Modern-Day Marxism

[The Vegan Marxist]

My studies on Marxist thought is pretty wide & diverse, & have studied it for a good number of years now. But the one thing I always ask myself is whether there are some elements of Marxist thought that may not apply to modern day society, when compared to how society was during Marx's times. So my question would be if there is anything, under which Marx had explained, that doesn't apply to the modern day rule of capitalist economics & exploitation anymore?

[Bonobo1917]

I think the progressive role of the bourgoisie, of capitalism itself - the thing he goes on about in The Communit Manifesto: growht of productive forces, extention of capitalism world wide, overtrhowing "all that is solid", all the pre-apitalist forms holding society back, in Marx' view - stopped being true arond 1914 at the latest. Capitalism entered a period of terminal decline. The thing is overripe. if we don't harvest i.e. overhrow - it, it will not stop rotting, and worse.

[sunfarstar]

:thumbup1:The modern Marxism definitely is the multiplication. Which one kind so-called “hasn't the Marxism” been possible to be versatile. Therefore, what we lack is creatively utilizes Marxism's theory in the practice practice. As one is not the Chinese communist who is skilled in the Marxism very much, I diligently own influence (, regardless in practical life virtual space) takes to others. Should not be afraid, says loudly own viewpoint. We lack are not the exchanges, is the creation. This will be revolutionary.

现代马克思主义肯定是多元化的。没有哪一种所谓的“马克思主义”可以全能。所以，我们缺少的是把马克思主义 的理论创造性地运用到实践中去的实践。作为一个并不是很精通马克思主义的中国共产主义者，我努力把自己的影 响（无论是在实际生活还是虚拟空间里）带给别人。不要害怕，把自己的观点大声说出来。我们缺少的不是交流， 是创造。这将是革命性的。

WE CAN WIN!WE MUST WIN!WE WILL WIN!

[scarletghoul]

I think the progressive role of the bourgoisie, of capitalism itself - the thing he goes on about in The Communit Manifesto: growht of productive forces, extention of capitalism world wide, overtrhowing "all that is solid", all the pre-apitalist forms holding society back, in Marx' view - stopped being true arond 1914 at the latest. Capitalism entered a period of terminal decline. The thing is overripe. if we don't harvest i.e. overhrow - it, it will not stop rotting, and worse.
To expand on this, the capitalist system now covers just about the whole world, which it didn't back in Marx's time. As countries 'develop' they've become more part of the same capitalist empire, centred in the US, and the seperate nations have become less and less distinct. Hegemony of bourgeoisie is global, with its primary base in the White House. Related to this is the change in class composition in the first world countries. A huge section of our proletariat is a 'middle class', 'bourgeoisified' and bought off with the wealth of the third world. There's also a substancially larger lumpenproletariat and semilumpen too (you could say this is a part of the rotting of an overripe system that Bonobo1917 talks about).

Another differance of course is that we have a whole history of communist struggle, which wasn't true in 1848. We've had socialist states rising and falling which has affected the state of the world today aswell as peoples' views of socialism.

[AK]

I think the progressive role of the bourgoisie, of capitalism itself - the thing he goes on about in The Communit Manifesto: growht of productive forces, extention of capitalism world wide, overtrhowing "all that is solid", all the pre-apitalist forms holding society back, in Marx' view - stopped being true arond 1914 at the latest. Capitalism entered a period of terminal decline. The thing is overripe. if we don't harvest i.e. overhrow - it, it will not stop rotting, and worse.
The Bourgeoisie could be considered progressive. Then again, it is all in the eye of the beholder. The system may be slowly dying, but no-one's going to argue that capitalism sat on it's arse and didn't improve healthcare or it didn't modernise society for many in the "First World". I'm far from siding with the capitalists, but you can't ignore facts. Capitalism made a better standard of living for a relatively large minority of people because it was in the Bourgeoisie's interests; the productive forces grew in number and efficiency but the Bourgeoisie only did this because they stood to gain something - and ultimately, the Bourgeoisie profited from these. The Bourgeoisie do modernise many aspects of society, but only if it is in their interests. Socialism would help society because it is in society's interests and/or society needs it. The Bourgeoisie do it because it is their interests. Stop ignoring facts.

[AK]

To expand on this, the capitalist system now covers just about the whole world, which it didn't back in Marx's time. As countries 'develop' they've become more part of the same capitalist empire, centred in the US, and the seperate nations have become less and less distinct. Hegemony of bourgeoisie is global, with its primary base in the White House. Related to this is the change in class composition in the first world countries. A huge section of our proletariat is a 'middle class', 'bourgeoisified' and bought off with the wealth of the third world. There's also a substancially larger lumpenproletariat and semilumpen too (you could say this is a part of the rotting of an overripe system that Bonobo1917 talks about).
Personally, I think the term "developed countries" and "developing countries" are a bit of over-optimistic Bourgeois propaganda. The world needs to be told that - as long as there are capitalists dividing labour between the First and Third worlds - then the "developing countries" will never become "developed". It's something of a hallmark of modern capitalism that "developing countries" stay the same as they are forever.


Another differance of course is that we have a whole history of communist struggle, which wasn't true in 1848. We've had socialist states rising and falling which has affected the state of the world today aswell as peoples' views of socialism.
And with this, many socialists also realised that the state must never own the means of production and the vanguard or another minority faction must never acheive administrative or executive power.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Personally, I think the term "developed countries" and "developing countries" are a bit of over-optimistic Bourgeois propaganda. The world needs to be told that - as long as there are capitalists dividing labour between the First and Third worlds - then the "developing countries" will never become "developed". It's something of a hallmark of modern capitalism that "developing countries" stay the same as they are forever.


And with this, many socialists also realised that the state must never own the means of production and the vanguard or another minority faction must never acheive administrative or executive power.

Just telling people this won't be enough, I'm afraid, Comrade. They need to see for themselves as well, better yet, they need to show themselves, because they won't listen to us unfortunately.

[sunfarstar]

We do is in the ideology and culture in preparation for the subversion of the capitalist world.:lol:

[AK]

We do is in the ideology and culture in preparation for the subversion of the capitalist world.:lol:
Right?

[sunfarstar]

JUST DO IT!:lol:

[scarletghoul]

I agree we need to struggle more in culture. A full blown cultural revolution is impossible before the political/economic revolution, however a cultural struggle of ideas could help in paving the way towards the political revolution.

And the means of cultural/artistic production and distribution are much more available to the pubic now, which means its become more possible for us to struggle against bourgeois ideology through our own cultural production

[KurtFF8]

I don't think that there are many Marxist thinkers or organizations out there that are stuck in "Marx's time" though. Such a thing would in a way be quite... non-Marxist (the lack of applying a historical materialist analysis to current conditions).

And there's been so much history of Marxist movements and theory between Marx's writings and now that the question of "does Marxism need updating?" is one that's been asked time and time again, and attempts are often made (and are often successful I would say). I mean just look at Gramsci and the theory he's influenced for instance. David Harvey has engaged with the urban structure far beyond what Marx or even Engels attempted. Many Marxists from Althusseur on have tried to explain culture in different ways. There's no shortage of Marxist explanations for why NeoLiberalism is failing, what the nature of consumerism is, and how we should relate to the environment.

To the OP: You tell me, comrade, what does Marxism need the most today?

[cenv]

My studies on Marxist thought is pretty wide & diverse, & have studied it for a good number of years now. But the one thing I always ask myself is whether there are some elements of Marxist thought that may not apply to modern day society, when compared to how society was during Marx's times. So my question would be if there is anything, under which Marx had explained, that doesn't apply to the modern day rule of capitalist economics & exploitation anymore?
It's not that certain aspects of Marxism are obsolete as much as it's that we should adapt to the material conditions we face by being more flexible about which dimensions of Marxism we emphasize.

For instance, modern revolutionary theory really doesn't take into account the earth-shattering technological developments civilization has gone in the last few years. Of course, Marx did specify that technological develop creates both the necessity and the possibility of revolution, but we haven't developed this idea much further. Highlighting the connection between technology and revolution by elaborating on how modern technology enables and demands us to build a new world would help us bridge the relationship between theory and practice.

Similarly, Marx's theory of alienation (along with reification, commodity fetishism, etc.)p tends to fall by the wayside, but in a society increasingly concerned with questions of consumerism, identity, etc. understanding the relation between alienation, capitalism, and revolution would help us close the gap between Marxist theory and personal experience. Again, this is an aspect of Marxist thought that predates modern capitalism but one that's becoming increasingly relevant.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Marxist thought needs to be updated, but our praxis certainly does. Marxism isn't outdated, but sometimes the way we present it is, so if we want our politics to connect with people, we need to transcend practice and thought rooted in stale repetition by discovering a fluid application of Marxism as a dynamic method shaped by the conditions that face us.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I don't think that there are many Marxist thinkers or organizations out there that are stuck in "Marx's time" though. Such a thing would in a way be quite... non-Marxist (the lack of applying a historical materialist analysis to current conditions).

And there's been so much history of Marxist movements and theory between Marx's writings and now that the question of "does Marxism need updating?" is one that's been asked time and time again, and attempts are often made (and are often successful I would say). I mean just look at Gramsci and the theory he's influenced for instance. David Harvey has engaged with the urban structure far beyond what Marx or even Engels attempted. Many Marxists from Althusseur on have tried to explain culture in different ways. There's no shortage of Marxist explanations for why NeoLiberalism is failing, what the nature of consumerism is, and how we should relate to the environment.

To the OP: You tell me, comrade, what does Marxism need the most today?

To me, a solidarity of workers cooperation in the goal of building a collectivized market system.

[KurtFF8]

Well market socialism has been implemented before too comrade...