Onto the next and final paragraph in the same section, Sociometry, Sociology and Scientific Socialism. (p.21)
Sociometry did not develop in a vacuum; many generations of social philosophers have anticipated and formulated a number of the hypotheses which I have brought to a clearer formulation and empirical test. However, I do not have any illusions as to my importance, I am fully aware that sociometry might have come into existence without me, just like sociology would have come into existence in France without Comte, and Marxism in Germany and Russia without Marx. (Moreno, 1979, p. 21)
Moreno does not have any illusions about sociometry’s importance, and he’s aware that sociometry may have come to existence without him. I’m not so sure, it hardly exists today, yet I think his contribution is crucial.* I appreciate his somewhat Marxist eye, seeing that ideas require both fertile social ground and individuals capable of advancing them.
Marx
Moreno goes on to reflect that there could have been Marxism in Germany and Russia without Marx.
Earlier, Moreno said, (see the last section)…
Scientific socialism is defined by the two or three great proletarian revolutions it has incited. (p.21)
I that’s not quite right. The revolutions in Russia and Germany were not incited by Marxism, and they did not define Marxism. Marxism was one of the conditions of the revolution. Russia may have been ripe for revolution, but it was more likely a bourgeois revolution, similar to France or what happened in Germany with the fall of the Kaiser.
What made Russia different was and Lenin. His Marxism allowed him to build a proletarian revolution in a way that wouldn’t have been possible without Marx—or Lenin himself. Without them, Russia might have ended up with a bourgeois revolution, which, in hindsight, might not have been a terrible outcome.
In Germany, Marxism came to the fore and almost sparked a true proletarian revolution, one that could have saved the Russian revolution and sparked world revolution. The Bolsheviks demonstrated the possibility of overthrowing the old order and building a workers’ state. It also revealed the immense counter-revolutionary forces, their brutality fired up with anti-Marxism. What might have happened in Germany without Russia highlighting the possibility of Marxism?
We’ve come to an interesting point. Something is understood and that leads to some predictions. Then the prediction does not happen because of that understanding and prediction. Understanding the forces at play becomes a warning to the opposition who heed that warning. Self-negating prophecy.
But we have Marx’s, the right man at the right time. Marx had Engles to collaborate with, and plenty of theorists to build on, and people to argue with. The time was right, the same climate of ideas fostered Darwin and Lyell. Fertile as all that was his particular brilliance was needed to build something that challenged the utopian and liberal socialism of the time.
And we have Moreno who likewise created a holistic relational action based method in the midst of a Freudian, individualistic era.
To sum up, we had the conditions that enabled individuals Marx and Moreno to be the forces they are.
* See my article on Sociometry: Moreno’s scientific methodology: By, of and for the people. (2015) https://aanzpa.org/wp-content/uploads/1512-AANZPA-Journal-Walter.pdf
❋
This post is part of a series.
See Intro Marx and Moreno Monograph