Who is a Marxist?

[GracchusBabeuf]

.

[Il Medico]

This is a basic, but serious, question, addressed to those who consider themselves Marxists:

What constitutes a Marxist?

A Marxist is a person who follows the basic tenants of Marx's ideology proposed in, among other works, The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital.




Does it mean I have to quote Marx/Engels in everything I write?
No. As a Marxist I draw on both Marx and Engels as well as other socialist thinkers like Lenin, Mao, Trotsky, Che Guevara, and so on...


Does it mean I have to accept everything Marx advocated?
No. Marx is a man not a god, he is fallible. However, to be a Marxist you should agree with most of his ideals.


As a follow up to the above, who, if any, decides the historical applicability of Marx/Engels to the current situation?Marx and Engels are applicable to any society where capitalism is based on the teaching of Adam Smith. Everywhere. The time period only matters when looking at the probability that a revolution started at that time will succeed. Marx said that capitalism needed to run its course before the revolution would happen. I believe this to be close to happening with the phenomena of globalization. Which oddly enough will help the revolution because it needs to be a global one.
Hope I helped! :)

[Vincent]

What constitutes a Marxist?

Marxism can be applied in may different fields and disciplines, not just economics and politics. There are Marxist historians, and Marxist philosophers, for example. You don't have to follow Marx and Engel's writings specifically, but you can, and you'd be a Marxist. But, if you just 'utilised' the Marxian 'method', I think you're a Marxist in that way too.

Does it mean I have to quote Marx/Engels in everything I write?

No. Sometime Marx/Engels had a point, but didn't put it so well - another person's account or explanation might be more concise or clear. Sometimes you mightn't be talking about a topic on which a Marx/Engels quote would be helpful, so it would be worthless to do so.

Does it mean I have to accept everything Marx advocated?

Hell no. Sometimes Marx was wrong about things, and sometimes his views are not at all applicable to a modern situation. This is where you'd look into other Marxist writers, who have modified or re-stated Marx's thoughts to either be 'more correct' or to apply to situations which Marx didn't envisage. Or you take on board non-Marxist ideas; I am partial to some of Rawls' ideas, for example.

As a follow up to the above, who, if any, decides the historical applicability of Marx/Engels to the current situation?

No one. Writers can attempt to apply Marx to the current situation, and by doing so they leave their interpretation open to debate and critique. By opening up discussions and considering different opinions and interpretations, we can 'get closer' to a comprehensive account of how Marx might apply to the modern world. And that is what this forum is all about.

[Niccolò Rossi]

There are Marxist historians, and Marxist philosophers, for example.

I disagree. I think there are Marxian historians, Marxian philosophers, Marxian economists, Marxian Anthropologists, Marxian Political Scientists, etc. etc. but these are not necessarily (or even often, for that matter) Marxists.


But, if you just 'utilised' the Marxian 'method', I think you're a Marxist in that way too.

In what way can you be a Marxist other than by employing the method of Marx? What legacy would you say Marx left for the working class other than a method?


Sometimes Marx was wrong about things, and sometimes his views are not at all applicable to a modern situation.

This is indeed a very important point to make clear, but not only this. I would go so far as to say a good bulk of Marx's political positions and views are not applicable today (and note, this has nothing to do with the vulgar attempts of bourgeois liberals, social-democrats or anarchists to paint Marx as outdated or irrelevant). Again, what is important is the method of Marx, this is the legacy he left behind, one that is not only valuable but indispensible for revolutionaries.

As a follow up to the above, who, if any, decides the historical applicability of Marx/Engels to the current situation?

If I can give my own answer to this question - the proletariat and it's political militants must ultimately decide this for themselves. I would say however that what is and isn't historically applicable in the writings of Marx, Engels and all other socialists who have come before must always be determined by the methods of Marxism alone.

[Vincent]

I disagree. I think there are Marxian historians, Marxian philosophers, Marxian economists, Marxian Anthropologists, Marxian Political Scientists, etc. etc. but these are not necessarily (or even often, for that matter) Marxists.

Good point.

I would agree with a distinction between Marxian and Marxist, but I guess I'm taking the stance, kind of, of 'letting a 1000 flowers bloom'. Marxian academics might be an important result of Marxism, whose existence could have equally important implications for the achieving goals of Marxists. Do you know what I'm getting at? Even if they are not Marxists as such, perhaps they are just as welcome in the family?

But, the fact that not all Marxian 'whatevers' are necessarily Marxists, or could often be opposed to the goals of Marxism, does imply that it is most probable that a lot of Marxian academics shouldn't be identified as Marxists.

I guess its the same as saying that all neo-classical economics teachers are capitalists, which they are not, but perhaps there is a important connection.

[Vincent]

Thats interesting. You'd basically have a general framework of ideas and methods that Marx wrote about. One is free to apply this framework to various situations and times.

I guess that's the idea - to escape rigidity, and to work on a more dynamic level. This is in recognizance of the fact that, in the real world, there are complex and unpredictable situations for which a prescribed answer just will not provide a useful solution. Of course, there are limits - you do need to work within that framework, and can't simply change your politics to fit the situation everytime things aren't working.



Do you think being a Marxist mostly consists of the above? Frankly, you're sounding like an academic Marxist, no offense.:)

Non taken! But of course, I don't think being a Marxist involves only open discussion. Though, just from my personal experience with student activist organisations and such, I think many primarily 'activist' Marxists would benefit from more intellectual discussion. I was really disappointed after, having lived in the country and spending most my time being an 'academic Marxist', I moved to the city for uni and found that other 'Marxists' were more concerned with spray painting catch phrases on walls and walking down main streets crying 'Revolution!!!', than with slowing down and getting to know Marxism on an intellectual level.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Do you agree with this?


The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

[Il Medico]

Do you agree with this?
Yes. It is clearly defined through out history. Kings v.s Aristocracy, Aristocracy vs Bourgeois, and finally Bourgeois vs Proletariat. In every case the former was overthrown by the latter. The end of bourgeois society is inevitable, because it is a class society. As long as there is haves and have nots there will be class struggle and revolution. All throughout history class society has slowly been trickling down the power, now, it is to the last step, class society is over, there are no more steps.

[Il Medico]

Non taken! But of course, I don't think being a Marxist involves only open discussion. Though, just from my personal experience with student activist organisations and such, I think many primarily 'activist' Marxists would benefit from more intellectual discussion. I was really disappointed after, having lived in the country and spending most my time being an 'academic Marxist', I moved to the city for uni and found that other 'Marxists' were more concerned with spray painting catch phrases on walls and walking down main streets crying 'Revolution!!!', than with slowing down and getting to know Marxism on an intellectual level.
Yes, However, we as Marxist can not leave Marxism to academic debate, some action must take place. Protest, marches, rallies, and vandalism even will spread our ideals to others who might be inclined to agree with us and just don't know the truth about Marxism and communism in general. Academic debate, however useful, can not achieve this. Don't you agree?

[Vincent]

Yes, However, we as Marxist can not leave Marxism to academic debate, some action must take place. Protest, marches, rallies, and vandalism even will spread our ideals to others who might be inclined to agree with us and just don't know the truth about Marxism and communism in general. Academic debate, however useful, can not achieve this. Don't you agree?

Yes, absolutely. Academic debate has its purpose; whether it be investigating and understand Marxism, modifying it, or just getting people (students) into the whole idea. Activism and promotion has its purpose too - like you said, to spread ideals etc.

My point was that, often in my experience, activists have tended to be just generally angsty people who have a tendency to seek others to blame for personal things - rather than being activist because of Marxism, they are Marxists because of activism. If that makes sense? For example, I know of one conversation between a friend and someone who has about to move to the city. She said 'When I move to the city, I'm going to become a political activist.' and my friend asked 'Well, what are you going to be an activist for?' and she said 'I don't know, anything, I just want to be an activist.'

I find this disappointing because I feel the 'best' Marxists will be well-informed on the academic and intellectual side of things, and will be compelled by that learning to promote Marxism through activism.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

One can conceivably arrive at that conclusion without Marx.

And? Is the fact that someone else would have discovered Darwin's theories if he hadn't a reason to not call yourself a Darwinian?

[Random Precision]

I think Georg Lukács was the first one to ask and answer this question, during the first wave of revolutions which followed the first crisis of Marxism. I have yet to see anyone top his answer:


Let us assume for the sake of argument that recent research had disproved once and for all every one of Marx’s individual theses. Even if this were to be proved, every serious ‘orthodox’ Marxist would still be able to accept all such modern findings without reservation and hence dismiss all of Marx’s theses in toto – without having to renounce his orthodoxy for a single moment. Orthodox Marxism, therefore, does not imply the uncritical acceptance of the results of Marx’s investigations. It is not the ‘belief’ in this or that thesis, nor the exegesis of a ‘sacred’ book. On the contrary, orthodoxy refers exclusively to method. It is the scientific conviction that dialectical materialism is the road to truth and that its methods can be developed, expanded and deepened only along the lines laid down by its founders. It is the conviction, moreover, that all attempts to surpass or ‘improve’ it have led and must lead to over-simplification, triviality and eclecticism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm

[PRC-UTE]

Do you agree with this?

No. 99.9999% of human history was in the state of primitive communism with a hint of matriarchy thrown into the mix. Though your point is still valid. I just had to be pedantic. :o

I was going to dig up that Luckas quote about Marxism being a methodology, but Random Precision beat me to it. Bet he thinks he's clever now. :lol:

[Niccolò Rossi]

Marxian academics might be an important result of Marxism, whose existence could have equally important implications for the achieving goals of Marxists. Do you know what I'm getting at?

I'm not entirely sure I understand, I would certainly disagree with what I think you are saying. I don't think Marxian acedemics have anything of real substance to contribute to the international proletarian revolution qua acedemics. However, I would say that much of what such individuals do produce is correct, of great interest, contributes valuably to topics of a theoretical nature and thus in this sense has value to Marxists.


Even if they are not Marxists as such, perhaps they are just as welcome in the family?

Their contributions, in-so-far as they are valid, certainly. Does this make them revolutionaries? In no way what-so-ever.


I guess its the same as saying that all neo-classical economics teachers are capitalists, which they are not, but perhaps there is a important connection.

This is indeed correct. The class that an acedemic acts as the ideological mouth-piece for does not determine their class, but indeed says something about who's interests they serve. However, I don't think it's correct to say that Marxian acedmics and the like are at all defenders of the working class, on the contrary much of acedemic 'marxism' is merely a bastardisation and usurpation of Marxism to serve the needs of the ruling class. See for instance the host of 'Marxist-Feminist' scholars or the wonderful strategies for managing the crisis of capitalism marxian geography and political economist David Harvey.

[Niccolò Rossi]

We see all kinds of social democrats, academics, bourgeois politicians call themselves "Marxists".

I think this confirms very well the fact that 'marxism' has proven to be for the ruling class to be an ideology of great value.


Protest, marches, rallies, and vandalism even will spread our ideals to others who might be inclined to agree with us and just don't know the truth about Marxism and communism in general. Academic debate, however useful, can not achieve this. Don't you agree?

You are partially correct, however if you really think that "protests, marches, rallies and vandalism" by communists can any more contribute to the class struggle and the development of class consciousness you are very naive indeed.

[Vincent]

I'm not entirely sure I understand, I would certainly disagree with what I think you are saying. I don't think Marxian acedemics have anything of real substance to contribute to the international proletarian revolution qua acedemics. However, I would say that much of what such individuals do produce is correct, of great interest, contributes valuably to topics of a theoretical nature and thus in this sense has value to Marxists.

Good point. I think I would agree with the view that Marxian academics, whilst being useful and of value to Marxists, perhaps aren't necessarily Marxists themselves. But, some might be activists, and good for them!


This is indeed correct. The class that an acedemic acts as the ideological mouth-piece for does not determine their class, but indeed says something about who's interests they serve. However, I don't think it's correct to say that Marxian acedmics and the like are at all defenders of the working class, on the contrary much of acedemic 'marxism' is merely a bastardisation and usurpation of Marxism to serve the needs of the ruling class. See for instance the host of 'Marxist-Feminist' scholars or the wonderful strategies for managing the crisis of capitalism marxian geography and political economist David Harvey.

I also think this is a good point - perhaps I was wrong to include Marxian academics alongside Marxists. Though I will only concede to saying that Marxian academics, though not all necessarily Marxists, do hold the potential to be highly important in shaping ideology - even if they do not always serve the interests of the working class, they still have the potential to be immensely helpful.

[Vincent]

You are partially correct, however if you really think that "protests, marches, rallies and vandalism" by communists can any more contribute to the class struggle and the development of class consciousness you are very naive indeed.
Niccolo has a good point here. By the way of example, I notice that many members of 'the working class' scoff at reports of 'bloody leftys' marching, protesting and rallying 'against' capitalism and imperialism - especially when its being done by students, and so many Marxist activists are - and the impression I've gained is that much of the work of activists often ends up in vain.

[Guevara shadow]

This is a basic, but serious, question, addressed to those who consider themselves Marxists:

What constitutes a Marxist?

Also:

Does it mean I have to quote Marx/Engels in everything I write?

Does it mean I have to accept everything Marx advocated?

As a follow up to the above, who, if any, decides the historical applicability of Marx/Engels to the current situation?
Hello Friend
i am so glad to be in a same discussion it,s so important spisialy right now coz many people say they are marxist but they are not?
really i would say that marx provide us not only with a theory but with a complex scince depending on the other scince phisic,math and it,s like any other scince got it,s own method dialectic materialism and historical materialism
to be a marxisit you must belive in this method and there ability for self developing and there ability to explain the community and the universe
now marx said that the main proplemin capitalism that capital would always centering and re-centering and that what we see now days but in other way like:
in the early capitalism capital would like to centering in the same nation few decades forward it would centering in over all world as we start to see in the imperialism it some thing change in the style of marx law about capital but in main it keep the same
when marx talked about the value added law he said it comes from owners looting of the workers efforts nowdays value added is the looting of others efforts and for looting tha nature
it,s the same something changed in the style but in main the law still available
so as i see marxism nowdays provide us with a method to read the facts more than what gave us in marx decades
thank you

[Random Precision]

Its interesting that he sees DiaMat as the Marxist method, while many today would think Historical Materialism is the Marxist method to use.

First of all he sees "dialectical materialism" as the core of the Marxist method. "DiaMat" is a Stalinist shibboleth, and Lukács was not a Stalinist when he wrote that essay- in fact, he had to repudiate the book it was in, History and Class Consciousness, to stay within the CP during "Bolshevization" in the twenties.

Secondly, historical materialism was reached by Marx and Engels through the dialectical method, so I think that he is right to refer to it as the core of their method.


No. 99.9999% of human history was in the state of primitive communism with a hint of matriarchy thrown into the mix. Though your point is still valid. I just had to be pedantic.

Only if you regard that period of time as "history" and primitive communism as "society".

[Il Medico]

You are partially correct, however if you really think that "protests, marches, rallies and vandalism" by communists can any more contribute to the class struggle and the development of class consciousness you are very naive indeed.
No I do not. Marches and rallies are to get people interested, then academic debate will develop their class consciousness. I will use my self for example. I did not become a Marxist because I just one day decide to pick up a Manifesto, I saw a rally. People where wearing Che shirts and talking about the bourgeois, a very funny word for a boy of 13. So interested, I inquired about what they were protesting. They gave me some pamphlets that talked about the "Communist Manifesto". So on my birthday with a Books-A-Million card, I bought a copy. Marx's arguments swayed my opinion and I began to consider my self a Marxist. My views have further developed with reading other socialist writers like Lenin and Trotsky and discussing communism on this site. :)

[ckaihatsu]

She said 'When I move to the city, I'm going to become a political activist.' and my friend asked 'Well, what are you going to be an activist for?' and she said 'I don't know, anything, I just want to be an activist.'

I find this disappointing because I feel the 'best' Marxists will be well-informed on the academic and intellectual side of things, and will be compelled by that learning to promote Marxism through activism.


This is the age-old dialectic between *substance* and *style* (or "passion") -- those who are more oppressed and less educated / informed will attempt to compensate for their lack of knowledge and ability by putting out more creative and emotional effort (or 'social capital' or 'political capital' or 'sweat equity' or whatever else you want to call it).

In the realm of art the results can be amazing, because that "style" or "passion" is really the person's own life energies being converted into their own subjective trip, in the context of what is being called for. It may be *technically* or *substance*-ly flawed, but it will convey uniqueness and hopefully a very interesting one.

In the realm of politics misinformed efforts and activism are usually some shade of tragic because we, as Marxists, know that things could be (done) much better, everywhere, with a decent understanding of class consciousness and a political practice that adheres to it.

If our *practice* is *ill-informed* then that means that our *source motivations* are on shaky ground and so we have to wonder what the hell we're doing with ourselves if we're not even operating with a correct understanding of the world.

But -- political practice, like life, is not always a black-and-white thing, and our own heartfelt, well-motivated efforts -- even if not *perfectly* aligned to correct politics -- could still spark a ripple effect that motivates others into revolutionary political involvement.





Marches and rallies are to get people interested, then academic debate will develop their class consciousness.





I will use my self for example. I did not become a Marxist because I just one day decide to pick up a Manifesto, I saw a rally. People where wearing Che shirts and talking about the bourgeois, a very funny word for a boy of 13. So interested, I inquired about what they were protesting. They gave me some pamphlets that talked about the "Communist Manifesto". So on my birthday with a Books-A-Million card, I bought a copy. Marx's arguments swayed my opinion and I began to consider my self a Marxist. My views have further developed with reading other socialist writers like Lenin and Trotsky and discussing communism on this site. :)


So -- is "passion" enough? Is correctly grasping the totality of Marxism enough?

I've made a number of diagrams in recent years to try to bridge this gap -- hopefully relieving newer, spirited people of a load of heavy learning while still retaining the rationality and correctness of the revolutionary Marxist approach. My latest is a political spectrum that places various political orientations in their respectively proper positions:


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://tinyurl.com/d2564h


Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[Il Medico]

No. 99.9999% of human history was in the state of primitive communism with a hint of matriarchy thrown into the mix. Though your point is still valid. I just had to be pedantic. :o

I was going to dig up that Luckas quote about Marxism being a methodology, but Random Precision beat me to it. Bet he thinks he's clever now. :lol:
You both are correct. Pre-history and pre-society is primitive communism based on nomadic wandering and survival. However, the current idea of society, or civilization, is a history of class struggle. Just to clairify. :D

[mikelepore]

Do you agree with this?

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." -- Communist Manifesto, first edition written in 1847 and published in 1848

"That is, all written history. In 1847, the prehistory of society, the social organization existing previous to recorded history, was all but unknown...." -- Footnote added by Engels to the 1888 edition

[ZeroNowhere]

The end of bourgeois society is inevitable, because it is a class society.Well, that's nice to know. It doesn't exactly follow, I'd say the inevitability has more to do with the fact that humanity will most probably go extinct after some time, but alright then.


AFAIK no one calls themselves a Darwinian in the field of biology as there is no "other ideology" in that field.Dawkins does. Not that it really matters, because these are labels and I have better things to do than argue about labels, like beat my head against a wall.

[Klute77]

This is a basic, but serious, question, addressed to those who consider themselves Marxists:

What constitutes a Marxist?

Also:

Does it mean I have to quote Marx/Engels in everything I write?

Does it mean I have to accept everything Marx advocated?

As a follow up to the above, who, if any, decides the historical applicability of Marx/Engels to the current situation?


As far as I am aware, a Marxist is someone who as well as holding with the the political philosophy developed by Marx & Engels is someone who also applies Marxist dialectics to their thinking on just about anything they give serious consideration to. Therefore a person may be a marxist thinker on any given subject. Up until the 70's a lot of university students would have been heavily influanced by Marxist lecturers. In the 70's things changed and Post Modernism over took Marxism as the intellectual approch of choice and this was still the case in the late 1990's early 2000's when I last studied formally. I am not sure how things stand at present.

[ckaihatsu]

I happened to have just addressed this thread's topic, at another post:








But its important to see that economic choices are real, 'moral' choices about what kind of world you want. Do you want to plough your resources (at the margin) into space-exploration or art? Do you want to devote this land to wild woods or mine it for its silver? Its a category mistake to think an algorithm can answer such questions. I don't think economic coordination is something that you can 'have done with'. Sometimes the impression is given that, you know, you get 'the economy' on autopilot so that you are then freed up to pursue higher things, the things you want to do. Again, I think this maybe comes about through telegraphing the meaning of "economic" so that its all pig-iron quotas and corn yields.





No, its selecting a trajectory through the space of possibilities of our engagement with reality. And thats something you either choose consciously, or duck. A calculation won't generate an answer, at least, not with any system of formal reasoning currently available.


This is a crucial (political) theme for *everyone* to understand, no matter *what* their political orientation. To me, this sentiment is at the crux of what it means to be a revolutionary -- ! Because while our modern age (post-Enlightenment) has provided more people with more access to the records of humanity, far too many wind up spending far too much time in the catacombs, to the detriment of the here-and-now and to the detriment of potential conscious planning for humanity's *future*.

What's the point, anyway, of being studious *at all* -- ? If it's for edutainment / entertainment, that's fine, but how much of that can any one person stand, really...? Isn't the *point* of being educated and intelligent is so that one is better equipped at dealing with the real world, *as it happens*, even helping to *carve a path* into a future domain so that it's *not* *left to chance*...? -- !

Anyone who's *less* than revolutionary is historically *backward*, by default -- you know the type -- they'd rather be well-read about something historical than knowledgeable about the current situation facing the world. Worse yet -- in a bitter irony -- they'll freely admit that both the system itself, and they in it, are powerless to change the world's trajectory for the better, and yet they still adhere to a politics of participation *within* the system (that's going nowhere).

I like to think that my revolutionary conviction *comes* from *default* -- that there's no possible way to be serious about politics *unless* one deals with the fact that the capitalist system is hazardous and wayward. Anything less is merely contributing to a farce, *at best*, and more commonly is lying to oneself and everyone around.

We *shouldn't* leave the business of the future to business, or to bourgeois governments -- it's entirely within our responsibility to *be* revolutionary-minded and to push and fight for programs to be enacted that make sense for human well-being....