Socialism and Ethics

[LeftSideDown]

For pure Marxism Socialism is not a political program. It does not demand that society shall be transformed into the socialist order, nor does it condemn the liberal order of society. It presents itself as a scientific theory which claims to have discovered in the dynamic laws of historical development a movement towards the socialization of the means of production. To say that pure Marxism pronounces itself in favor of Socialism or that it desires Socialism or wishes to bring it about would be just as absurd as to say that Astronomy wishes or thought it desirable to bring about a solar eclipse which it had predicted. We know that Marx's life and even of his writings and sayings sharply contradict his theoretic outlook and that the Socialism of resentment is always showing its cloven hoof. In practical politics at least, his supporters have long sense forgotten what they owe strictly to his doctrine. their words and deeds go far beyond what the "midwife theory" permits [1]. This, however, is of secondary importance for our study which here deals only with the doctrine pure and undefiled.

Beside the pure Marxist view that socialism must come of inexorable necessity, there are two other motives which guide the advocates of Communism. They are socialists either because they expect socialist society to increase productivity, or because they believe that a socialist society would be more just. Marxism is unable to reconcile itself to ethical Socialism. But its attitude to economic-rationalist Socialism is quite different: it is possible to interpret the materialistic conception of history as meaning that the trend of economic development naturally leads to the most productive type of economy, that is to say Socialism. Of course, this view is very different from that held by the majority of Marxists. They are for Socialism, firstly because it is bound to come in any case, secondly because it is morally preferable, and finally because it involves more rational economic organization.

The two motives of non-Marxian socialism are mutually exclusive. If a man advocates Socialism because he expects to increase the productivity of social labor he need not try to bolster up his demands with higher moral valuation of the socialist order. If he elects to do so, he is open to the question whether he would be prepared to advocate Socialism if he discovered that it was after all not the morally perfect order. On the other hand it is clear that one who advocates the socialistic order for moral reasons would have to go on doing so even if he were convinced that the order based on private ownership in the means of production yielded greater productivity of labor.

[1]How little Social-Democrats have made this fundamental doctrine of Marxism their own, one sees from a glance at their literature. A leader of German Social-Democracy, the form German Minister of National Economy Wissell, confesses succinctly: "I am Socialist and shall remain Socialist, for I see in socialist economy, with its subordination of the Individual to the Whole, the expression of a higher moral principle than that which lies at the basis of individualistic economy." Praktische Wirtschaftspolitik (Berlin, 1919), p. 53.

Just wondering if you all had any thoughts on this, besides that you hate me/Mises/non-communists.

[Die Rote Fahne]

For pure Marxism Socialism is not a political program. It does not demand that society shall be transformed into the socialist order, nor does it condemn the liberal order of society. It presents itself as a scientific theory which claims to have discovered in the dynamic laws of historical development a movement towards the socialization of the means of production. To say that pure Marxism pronounces itself in favor of Socialism or that it desires Socialism or wishes to bring it about would be just as absurd as to say that Astronomy wishes or thought it desirable to bring about a solar eclipse which it had predicted. We know that Marx's life and even of his writings and sayings sharply contradict his theoretic outlook and that the Socialism of resentment is always showing its cloven hoof. In practical politics at least, his supporters have long sense forgotten what they owe strictly to his doctrine. their words and deeds go far beyond what the "midwife theory" permits [1]. This, however, is of secondary importance for our study which here deals only with the doctrine pure and undefiled.

Beside the pure Marxist view that socialism must come of inexorable necessity, there are two other motives which guide the advocates of Communism. They are socialists either because they expect socialist society to increase productivity, or because they believe that a socialist society would be more just. Marxism is unable to reconcile itself to ethical Socialism. But its attitude to economic-rationalist Socialism is quite different: it is possible to interpret the materialistic conception of history as meaning that the trend of economic development naturally leads to the most productive type of economy, that is to say Socialism. Of course, this view is very different from that held by the majority of Marxists. They are for Socialism, firstly because it is bound to come in any case, secondly because it is morally preferable, and finally because it involves more rational economic organization.

The two motives of non-Marxian socialism are mutually exclusive. If a man advocates Socialism because he expects to increase the productivity of social labor he need not try to bolster up his demands with higher moral valuation of the socialist order. If he elects to do so, he is open to the question whether he would be prepared to advocate Socialism if he discovered that it was after all not the morally perfect order. On the other hand it is clear that one who advocates the socialistic order for moral reasons would have to go on doing so even if he were convinced that the order based on private ownership in the means of production yielded greater productivity of labor.

[1]How little Social-Democrats have made this fundamental doctrine of Marxism their own, one sees from a glance at their literature. A leader of German Social-Democracy, the form German Minister of National Economy Wissell, confesses succinctly: "I am Socialist and shall remain Socialist, for I see in socialist economy, with its subordination of the Individual to the Whole, the expression of a higher moral principle than that which lies at the basis of individualistic economy." Praktische Wirtschaftspolitik (Berlin, 1919), p. 53.

Just wondering if you all had any thoughts on this, besides that you hate me/Mises/non-communists.

Considering the creators of Marxist Theory support socialism, ya...it does.

[¿Que?]

For pure Marxism Socialism is not a political program. It does not demand that society shall be transformed into the socialist order, nor does it condemn the liberal order of society.
You forgot to mention that Marx never called for the workers of the world to unite either. Oh wait, he did. That's not a very "pure" Marx is it. And yet, wasn't it Marx who said it?

And what is "pure" Marxism anyway? Could it be a strawman? Because if it were a strawman, then there'd be little reason to read past the third word of your beautifully crafted essay (with footnotes even!).

[#FF0000]

I'm gonna reply tomorrow after I get some sleep but I have to say that I'm p. disappointed by the replies so far.

[LeftSideDown]

Considering the creators of Marxist Theory support socialism, ya...it does.

To say that pure Marxism pronounces itself in favor of Socialism or that it desires Socialism or wishes to bring it about would be just as absurd as to say that Astronomy wishes or thought it desirable to bring about a solar eclipse which it had predicted.

Don't they support it because it is inevitable? Or because of the other reasons listed? Can you point where in the Communist Manifesto Marx states his support of socialism, and not just its "historical inevitability"?

[Ryke]

While it can definitely be argued that Marx thought socialism or communism was a desirable situation and showed it through his actions, it's probably also a defensible position that Marxism in itself doesn't advocate any system as objectively better than any other.

That's not particularly important outside of sectarian debate, though, since individual decisions can be taken outside the frame of Marxism. Marxism is not all-encompassing, and I don't see how advocating communism, rather than simply casting it as inevitable, somehow invalidates the whole thing.

Unless I'm missing something, this isn't a big deal for Marxists as a whole, mostly just Marxist scholars worried about what constitutes "orthodox" or "pure" Marxism or not.

[#FF0000]

To say that pure Marxism pronounces itself in favor of Socialism or that it desires Socialism or wishes to bring it about would be just as absurd as to say that Astronomy wishes or thought it desirable to bring about a solar eclipse which it had predicted.

Don't they support it because it is inevitable? Or because of the other reasons listed? Can you point where in the Communist Manifesto Marx states his support of socialism, and not just its "historical inevitability"?

Marxists don't believe that socialism is "inevitable", really. The class struggle could go on and on and on for whatever length of time you want, and it won't have to end with the proletariat winning and socialism being established.

It's kind of easy to get that idea, but it's not accurate. There's a few quotes around from Marx about human agency but I can't be bothered to find them just yet.

[LeftSideDown]

While it can definitely be argued that Marx thought socialism or communism was a desirable situation and showed it through his actions, it's probably also a defensible position that Marxism in itself doesn't advocate any system as objectively better than any other.

That's not particularly important outside of sectarian debate, though, since individual decisions can be taken outside the frame of Marxism. Marxism is not all-encompassing, and I don't see how advocating communism, rather than simply casting it as inevitable, somehow invalidates the whole thing.

Unless I'm missing something, this isn't a big deal for Marxists as a whole, mostly just Marxist scholars worried about what constitutes "orthodox" or "pure" Marxism or not.

Well, the real point is that this serves as an introduction into a chapter in Mises' Socialism where he talks about the morality of Socialism and whether it is "good", I guess. I've not finished reading it, but I'll happily tell you once I've finished. The main point he was trying to make, I think, was this

The two motives of non-Marxian socialism are mutually exclusive. If a man advocates Socialism because he expects to increase the productivity of social labor he need not try to bolster up his demands with higher moral valuation of the socialist order. If he elects to do so, he is open to the question whether he would be prepared to advocate Socialism if he discovered that it was after all not the morally perfect order. On the other hand it is clear that one who advocates the socialistic order for moral reasons would have to go on doing so even if he were convinced that the order based on private ownership in the means of production yielded greater productivity of labor.

Since, in this chapter, he is attacking the Ethics/Morality of socialism, people who believe it is productively and morally superior now, if the contention arises that Socialism is not morally superior, they would still advocate it. Obviously people who just advocate it for moral reasons, and not necessarily economic reasons, will have to think about their advocacy of Socialism if it is proven immoral.

[¿Que?]

Don't they support it because it is inevitable? Or because of the other reasons listed? Can you point where in the Communist Manifesto Marx states his support of socialism, and not just its "historical inevitability"?
You are of course referring to the last part of chapter 1: bourgeois and proletarians.

"The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable."

Why am I making your argument for you? Beats me. I'm bored. I'm waiting for you to respond to my post...

[LeftSideDown]

Marxists don't believe that socialism is "inevitable", really. The class struggle could go on and on and on for whatever length of time you want, and it won't have to end with the proletariat winning and socialism being established.

It's kind of easy to get that idea, but it's not accurate. There's a few quotes around from Marx about human agency but I can't be bothered to find them just yet.

Really? He doesn't. I'm flipping through the Communist Manifesto for the second time here, and he states that "The organisation of the proletarian into a class, and consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier."

If we just look at this statement using calculus we can examine it thusly
0 = When Workers Revolt
Lim ................(-1)^n
n-->infinity.............n

n is an integer

Now, even though it may seem to not converge (because it would vary between negative and positive with every integer change in n) it gets smaller and smaller and closer to 0 as n --> infinity.

If the worker class is constantly getting stronger (i.e. constantly approaching 0) it must EVENTUALLY come about that communism will come about because of the strength of the proletarian.

More Quotes from Marx: "The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates its products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." (Emphasis added)

This means he sees it as inevitable in two ways:
1) Explicitly (he states it as inevitable
2) IN his comparison to death (via the grave-diggers comment) which is inevitable.

[LeftSideDown]

You are of course referring to the last part of chapter 1: bourgeois and proletarians.

"The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable."

Why am I making your argument for you? Beats me. I'm bored. I'm waiting for you to respond to my post...

I didn't copy you... >_> .... <_<

[LeftSideDown]

You forgot to mention that Marx never called for the workers of the world to unite either. Oh wait, he did. That's not a very "pure" Marx is it. And yet, wasn't it Marx who said it?

And what is "pure" Marxism anyway? Could it be a strawman? Because if it were a strawman, then there'd be little reason to read past the third word of your beautifully crafted essay (with footnotes even!).

I'm not very well schooled in differences in Marxian philosophers, and I think it is you, or your ilk, that should determine what Pure Marx is. I guess pure Marxism would be what Marx himself said, but if, as you infer, he contradicts himself, than I guess it'd be hard to adhere to a philosophy that is internally contradictory.

[mikelepore]

Moral judgments are found in many places in Marx and Engels, both in condemning class divided society and in recommending classless society. But the two writers were uncomfortable about their own use of moral judgements. A scientific foundation was presumed to be mandatory.

They thought they had eliminated the pseudoscience of Hegel by eliminating the references to the Absolute, but in truth they never let go of Hegel's belief that the outcome of human history is a predetermined unfolding. The teleology was remolded to take the form that was popular among many educated Eurpoeans in the 18th and 19th centuries, the claim that all things, including human society and mental events, operate according to precise laws of mechanics that might be discovered.

Several other writers had already put some thought into the question of how predicting the direction of human history might be made into a rigorous science problem, including, if I remember correctly, Sismondi, Condorcet and Turgot. It was a fad of the era that affected Marx and Engels. This influence on Marxism continues today, in every Marxian article that anticipates a "collapse" of capitalism, or which underestimates the power of "the subjective factors."

____________________________


"Intrinsically, it is not a question of the higher or lower degree of development of the social antagonisms that result from the natural laws of capitalist production. It is a question of these laws themselves, of these tendencies working with iron necessity towards inevitable results." -- Marx, _Capital_, preface to first edition

"These two great discoveries, the materialistic conception of history and the revelation of the secret of capitalistic production through surplus-value, we owe to Marx. With these discoveries socialism became a science. The next thing was to work out all its details and relations." -- Engels, _Anti-Duhring_, Part I, chapter 1

[ChrisK]

Really? He doesn't. I'm flipping through the Communist Manifesto for the second time here, and he states that "The organisation of the proletarian into a class, and consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier."

If we just look at this statement using calculus we can examine it thusly
0 = When Workers Revolt
Lim ................(-1)^n
n-->infinity.............n

n is an integer

Now, even though it may seem to not converge (because it would vary between negative and positive with every integer change in n) it gets smaller and smaller and closer to 0 as n --> infinity.

If the worker class is constantly getting stronger (i.e. constantly approaching 0) it must EVENTUALLY come about that communism will come about because of the strength of the proletarian.

More Quotes from Marx: "The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates its products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." (Emphasis added)

This means he sees it as inevitable in two ways:
1) Explicitly (he states it as inevitable
2) IN his comparison to death (via the grave-diggers comment) which is inevitable.

The Misean using math to construct reality. Neat.

The first quote you completely misrepresent, he is stating a fact that historically, up till the point of writing, the working class has been getting stronger with each battle. Do you perhaps have problems with understanding the tense he is writing in?

The gravediggers quote is being misrepresented as well. First of all, gravediggers does mean that proletariats are the only one's who can beat the capitalists. Secondly, Marx contends that either the proletariats will win or both of the classes will die out. His writing that you quote is a piece of rhetoric, meant to inspire, not as fact.

[¿Que?]

I'm not very well schooled in differences in Marxian philosophers, and I think it is you, or your ilk, that should determine what Pure Marx is. I guess pure Marxism would be what Marx himself said, but if, as you infer, he contradicts himself, than I guess it'd be hard to adhere to a philosophy that is internally contradictory.
Why should it be "my ilk" to define a term you came up with. In that case, I will call pure marxism nonsense and we can stop using it from here on out.

To deal with agency from a materialist perspective is no easy task, even for a great like Marx. These are dialectical contradictions. Two sides of the same coin. Agency versus nature and structure.

I'm actually curious as to how Mises would handle this issue.

[Glenn Beck]

For pure Marxism Socialism is not a political program. It does not demand that society shall be transformed into the socialist order, nor does it condemn the liberal order of society. It presents itself as a scientific theory which claims to have discovered in the dynamic laws of historical development a movement towards the socialization of the means of production. To say that pure Marxism pronounces itself in favor of Socialism or that it desires Socialism or wishes to bring it about would be just as absurd as to say that Astronomy wishes or thought it desirable to bring about a solar eclipse which it had predicted. We know that Marx's life and even of his writings and sayings sharply contradict his theoretic outlook and that the Socialism of resentment is always showing its cloven hoof. In practical politics at least, his supporters have long sense forgotten what they owe strictly to his doctrine. their words and deeds go far beyond what the "midwife theory" permits [1]. This, however, is of secondary importance for our study which here deals only with the doctrine pure and undefiled.

Beside the pure Marxist view that socialism must come of inexorable necessity, there are two other motives which guide the advocates of Communism. They are socialists either because they expect socialist society to increase productivity, or because they believe that a socialist society would be more just. Marxism is unable to reconcile itself to ethical Socialism. But its attitude to economic-rationalist Socialism is quite different: it is possible to interpret the materialistic conception of history as meaning that the trend of economic development naturally leads to the most productive type of economy, that is to say Socialism. Of course, this view is very different from that held by the majority of Marxists. They are for Socialism, firstly because it is bound to come in any case, secondly because it is morally preferable, and finally because it involves more rational economic organization.

The two motives of non-Marxian socialism are mutually exclusive. If a man advocates Socialism because he expects to increase the productivity of social labor he need not try to bolster up his demands with higher moral valuation of the socialist order. If he elects to do so, he is open to the question whether he would be prepared to advocate Socialism if he discovered that it was after all not the morally perfect order. On the other hand it is clear that one who advocates the socialistic order for moral reasons would have to go on doing so even if he were convinced that the order based on private ownership in the means of production yielded greater productivity of labor.

[1]How little Social-Democrats have made this fundamental doctrine of Marxism their own, one sees from a glance at their literature. A leader of German Social-Democracy, the form German Minister of National Economy Wissell, confesses succinctly: "I am Socialist and shall remain Socialist, for I see in socialist economy, with its subordination of the Individual to the Whole, the expression of a higher moral principle than that which lies at the basis of individualistic economy." Praktische Wirtschaftspolitik (Berlin, 1919), p. 53.

Just wondering if you all had any thoughts on this, besides that you hate me/Mises/non-communists.

You have an excessively one-sided understanding of both Marx and Marxism and are imposing your own ideological and philosophical preconceptions onto Marx's work which is leading to certain confusions. The Marxist "scientific socialism" is of course a decisive break from "utopian socialism", socialism concerned primarily with the justness of a collectively oriented economy. But Marx at no point rejects the "socialism of resentment" you so poetically refer to because his materialist conception history is at once a history of class struggle. Society is shaped by the struggle of incommensurable class interests which can only ever at best reach a temporary equilibrium. Marx would never refer to the movement by workers for the redistribution of wealth, power, and property as a "politics of resentment" because in his view the wealth of the capitalist class is fundamentally based on exploitation, and insofar as the working class feels resentment from the bourgeoisie it is the justified resentment one feels for an unpunished thief. It is understandable given your philosophical commitments that you view socialism as a movement of the resentful poor but you will never understand Marxism on its own terms if you project these alien categories onto Marxist thinking.

What makes your comparison to Astronomy and thus your fundamental thesis incoherent is the fact that the historical materialism which Marx did indeed view as a science was a science of human social action. Marx himself said: "Men create their own history, but not as they choose." A solar eclipse cannot be induced by astronomers or anyone else because a solar eclipse is a natural phenomenon with no relationship to human agency. On the contrary a political and social revolution requires human agency. Marx did not believe, as you seem to have somehow convinced yourself, that the objective nature of the historical process somehow places agency entirely in the hands of some mysterious outside force. Though he drew many concepts from Hegel he explicitly rejected the mystical Hegelian ideas of social evolution and took great pains to describe a materialist philosophy of history.

Thus the key insight of Marxism is not that revolution is inevitable in the precise mathematical sense of the solar eclipse. Rather Marx was using what we in the social sciences refer to as an ideal type which describes the fundamental tendency over an extended span of time. As a Misean you are no doubt acquainted with the phrase ceteris paribus from studying economics. Marx's assertions of the inevitability of revolution were assertions that given the tendencies he observed in the system, most fundamentally the need for constant growth premised on the ever expanding and intensifying economic exploitation of the proletariat, there was no logical basis for a permanent equilibrium that could guarantee the indefinite survival of the system because the system itself was unstable in its own normal functioning. Marx is very often misinterpreted as having made short run predictions held to be constant the core of his theory. The concept of historical inevitability is far more subtle than that: if wages rise a given year it does not in itself refute Marx's prediction that in the long term the purchasing power of the working class would degrade relative to that of the bourgeoisie. The capitalist system is conceived much like a top: it may spin for a considerable amount of time and survive numerous wobbles and oscillations but sooner or later it is bound to destabilize and fall over.

To more directly answer your question: you are on the right track but not all ethical valuation of socialism is contrary to Marx's materialism. As Marx viewed history as a history of class struggle and the proletariat as the dynamic class under the capitalist system, a revolutionary ethics would be a concrete ethics embodied in the relations of society and thus premised on the interests of the working class. Acts would be judged by how they serve the interests of workers and not necessarily a universalized and de-contextualized "moral person" as in what Marx would refer to as bourgeois morality. Given Marx's position on the relationship between material culture and ideology it is not at all unreasonable to assume that a morality of this type, grounded in social relations, would organically develop among communists as a function of their socio-economic position and role.

[LeftSideDown]

The Misean using math to construct reality. Neat.

Marxism isn't reality, so I can cheat :cool:


The first quote you completely misrepresent, he is stating a fact that historically, up till the point of writing, the working class has been getting stronger with each battle. Do you perhaps have problems with understanding the tense he is writing in?

Its very easy to get wrapped up in his present tense and believe he is speaking from NOW, I guess I fell prey to this. He is writing in the present tense though, and the word "Ever" insinuates that it will continue.


The gravediggers quote is being misrepresented as well. First of all, gravediggers does mean that proletariats are the only one's who can beat the capitalists. Secondly, Marx contends that either the proletariats will win or both of the classes will die out. His writing that you quote is a piece of rhetoric, meant to inspire, not as fact.

The proletariat are or are not the only one's who can beat capitalism? I don't know if you made a typo, the appearance of "does" makes it seem like it should be followed by "not".

I guess you can simply give me a quote to prove that "Marx contends that either the proletariats will win or both of the classes will die out." I'm not very familiar with Marx, and I've only read the Communist Manifesto. SO I guess a quote will suffice.

So, if the Communist Manifesto (Manifesto: a public declaration of intentions (as issued by a political party or government) from Latin manifestus: clear, evident) has sentences or sections that are only meant to serve as rhetoric, how do you differentiate which parts are supposed to be rhetoric from the parts that are supposed to be true? Does Marx give a formula for letting you (the communist) know when he is just conveniently "misleading" for the sake of ends and when he is making "objective" statements of fact?

[LeftSideDown]

Side Note: I'm so proud of my little thread :blushing::rolleyes::blushing:

[ChrisK]

Marxism isn't reality, so I can cheat :cool:

Ahhh, so you admit your full of shit.


Its very easy to get wrapped up in his present tense and believe he is speaking from NOW, I guess I fell prey to this. He is writing in the present tense though, and the word "Ever" insinuates that it will continue.


The organisation of the proletarian into a class, and consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier.

Yes, currently would imply now and in the past. The bolded part implies a historic tendency. Not a given fact.


The proletariat are or are not the only one's who can beat capitalism? I don't know if you made a typo, the appearance of "does" makes it seem like it should be followed by "not".

Are supposed to be. Sorry about the confusion.


I guess you can simply give me a quote to prove that "Marx contends that either the proletariats will win or both of the classes will die out." I'm not very familiar with Marx, and I've only read the Communist Manifesto. SO I guess a quote will suffice.

Funny, its from the first page of the manifesto.



Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master(3) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#a3) and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.


So, if the Communist Manifesto (Manifesto: a public declaration of intentions (as issued by a political party or government) from Latin manifestus: clear, evident) has sentences or sections that are only meant to serve as rhetoric, how do you differentiate which parts are supposed to be rhetoric from the parts that are supposed to be true? Does Marx give a formula for letting you (the communist) know when he is just conveniently "misleading" for the sake of ends and when he is making "objective" statements of fact?

Rhetoric does not mean false at all. Rhetoric means persuasive language. The rhetoric he uses of the inevitable victory is common in inspiring speeches throughout history. There is no formula for understanding this; just an ability to read and comprehend.

[LeftSideDown]

Ahhh, so you admit your full of shit.

Did I already? Shoot, I was trying to hide it for as long as I could:lol:.


Are supposed to be. Sorry about the confusion.

Thanks for clearing it up, we're all human eh?


Funny, its from the first page of the manifesto.

The quote you gave me definitely referred to the PAST conflicts. It did not mention bourgeoisie against proletarian... Only to past "historical" conflicts. He specifically said "each time ended". Past tense. Says nothing about this conflict.


Rhetoric does not mean false at all. Rhetoric means persuasive language. The rhetoric he uses of the inevitable victory is common in inspiring speeches throughout history. There is no formula for understanding this; just an ability to read and comprehend.

But if something is not a fact, how can it be true? To quote, well, you: His writing that you quote is a piece of rhetoric, meant to inspire, not as fact. Its not supposed to be interpreted as fact, according to you; so where else in the manifesto are things not supposed to be interpreted as fact?

[ChrisK]

Did I already? Shoot, I was trying to hide it for as long as I could:lol:.



Thanks for clearing it up, we're all human eh?

Well I'm actually a cyborg so the questions of my humanity have yet to be answered.


The quote you gave me definitely referred to the PAST conflicts. It did not mention bourgeoisie against proletarian... Only to past "historical" conflicts. He specifically said "each time ended". Past tense. Says nothing about this conflict.

If you haven't noticed, as I pointed out in other quotes, Marx speaks of historical tendencies. This historical tendency implies the same is true with the proletariat. Also, if Marx thought all this inevitable, why did he write on strategies to create victory and on conditions for working class victory? If he thought it truly inevitable, he wouldn't have had to write about parites or organize any that he did.


But if something is not a fact, how can it be true? To quote, well, you: His writing that you quote is a piece of rhetoric, meant to inspire, not as fact. Its not supposed to be interpreted as fact, according to you; so where else in the manifesto are things not supposed to be interpreted as fact?

Shit I need sleep if I wrote that. Let me try again, this is a piece of rhetoric, meant to inspire, not to be taken as literal fact, but rather as a predicted outcome.

[LeftSideDown]

If you haven't noticed, as I pointed out in other quotes, Marx speaks of historical tendencies. This historical tendency implies the same is true with the proletariat. Also, if Marx thought all this inevitable, why did he write on strategies to create victory and on conditions for working class victory? If he thought it truly inevitable, he wouldn't have had to write about parites or organize any that he did.

Because the inevitable could be speeded up? Could you really not figure that out?


Shit I need sleep if I wrote that. Let me try again, this is a piece of rhetoric, meant to inspire, not to be taken as literal fact, but rather as a predicted outcome.

I went to bed too, 5am is too late.

[Robert]

Marxists don't believe that socialism is "inevitable", really. The class struggle could go on and on and on for whatever length of time you want, and it won't have to end with the proletariat winning and socialism being established.If that makes one a communist ... no, no, I can't say it.

Seriously, no one I know disagrees with that. The problem is with this "class" concept. I assume you're talking about the "control of the means of production type 'class,' " and not "some live in rich suburbs and some live in housing projects." (Is I learning yet?)

Until you can convince a significant portion of the adult, working populace that the dice are so loaded that can never themselves control "a" means of production under the system we have now, and/or that they can trust that this "each according to his needs" business can be implemented without tyranny (in the form of a Stalinist hijacking), I don't see how you'll ever get any traction developing "class consciousness." Not in the USA anyway.

Seriously, do you?

[ChrisK]

Because the inevitable could be speeded up? Could you really not figure that out?

Well it was 5 AM as you said. That doesn't answer my point that Marx is implying a historical trend for these two things to happen.

[LeftSideDown]

Well it was 5 AM as you said. That doesn't answer my point that Marx is implying a historical trend for these two things to happen.

How do I answer your point? Yes, Marx believed in historical trends that ultimately led to Socialism... what am I supposed to answer?

[ChrisK]

How do I answer your point? Yes, Marx believed in historical trends that ultimately led to Socialism... what am I supposed to answer?

No, Marx established the trend that classes either advance through a socitey or end in a common ruination.

[LeftSideDown]

No, Marx established the trend that classes either advance through a socitey or end in a common ruination.

But he also established the inevitability of socialism... did he not? So long as historical trends were followed?

[ChrisK]

But he also established the inevitability of socialism... did he not? So long as historical trends were followed?

No, he did not. You have trouble with the trend thing don't you? The trend indicates that either socialism will arise or eventually the both classes will destroy each other.

[mikelepore]

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

I don't know what they meant by "common ruin." I'd like to hear about a specific example or two.

I'm also skeptical about drawing definite conclusions from historical events. The sample size is too small. It's like an alien comes to earth and sees a horse and a dog, then draws the conclusion: every living thing on earth has four legs.

[ChrisK]

I don't know what they meant by "common ruin." I'd like to hear about a specific example or two.

I'm also skeptical about drawing definite conclusions from historical events. The sample size is too small. It's like an alien comes to earth and sees a horse and a dog, then draws the conclusion: every living thing on earth has four legs.

Rome, Maya, Egypt (can't remeber exactly what era).

[¿Que?]

Unless I'm missing something, this isn't a big deal for Marxists as a whole, mostly just Marxist scholars worried about what constitutes "orthodox" or "pure" Marxism or not.
Orthodox Marxism: A term used by some Marxists to delegitimize other Marxists.
Pure Marxsm: A term used by non-Marxists to delegitimize Marxists.

But to be serious. I think pure Marxism is meant to imply strict adherence to what Marx wrote. Orthodox Marxism generally includes other Marxists such as Lenin and depending on who you ask, Trotsky , Stalin, and/or Mao.

Therefore, equating orthodox Marxism with pure Marxism is a fallacy.

[Bud Struggle]

But to be serious. I think pure Marxism is meant to imply strict adherence to what Marx wrote. Orthodox Marxism generally includes other Marxists such as Lenin and depending on who you ask, Trotsky , Stalin, and/or Mao.

Therefore, equating orthodox Marxism with pure Marxism is a fallacy.

As if such things matter. :)

[¿Que?]

As if such things matter. :)
Words matter, Bud. Or do you disagree?

[gorillafuck]

Bud is right, it really doesn't matter. Especially considering I've never heard the term "pure Marxism" before in my life.

[¿Que?]

Bud is right, it really doesn't matter. Especially considering I've never heard the term "pure Marxism" before in my life.
My argument is that words have ideological and historical significance. Therefore to equate "pure Marxism" with "orthodox" Marxism is just folly. Does it matter? well, no not really. Until someone starts labeling you a revisionist and you end up in a work camp, then it might. Ultimately, though, this is a board for discussion. Saying it doesn't matter is a non-answer and a cop out, pure and simple.

If you want to have a discussion, then I am ready to abide. But if you just want to say to my argument, "it doesn't matter" then fine. You are right. Revleft is not real activism, and so it doesn't matter.

Just keep in mind, I don't soon forget these small betrayals.:mad:

[gorillafuck]

My argument is that words have ideological and historical significance. Therefore to equate "pure Marxism" with "orthodox" Marxism is just folly.
But I've never heard anyone use the term "pure Marxism" so you're just putting a definition on a term that isn't an actual term and saying it's different.

[¿Que?]

But I've never heard anyone use the term "pure Marxism" so you're just putting a definition on a term that isn't an actual term and saying it's different.
Yes, I did give it a definition, but only a defintion based on the context of the OP. My own definition is more along the lines of what you're saying, it isn't an actual term. But orthodox Marxism is an actual term.

Even in the event that orthodox Marxism is as much nonsense as pure Marxism, there is historical significance to the former which does not exist in the latter. In this sense, that is in an historical rather than semantic sense, they are different.

[gorillafuck]

Yes, I did give it a definition, but only a defintion based on the context of the OP. My own definition is more along the lines of what you're saying, it isn't an actual term. But orthodox Marxism is an actual term.

Even in the event that orthodox Marxism is as much nonsense as pure Marxism, there is historical significance to the former which does not exist in the latter. In this sense, that is in an historical rather than semantic sense, they are different.
I know orthodox Marxism is a term, but I don't understand why you're choosing to interpret "pure" as different from orthodox. In the context of the OP he's referring to the Marxist conception of history, which to my knowledge is a part of "orthodox Marxism".

[¿Que?]

I know orthodox Marxism is a term, but I don't understand why you're choosing to interpret "pure" as different from orthodox. In the context of the OP he's referring to the Marxist conception of history, which to my knowledge is a part of "orthodox Marxism".

Here is what LSD says in reference to pure bullshit, I mean pure Marxism.

I'm not very well schooled in differences in Marxian philosophers, and I think it is you, or your ilk, that should determine what Pure Marx is. I guess pure Marxism would be what Marx himself said...
And then in response to Ryke I said the following:

I think pure Marxism is meant to imply strict adherence to what Marx wrote. Orthodox Marxism generally includes other Marxists such as Lenin and depending on who you ask, Trotsky , Stalin, and/or Mao.

So there are two differences:
1) Historical. Orthodox Marxism has historical significance. Pure Marxism does not. If the OP meant Orthodox Marxism, then he should have said so to begin with.

2)Substantive. Pure Marxism is "what Marx himself said". Orthodox Marxism includes what Marx himself said, plus what other Marxists after him have said, such as Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and/or Mao.