Marxism as a religion

[godlessmutha]

Something that I've been thinking about is whether Marxism could be classified as a religion. Do Marxists believe that Marx was/is infallible? Do you think that Marx might be proven wrong by future political theorists or economists?

Or do you subscribe to a Fukuyaman type of view that a Lefist world government would be the end of history, as the world would have reached a state of perfection, or at least on its way to perfection anyway (communism)?

Also, why do Marxists believe in rule by a dominant minority (dictatorship of the proletariat)? It seems patently unjust for a small segment of society to take over by force, to decide who lives, who dies, who can speak, what they can say, and so forth. Is this not as unjust as rule by a dominant minority of the rich?

Any thoughts?

[GPDP]

I don't identify as an out-and-out Marxist per se, but no, I don't see how Marxism could be classified as a religion. Religion relies on faith rather than science and reason, which Marxism manifestly incorporates into its analysis of society. You may not agree with the analysis, but that doesn't make it a religion. Marx was not infallible, and you'll not find anyone here making that claim. We just happen to think he got a lot of things right.

The end of history stuff... well, some have said communism would be the beginning of human history, or something like that. Beyond that, I don't know.

As for the "dictatorship of the proletariat"... you have it all wrong. Marxists believe in a dominant majority. The dictatorship would be, well, that of the proletariat, the working class. No real Marxist advocates minority rule (though arguments are regularly made regarding whether a vanguard party coming to power on behalf of the proletariat is destined to consolidate power unto itself, but that's another issue).

Do not let the word "dictatorship" confuse you into thinking Marxists support, well, dictatorship as it is commonly conceived of. For Marxists, the state is an instrument of class rule, hence whichever class controls the state holds dictatorial power over the other classes. Right now, by Marxist terminology, we are living in the dictatorship of the bourgeois, which by definition is class rule by the capitalist minority. Marxists seek to destroy this state, and replace it with one ruled by the working majority.

[godlessmutha]

I don't identify as an out-and-out Marxist per se, but no, I don't see how Marxism could be classified as a religion. Religion relies on faith rather than science and reason, which Marxism manifestly incorporates into its analysis of society. You may not agree with the analysis, but that doesn't make it a religion. Marx was not infallible, and you'll not find anyone here making that claim. We just happen to think he got a lot of things right.

I guess what I'm getting at is that Marxism when put into practice has not exactly been a roaring success, and yet leftists, if I can put it this way, keep the faith. I know many Marxists criticise Libertarians when they say the reason things are messed up is because there has never been a true free market, and yet many Marxists/Leftists say the same thing about socialism. (Sorry about the mixture of terms, what is a general term I can use for all followers of Marxism/Socialist/Communism etc that is not offensive to or inaccurate in describing one tendency or another?)


The end of history stuff... well, some have said communism would be the beginning of human history, or something like that. Beyond that, I don't know.

As for the "dictatorship of the proletariat"... you have it all wrong. Marxists believe in a dominant majority. The dictatorship would be, well, that of the proletariat, the working class. No real Marxist advocates minority rule (though arguments are regularly made regarding whether a vanguard party coming to power on behalf of the proletariat is destined to consolidate power unto itself, but that's another issue).Dominant majorities frighten me. Being a gay person, and Jewish, I know all too well what rule of the majority can be like. And if Marxism is about the majority, why not more electoral success? If its because the people don't get it, then you need a vanguard, which for the foreseeable future in a Socialist system would be a dominant minority, at least until the first generation had been brought up in a socialist controlled education system.


Do not let the word "dictatorship" confuse you into thinking Marxists support, well, dictatorship as it is commonly conceived of. For Marxists, the state is an instrument of class rule, hence whichever class controls the state holds dictatorial power over the other classes. Right now, by Marxist terminology, we are living in the dictatorship of the bourgeois, which by definition is class rule by the capitalist minority. Marxists seek to destroy this state, and replace it with one ruled by the working majority.I think a good example for me is Australia, where I live. Voting is compulsory, and therefore governments are chosen by the majority, the proletariat. I don't underestimate the power of advertising and incumbency, however a majority keeps voting the same two parties into power. My conclusion would be leftists believe that the proletariat don't know what is best for them. It seems elitist to me.

[GPDP]

I guess what I'm getting at is that Marxism when put into practice has not exactly been a roaring success, and yet leftists, if I can put it this way, keep the faith. I know many Marxists criticise Libertarians when they say the reason things are messed up is because there has never been a true free market, and yet many Marxists/Leftists say the same thing about socialism. (Sorry about the mixture of terms, what is a general term I can use for all followers of Marxism/Socialist/Communism etc that is not offensive?)

Socialist works well as a catch-all term.

You gotta realize, however, that socialists are not all cut out of the same cloth. Many Left-communists and anarchists criticized the emerging regime of the Soviet Union from the start, and hence there is little faith to be had here: what happened regarding so-called "socialist" countries was what many socialists predicted would happen.

I am also aware of how our criticism of lolbertarians for their fanatical devotion to a specific kind of capitalism that never has existed (and imo never will) is sometimes related to how many of us say true communism has never been implemented. Well, thing is, at least going by our analysis, whether it is laissez-faire, social-democratic, or corporatist, capitalism has certain features inherent to it that all of those incarnations share, such as (at least mostly) private ownership of the means of production, while no such "socialist" countries ever had the working class actually own the means of production themselves in any meaningful manner. Thus, by these standards, we have a much better claim to the "our ideal society has never been implemented" argument than the lolbertarians do.


Dominant majorities frighten me. Being a gay person, and Jewish, I know all too well what rule of the majority can be like. And if Marxism is about the majority, why not more electoral success? If its because the people don't get it, then you need a vanguard, which for the foreseeable future in a Socialist system would be a dominant minority, at least until the first generation had been brought up in a socialist controlled education system.

Taking a page from a fellow poster here (hi Demogorgon), democracy is very dependent on democratic culture which seeks to enfranchise the whole of society, and not just some or even most. That is, a fully functional democracy would likely guarantee individual rights such that minorities such as gays would not be oppressed. Socialists fully back the enfranchisement of oppressed minorities into society, and are among their fiercest defenders.

Marxism did have a lot of electoral success... in the early 20th century. Times have changed. The blunders of the so-called "socialist" nations and the massive propaganda efforts by western capitalist nations together helped discredit socialism as we commonly advocate. It may very well be that it is up to a modern organized left to get things in order again, to demonstrate that socialism is neither the problematic Eastern Bloc as it actually existed nor the "totalitarian" nightmare painted by capitalist propaganda. But of course, many leftists differ on how to do this.


I think a good example for me is Australia, where I live. Voting is compulsory, and therefore governments are chosen by the majority, the proletariat. I don't underestimate the power of advertising and incumbency, however a majority keeps voting the same two parties into power. My conclusion would be leftists believe that the proletariat don't know what is best for them. It seems elitist to me.

Well, if they keep getting the same sort of people into power as their lot in life gets worse... then yes, in a way, they are, by majority vote, electing governments that go against their real material interests.

Apologies if I'm not making too much sense. It's late, I'm tired, and frankly, I'm gonna stop here for the night and let someone else keep going.

[whore]

religion, not only requires faith, it is superstition.

marxism maybe wrong, but it isnt superstition, and it doesnt require any notion of supernatural stuff.

[godlessmutha]

I am also aware of how our criticism of lolbertarians for their fanatical devotion to a specific kind of capitalism that never has existed (and imo never will) is sometimes related to how many of us say true communism has never been implemented. Well, thing is, at least going by our analysis, whether it is laissez-faire, social-democratic, or corporatist, capitalism has certain features inherent to it that all of those incarnations share, such as (at least mostly) private ownership of the means of production, while no such "socialist" countries ever had the working class actually own the means of production themselves in any meaningful manner. Thus, by these standards, we have a much better claim to the "our ideal society has never been implemented" argument than the lolbertarians do.If the working classes owned the means of production in a meaningful manner, would not this be private property, much the same way as if I own a house or a business with my partner in which we are both the only directors and employees?

If private property is theft, then must the means of production must be held in common by all the workers, and the only realistic way to do that is if it is controlled by the state and its surpluses and profits directed elsewhere? Otherwise how would you account for differences between the productivity and output of different enterprises?


Taking a page from a fellow poster here (hi Demogorgon), democracy is very dependent on democratic culture which seeks to enfranchise the whole of society, and not just some or even most. That is, a fully functional democracy would likely guarantee individual rights such that minorities such as gays would not be oppressed. Socialists fully back the enfranchisement of oppressed minorities into society, and are among their fiercest defenders.I totally agree that a just democratic society guarantees rights which cannot be taken away, either by whim, statute or referendum, however in my experience, both Gays and Jewish people are not exactly seen as equals by many in the working and underclasses. If they are to lead the revolution, would I not have to rely on their good will and benevolence for my safety and security? I know many in the working class would rather see me in prison, or even dead!


Marxism did have a lot of electoral success... in the early 20th century. Times have changed. The blunders of the so-called "socialist" nations and the massive propaganda efforts by western capitalist nations together helped discredit socialism as we commonly advocate. It may very well be that it is up to a modern organized left to get things in order again, to demonstrate that socialism is neither the problematic Eastern Bloc as it actually existed nor the "totalitarian" nightmare painted by capitalist propaganda. But of course, many leftists differ on how to do this.I take your point that they did have electoral success previously, and even today, nations in Europe and South America have leftists and communists in coalition governments or with significant representation in legislatures.

But, if real socialism has never been attempted, then it is just theory and there is no evidence it would work in practice, but a fair bit of evidence and examples to demonstrate it would not.

I feel more comfortable in a system that, whilst not perfect, a significant majority of people live comfortably, there is universal healthcare and education, unemployment benefits that are not withdrawn after a certain time, state housing, but also real opportunity and a free market.


Well, if they keep getting the same sort of people into power as their lot in life gets worse... then yes, in a way, they are, by majority vote, electing governments that go against their real material interests.With regards to this, I think anyone who has lived in Australia over the last 20 years can attest that under both the Liberal (conservative) and Labor (social democratic) governments, living standards and real wages have increased considerably. Perhaps that is why the working man does not seek revolution here. The only ones who do are middle-class kids. I can understand, however, why many in other countries would (the US, for example).


Apologies if I'm not making too much sense. It's late, I'm tired, and frankly, I'm gonna stop here for the night and let someone else keep going.No apologies necessary, your replies have been informative and in good faith, I appreciate that. Hope to talk again soon. :)

[godlessmutha]

religion, not only requires faith, it is superstition.

marxism maybe wrong, but it isnt superstition, and it doesnt require any notion of supernatural stuff.

That is a fair point, perhaps maybe a better articulation of what I meant is a belief system that requires faith? What I'm getting at is that despite serious problems, human rights abuses, in every example of declared Socialist countries in the 20th and 21st centuries, socialists continue to believe in this system of governance.

It also occurs to me that many socialists believe in the moral superiority of the proletariat. I can't remember who said it, but it was ever true that, "There is nothing noble about poverty".

What I'm getting at is, how do you know your proposed system will work better?

[red cat]

I totally agree that a just democratic society guarantees rights which cannot be taken away, however in my experience, both Gays and Jewish people are not exactly seen as equals by many in the working and underclasses. If they are to lead the revolution, would I not have to rely on their good will and benevolence?



What exactly is your stand on homosexuals and Jewish people?

[whore]

That is a fair point, perhaps maybe a better articulation of what I meant is a belief system that requires faith? What I'm getting at is that despite serious problems, human rights abuses, in every example of declared Socialist countries in the 20th and 21st centuries, socialists continue to believe in this system of governance.

It also occurs to me that many socialists believe in the moral superiority of the proletariat. I can't remember who said it, but it was ever true that, "There is nothing noble about poverty".

What I'm getting at is, how do you know your proposed system will work better?
i dont believe in a system of governance. i want a system that has no governance. (im an anarchist).

anyway, how do we know our proposed system will work better? we dont even know it will work! we simply look around and say, this present system is shit. we assume that our proposed changes will be better.

anyway, its like parliaments and universal suffrage. all the nobles said, "it will be chaos"! and they, well, were wrong weren't they (unless you belive proudhon, in which case, government is chaos, and anarchy is order).

i guess there is some element of faith, but it is no religion, because there is no supernatural, or superstition.

[godlessmutha]

What exactly is your stand on homosexuals and Jewish people?

My stand? I'm not sure what stand one would take on oneself..

[godlessmutha]

i dont believe in a system of governance. i want a system that has no governance. (im an anarchist).

anyway, how do we know our proposed system will work better? we dont even know it will work! we simply look around and say, this present system is shit. we assume that our proposed changes will be better.

anyway, its like parliaments and universal suffrage. all the nobles said, "it will be chaos"! and they, well, were wrong weren't they (unless you belive proudhon, in which case, government is chaos, and anarchy is order).

i guess there is some element of faith, but it is no religion, because there is no supernatural, or superstition.

Except for not believing in a system of governance, I agree with every other point you made. I feel that governments exist to protect the weak from the strong, to protect people from coercion, to ensure contracts are honoured, to ensure a sound and fair operation of markets, and to help those who are unable to help themselves.

[whore]

they do not do a very good job do they. governments do a shit job of doing what you say they exist to do. in fact, an observant person would say that they arent in existence to do that stuff, but instead to do other stuff. such as make sure that the strong dont lose their position of power.

it has only been since the enlightenment that governments have started "helping people". the first welfare state (bismarks germany) was created to make sure that the lower classes didnt revolt! it was nothing about helping people, but about making sure those in power stayed in power.

i hope you stick around, i think youve got a lot of learning to do.

[red cat]

My stand? I'm not sure what stand one would take on oneself..

LOL I should have read your post carefully...:lol:

I understand your point of concern. The working class you see now is badly influenced by the bourgeois system. In the course of making revolution the proletariat will also transform itself, so you need not fear that you will be discriminated against.

[godlessmutha]

they do not do a very good job do they. governments do a shit job of doing what you say they exist to do. in fact, an observant person would say that they arent in existence to do that stuff, but instead to do other stuff. such as make sure that the strong dont lose their position of power. I think that in many countries that is certainly the case. In Australia I don't deny the influence of special interests, or even that the rich and powerful have a degree of protection that ordinary folk do not. However, in Australia, several billionaires have gone to prison in recent history (Bond, Skase), many, many wealthy or powerful people have gone to jail, including government ministers.

And if you are a regular person, and you are being physically coerced to do something you don't want to do, then the courts and police have and do step in to protect you.


it has only been since the enlightenment that governments have started "helping people". the first welfare state (bismarks germany) was created to make sure that the lower classes didnt revolt! it was nothing about helping people, but about making sure those in power stayed in power. Is it not better to judge things by their fruits? Their outcomes? Whatever the intention, now working people have a safety net they did not before.

I'm sure you know about Imperial Germany packing Lenin off to Russia with safe passage and chests full of gold. Whatever their intention at the time, could they have foreseen it would result in the creation of the Red Army that would spell the end once and for all of Germany's imperial pretensions?

In Australia, these things were introduced by Labor governments who believed in a social welfare state. The subsequent conservative governments have not dared try to repeal these measures.


i hope you stick around, i think youve got a lot of learning to do.I agree on both counts, cheers! :)

[godlessmutha]

LOL I should have read your post carefully...:lol:

I understand your point of concern. The working class you see now is badly influenced by the bourgeois system. In the course of making revolution the proletariat will also transform itself, so you need not fear that you will be discriminated against.

Lol, that's ok. I hope that the transformation you speak of occurs, whether the future is socialist or free market.

I'm interested in your analysis that it is the bourgeois system that is the root cause of these values.

In my experience, I find more acceptance among people from the middle class up, rather than down. I know certainly that although unspoken, homosexuality was more tolerated in aristocratic circles in the past than in the working class; it was even seen as an "aristocratic vice".

I recall that at one point in the Soviet Union, or China, homosexuality was labelled as a Western bourgeois lifestyle, though oddly enough North Korea appears to proclaim its support for gay and lesbian rights. Its an odd world.

Of course I don't ascribe those Soviet/CPC beliefs to you, nor hold you or Socialists in general responsible for them.

[Zanthorus]

However, in Australia, several billionaires have gone to prison in recent history (Bond, Skase), many, many wealthy or powerful people have gone to jail, including government ministers.

That's because the ruling classes aren't one singular block. They have almost as many factions as the left does and they infight a lot. You'll find a lot of governments push policies that negatively affect one section of the ruling class but I doubt you'll find nearly as many where the interests of all the ruling class were affected.

[Dean]

Something that I've been thinking about is whether Marxism could be classified as a religion. Do Marxists believe that Marx was/is infallible? Do you think that Marx might be proven wrong by future political theorists or economists?

Or do you subscribe to a Fukuyaman type of view that a Lefist world government would be the end of history, as the world would have reached a state of perfection, or at least on its way to perfection anyway (communism)?

Also, why do Marxists believe in rule by a dominant minority (dictatorship of the proletariat)? It seems patently unjust for a small segment of society to take over by force, to decide who lives, who dies, who can speak, what they can say, and so forth. Is this not as unjust as rule by a dominant minority of the rich?

Any thoughts?

No, most of what you mention isn't prevalent Marxist ideology, except maybe among some narrow Bolshevik circles.

As for the religion issue, I would say that there is a distinct difference between the left and right. Whereas Marxists routinely discuss and critique the real world with a materialist perspective, the centrists and right wingers are unashamedly mystical - typically pointing to "common sense" like "all people are greedy" and "people can't work together" as fundamental axioms for their ideology. Whereas Marxists tend to have a dynamic, inquisitive orientation toward material systems of economy and politics, right-wingers almost universally tie themselves to unresearched, mystical arguments whose fundamental character is to legitimize or prove the "natural character" of the status quo.

Those on the far right who want a "market revolution" apply this exact rhetoric to the market system, while attributing every woe and failing of our economic order to the state structure.

It's the exact same obtuse, pedestrian attitude which we see among the centrists, and its fundamental character is to explicitly ignore the material conditions of our systems of production and consumption.

[godlessmutha]

That's because the ruling classes aren't one singular block. They have almost as many factions as the left does and they infight a lot. You'll find a lot of governments push policies that negatively affect one section of the ruling class but I doubt you'll find nearly as many where the interests of all the ruling class were affected.

A good example for me would be the Harvester Judgement in 1907 (see wikipedia article, I can't post links yet)

Or the introduction of universal free healthcare, free tertiary education (unforunately semi-revoked), free primary and secondary education, unemployment benefits.

Or the introduction of Fringe Benefits Tax here in 1986. Or the enormous crackdown currently in progress by the Australian Federal Police and Australian Crime Commission on financial crimes and tax evasion.

All were met with howls of disapproval from the wealthy elite, and yet they were implemented.

No doubt Australia is no socialist utopia, but I also think it is quite progressive compared to many other countries, whilst maintaining a fairly free market.

I think compulsory voting and three year federal election cycles keep the ruling class on their toes.

[Zanthorus]

All were met with howls of disapproval from the wealthy elite, and yet they were implemented.

I would argue that the state and its administrators constitute a class unto themselves. Obviously the industrial bourgeoisie would be against welfare reforms, but for the political classes it can be a brilliant way of quelling dissent and dissatisfaction with the system.

[Spencer]

The title reminds me of this anecdote in Midgley's 'Evolution as a Religion':


Thus, in the last war, when recruits were being asked for their religion on entering the forces, one of them was heard to reply, 'Marxist-Leninist-Dialectical-Materialist'. 'Can't spell it,' said the sergeant, 'put him down C. of E.'

She went on to point out that:


We know what the recruit meant. He was speaking of the faith he lived by. A faith is not primarily a factual belief, the acceptance of a few extra propositions like 'God exists' or 'there will be a revolution'. It is rather the sense of having ones place within a whole greater than oneself, one whose larger aims so enclose one's own and give them point that sacrifice for it may be entirely proper.

It's interesting to note, however, that she describes Marxism and evolutionism as 'the two great secular faiths of our day'.

You might also like to check out Rubel's 'The Legend of Marx' which is available via marxmyths(.org) or marxists(.org), he describes the reaction to it in an introductory note:


To my surprise, upon arrival in Wuppertal, I was received by the conference officials who informed me of a certain predicament: my Soviet and East German colleagues, being personally offended when reading my “Viewpoints”, were threatening to leave the conference if my contribution was not retracted from the debate!

The introduction to 'Marx without Myth' which Rubel authored with M. Manale may also interest you, in relation to the religion question and the dictatorship of the proletariat:


...his words are taken to be the sibylline proclamations of an omniscient oracle and used to mask the deeds and misdeeds of modern social leaders seeking to evade personal responsibility. The doctrines Marx intended as intellectual tools for the working class in its struggle for emancipation have been transformed into political ideology to justify material exploitation and moral slavery. His postulate of the dictatorship of the proletariat, in particular, conceived of as the democratic rule of the overwhelming majority in the interests of the overwhelming majority, has been distorted into ideological legitimation for the exploitation and oppression of one social group (or class) by another and invoked as justification for the abolition of basic human rights. Under the label of 'Marxist socialism' the inhuman social relations of feudal and pre-capitalist society have been legitimised for today's world.

Clearly they are talking about the 'Marxism' of the Leninists and particularly of the USSR etc, where 'Marxism' has been elevated from how Marx would have considered his ideas to something of a quasi-religious nature.

I think it would be easier to talk about Marx's ideas separately, and the extent to which they qualify as 'scientific' or 'religious' and the extent to which they can or cannot be disproved (for example, you might like to describe some of it as a framework for viewing events where, even if it is inadequate, it does not necessarily follow that it is useless), and of course how this is affected by the different ways in which they are/have been used, perceived and distorted by various people and groups.

[godlessmutha]

No, most of what you mention isn't prevalent Marxist ideology, except maybe among some narrow Bolshevik circles.I've definitely come to the conclusion in this thread that it is not a religion, and yet I can't shake the feeling that it is a belief system that requires faith considering that either true socialism has never been tried, and yet committed socialists are unwavering in their belief that the system will work, or it has been tried (USSR, PRC) and the evidence is that it did not work out so well in many ways.


As for the religion issue, I would say that there is a distinct difference between the left and right. Whereas Marxists routinely discuss and critique the real world with a materialist perspective, the centrists and right wingers are unashamedly mystical - typically pointing to "common sense" like "all people are greedy" and "people can't work together" as fundamental axioms for their ideology. Whereas Marxists tend to have a dynamic, inquisitive orientation toward material systems of economy and politics, right-wingers almost universally tie themselves to unresearched, mystical arguments whose fundamental character is to legitimize or prove the "natural character" of the status quo.I would definitely disagree where you characterise centrists and right-wingers and (I'm assuming) libertarians as believing "people can't work together". Voluntary association and commerce is central to these political ideologies.

With regards to all people are greedy, well it depends how you define greed. I think everyone recognises that people want to have a nice life, to do support their families, to gain material possessions that bring them pleasure (like art, or music, or a beautiful house on the beach). Is it wrong to want these things? To get them, you must take part in the system.


It's the exact same obtuse, pedestrian attitude which we see among the centrists, and its fundamental character is to explicitly ignore the material conditions of our systems of production and consumption.I think that if people discuss and debate genuinely and in good faith, we can perhaps work together to make a better society, without coercion or discrimination, and so that all people can live peacefully together with associations and commerce that are voluntary in nature. If that is centrist, then I'm proud to be one, though I consider myself more of a libertarian without the market fanaticism.

[godlessmutha]

I would argue that the state and its administrators constitute a class unto themselves. Obviously the industrial bourgeoisie would be against welfare reforms, but for the political classes it can be a brilliant way of quelling dissent and dissatisfaction with the system.

And yet, politicians have gone to prison here in recent history. The ideal is to balance off the different competing interests so that no one has too much power, the proletariat, the political class, the wealthy, the judiciary etc

[godlessmutha]

The title reminds me of this anecdote in Midgley's 'Evolution as a Religion':

She went on to point out that:

It's interesting to note, however, that she describes Marxism and evolutionism as 'the two great secular faiths of our day'.

You might also like to check out Rubel's 'The Legend of Marx' which is available via marxmyths(.org) or marxists(.org), he describes the reaction to it in an introductory note:

The introduction to 'Marx without Myth' which Rubel authored with M. Manale may also interest you, in relation to the religion question and the dictatorship of the proletariat:

Clearly they are talking about the 'Marxism' of the Leninists and particularly of the USSR etc, where 'Marxism' has been elevated from how Marx would have considered his ideas to something of a quasi-religious nature.

I think it would be easier to talk about Marx's ideas separately, and the extent to which they qualify as 'scientific' or 'religious' and the extent to which they can or cannot be disproved (for example, you might like to describe some of it as a framework for viewing events where, even if it is inadequate, it does not necessarily follow that it is useless), and of course how this is affected by the different ways in which they are/have been used, perceived and distorted by various people and groups.

The C of E anecdote made me laugh. Thank you for pointing me in the direction of some reading material, its much appreciated. What I meant by asking whether it is religious, is not whether the material itself is religious in nature, it is not, but whether the movement itself has become a movement based on faith.

Thank you very much for pointing me in the direction of some books I could read on this subject. :)

[godlessmutha]

Anyway folks, I'm off to bed, its after midnight here. Thanks for all the responses and good faith answers to my questions, talk to you again soon!

:)

[Sendo]

The No True Scotsman fallacy is employed by Libertarians but not by leftists, at least not the same way.

Left Communist and Anarchists will claim that the SU and the PRC et al were not "True" socialism, but they won't necessarily argue it was a downgrade, whereas whenever shock therapy makes things worse, the libertarians say it's because they didn't go far enough and that at a certain point they would climb out of the valley. This is based on no history.

Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, Hoxhaists, Trotskyists all have some examples of socialism they uphold. They will often defend the very states other denigrate...not because they say the state was non-socialist, but because of their pro-working man analysis and their more correct version of history.

[Frank Zapatista]

Something that I've been thinking about is whether Marxism could be classified as a religion. Do Marxists believe that Marx was/is infallible? Do you think that Marx might be proven wrong by future political theorists or economists?

Or do you subscribe to a Fukuyaman type of view that a Lefist world government would be the end of history, as the world would have reached a state of perfection, or at least on its way to perfection anyway (communism)?

Also, why do Marxists believe in rule by a dominant minority (dictatorship of the proletariat)? It seems patently unjust for a small segment of society to take over by force, to decide who lives, who dies, who can speak, what they can say, and so forth. Is this not as unjust as rule by a dominant minority of the rich?

Any thoughts?
I definetly look at Marxism as more than just a political ideology, Its a philosophy, a way of thinking.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Something that I've been thinking about is whether Marxism could be classified as a religion. Do Marxists believe that Marx was/is infallible? Do you think that Marx might be proven wrong by future political theorists or economists?
Marx has already been proven wrong on certain issues by other Marxists. For example, Marx argued that the transition from capitalism to socialism would start in the most advanced capitalist countries. Lenin argued against that, and the events of the 20th century proved Lenin right and Marx wrong.

So, in fact, not only do Marxists reject any notion of Marx being infallible, but it's actually the other way around: pretty much every Marxist today agrees that Marx was wrong on a few things.


Or do you subscribe to a Fukuyaman type of view that a Lefist world government would be the end of history, as the world would have reached a state of perfection, or at least on its way to perfection anyway (communism)?
It depends what you mean by "the end of history." Communism will be the final form of human society, yes, so history will have "ended" in the sense that there will no longer be wars, revolutions or radical social changes once we have reached communism.

But we don't expect communist society to be fixed and unchanging. There will still be technological change, there will still be new ideas, changes in arts and culture, changes in language, etc.


Also, why do Marxists believe in rule by a dominant minority (dictatorship of the proletariat)?
The proletariat is the vast majority, not a minority. The phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" means simply "power to the working class!"


And if Marxism is about the majority, why not more electoral success?
Different Marxists will give you different answers. I believe our lack of electoral success comes down to 2 factors:

1. We propose far greater changes to society than any other ideology or political party. People are naturally disinclined to support radical change, even when it would be for their benefit, because radical change is risky. Under normal conditions of social stability, most people are simply more cautious and risk-averse than us.

2. Notice that all the politicians getting elected these days are very rich. That's not because the people support wealthy politicians, but because capitalist "democracy" is set up in such a way that you've only got a real chance of winning elections if you are rich (or have rich friends and supporters). The amount of money that must be spent on political campaigns is a real barrier for political parties who oppose the interests of the capitalists - because such parties will invariably be poor.

[Zanthorus]

And yet, politicians have gone to prison here in recent history.

Yes, recently here in the UK there's been a big scandal over MP's expenses. Some of them are actually being brought to trial for it. All of this is giving strength to the right's anti-government rhetoric and probably would've resulted in a victory for free markets and the industrial bourgeoisie if Cameron hadn't fiddled on crime statistics and the deficit and if people actually knew any of the tory policies.

The point is that, again, the problems and tribulations of one section of the bourgeoisie can actually be gains for another section of the bourgeoisie.


The ideal is to balance off the different competing interests so that no one has too much power, the proletariat, the political class, the wealthy, the judiciary etc

I don't see how that's "ideal". You assume that the interests of all classes are legitimate. I would say that only the proletariats interests are legitimate because in order to emancipate ourselves we have to do away with not only all previous systems of injustive but every system of injustice since the proletariat constitutes the vast majority of society.

[Sogdian]

Dominant majorities frighten me. Being a gay person, and Jewish, I know all too well what rule of the majority can be like.

You already seem to have an established notion of majority... I don't disagree with you, sometimes majority can be brutal and vicious towards minority. That is in a capitalist society with all its religious absurdities and patriarchal primitiveness. But, Marxism or Communism is not based on irrationality and some ancient culture or beliefs. Did you know that after the 1917 Revolution, Soviet Russia legalized homosexuality and abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia#Pre-Stalin_Soviet_Russia) [until of course Stalin took power]? Unfortunately Stalin had an extremely negative affect to the modern communism... and many still confuse Stalinism with communism.

[Skooma Addict]

It depends what you mean by "the end of history." Communism will be the final form of human society, yes, so history will have "ended" in the sense that there will no longer be wars, revolutions or radical social changes once we have reached communism.

Do you actually believe this?

[Bud Struggle]

Do you actually believe this?

It's kind of like when Jesus comes.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Do you actually believe this?
Of course. Revolution (and social change in general) is driven by class struggle. War is driven either by class struggle or by competition between different sections of the ruling class.

Since communism abolishes class differences, it eliminates the driving force behind war, revolution, and radical social change. That's why those things won't happen any more.

[ZombieGrits]

Marx isn't infallible, nor is anyone.
Communism will not be some "kingdom of heaven," it's just a better system than that in place now.

But most importantly, the working class is NOT the minority! I can barely believe you even said that! If you haven't noticed that just about EVERYBODY in the world earns a living through wage labor, then you must live in a gated community or something, i dont know.

[Durruti's Ghost]

I haven't finished reading the thread yet, but I just read this:


true socialism has never been tried, and yet committed socialists are unwavering in their belief that the system will work, or it has been tried (USSR, PRC) and the evidence is that it did not work out so well in many ways.

I would like to point out the existence of a place where something very close to true socialism has been tried: Catalonia during the first year or so of the Spanish Civil War. It had its flaws, which ultimately led to its downfall; however, it operated relatively well up to the point that it ended and considering the fact that it arose during a time of civil war.

[godlessmutha]

You already seem to have an established notion of majority... I don't disagree with you, sometimes majority can be brutal and vicious towards minority. That is in a capitalist society with all its religious absurdities and patriarchal primitiveness. But, Marxism or Communism is not based on irrationality and some ancient culture or beliefs. Did you know that after the 1917 Revolution, Soviet Russia [until of course Stalin took power]? Unfortunately Stalin had an extremely negative affect to the modern communism... and many still confuse Stalinism with communism.

I was just thinking about the Stalin example until you mentioned it. If a socialist regime is authoritarian in nature, how do you prevent it from being corrupted like the USSR was by Stalin? Do you not require an authoritarian regime established by force to create socialism when a majority of the people do not support socialism?

[godlessmutha]

Marx isn't infallible, nor is anyone.
Communism will not be some "kingdom of heaven," it's just a better system than that in place now.

But most importantly, the working class is NOT the minority! I can barely believe you even said that! If you haven't noticed that just about EVERYBODY in the world earns a living through wage labor, then you must live in a gated community or something, i dont know.

But this brings me to the point of a revolutionary vanguard. Most of the proletariat do not believe in socialism, so you will necessarily need a violent revolutionary vanguard to institute some kind of authoritarian system to create socialism.

That vanguard group would be a dominant minority, in much the same way the wealthy elite are now. I don't think anyone hates the working class, they just have different ideas about how to make their lives better. Except, perhaps, for Malthusians and enviro-nazis.

With regards to living in a gated community, I come from a fairly wealthy family, however I have had experiences in my life that have caused me to live cheek-by-jowl with the most downtrodden of the underclass. I might have been brought up in privileged circumstances, but I have had by no means a sheltered life.

[godlessmutha]

I haven't finished reading the thread yet, but I just read this:



I would like to point out the existence of a place where something very close to true socialism has been tried: Catalonia during the first year or so of the Spanish Civil War. It had its flaws, which ultimately led to its downfall; however, it operated relatively well up to the point that it ended and considering the fact that it arose during a time of civil war.

I would have to research this one, thanks for the pointer. I'm also interested in reading about the Paris Commune.

[godlessmutha]

The No True Scotsman fallacy is employed by Libertarians but not by leftists, at least not the same way.

Left Communist and Anarchists will claim that the SU and the PRC et al were not "True" socialism, but they won't necessarily argue it was a downgrade, whereas whenever shock therapy makes things worse, the libertarians say it's because they didn't go far enough and that at a certain point they would climb out of the valley. This is based on no history.

Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, Hoxhaists, Trotskyists all have some examples of socialism they uphold. They will often defend the very states other denigrate...not because they say the state was non-socialist, but because of their pro-working man analysis and their more correct version of history.

I'd not heard of the No True Scotsman logical fallacy before, thanks for the heads up. I'm just wondering if there is any tendency of socialism that can point to an example of a socialist state that has not involved the suppression of rights like free speech, voluntary association, the right to collectively organise in workplaces, and so forth.

I find it interesting that many socialist nations have banned unions too.

[godlessmutha]

Yes, recently here in the UK there's been a big scandal over MP's expenses. Some of them are actually being brought to trial for it. All of this is giving strength to the right's anti-government rhetoric and probably would've resulted in a victory for free markets and the industrial bourgeoisie if Cameron hadn't fiddled on crime statistics and the deficit and if people actually knew any of the tory policies.

The point is that, again, the problems and tribulations of one section of the bourgeoisie can actually be gains for another section of the bourgeoisie.

I don't see how that's "ideal". You assume that the interests of all classes are legitimate. I would say that only the proletariats interests are legitimate because in order to emancipate ourselves we have to do away with not only all previous systems of injustive but every system of injustice since the proletariat constitutes the vast majority of society.

Your point about the bourgeoisie not being one monolithic block interests me; I'm obviously no expert on socialism, but I was under the impression that socialists had a belief in some kind of organised conspiracy by the bourgeoisie to keep the working class down.

With regards to my use of the words ideal, I guess perhaps I should say that I feel that is the most practical way of ensuring a fair and just system; not perfect, but the best we can manage for the moment. To ensure that no one group becomes too powerful, whilst ensuring that the rights of individuals are guaranteed by law and protected.

[Durruti's Ghost]

I would have to research this one, thanks for the pointer. I'm also interested in reading about the Paris Commune.

Welcome. :)

While the Paris Commune never went so far as actually creating socialism (i.e., turning control of the workplaces over to the workers), it nevertheless represents a close approximation of the political system that ought to accompany a socialist economy--directly democratic with any delegates/representatives being subject to instant recall at the whim of their constituents.


If a socialist regime is authoritarian in nature, how do you prevent it from being corrupted like the USSR was by Stalin? Do you not require an authoritarian regime established by force to create socialism when a majority of the people do not support socialism?

This is an excellent point. I think that the problem with the USSR was precisely because it was authoritarian; though it may be possible for a revolutionary minority to take control and, from their, create socialism by authoritarian means from above, this strategy's track record is rather bleak. This is why I believe that for a revolution to have a good chance of successfully establishing socialism, a majority of the people must not only support the revolution, but also socialism as the economic system to come after the revolution. Any attempt to establish a democratic economic system through the actions of a revolutionary minority is bound to be rife with contradictions, if not necessarily doomed to fail.

[Zanthorus]

Your point about the bourgeoisie not being one monolithic block interests me; I'm obviously no expert on socialism, but I was under the impression that socialists had a belief in some kind of organised conspiracy by the bourgeoisie to keep the working class down.

My thoughts on this subject are inspired by Noam Chomsky and his analysis of the mass media. He points about repeatedly that the media displays a wide range of views from liberal to conservative but emphasises that all of these views are views of different sections of the ruling class. So for example, on any given day on BBC one (Or whatever the main news outlet is in Australia) you might see liberal views and conservative views on a wide variety of issues, but you'll never see an anarcho-syndicalist stand up and talk about how things would have worked better with mass assemblies of working people etc.

I think it's important to avoid conspiracy theory type views of the bourgeoisie. They're not evil lizard men, they're products of the system they were born into. The problem isn't one of a few maniacal supervillians pulling the strings, or greedy bankers controlling the US government, it's a structural problem endemic to capitalism. The bourgeoisie is a social group created by the structural foundations of capitalism (Private property in the means of production and distribution).

Hell, one of the early utopian socialists Robert Owen was a wealthy industrialist who was sickened by the poor working conditions during the industrial revolution. He managed to break free somewhat of his class conditions, however his fellow trustees at New Lanark were still demanding their 5% return on capital investment and £300,000 clear profit. So it's pretty clear that the system tends to influence how people think about themselves and the world. If it didn't then capitalism wouldn't still exist.


With regards to my use of the words ideal, I guess perhaps I should say that I feel that is the most practical way of ensuring a fair and just system; not perfect, but the best we can manage for the moment. To ensure that no one group becomes too powerful, whilst ensuring that the rights of individuals are guaranteed by law and protected.

Here's a really interesting David Harvey clip that you might want to check out:

SqeDi5Pj3wo