regard to the self-styled Marxist states and most of the Bolshevik-inspired parties" is Chomsky's mine and yours. dogmatic and, i don't no, determinate, maybe? extremely fixed anyway. but like Marx said (quoting David Harvey) "I am not a Marxist".
