Marxists are not necessarly anti-capitalist.

[danyboy27]

There i said it. Capitalism, despite being monstruous, (an accusation that could be made with pretty much all the ecnomics system of the past) gave humankind Industrialisation, an advanced division of labor that give us the ability today to mass produce pretty much everything with fews or no labor.

That being said, I think its pretty clear that its time to move on. The limitations of that system are getting more obivious by the day; Neverending economic crisis, Massive unemployement, wars, extreme exploitation and environnemental disasters.

Its time to upgrade to something that will be able to use more efficiently all these handy tools capitalism gave us to go to the next level in term of prosperity and equality.

I dont hate capitalism, but i doubt it can do anything good for the world in the future, its now too limited, time to move to communism.

Willl communism be perfect? hardly. Will communism will show limitations and eventually force us to adopt another system? probably.
Is it an argument to stick with something obsolete and potentially dangerous for us? not really.

[Искра]

Cool story :thumbup1:

Now explain me why did Marx then wrote all those texts against capitalism and why Marxists want to create communist society as total opposition to capitalist? Also why did Marx and the rest of the movement spend all their time in destroying and dismising left-liberals and their pro-capitalist reformists attitudes, beliefs and politics?

[RGacky3]

Now explain me why did Marx then wrote all those texts against capitalism and why Marxists want to create communist society as total opposition to capitalist? Also why did Marx and the rest of the movement spend all their time in destroying and dismising left-liberals and their pro-capitalist reformists attitudes, beliefs and politics?

MARX was anti capitalist, but there are some Marxists that are not.

Christopher Hitchens is one, there are some Marxists that instead prefer a kind of organized capitalism, or who think Capitalism has not run its coarse.

There are also anti-dialectical Marxists (analytical marxists), just because your a Marxist and follow Marx's basic analysis does'nt mean you agree with everything Marx said.

But yeah, most Marxists are, like Marx, anti-capitalists. But some are not.


Also why did Marx and the rest of the movement spend all their time in destroying and dismising left-liberals and their pro-capitalist reformists attitudes, beliefs and politics?

Marx was active in a ton of bourgeois revolutions, infact what Danyboy wrote is actually pretty Orthodox Marxism, (which I don't always agree with), that its not about good or bad systems, juts about human development, and that capitalism will ultimatley destroy itself and socialism will have to take over, not that capitalism is inherently bad, Marx was a communist, and he supported superceding capitalism. But Marxism itself is an analysis of Capitalism.

[danyboy27]

Cool story :thumbup1:

Now explain me why did Marx then wrote all those texts against capitalism and why Marxists want to create communist society as total opposition to capitalist? Also why did Marx and the rest of the movement spend all their time in destroying and dismising left-liberals and their pro-capitalist reformists attitudes, beliefs and politics?

read the communist manifesto. Marx ''praised'' capitalism while at the same time dismissing it.

[danyboy27]

Also, i dont really think marx was really anti-capitalism. For that he would have to dismiss everything capitalism did in the past in its integrality including the industrialisation of europe. He rejected that capitalism should continue tho.

[Искра]

read the communist manifesto. Marx ''praised'' capitalism while at the same time dismissing it.
Of course he praised it, as civilisational progress from feudalism etc, but in the same thime he said "this is not enough". And here anti-capitalism comes in and Marxism.

[Искра]

Also, i dont really think marx was really anti-capitalism. For that he would have to dismiss everything capitalism did in the past in its integrality including the industrialisation of europe. He rejected that capitalism should continue tho.
Anti-capitalism means fighting against it, not dismissing it as civilisational progress. I can say that I'm against feudalism or slavery, but I wouldn't go down to Egypt to blow up pyramids.

[CommunityBeliever]

Marxism isn't about pro-anything, anti-anything, or any other ethical stance. It is about the scientific analysis of social conditions.

Biologists don't hate unicellular bacteria, yet they recognize that everyone is evolved from them. Similarly, Marxist scientists do not despise earlier states in our social evolution, such as capitalism.

[RGacky3]

Marx had an ethical stance, and he had his ethics which he did not shy away from, but Marxism, was an analysis of Capitalism, and there are some who make plenty of use of that analysis that are Capitalists and pro-capitalism.

[danyboy27]

Anti-capitalism means fighting against it, not dismissing it as civilisational progress. I can say that I'm against feudalism or slavery, but I wouldn't go down to Egypt to blow up pyramids.

You can fight against something without having a sheer hatred for it.
Firemen inxtinguish fire everyday but that dosnt mean those guy are anti-fire.

When fire threaten people, they go in and put it out. Marxist fight capitalism beccause it has to be done.

Doing nothing would be pretty much like for a fireman letting a house burn without doing nothing about it.

[danyboy27]

Of course he praised it, as civilisational progress from feudalism etc, but in the same thime he said "this is not enough". And here anti-capitalism comes in and Marxism.

Well, when you are anti-something, you cant really aknowledge anything good about it in a way or another.

For exemple, i am an anti-racist. Its final, there is nothing positive in racism, nothing at all.

[Tim Finnegan]

Marxism isn't about pro-anything, anti-anything, or any other ethical stance. It is about the scientific analysis of social conditions.
Nah, Marx is pro-human as all fuck. Why else would he proclaim, in such bold terms, that the purpose of philosophical inquiry was to change the world? It's only vulgar Marxists who think that it can be reduced down to postivistic science.

And that's just it. To the extant that capital is an emancipatory force, Marx supported it, and to the extent that it was an anti-emancipatory force he opposed it. And because capitalism ceased to be an emancipatory force in around 1848, Marxism is, to all intents and purposes, anti-capitalist.

[Искра]

Marxism is not about hatread thowards capitalism, since hate is just an emotion, while Marxism is analyisis and political ideology. I believe that I explained what do Marxists find good about capitalism and what they want to do with it.

[danyboy27]

Nah, Marx is pro-human as all fuck. Why else would he proclaim, in such bold terms, that the purpose of philosophical inquiry was to change the world? It's only vulgar Marxists who think that it can be reduced down to postivistic science.

And that's just it. To the extant that capital is an emancipatory force, Marx supported it, and to the extent that it was an anti-emancipatory force he opposed it. And because capitalism ceased to be an emancipatory force in around 1848, Marxism is, to all intents and purposes, anti-capitalist.

It can be both reduced to a positivic science and also be pro-human, those two interpretation are not mutually exclusive.

[RGacky3]

I believe that I explained what do Marxists find good about capitalism and what they want to do with it.

Marxists come in all sorts of shapes and sizes.

[Ocean Seal]

MARX was anti capitalist, but there are some Marxists that are not.

Christopher Hitchens is one, there are some Marxists that instead prefer a kind of organized capitalism, or who think Capitalism has not run its coarse.

No he's not.




There are also anti-dialectical Marxists (analytical marxists), just because your a Marxist and follow Marx's basic analysis does'nt mean you agree with everything Marx said.

But yeah, most Marxists are, like Marx, anti-capitalists. But some are not.

Nope.




Marx was active in a ton of bourgeois revolutions, infact what Danyboy wrote is actually pretty Orthodox Marxism, (which I don't always agree with), that its not about good or bad systems, juts about human development, and that capitalism will ultimatley destroy itself and socialism will have to take over, not that capitalism is inherently bad, Marx was a communist, and he supported superceding capitalism. But Marxism itself is an analysis of Capitalism.
That's true, but Marxism is by its discovery anti-capitalist.

[RGacky3]

No he's not.


Well, he calls himself a Marxist, and when he talks about it, he shows a basic understanding of Marxism.


Nope.


If you listen to the Chinese Communist party debates and so on, its all in marxist language and its all based on Marxist analysis, and alot of them justify their super capitalism on Marxes analysis of capitalism as an accelerator of growth.


That's true, but Marxism is by its discovery anti-capitalist.

Marxism is an analysis of Capitalism that found many many internal contradictions of capitalism, and many problems with it, but again, the interpretation and application of that analysis is uesd differently by different people.

[Sputnik_1]

Marx saw capitalism as a big step forward towards communism after feudalism, but definitely wasn't a big fan of it.

[danyboy27]

How do you define what is anti-capitalism?
Beccause in my vocabulary, being anti-something mean a complete rejection of anything related to it.

Perhaps beccause of the language barrier my definition of being anti-something is not on pair with yours.

I originally made this thread to debunk this myth capitalists created that Marxists are entierely dismissive of capitalism.

[Tim Cornelis]

Perhaps one could argue Marxism is post-capitalism, not anti-capitalism.

[RedGrunt]

That's because Marx's analysis is not whether capitalism is inherently good or bad as some absolute binary, it's about its existence within a framework of societal evolution.

Without slave society we would not be as we are today, and we can understand this and accept it without supporting slavery.

[Hit The North]

Perhaps one could argue Marxism is post-capitalism, not anti-capitalism.

Yeah, but you've got to be anti-capitalism in practice before you can get to a state of post-capitalism. I think it's less ambiguous if we consider Marx to be a communist, rather than an anti-capitalist. In fact, isn't the weakness of the current anti-capitalist movement precisely its inability to articulate a positive alternative in the way in which the 19th and 20th Century communist movement could?

As others have pointed out, there is no contradiction in Marx being both anti-capitalist, in that he strongly disapproved of a situation where capital dominated over human labour (the essence of capitalism = the rule of capital), whilst also being impressed with the way it tremendously built up the forces of production and transformed human potential. In fact, this is typical of the dialectical quality of Marx's thought. Capitalism and Communism do not stand in isolated opposition to each other, but are connected as a historical process. Capitalism prepares the ground for its own super-cession. Without capitalism appearing on the world stage, there would be no development towards communism. In that sense, Marx welcomed it. But in the deeper sense of its potential to create a truly human society, he condemned it.

[danyboy27]

Where do you draw the line between being anti-capitalist and a supporter of it, is that even possible?

[Hit The North]

Where do you draw the line between being anti-capitalist and a supporter of it, is that even possible?

You have to draw a line between the acceptance of capitalism as an historical phase in human social development, on the one hand, and opposing the interests of capital in the class struggle, on the other.

[danyboy27]

You have to draw a line between the acceptance of capitalism as an historical phase in human social development, on the one hand, and opposing the interests of capital in the class struggle, on the other.

would it really mean someone who agree with that is an anti-capitalist?

[The Young Pioneer]

Ugh, are we really doing this?


"Capital’s ceaseless striving towards the general form of wealth drives labour beyond the limits of its natural paltriness, and thus creates the material elements for the development of the rich individuality which is as all-sided in its production as in its consumption, and whose labour also therefore appears no longer as labour, but as the full development of activity itself, in which natural necessity in its direct form has disappeared; because natural need has been replaced by historically produced need. This is why capital is productive; i.e. an essential relation for the development of the social productive forces. It ceases to exist as such only where the development of these productive forces themselves encounters its barrier in capital itself...

Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat. What is the proletariat? The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor..."

-Karl Marx

[Renegade Saint]

How do you define what is anti-capitalism?
Beccause in my vocabulary, being anti-something mean a complete rejection of anything related to it.


That's a pretty silly definition.

Recognizing that capitalism is very efficient doesn't mean one is pro-capitalist.

Believing that capitalism should be abolished is what defines one as an anti-capitalist, nothing else.

[Ocean Seal]

Well, he calls himself a Marxist, and when he talks about it, he shows a basic understanding of Marxism.
You can understand Marxism without being a Marxist. And you can call yourself a Marxist without being a Marxist. But I don't think that Hitchens has called himself a Marxist for quite some time.



If you listen to the Chinese Communist party debates and so on, its all in marxist language and its all based on Marxist analysis, and alot of them justify their super capitalism on Marxes analysis of capitalism as an accelerator of growth.

Opportunistic rhetoric is opportunistic. The Chinese Communist Party has nothing to do with Marxism. Yes, capitalism creates growth, but you cannot be a socialist if you support further neo-liberalism when a socialist alternative is present.



Marxism is an analysis of Capitalism that found many many internal contradictions of capitalism, and many problems with it, but again, the interpretation and application of that analysis is uesd differently by different people.
Anyone who follows the Marxist analysis, will realize that the only sensible conclusion is anti-capitalist.

[danyboy27]

That's a pretty silly definition.

Recognizing that capitalism is very efficient doesn't mean one is pro-capitalist.

Believing that capitalism should be abolished is what defines one as an anti-capitalist, nothing else.

that possible, i can be silly from time to time.

[Hit The North]

would it really mean someone who agree with that is an anti-capitalist?

No, someone who agrees with what I wrote above would be a Marxist. An "anti-capitalist" could be a variety of things. A Primitivist, for example, is an anti-capitalist.

[Drosophila]

Now take capitalism out of history. Do you think the world still would I industrialized? I think so.

[Marxaveli]

Yeah, but you've got to be anti-capitalism in practice before you can get to a state of post-capitalism. I think it's less ambiguous if we consider Marx to be a communist, rather than an anti-capitalist. In fact, isn't the weakness of the current anti-capitalist movement precisely its inability to articulate a positive alternative in the way in which the 19th and 20th Century communist movement could?

As others have pointed out, there is no contradiction in Marx being both anti-capitalist, in that he strongly disapproved of a situation where capital dominated over human labour (the essence of capitalism = the rule of capital), whilst also being impressed with the way it tremendously built up the forces of production and transformed human potential. In fact, this is typical of the dialectical quality of Marx's thought. Capitalism and Communism do not stand in isolated opposition to each other, but are connected as a historical process. Capitalism prepares the ground for its own super-cession. Without capitalism appearing on the world stage, there would be no development towards communism. In that sense, Marx welcomed it. But in the deeper sense of its potential to create a truly human society, he condemned it.

As a Marxist, this is more or less how I view capitalism also. But as a human being, I can say without hesitation that I despise and loathe Capitalism to the core. It is an evil, corrupt, vicious, hypocritical, degenerate system that holds humanity back in many ways, and I truly believe people would be much better off under Communism not only in terms of material conditions, but emotionally and psychologically as well. But I tend to agree with Marx and view it as a necessary stage in history to progress toward a Communist society, in which we will become 'species beings'.

[Marxaveli]

Now take capitalism out of history. Do you think the world still would I industrialized? I think so.

No. How can you industrialize, create the necessary resources to accommodate a Communist society, from scratch? These things just don't appear out of thin air.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Not surprisingly, the application of Marxism by many historically significant Marxist parties has resulted in . . . capitalism (see: Russia, China, Cuba, etc.)! I think there is a lesson to be drawn from this, but it doesn't have shit all to do with capitalism being "good" on any level.


Capitalism . . . gave humankind . . . the ability today to mass produce pretty much everything with fews or no labor.

Love? Joy? Freedom? No, by "everything" you mean "every commodity". A promise of dying old and boring in exchange for not having anything worth dying for. Pah.

[The Stalinator]

Perhaps one could argue Marxism is post-capitalism, not anti-capitalism.

This I fully agree with. Capitalism is a historical stage, and like any other historical stage it's going to come to an end sometime or another to make way for whichever the next shall be.

[MarxSchmarx]

I think the thrust of this thread misses the forest for the trees.

"Marxism", to the extent that it derives from the writings of Karl Marx and I guess Engels, is not merely one analysis of capitalism among many. Arguably one can claim that something like Keynesianism is basically just a perspective on capitalism, but "Marxism" as that term is used by both specialists and the general public, means quite a bit more than that.

There can certainly be a somewhat amoral "Marxian" analysis of capitalism, but this is not how "Marxism" is understood. If anything, virtually all "Marxists" (who are subscribers, presumably, to "Marxism") agree with the bulk of what Marx's analysis not just in economic matters. And Marx studied a lot of things, some of which were not even specific to capitalism (e.g., historical materialism).

Significantly, Marx analyzed to a considerable extent the normative value of capitalism as well, and it is impossible to separate Marx's indictment of capitalism, and to some extent his proposed proscriptions, from his analysis. Again, Marxists and "Marxism" more generally encompasses much more than a mere interpretation of capitalism ("the point is to change it"). There may be a handful of exceptions here and there over the movement's 150 odd year history, but I don't think the term "Marxism" can in any seroius sense be used to denote the ideology of anybody who sincerely supports the capitalist order.

[NewLeft]

This I fully agree with. Capitalism is a historical stage, and like any other historical stage it's going to come to an end sometime or another to make way for whichever the next shall be.

Is there any good reason to believe that communism as Marx envisioned it will follow?

[RGacky3]

You can understand Marxism without being a Marxist. And you can call yourself a Marxist without being a Marxist. But I don't think that Hitchens has called himself a Marxist for quite some time.


Well I suppose it depends what you mean by a Marxist, in Hitchens last interview I saw he called himself a marxist in that he uses the Marxian method of analysis.

What I consider a Marxist is someone who uses Marxian analysis predominantly in his socio-economic/political analysis.


Opportunistic rhetoric is opportunistic. The Chinese Communist Party has nothing to do with Marxism. Yes, capitalism creates growth, but you cannot be a socialist if you support further neo-liberalism when a socialist alternative is present.


Your assuming Marxism=Socialism.

Infact some might argue that the CCPs move to state controlled capitalism was based on very orthodox Marxism, i.e. before you get to soicalism you need to have an advanced industrialized economy, which can be quickly achieved with super capitalism.

I say some might argue, because I don't believe in economic determanism OR the idea of necessary stages like some Orthodox Marxists do.

You also have many Marxists that are reformists that believe socialism can be achived through reform.

There are corporate executives and accountants that use Marxian analysis in their micro economics.


Anyone who follows the Marxist analysis, will realize that the only sensible conclusion is anti-capitalist.

Generally yes, but then again, there are Neo-calssical socislists.

[Hit The North]

There are corporate executives and accountants that use Marxian analysis in their micro economics.


It would be interesting if you could cite examples of CEO's that use a Marxist analysis in this way.

Also, by your definition, this would make them Marxists, wouldn't it?

[Veovis]

What I get from Marx is that he realized capitalism was historically progressive, but that in his era, it's utility had already run out.

Flash forward 150 years, and the same is true, but to a much higher degree. Capitalism is now at the height of decadence (is that an oxymoron?) and is threatening the ability of our planet to sustain life. We have to get rid of it soon.

[RGacky3]

It would be interesting if you could cite examples of CEO's that use a Marxist analysis in this way.

Also, by your definition, this would make them Marxists, wouldn't it?

CEO's use marxist analysis all the time, you don't think they measure the rate of exploitation (using other language)? Or take into account capital/labor ratio's. Infact an interesting point Richard Wolff points out is that economics classes and buisiness classes are very different, and economics classes tend to just celebrate capitalism, whereas buisiness classes teach how to run capitalism, and tend to actually agree with Marx (not on purpose of coarse, they teach how to maximise profits, Marx shows the implications of that).

I don't think it makes them Marxists though, because they don't analyse economic systems as a whole or propose policies (other than just in the context of maximising profit).

Listen to CEO's on CNBC talking about how they run their buisinesses and how they will maximise profits, if your familiar with Marx it'll sound chillingly familiar.

I'm not saying they are Marxists though.

[Hit The North]

CEO's use marxist analysis all the time, you don't think they measure the rate of exploitation (using other language)? Or take into account capital/labor ratio's.



Of course, but they were doing this before Marx wrote Capital as a concern with maximising profitability is at the heart of all capitalist economic activity. So what they are engaged in is capitalism, not Marxism.

[RGacky3]

Touche.

[danyboy27]

i should rename that thread marxist does not necessarly reject everything from capitalism.

Its now somehow clear to me that Marxist are anti-capitalist.