Marxism's claims to truth, laws, etc.

[Lyev]

Hello everyone,
I have been thinking recently about the accusations often thrown at Marxists that we claim to uphold universal laws, that Marx 'discovered' truths - the postmodernists etc. would say you cannot have truth in the way that it is posed here. I don't want to lazily dismiss this claims as being from a 'bourgeois' source and then be done with it, as is sometimes the tendency in these circumstances. And I also think a lot of these claims (often linked in with the 'end of history' rationale) are plainly bunkum coming from people who haven't read a word of Marx in their lives.

Also, in Marx's life-time, before the Second International, before 'dialectical materialism' became a state-endorsed dogma etc., Marx's ideas weren't so rigid and systematic, as they are now presented in school textbooks, or as they were in the Soviet Union. In short, I wanna say that Marx didn't claim that his ideas were (universal?) laws. But I don't think I can, because there is preface or something somewhere where Engels says that Marx did indeed discover some laws - I think this is correct, I cannot find this at the moment. It is something concerning 'economic laws' or something along those lines.

I guess my basic question for discussion is: Does Marx(ism) claim to uphold universal, all-encompassing laws and truths? If so, how, why and where? - indeed, can it uphold any universal truths or anything so so lofty? It is lazy or stepping around the debate if we simple say, 'But Marx never said that!' - people would not throw these accusations at us in abstraction. There must be some reason why people at least think this. It is seems to be mostly concerning philosophical, economic or sociological issues. Maybe a large part of this can be attributed to the ossification that Marxism has suffered under previous Stalinist regimes. I am not sure, anyone have any ideas? Thanks folks

[Robespierre Richard]

Neither did Sir Isaac Newton, what's your point?

I mean Marx just wrote a lot of political, philosophical, and economic texts which he considered scientific in nature. Some people focus on certain aspects more than others. At times Marxist terms are used polemically to justify policy (as in the revisionist USSR) and at other times new terms are invented for circumstances (intensification of class struggle in socialism for example). Marx's intention was to change the world as much as understand it, as the famous last thesis states in his Theses on Feuerbach. I don't know though, I've lost that mindset of thinking of everything philosophically some time ago as it's not very productive to use it outside theoretical discussions.

[ComradeOm]

Just as Darwin discovered the law of development or organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the caseThis (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/death/burial.htm) the quote that you were thinking of?


I guess my basic question for discussion is: Does Marx(ism) claim to uphold universal, all-encompassing laws and truths?No. You've conflating "laws" and "truths". The laws that Marx 'discovered' are not fundamental or eternal truths. Instead they comprise a basic understanding of how society develops. More guidelines than firm rules or commandments

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I've never really bought that Marx's analysis was scientific. I don't think that, as of yet, we are capable of carrying out a scientific analysis of the economy, of history and of the field of philosophy, let alone in the 19th century. There are simply too many unkown variables for this to be possible.

However, Marxism is not a religion. The basis of Marxism is not scientific empiricism, it is rude observation, that has turned out, more often than not - but not always - to be correct. His theories on the existence of two classes and all that comes with it, have held true and that is what matters, not whether he was a scientist or correct 100% of the time. Plainly neither is true.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

El_G:


I've never really bought that Marx's analysis was scientific. I don't think that, as of yet, we are capable of carrying out a scientific analysis of the economy, of history and of the field of philosophy, let alone in the 19th century. There are simply too many unkown variables for this to be possible.

That does not imply it isn't a science. If it did, then nineteenth century chemistry or biology, for example, weren't sciences.

And the number of variables can't be what stops something being a science; if it did then biology wouldn't be a science.

[Amphictyonis]

Historical Materialism.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lyev:


I guess my basic question for discussion is: Does Marx(ism) claim to uphold universal, all-encompassing laws and truths? If so, how, why and where? - indeed, can it uphold any universal truths or anything so so lofty? It is lazy or stepping around the debate if we simple say, 'But Marx never said that!' - people would not throw these accusations at us in abstraction. There must be some reason why people at least think this. It is seems to be mostly concerning philosophical, economic or sociological issues. Maybe a large part of this can be attributed to the ossification that Marxism has suffered under previous Stalinist regimes. I am not sure, anyone have any ideas? Thanks folks

Well, no science I can think of is committed to "universal, all-encompassing laws and truths" in view of the fact that the disciplines making up the sciences are always evolving, and the fact that scientists are continually changing their minds.

In addition, and far worse, such laws that they have are subject to innumerable ceteris paribus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus) clauses, that is, they are subject to innumerable 'all things being equal' clauses. In plain English, this means that these laws are set about with countless qualifications.

So, when we are told that the trajectory of a projectile on a planet, say, is law-governed and is a parabola, that is true only in a perfect vacuum, and only if no other forces are operating. But, this is true of no projectile in the entire universe, so far as we know. The same qualifications afflict all known laws. Not one actually applies to the real world, only an ideal one.

There are other serious problems that beset such laws; you can read about them here:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/lawofnat/


Within metaphysics, there are two competing theories of Laws of Nature. On one account, the Regularity Theory, Laws of Nature are statements of the uniformities or regularities in the world; they are mere descriptions of the way the world is. On the other account, the Necessitarian Theory, Laws of Nature are the “principles” which govern the natural phenomena of the world. That is, the natural world “obeys” the Laws of Nature. This seemingly innocuous difference marks one of the most profound gulfs within contemporary philosophy, and has quite unexpected, and wide-ranging, implications.

More details at the above link

[NGNM85]

However, Marxism is not a religion.

Sometimes it is.

[Robespierre Richard]

Sometimes it is.

Only when it needs to be. :lol:

[Amphictyonis]

Sometimes it is.

Coming from a poster who doesn't even understand Marx or the fact Anarchism, Bakunin in particular, didn't disagree with Marx's overall critique of capitalism. You need to read more than Chomsky and again this isnt some sectarian attack on anarchism it's a criticism of your narrow, dare I say liberal, view of socialism.

The question of the state remains, should there be a state socialist phase before actual communism can be achieved or do we just jump straight into communism by abolishing the state? I'd like to hear your opinion on the matter- in detail. I'll ask you straight out, do you think a revolution is possible or are you for reforms? If you were an anarchist with even a sophomoric understanding of Bakunin's criticisms of Marx you wouldn't be championing the "lesser of two evils" bunkum "work with Democrats" Chomsky pushes. which brings me to....

The other points of disagreement between Marx and Bakunin centered around what it would take to raise class awareness , propaganda of the deed and conspiracy (Bakunin) or fighting the bourgeois class for concessions (Marx) - not with winning concessions being the primary goal but the bonds of solidarity built via the struggle being the point of struggle- not to reform capitalism and make workers lives plush (That would be Bernstein not Marx). Bakunin wanted workers to stay away from mixing it up with bourgeois politics, he thought only disillusionment would come out of it. Marx on the other hand thought class awareness and solidarity would be built through organized political struggle. Two valid points in my opinion. We've seen both manifest over the last few decades.

Philosophically they differed as well and understanding that divide shines light on why they disagreed on other issues such as the nature of freedom and the state. Marx (through the lens of historical materialism) saw the state (as Bakunin did) as a coercive tool of the ruling class. It wasn't the state that gave rise to the ruling class but the ruling class which gave rise to the state- using this logic the ruling class could endure for a period without a state and workers would need a coercive mechanism to finalize expropriation. This being especially true in the 21'rst century where advanced capitalist nations have the ability to use small forces to subjugate large populations. If Bakunin were around today he might concede the point that workers need to take over the state to abolish capital rather than abolish the state to abolish capital.

I think there needs to be a sort of melding between anarchists and Marxists on the issue of the state and the nature of hierarchical centralization. Anarchists should also try to minimize the sort of mud slinging Chomsky throws around the Russian revolution. Obviously Chomsky focuses all his attention on hierarchical centralization without taking the geopolitical ongoings of the time into account. There were reasons Stalin manifested in Russia and all the blame can't be blindly lopped on Bolshevism as Chomsky tries to do. The situation is much more complex than that and even if Russia had been as democratic as possible it still would have failed as a global revolution never took place and Russia hadn't gone through the capitalist phase of development.

When people like you blindly criticize Marxism you throw the baby out with the bathwater- you don't have to be some modern day Bolshevik (which I think is silly anyhow seeing conditions in the 21'rst century are different)but at least grasping the theoretical basis of Marxism would serve you well.You'll even blame the failure of Spain on Marxists when in reality, again, it was alack of a global socialist revolution and dare I say the lack of a state mechanism to defend from foreign bourgeois invasion (in the form of a well funded Franco). Of course Marxists did indeed muddle up the process but the point being even if not one Marxist tried to intervene in Spain the Spanish experiment would have failed as 'an island of socialism in a sea of capitalism'. Especially without a well organized/funded military to defend it.

Things are more complex than just "fuck Anarchism" or "fuck Marxism" as the two schools of socialist thought are not that different in reality. The philosophical differences aren't as crucial to discuss as are the differences concerning the pathway to abolishing capital. The strategic differences are the most valid and both camps, at times, hold to them like a sort of dogma. The question is, how do you envision the process of abolishing capital? Not only that but what is your understanding of the capitalist system?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Marx wasn't a "Marxist" in his day, and he certainly wouldn't want anything to do with what is called "Marxism" today.

"The materialist conception of history has a lot of them nowadays, to whom it serves as an excuse for not studying history... In general, the word 'materialist' serves many of the younger writers in Germany as a mere phrase with which anything and everything is labeled without further study, that is, they stick on this label and then consider the question disposed of. But our conception of history is above all a guide to study, not a lever for construction after the manner of the Hegelian. All history must be studied afresh, the conditions of existence of the different formations of society must be examined individually before the attempt is made to deduce them from the political, civil law, aesthetic, philosophic, religious, etc., views corresponding to them. Up to now but little has been done here because only a few people have got down to it seriously. In this field we can utilize heaps of help, it is immensely big, anyone who will work seriously can achieve much and distinguish himself. But instead of this too many of the younger Germans simply make use of the phrase historical materialism (and everything can be turned into a phrase) only in order to get their own relatively scanty historical knowledge." - Engels

"Herein lies the direct opposition of Marx to historical materialism. The theorists of Marxism wanted to explain the past or predict the future. But Marx was not chiefly interested in either of these. Instead, he studied history, as he studied everything else, to illuminate the struggle between a way of life which required explanation and one which would be ‘worthy of our human nature’." - Cyril Smith

"Marx had learned from Hegel one lesson which he never forgot: putting in front of society a ‘slogan’, a formula, a set of ‘sectarian principles’ with which to make the world correspond is not the point. The social formation Marx strove for all his life was a human society, which he fought to release. While he respected the work of Fourier and Owen, he saw it as foreshadowing the Communism that arose from the sufferings of the proletariat itself." - Cyril Smith

"[T]he Communists know only too well ... that revolutions are not made deliberately and arbitrarily, but that everywhere and at all times they have been the necessary outcome of circumstances entirely independent of the will and the leadership of particular parties and entire classes.” - Engels

[Robespierre Richard]

Marx wasn't a "Marxist" in his day, and he certainly wouldn't want anything to do with what is called "Marxism" today.

"The materialist conception of history has a lot of them nowadays, to whom it serves as an excuse for not studying history... In general, the word 'materialist' serves many of the younger writers in Germany as a mere phrase with which anything and everything is labeled without further study, that is, they stick on this label and then consider the question disposed of. But our conception of history is above all a guide to study, not a lever for construction after the manner of the Hegelian. All history must be studied afresh, the conditions of existence of the different formations of society must be examined individually before the attempt is made to deduce them from the political, civil law, aesthetic, philosophic, religious, etc., views corresponding to them. Up to now but little has been done here because only a few people have got down to it seriously. In this field we can utilize heaps of help, it is immensely big, anyone who will work seriously can achieve much and distinguish himself. But instead of this too many of the younger Germans simply make use of the phrase historical materialism (and everything can be turned into a phrase) only in order to get their own relatively scanty historical knowledge." - Engels

"Herein lies the direct opposition of Marx to historical materialism. The theorists of Marxism wanted to explain the past or predict the future. But Marx was not chiefly interested in either of these. Instead, he studied history, as he studied everything else, to illuminate the struggle between a way of life which required explanation and one which would be ‘worthy of our human nature’." - Cyril Smith

"Marx had learned from Hegel one lesson which he never forgot: putting in front of society a ‘slogan’, a formula, a set of ‘sectarian principles’ with which to make the world correspond is not the point. The social formation Marx strove for all his life was a human society, which he fought to release. While he respected the work of Fourier and Owen, he saw it as foreshadowing the Communism that arose from the sufferings of the proletariat itself." - Cyril Smith

"[T]he Communists know only too well ... that revolutions are not made deliberately and arbitrarily, but that everywhere and at all times they have been the necessary outcome of circumstances entirely independent of the will and the leadership of particular parties and entire classes.” - Engels

Which modern theorists exactly is Mr. Smith talking about? I've heard of polemics being addressed this way but actual theory not so much.

[Amphictyonis]

"The materialist conception of history has a lot of them nowadays, to whom it serves as an excuse for not studying history... In general, the word 'materialist' serves many of the younger writers in Germany as a mere phrase with which anything and everything is labeled without further study, that is, they stick on this label and then consider the question disposed of.

The materialist conception of history was meant to explain primitive accumulation which bourgeois economists (Ricardo/Smith) chalked up to supernatural forces or the laziness of some people compared to the "thrift" of others. It actually achieved the opposite of what you're quoting Marx saying :) What wasn't scientific was Ricardo and smiths account of the why's whens and how's of primitive accumulation. The materialist conception of history also shows how our relation to surplus or industry determines our role in society. It's not some religion but basically explains why we need to take over the means of production and how hierarchical society manifested. It's a cornerstone of modern socialism.

[NGNM85]

Coming from a poster...etc.

This has virtually no relevance in the context of my previous comment, which you have taken as license to, yet again, indulge this personal vendetta. I have no interest in derailing this thread with this crap. This thread is not about you, nor is it about me. I don’t feel any obligation towards you, whatsoever. However, if you have some burning personal questions you can send them my way, in an appropriate venue (PM) and I might actually respond.

[RadioRaheem84]

NGN, your quip post was clearly meant to derail the thread and a sectarian shit storm. Which is laughable because you know diddly about Marxism and are a pretty strange Anarchist.

[StalinFanboy]

As much as I think NGNM is a poopy, liberal-face wiener and I think his politics are lol, his post wasn't that bad, and in some cases, it is absolutely true. There are absolutely people out there who understand and participate in Marxism in the same way that religious people do with their religion.

[RadioRaheem84]

True, but the statement he was replying to said that Marxism is not a religion, never was meant to be. It doesn't matter if some people make it out to be.

I could easily say that the Anarchists at my local co-op bookstore treat Anarchism like an annoying hipster fucking lifestyle, but I won't say that Anarchism sometimes is a trendy anti-establishment lifestyle ala veganism or that it leads to that type of radical liberalism.

Point is, it was clearly a sectarian jab. The guy knows jack about Marxism.

[Amphictyonis]

There are absolutely people out there who understand and participate in Marxism in the same way that religious people do with their religion.

As I've posted repeatedly in the past people who want to mirror the Russian path to socialism (if you can even call it that) are dogmatic- Marx didnt give us THE ultimate critique of history/capitalism/class society he gave us the framework to constantly critique the ever changing system. The rational Marxist, in my opinion, will take Marx/Engels writings and apply the framework to today's conditions in advanced capitalist nations. If that makes me "dogmatic" then so be it. In my opinion it makes me a socialist living in an advanced capitalist nation.

Something also tells me you didn't even read my post- I know it was long but I don't think you'd get the feeling I'm being dogmatic if you read it. NGNM85 I can almost say for sure didn't read it. This is why I've been sticking to silly one liners a lot lately. Why waste my time? Arguing is a tad silly as well. At the end of the day what I'm saying is there's not much of a difference between Anarchists and Marxists or at least there need not be. On a regular basis, after reading the Anarchists, many Marxists understand the anarchist critique of centralized hierarchy. It is indeed a problem. As is the idea of abolishing capital by somehow abolishing all advanced capitalist states at once. if there is an anarchist revolution in Brazil tomorrow and workers facilitate expropriation by abolishing the Brazilian state what do you think the USA will do? It will financially back a new version of Franco to reestablish the old order.

[NecroCommie]

When someone claims that Marxism declares universal truths as absolutes, one should point out that Marxism is less about declaring what is and more about denouncing myths about what "can't be".

[ZeroNowhere]

Economic laws exist under capitalism because the producers produce in an atomized manner and therefore society may only appear in the form of laws which they must follow in this private conduct. For example, as the labour of producers counts to them only as abstract labour, the distribution of social labour-time according to social need for particular forms of wealth, a necessity for society to survive in the first place, may only take place through the law of supply and demand, which is in actual fact simply an application of the law of value.

As for 'universal truths', Marx engages simply in the examination and clarification of concepts, and therefore things such as materialism, or men making their own history, but not as they please, as well as dialectics in general, are not empirical, contingent discoveries as such, but conceptual. The same applies to value, and so on; of course, these are in no sense 'absolute', and value would cease to exist as soon as capitalism ceased to exist, and certainly did not exist prior to humanity. Marxism is based on analysis, rather than simply describing single occurrences.


When someone claims that Marxism declares universal truths as absolutes, one should point out that Marxism is less about declaring what is and more about denouncing myths about what "can't be".This is untrue, which is why Marxism is Marxism and not utopian socialism.


"Herein lies the direct opposition of Marx to historical materialism. The theorists of Marxism wanted to explain the past or predict the future. But Marx was not chiefly interested in either of these. Instead, he studied history, as he studied everything else, to illuminate the struggle between a way of life which required explanation and one which would be ‘worthy of our human nature’." - Cyril SmithI like the assertion that he studied calculus in order to illuminate the struggle between a way of life which required explanation and one which would be 'worthy of our human nature'. In any case, Marx did explain the past and predict the future, and I'm not sure that Cyril Smith's point here is particularly deep or accurate. Of course, the quote doesn't seem necessarily to go too well with the Engels quote preceding it.


There are absolutely people out there who understand and participate in Marxism in the same way that religious people do with their religion.No, there aren't.

[Amphictyonis]

This has virtually no relevance in the context of my previous comment, which you have taken as license to, yet again, indulge this personal vendetta. I have no interest in derailing this thread with this crap. This thread is not about you, nor is it about me.

My reply was centered around your comment. It's not like I lambasted you with a wall of insults or anything- just stated the obvious, you don't understand Marxism.




I don’t feel any obligation towards you, whatsoever. However, if you have some burning personal questions you can send them my way, in an appropriate venue (PM) and I might actually respond.


Appropriate venue is here where you baited me into responding to your snide sectarian remark. If you read my post I'm not attacking Anarchism in the slightest I'm criticizing....well, read the post and respond if you will. Whats your account of primitive accumulation? What's your narrative on the rise of class society? Whats your theory of capitalist crisis? What do you have to say concerning exploitation? Where does value come from? Do you understand the LTV? Why can't socialism arise in an isolated nation? Why do the crisis get worse and worse with time? Why can there never be actual full employment under capitalism? Pick one, answer one :) These are just the basics.

[mikelepore]

Marxism is scientific in the sense intended in John Stuart Mill's 1874 essay "On Nature." Mill explained that science is the activity of identifying the patterns or regularities that occur in things, and documenting the conditions under which they occur, with the intention of expressing some general propositions about them. In this sense, anything that has regularities can be a subject for science. If your field doesn't permit experiments, then whatever news you occasionally find must serve as the experiments.

Marxism is also a science with a goal-directed agenda, like medical research, which seeks to test the truth of propositions, but to put those discoveries to practical use to cure disease. Marxism makes general propositions because it is driven to use them to emancipate people from certain social conditions.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Well, it's far more than that.

When Newton, for example, told us that the rate of change of momentum is proportional to the applied force, he wasn't summarising experience -- nor even patterns of events -- he was regimenting it/them.

As I have argued here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1995528&postcount=1), it is more uilluminating to regard these 'laws' as rules we use to make sense of nature and society.

[Thirsty Crow]

As I have argued here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1995528&postcount=1), it is more uilluminating to regard these 'laws' as rules we use to make sense of nature and society.
But these rules should, in one way or another, relate to nature and society, don't they?
For instance, could we regard the explanatory power ("explanatory" since the rules are used to "make sense of nature and society") as dependent on the correspondence between the rule and what it is supposed to make sense of?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Mennochio:


But these rules should, in one way or another, relate to nature and society, don't they?

Well, I did say this:


rules we use to make sense of nature and society.

And they could hardly do that if they weren't about nature and society, could they?


For instance, could we regard the explanatory power ("explanatory" since the rules are used to "make sense of nature and society") as dependent on the correspondence between the rule and what it is supposed to make sense of?

I think you are misconstruing a rule with a proposition. If you introduce correspondence relations (which are impossible to spell out in non-question begging terms anyway) you turn a rule into an empirical proposition.

But, unlike genuine empirical propositions, these 'laws' cannot be false.

If, for example, it was false that the rate of change of momentum is proportional to the impressed force, then one or more of the terms used in Newton's Law will have changed its meaning (since this law defines how Newton intended its terms should be used).

So, the sentence "the rate of change of momentum is proportional to the impressed force" and the sentence "the rate of change of momentum is not proportional to the impressed force" have a different content (they are not about the same things), and so, despite appearances to the contrary, they aren't the contradictions of one another.

But, in that case, it now becomes inpossible to say what the falsehood of "the rate of change of momentum is proportional to the impressed force" amounts to. And if that is so it is impossible to say what is being ruled out by that sentence as false (i.e., not true).

And if that is so, it is impossible to say what that sentence rules in.

Hence, if we try to treat this as true "the rate of change of momentum is proportional to the impressed force", it in fact fails to true and it fails to be false.

If so, there can be no correspondence relations for this sentence.

The same applies to the theses contained in Historical Materialsm. They too are rules by means of which we make sense of social development.

You might think this destroys their 'objectivity', but that is not so. But that will take us too far away from the subject of this thread.

I have explained all the above points in more detail here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/all-philosophical-theories-t148537/index.html).

I will explain why HM is superior to all other theories in another thread

[Zanthorus]

The basis of Marxism is not scientific empiricism, it is rude observation,

This is flat out bullshit. Some of Marx's earliest letters to Engels on the subject of economics are him questioning the Ricardian theory of rent on the basis of it's failure to correspond with the empirical realities of English agriculture. Marx's works from his article on the 1845-47 commercial crises in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung Revue, his various articles for newspapers throughout the 1850's, and especially his magnum opus feature quotations from reports and presentation of statistics which demonstrate the point in question where appropriate. If you're going to claim that Marx spent the last thirty-odd years of his life in an effort to write a four-volume work, each of which has a good several hundred pages, not to mention the hundreds of pages of preparatory notes and draft manuscripts, and only managing to completely finish the first volume - if you're going to claim that he did all this on the basis of 'rude observation' rather than a conscientous and comprehensive study of capitalist reality, you're going to need some serious, serious supporting evidence yourself.

[NGNM85]

My reply was centered around your comment. It's not like I lambasted you with a wall of insults or anything- just stated the obvious, you don't understand Marxism.

No, it virtually nothing to do with it, whatsoever.You decided to use it as an opportunity to indulge in this personal crusade.

I never claimed any special authority on Marxism.

This is just a bogus assertion, which you present as self-evident.


Appropriate venue is here where you baited me into responding to your snide sectarian remark.

I thought it was a strong point, and I think there's voluminous evidence to support it. I didn't say; 'Marxism is a religion', (Although it has elements that lend itself to that, more so than Anarchism, at least.) merely, that some people are so dogmatic and fundamentalist in their views that it becomes, essentially a secular religion. There are a number of examples floating about. Even Species Being, who I disagree with on a number of issues, was able to concede this rather banal observation.


If you read my post I'm not attacking Anarchism in the slightest I'm criticizing....well, read the post and respond if you will. Whats your account of primitive accumulation? What's your narrative on the rise of class society? Whats your theory of capitalist crisis? What do you have to say concerning exploitation? Where does value come from? Do you understand the LTV? Why can't socialism arise in an isolated nation? Why do the crisis get worse and worse with time? Why can there never be actual full employment under capitalism? Pick one, answer one :) These are just the basics.

I don't owe you anything, and I am not going to do this, here. If you really want to have a conversation, which I don't think you have any actual interest in doing, then use the appropriate channels and don't corrupt other people's threads with this bullshit, especially in Learning.

[Amphictyonis]

don't corrupt other people's threads with this bullshit, especially in Learning.

If you ask me my post was quite informative to the layman socialist. The general point of it was I think a synthesis needs to be reached between Anarchism and Marxism concerning the nature of the state and centralized hierarchy. The point was Anarchism has it's theoretical roots based in Marx/Engels work as well. My basic point is actual Anarchists and Marxists (especially right now) should form bonds of solidarity and work together. If anything this should be a mantra not only in the learning section of this forum but out in the community during this current capitalist crisis. It's far from a sectarian religious mantra.....the opposite of what you said about Marxists. Not off topic at all :)

[RadioRaheem84]

then use the appropriate channels and don't corrupt other people's threads with this bullshit, especially in Learning.
:rolleyes: Says the guy who quipped that Marxism is sometimes a religion. Pretty off topic.

[StalinFanboy]

As I've posted repeatedly in the past people who want to mirror the Russian path to socialism (if you can even call it that) are dogmatic- Marx didnt give us THE ultimate critique of history/capitalism/class society he gave us the framework to constantly critique the ever changing system. The rational Marxist, in my opinion, will take Marx/Engels writings and apply the framework to today's conditions in advanced capitalist nations. If that makes me "dogmatic" then so be it. In my opinion it makes me a socialist living in an advanced capitalist nation.

Something also tells me you didn't even read my post- I know it was long but I don't think you'd get the feeling I'm being dogmatic if you read it. NGNM85 I can almost say for sure didn't read it. This is why I've been sticking to silly one liners a lot lately. Why waste my time? Arguing is a tad silly as well. At the end of the day what I'm saying is there's not much of a difference between Anarchists and Marxists or at least there need not be. On a regular basis, after reading the Anarchists, many Marxists understand the anarchist critique of centralized hierarchy. It is indeed a problem. As is the idea of abolishing capital by somehow abolishing all advanced capitalist states at once. if there is an anarchist revolution in Brazil tomorrow and workers facilitate expropriation by abolishing the Brazilian state what do you think the USA will do? It will financially back a new version of Franco to reestablish the old order.

I didn't get the feeling from NGNM's post that he was being passive-aggressive or trying to insult anyone personally. I mean I figured it was his general anti-Marxism and him being snarky, but yeah, I didn't get the feeling he was trying to single people out.

[StalinFanboy]

I didn't get the feeling from NGNM's post that he was being passive-aggressive or trying to insult anyone personally. I mean I figured it was his general anti-Marxism and him being snarky, but yeah, I didn't get the feeling he was trying to single people out.
Yeah, read some other posts, and it is most likely that this quoted post is absolutely wrong.

[ZeroNowhere]

'Marxism' is just about the least dogmatic and fundamentalist movement in existence. Now, we've had enough blather about 'whether Marxism is religious' for a couple of years, perhaps give it a rest and get back to the topic at hand.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z. I'm sorry to have to disagree with you, but traditional Marxism is among the most dogmatic movements in human history.

Proof here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2002.htm

[Amphictyonis]

Dialectics....Marxism's appendix. It could be removed and the body would still function. Leave it in and it can become painful and cause septic shock.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

As indeed it has (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_02.htm)!