Marxism

[Comrade1]

Hi, im pretty new to this all, if someone could explain what marxism stood for and its ideology please

[Broletariat]

Start here

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Move to here

http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/ (watching them in order of course)

But basically Marxism is like. Okay Capitalism you were cool at first, you got rid of Feudalism and all that but, sheesh bro you're all like lame now, time to move on. Marx holds to a Labour Theory of Value that demonstrates how capitalists exploit workers and such. A pretty big part of Marxism is Historical Materialism which can be read about here.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/articles/cyril_01.htm

http://marxmyths.org/peter-stillman/article.htm

I'm sure Zanthorous or one of the more experienced posters will be right along here in a moment to rip my post to shreds and clarify more thoroughly and accurately than I can.

[John "Eh" MacDonald]

But basically Marxism is like. Okay Capitalism you were cool at first, you got rid of Feudalism and all that but, sheesh bro you're all like lame now, time to move on. Marx holds to a Labour Theory of Value that demonstrates how capitalists exploit workers and such. A pretty big part of Marxism is Historical Materialism which can be read about here.

:lol:, omg, I wish I had that explanation when I first started getting interested in leftist politics.

[StalinFanboy]

You should read the 1844 manuscripts. That's what got me really interested in Marxism.

[Comrade1]

ok thanks, but can anyone give me someone of a dicpiction of its ideology

[StalinFanboy]

You should just read instead.

[Sosa]

Don't rely so much on what "we" have to say about it. My suggestion would be to read first, and if there's something you need clarified or expanded then ask. But don't make it a habit to rely on what we have to say about a certain subject without you having a foundation of knowledge first.

[Comrade1]

yes there is something I need clarification on, does marxism want the people under public ownsership and workers self managment to run the means of production or does he want them nationalized?

[Magón]

yes there is something I need clarification on, does marxism want the people under public ownsership and workers self managment to run the means of production or does he want them nationalized?

By just asking that question, you really need to read up on the Communist Manifesto, and other Marxist writings if you're wanting to call yourself a Marxist. I believe he does explain workers ownership of the means of production.

[Comrade1]

So, not nationalization, thank you

[Broletariat]

So, not nationalization, thank you
Correct. Marxism is an internationalist idea. We're all citizens of the world and whatnot.

[scarletghoul]

Yes that's true, however it is a bit of a false dichotomy to say 'worker self management or nationalisation'. If a state is controlled by the workers then 'nationalisation' would be a form of collective worker self management.

(Though I don't think true 'nationalisation' is possible as nation states can not exist as independent economic entities but thats another issue)

[Comrade1]

Ok well i would support the workers running the workplace democratically and everyone collectivly making decisions, even though the workers would run the state I would not support nationalization

[Paulappaul]

If a state is controlled by the workers then 'nationalisation' would be a form of collective worker self management.

(Though I don't think true 'nationalisation' is possible as nation states can not exist as independent economic entities but thats another issue)

The existing State institutions are built upon hierarchy, the workers owning the state isn't Socialism in disguise, it's an elite class of Workers' ordering everyday affairs and workers following it. It falls right back on Alienation and Exploitation present in existing society.

[Comrade1]

Like I said the workers themself would control the means of production and the economy in general. They will get social justice.

[hatzel]

...anybody else getting a bit of 'but I just don't want to read any books' vibe going on here? :rolleyes:

[mikelepore]

Marx had hardly anything to say about the desirable form of worker management. His purpose was to explain the development of class divided society through several different forms historically, showing the particular method used in each one for the owning class to rob the producing class. With a sufficient level of industry, the workers can replace our unpleasant condition with "a free association of producers", provided that we "unite."

However, if we try to find in Marx some recommendations about what the new society should look like, or a suggested method to implement that new society, we find ourselves digging out only fragments of sentences out of Marx's forty year writing career, a few negative remarks (not this), jots from unpublished letters, and similar kinds of hints. If Marx had wanted to cover those subjects he would have taken at least five minutes to write a paragraph about them.

[Comrade1]

...anybody else getting a bit of 'but I just don't want to read any books' vibe going on here? :rolleyes:
haha, well not really, just kinda want to get others input.

[Comrade1]

Ok so I did my reading and learning and this is what I have come up with, Marx advocated that a social revelution must happen then the prolitariat will run the state in the intrest of all "dictatorship of the prolitariat" then the means of production will be in common ownership and run in a planned fashion. We will use labour vouchers instead of a currency so people could use the labour vouchers to get their wants. Ofcourse everyone will be provided with their needs. Eventually the state will not be nessessary and then communism sets it.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Np-6c_wMzIQ?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Np-6c_wMzIQ?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

You're not an exploiter, so you can grasp it.

It's a good thing for you,

find out more about it.

The stupid call it stupid and the squalid call it squalid.

It's against squalor and against stupidity.

The exploiters call it a crime but we know:

It is the end of crime

It is not madness, but the end of madness.

It is not the riddle but the solution

It is the simplest thing so hard to achieve.

[Comrade1]

grealty summed up. Do you guys think I summed it up good?:lol:

[Zanthorus]

Hi, im pretty new to this all, if someone could explain what marxism stood for and its ideology please

I agree with the comments by Species Being and Sosa that you should just read Marx. Many second-hand accounts of Marx's ideas are highly flawed in one way or another, and the descriptions we give you will also be limited in some ways. You should read Marx and take note of what you find there and what he's talking about, then you'll be in a position to ask questions and evaluate other people's interpretations. My only advice other than that would be to get an idea of the intellectual background which Marx was writing against by reading some of the works of the Hegelian/Young-Hegelian philosophical milieu. In particular Ludwig Feuerbach. Hegel himself is a bit of a beast, and I really would reccomend getting your hands on a decent introduction before actually trying to decipher his texts (A not-too-long work which I found useful was Starting with Hegel by Craig Mattarese. A lot longer but also a lot more in depth, both in terms of Hegel's ideas and his intellectual background, is Frederick Beiser's Hegel). Or else you could attempt to crawl your way up from Hegel's own attempts at introductions to his system (Basically, everything under the 'Introductions by Hegel' section on MIA's Hegel archive).

[Comrade1]

Ok so I did my reading and learning and this is what I have come up with, Marx advocated that a social revelution must happen then the prolitariat will run the state in the intrest of all "dictatorship of the prolitariat" then the means of production will be in common ownership and run in a planned fashion. We will use labour vouchers instead of a currency so people could use the labour vouchers to get their wants. Ofcourse everyone will be provided with their needs. Eventually the state will not be nessessary and then communism sets it.
This is my understanding, is it pretty good?

[Zanthorus]

Alright, I'll try and evaluate what you've written


the prolitariat will run the state in the intrest of all "dictatorship of the prolitariat"

This part is not quite right, 'dictatorship of the proletariat' means that the working-class exercises political power, enforcing it's own interests as the general interest. Obviously measures are needed to get other non-exploiting strata on board such as self-employed artisans and the peasantry, but these measures are employed insofar as they are necessary for the achievment of the goals of the movement.


then the means of production will be in common ownership and run in a planned fashion. We will use labour vouchers instead of a currency so people could use the labour vouchers to get their wants. Ofcourse everyone will be provided with their needs. Eventually the state will not be nessessary and then communism sets it.

Communism is already achieved at the point that production is carried out according to a common plan. At this stage there are no classes, and hence no classes to enforce their particular interests over the rest of society in the form of the state.

[Comrade1]

Alright, I'll try and evaluate what you've written



This part is not quite right, 'dictatorship of the proletariat' means that the working-class exercises political power, enforcing it's own interests as the general interest. Obviously measures are needed to get other non-exploiting strata on board such as self-employed artisans and the peasantry, but these measures are employed insofar as they are necessary for the achievment of the goals of the movement.

Yes, I agree, but the "dictatorship of the prolitartiat" is a part of the transitional stage of socialism.

Communism is already achieved at the point that production is carried out according to a common plan. At this stage there are no classes, and hence no classes to enforce their particular interests over the rest of society in the form of the state.
Im pretty sure labour vouchers are a part of the transitional stage and a common plan is just workers councils running the workplace very democratically. Am I right?

[chegitz guevara]

Well, keep in mind that Marx himself said that he couldn't predict what a socialist society would be like. He had certain ideas, but he never fully fleshed them out. Marx understood that conditions would change so drastically that for those of us in capitalist society, it would be impossible to imagine what society would look like. Consider trying to explain what modern democracy (as it conceives of itself) to the Japanese 500 years ago.

We have some idea what socialism will look like only because, here and there, briefly, the workers have taken power, done radically different things that no one before had considered.

[Comrade1]

Well, keep in mind that Marx himself said that he couldn't predict what a socialist society would be like. He had certain ideas, but he never fully fleshed them out. Marx understood that conditions would change so drastically that for those of us in capitalist society, it would be impossible to imagine what society would look like. Consider trying to explain what modern democracy (as it conceives of itself) to the Japanese 500 years ago.

We have some idea what socialism will look like only because, here and there, briefly, the workers have taken power, done radically different things that no one before had considered.
Well, Marx gave some insight as to what would happen in the trastional phase of socialism, he said that the workers would take political power and run the economy. He spoke of labour vouchers as an alternative for a currency. Because there must be some rashoning of goods becuase they dont fall from the sky. He spoke of workers control of the means of production and abolsihemnt of private property, ect.

[chegitz guevara]

Mostly those were off hand comments. Like several of us have pointed out, he never talked about it systematical and really analyzed it, because he said predictions are only worth the paper they are printed upon. His most extensive writing on what socialism might look like was never published in his lifetime, the Critique of the Gotha Programme. It wasn't intended for publication. Even if he had, simply because Marx wrote it doesn't make it true. He was brilliant, but not infallible and he couldn't foresee a lot of things that came later (like imperialism).

[Zanthorus]

Im pretty sure labour vouchers are a part of the transitional stage

No, when Marx referred to 'labour certificiates' in the Critique of the Gotha Program, he referred to them as part of the 'lower phase of communism'. In other words, when the 'labour certificate scheme' was being implemented, society would have already eliminated commodity production, wage-labour and so on. He also mentions the labour certificate scheme as part of his description of Communism in the first chapter of Das Kapital. In general, the main point I think Marx is trying to make is that Communism is not a mode of distribution but a mode of social production, a mode of social production whose manner of distributing it's products develops and changes along with other aspects of society, while retaining the same basic framework. Engels put the point pretty explicitly: "To my mind, the so-called "socialist society" is not anything immutable. Like all other social formations, it should be conceived in a state of constant flux and change." (Letter to Otto Von Boenigk in Breslau)


and a common plan is just workers councils running the workplace very democratically.

Common plan means that production is regulated collectively by the whole of society, not just those currently employed in production. The following explains this pretty clearly, which also ties back into your question about labour vouchers:


...this party-less and State-less system of councils prompts the question – who, before the elimination of classes is accomplished, is going to manage the functions which are not strictly concerned with the technical side of production? And, to consider only one point, who is going to take care of those who are not enrolled in one of these enterprises – what about the unemployed? In such a system, and much more so than in any other cell-based commune or trade union system, it would be possible for the cycle of accumulation to start all over again (supposing it had ever been stopped) in the form of accumulation of money or of huge stocks of raw materials or finished products. Within this hypothetical system, conditions are particularly fertile for shrewdly accumulated savings to grow into dominating capital.

The real danger lies in the individual enterprise itself, not in the fact it has a boss.

[...]

The obvious superiority of the economic system in which production and distribution is not performed by "autonomous units" on the pattern of the present capitalist "concentration camps" (based around jobs, enterprises, and various jurisdictions including the nation – whose barbed wire fences we will forcibly remove one of these days) but by society, for society, and on a social scale, is already apparent in the lower of the two stages theorised by Marx.

[...]

In the concluding pages of our study of Russia's political and economic structure, we developed the point that even during the first, lower stage the mercantile limitations of commodity-production are overstepped.- Amadeo Bordiga, The Fundamentals of Revolutionary Communism (http://www.international-communist-party.org/BasicTexts/English/57Fundam.htm)

[Comrade1]

The lower-stage of communism is socialism.

[mikelepore]

The lower-stage of communism is socialism.One of those things that "everybody knows" but, when readers actually look, it doesn't appear anywhere in Marx's complete works.

[Comrade1]

One of those things that "everybody knows" but, when readers actually look, it doesn't appear anywhere in Marx's complete works.
So true, so very true

[Comrade1]

Ok so I did my reading and learning and this is what I have come up with, Marx advocated that a social revelution must happen then the prolitariat will run the state in the intrest of all "dictatorship of the prolitariat" then the means of production will be in common ownership and run in a planned fashion. We will use labour vouchers instead of a currency so people could use the labour vouchers to get their wants. Ofcourse everyone will be provided with their needs. Eventually the state will not be nessessary and then communism sets it.
But mike, did I sum it up pretty well here?

[pastradamus]

The Manifestoon video should give you a short introduction to marxism.:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbTIJ9_bLP4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbTIJ9_bLP4)

[mikelepore]

But mike, did I sum it up pretty well here?

Karl Marx used the terms "socialism" and "communism" for everything from the first day. The workers announce that they have just taken control of the means of production, so now they have what is called either "socialism" or "communism." The idea of reserving the word "communism" for an eventuality, after all the obstacles have been overcome, and all the problems have been solved, doesn't come from Marx. The workers may still have plenty of problems, and a big mess to clean up, where capitalism has left a lot of things in ruin. There may be shortages. How to go about administering things may be a source of confusion. Shortly after taking control of the means of production, the workers may still have a lot of bad habits, such as chauvinism and hoarding. Still, Marx doesn't hesitate to call it either "socialism" or "communism."

Philosophies are like branches or pathways, and we can see where everyone has come from by what they say. We can see this person has come through Socrates-Plato-Aristotle and that person has come through Kant-Hegel-Feuerbach, etc. Our words leave footprints. Well, whenever someone used the name "communism" for something that socialism" is expected to eventually develop into, we know right away: Oh, their mentor was Lenin. Not saying this is good or bad, just that we can tell. I came out of a branch of Marxism that doesn't take a single peep from Lenin, so it's glaring to me. The words people use, it's like recognizing a Mississippi accent or a Massachusetts accent. Pardon my rambling.