Marx Purism

[Mazzen]

Does Marx purism really hold water? I believe that the debates on this subject are potentially endless. I also believe that one is more likely to see that Marx purism holds water the more and more familiar they become with the theories of Marx and compare them to others such as Lenin, Fidel, &c.
Here's how I look at it. Marx purism is genuinely great and would be nice, however I am not so sure, myself, that everything will occur as Marx & Engels perceived it to. I question Marx purism because it is a theory. People love to shit on others such as Lenin & Fidel simply because their societies were not specifically outlined to Marx's theory. I believe that Marx had a grand, revolutionary idea, but I just cannot see that everything Marx predicted will happen in such a manner. Further more, I cannot see that things that Marx did NOT predict will not happen as well. Once again, Marx purism is lovely, but is it practical and applicable to a real life world? I believe that Lenin, Fidel, and maybe a select other few, if any, took Marx's theory/idea and applied it to real life. Maybe I'm missing something here. I am more than willing to listen to others' opinions, and if I am missing something, I'll learn something new. Learning something new is my hope for everytime that I question something and/or debate with someone with a different point of view than mine own.

[synthesis]

Leninism took one method of applying socialism to a nation - through the armed revolution of an elite vanguard.

It is not the only method that exists; it is the only method that works in pre-industrialized countries, and it is an unfeasible method for industrialized countries.

Leninism cannot ever really succeed in an industrialized country - the conditions necessary for a true Marxist revolution cannot ever allow for one small, concentrated group to establish power through violence.

Since the military of Russia, Cuba, China, and so forth were nowhere near the league of European and North American militaries, Leninist revolution succeeded.

However, since the country had not reached the point of industrialization necessary for machinery to do the "tough stuff", no one was really emancipated beyond the abolition of proxy-based capitalism in their own nation, and now those nations are reverting back to developing-level capitalism because it's the only way they can go.

The revolution of the class - you appear to call it "purism", I call it "21st Century Socialism" - is the correct solution for industrialized capitalism.

[Pete]

To try and locate this theory, would it be similar to the current situation in Bolivia? Or the movement of autonomous consensus-based citizen organizations (whether Bolivariano circles or various PIRGs)? Or perhaps both?

The theory, as you describe is pretty bland and skeletly (I create that word for this situation;))

Please don't pull out that "21st Century Socialist" post again, I've seen it enough.

[sc4r]

No. I wuuld say that any notion of 'purist Marxism' fails to hold water for two basic reasons :

1. Its largely a matter of opinion when you get down to details as to what is 'pure Marxism' and what is not anyway. My interpretataion of what Marx 'really' said and yours may differ.

2. Marx was a 19th Century man, writing in the 19th century. His observations about the nature of society were based (obviously on what he saw and what he knew of history). Quite a lot of new history has happened since then including technological and social advances Marx knew nothing of. This is true in the areas of economic production and in the area of military weaponry. It makes quite a difference.

In my view Marx was basically correct about the essential nature of a just society (should I really have to say this ? It shows how paranoid I have become).

But I doubt he was correct about the nature of how such a society could be brought into existence given a starting point in the 21st not the 19th Century. Every year that passes makes it more, and more doubtful just from the empiric evidence that mounts up against it.

Marx was a philosopher not a God. He got some things wrong. As would any 19th Century philosopher judged against todays standards. The trick is to discard the wrong bits and keep the right bits. Which I guess you would agree means that I'm no purist and see them as more like a religous sect than a practical movement.

Regards.

[synthesis]

To try and locate this theory, would it be similar to the current situation in Bolivia?

Well, to answer your question directly: I don't know, but I doubt it.

I suppose the closest thing to what I refer would have to be the Paris Commune. The spontaneous revolution of an entire class.

Picture the Paris Commune on an international scale.


The theory, as you describe is pretty bland and skeletly

Skeletal ;)

But if you're asking me to define my interpretation of Marx, and you don't want me to "pull out the 21st Century Socialism post"...what do you want me to do?

That program contains pretty much all of my political opinions. If you have a more specific question, feel free to ask it, but if you want a good overview of 21st Century Socialism, look no further than the Program.

[Pete]

Its a nice shiny piece of propaganda, but because of that it makes me sick to thes tomach reading it.

What is your definition of Marxist purism.

And if you want to know more about Bolivia go to Z-net. It seems that there is a leaderless popular revolt of sorts. Sporatic uprisings. General strike. ect.

[synthesis]

Its a nice shiny piece of propaganda, but because of that it makes me sick to thes tomach reading it.

Where do you come to the conclusion that it's propaganda? It was an article I wrote detailing my own personal political opinions, and attempting to give a name to the general sentiment that seems to exist that echoes revolutionary socialist values, but stands in opposition to Leninism. Nothing more.


What is your definition of Marxist purism.

I don't have a definition of Marxist purism, and I wouldn't consider myself a purist. The whole purpose behind 21st Century Socialism is taking the core ideas of Marx, such as de-estranged labor, the class revolution, and historical materialism, and applying them to the twenty-first century.


And if you want to know more about Bolivia go to Z-net. It seems that there is a leaderless popular revolt of sorts. Sporatic uprisings. General strike. ect.

Sounds interesting; I'll do that. Thanks for the tip-off :)

[redstar2000]

I believe that Marx had a grand, revolutionary idea, but I just cannot see that everything Marx predicted will happen in such a manner. Further more, I cannot see that things that Marx did NOT predict will not happen as well. Once again, Marx purism is lovely, but is it practical and applicable to a real life world? I believe that Lenin, Fidel, and maybe a select other few, if any, took Marx's theory/idea and applied it to real life.

You really have to be more specific. A phrase like "Marx purism" is too vague to know what you're really objecting to.

Marx and Engels were talking about "real life", you know. That they got some things wrong is not a point any sensible person would dispute.

The real fight among lefties is exactly what did those guys get wrong and what did they get right.

And that fight usually begins when someone tries to put a non-revolutionary or anti-revolutionary "spin" on Marxist ideas.

For example, workers can't really make a revolution or run a post-capitalist society themselves like Marx advocated--they need a "special party" and a "special leadership" to do it "for" them...

Or, for example, capitalism will never run into any serious difficulties like Marx expected...

Or, for example, capitalism will "evolve peacefully" into socialism, step by tiny step...

You get the idea.

A note in passing: when folks like DyerMaker write pieces like "The 21st Century Socialist" and circulate them to other lefties, they are doing one of the things that we are supposed to do.

To attempt to learn from the history of the revolutionary movement and suggest ways forward is an obligation of any serious revolutionary.

And, on the whole, he did a pretty decent job...certainly considerably above average. By all means, he should "drag it out" over and over again until he sees or writes something himself that he thinks is even better.

That is one of the ways that we make progress.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Pete]

Where do you come to the conclusion that it's propaganda?

I think I have an 'open' definition of propaganda. The straightforward langauge and layout of it makes it seem like it was made to be easily accessible to all, which is excellant. Propaganda is not necassary a bad thing to me, but a necessity of sorts. You need things like that to broadcast your ideals articulately, I just asked for it not to be put out here because I donot think that it would answer my questions. ^_^ (That goes with the end of RS2000's post as well)

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 01:53 PM
The real fight among lefties is exactly what did those guys get wrong and what did they get right.

And that fight usually begins when someone tries to put a non-revolutionary or anti-revolutionary "spin" on Marxist ideas.

For example, workers can't really make a revolution or run a post-capitalist society themselves like Marx advocated--they need a "special party" and a "special leadership" to do it "for" them...

Or, for example, capitalism will never run into any serious difficulties like Marx expected...

Or, for example, capitalism will "evolve peacefully" into socialism, step by tiny step...


Or perhaps when people try to say that we should completely ignore the idea that Communism is not achieveable except via a prolonged perios of socialism involving a very strong 'workers state'? An idea summed up in the phrase 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.

The real, real, fight amonmg 'Marxists' is between people who want to achieve sumething, and people who want to talk about how if they had their way everything would be achieved by waiting for a revolution to simply happen.

I dont ever recall anyone of an allegedly Marxist bent ever suggesting that Capitalism would simply evolve into socialism, or that it would never run into serious difficulties. Nor do I recall many saying that workers could not run a post capitalist society.

I dont recall anyone suggesting that workers could not 'make a revoultion'.

In fact what redstar implies people are saying is not, of course, what they actually are saying. What they actually are saying is that RS's version of how it would happen, and what type of mechanisms workers need to adopt to achieve exactly what Marx suggested is facile, pacifist, and unworkable. Not the same tjng at all. They are disagreeing with RS, not with Marx.

[synthesis]

I think I have an 'open' definition of propaganda. The straightforward langauge and layout of it makes it seem like it was made to be easily accessible to all, which is excellant. Propaganda is not necassary a bad thing to me, but a necessity of sorts.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but above you said that the article made you sick to your stomach. That seems to be a pretty big contradiction to what you state here. I appreciate the compliments, of course, but I'm curious as to the reason of your apparent change of heart.

Again, I'm not holding that statement against you or anything, but just about the only constructive criticism I've gotten for the Program was that the flag I created looks better without stars. I could use some more ;)

Now, to your actual post, I'm curious as to what, exactly, you wish to know about my ideology. You seemed to be looking for something that explained in-depth what my political persuasion is, and it's all there in the Program. I'm certainly available for interrogation as you see fit, but I'm not sure what exactly you want to know.

[Pete]

I actually was wondering just what you thought marxist purism was.

After I digest things such as your program, I can't really digest them again.

[synthesis]

I think Marx purism is essentially the line any one Marxist takes when he accuses another Marxist of straying "too far" from Marx. Stalinists are often accused of straying "too far". I don't like Stalin and I don't approve of Stalinism, but such dogmatism is ridiculous.

[Lardlad95]

THE REAL PROBLEM IS THAT MARX WAS A BLOODY GENIUS!!!

He left his theories ina position where they technically couldn't be proven wrong.

THe whole worker's revolution thing, sure it hasn't happened globally yet, but who's to say it wont happen?

Capitalism crushing under it's own weight? Hasn't happened globally yet, but who's to say it wont happen?


Marx created a theory that can keep being pushed intot he future, so yeah sure pure marxism does hold water, but that sonly because we are stille waiting for it to happen

[Blackberry]

"Capitalism crushing under it's own weight? Hasn't happened globally yet, but who's to say it wont happen?"

Well, it almost happened once last century.

--------------------
Participate in the Unofficial Che-Lives (Chit Chat) Community Census. (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=12&t=17783)