Marxists: Disagree with Karl Marx about something

[Agathor]

A healthy exercise.
Off you go.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't agree that labour vouchers will be necessary after the revolution.

I don't agree that the proletariat should support 'the progressive bourgeoisie', but to be fair I think that's a difference between when Marx was writing and now, I think there is a qualititavely different period going on - so maybe that's a difference between me and what I consider over-dogmatic 'Marxists'. Maybe Marx was right at the time, it's very difficult to say, but I find it hard to see who was the 'progressive' side in the Franco-Prussian War, for instance. It did lead to German unification and the development of capitalism in Germany, but... it was a lot of dead workers. Progressive? Maybe. 'A Good Thing'? Maybe not.

I don't agree that even in 1872 a 'democratic' transformation to socialism was possible in Britain, Holland or the USA.

[hatzel]

You know I understand what you're getting at here but real-world Marxists actually tend to think for themselves. It's only schoolkids on the internet who treat Marx like infallible gospel...

[daft punk]

I don't understand most of what he said so I agree with all of it.

[RedAtheist]

I disagree with his prediction that the middle class would completely vanish as capitalism developed. It turned out to be wrong. Which is why I do not identify as a Marxist, even though I could be called one, because I agree with his general idea of how to get to socialism (the working class grows and develops within capitalist society, until their class consciousness and level of organisation reaches the point at which they can take control of the economy and run it in a democratic way.)

I don't think his failed prediction regarding the middle class, is any way, a refutation of his notion that the working class can replace the current capitalist order with a socialist order, through revolution (which is his key contribution to socialist theory, since it distinguishes him from the utopian socialists.) Besides the prediction was based on observations of what was going on in his time (middle class people found themselves being forced into the proletariat) and not on some kind of magical 'relevation', which is why I don't look down on him for being wrong.

[GoddessCleoLover]

When Marx predicted the the petit-bourgeoisie would disappear I believe that what he had in mind was the class of small traders and farmers. I agree with RedAtheist that he seems to have missed the rise of the new middle class of professional and technicians, of assumed that they would be proletarian. At least in the USA folks in this class clearly are not proletarian as they enjoy certain autonomies with respect to the means of production and live well above a proletarian standard of living.

I read somewhere that Marx believed in phrenology. If so, then he was wrong about that, as well.

[svenne]

The nature works dialectic? Hell no Marx, stop smoking weed.

[Thirsty Crow]

The nature works dialectic? Hell no Marx, stop smoking weed.
Where did Marx say so? Or are you mistaking Marx for Engels?

In my opinion, I think M&E's Russophobia, and the consequent views on the supposed political allegiance of Slavic peoples and all that jazz, was based on a seriously mistaken view on the balance of power in 19th century Europe (yeah, sure, you might say it's easy to conclude that with the benefit of hindsight, but still...). The funny thing is that I'd disagree with what he had to say about Russia when he, thank fuck he did, turned around, that the obschina might have served as the social basis for socialist transformation (alongside revolution in advanced capitalist countries).

[Lobotomy]

I think the lumpenproletariat has some revolutionary potential.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Lumpenproletarian propensity for criminality means they more motivated toward their individual self-interest (like the petit-bourgeoisie) and unlikely as a class to join with the proletariat. On an individual basis it is certainly possible for member of the lumpenproletariat to join the working class movement. Frankly, given the rapidity of deindustrialization in the USA, I would define the lumpenproletariat quite narrowly. Many people who might have considered lumpenproles in the past IMO ought to be considered long-term unemployed workers and classified as proletarians rather than lumpenproletarian.

[Imposter Marxist]

marx didn't understand how capitalism worked exactly, and brilliant theorist Tony Cliff explains it on a whole new level in his work "State Capitalism in Russia"

[Red Future]

There is an obscure reference in the Communist Manifesto where Marx claims that one of the key defining features of the Borgeouis is that they have "Gardens" while the Proletariat do not.!?:laugh:

[Tavarisch_Mike]

About the lumpen. I think they got revolutionary potential, which we can see in the poor suburbs in Europe, where many riots has flammed up with hughe forces. This force needs to be channelized against the 'real enemy'.

I dont by the whole thing of historical materialism, or to be more specific, i dont by the pre determinated ideas such as that capitalist society will eventually transform to a socialist one. Thats up to us. The old slogan of Socialisme eu Barbarie is more relevant.

[Ostrinski]

I dont by the whole thing of historical materialism, or to be more specific, i dont by the pre determinated ideas such as that capitalist society will eventually transform to a socialist one. Thats up to us. The old slogan of Socialisme eu Barbarie is more relevant.Marxism without historical materialism? Isn't that like Utopian socialism without.. utopianism?

[Sam_b]

You shouldn't smash windows when you're drunk

[Ostrinski]

The only real difference between the lumpenproletariat and the petite-bourgeoisie is that one operates within the law and one doesn't, as far as I can see. Drug dealers etc. essentially serve a petite-bourgeois social function.

I don't think the socialist mode of production will abolish division of labor, at least not right away.

[Lobotomy]

Lumpenproletarian propensity for criminality means they more motivated toward their individual self-interest (like the petit-bourgeoisie) and unlikely as a class to join with the proletariat. On an individual basis it is certainly possible for member of the lumpenproletariat to join the working class movement. Frankly, given the rapidity of deindustrialization in the USA, I would define the lumpenproletariat quite narrowly. Many people who might have considered lumpenproles in the past IMO ought to be considered long-term unemployed workers and classified as proletarians rather than lumpenproletarian.

I think it just depends. obviously, for a really successful drug dealing scarface motherfucker, capitalism has worked in their favor just as much as it has for any member of the bourgeoisie. but there are also many lumpen individuals who have not seen much success at all. I think many would abandon the lumpenproletariat in favor of the workers.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Marxism without historical materialism? Isn't that like Utopian socialism without.. utopianism?

Let me get this straight.

No i dont reject historical materialism as a whole, but this certain aspect of it has prooven to not be to accurate. Exampel, Marx didnt belive that a major revolution wuold occure in less industrialized countries, such as Russia. Yet it did.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I agree with Tavarisch Mike on the issue of historical materialism and revolutionary development in less industrialized countries. Marx is an excellent general guide to historical development, but by no means was he some infallible prophet. World history in the past century has certainly vindicated the broad outlines of Marxian thought, but just as certainly has developed in ways that Marx did not forsee. Let the Christians, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhists etcetera worship their gods and prophets, while we take the scientific and materialist approach and acknowledge that Marx was a human being, not a deity.

[ColonelCossack]

Capital exploits labour; I DISAGREE!!!

lol jk

[GoddessCleoLover]

I think that Marx was completely wrong when he wrote that we should kill honey badgers.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I agree with Tavarisch Mike on the issue of historical materialism and revolutionary development in less industrialized countries. Marx is an excellent general guide to historical development, but by no means was he some infallible prophet. World history in the past century has certainly vindicated the broad outlines of Marxian thought, but just as certainly has developed in ways that Marx did not forsee. Let the Christians, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhists etcetera worship their gods and prophets, while we take the scientific and materialist approach and acknowledge that Marx was a human being, not a deity.

Exactly, Im afraid that this casts a shadow of suspiciousy over marxism as being a form of religion, rather then a scientific tool to analyse society and economical constilations, among ppl who hasnt been introduced towards it.

[ColonelCossack]

I think that Marx was completely wrong when he wrote that we should kill honey badgers.

Funnily enough I agree with Marx when he said that.

[GoddessCleoLover]

And use tanks to accomplish the mission?

[Ostrinski]

No i dont reject historical materialism as a whole, but this certain aspect of it has prooven to not be to accurate. Exampel, Marx didnt belive that a major revolution wuold occure in less industrialized countries, such as Russia. Yet it did.It wasn't that revolution can't happen in industrialized countries, but that it can't be sustained in a limited region, especially an underdeveloped one. I'd say history has proven this one 100% accurate.

[o well this is ok I guess]

You shouldn't smash windows when you're drunk Man, you're no fun at all.

[Ocean Seal]

Marx said that the US invasion of Mexico was progressive and would bring Mexico in capital. This has historically been proven false.

[Os Cangaceiros]

His work on the state and how capital utilizes the state towards it's interests is sorely lacking. You had a couple good pieces about how the state was the executive committee of the ruling class, but then in other places Marx/Engels definition of the state was downright terrible. Also, the mechanistic understanding of monopoly capital and concentration of capital.

[thriller]

Engels' "Origin of the Family." I disagree with much of the book. As far as Marx goes, I can't think of anything specific. The lumpen prole issue has been raised, and I concur.

[NewSocialist]

Engels' "Origin of the Family." I disagree with much of the book. As far as Marx goes, I can't think of anything specific. The lumpen prole issue has been raised, and I concur.

what about it do you disagree with?

[Brosip Tito]

Ireland...though, I believe his analysis of Ireland then, compared to now, would be significantly different.

[Crux]

India.

[CountryKid]

"The idiocy of rural life."



Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck you. I love Rural life.

[Blake's Baby]

"The idiocy of rural life."



Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck you. I love Rural life.

Idiot.



Only saying that for lulz really. I think, perhaps, what with modern communications, transport systems and whatnot, he'd be less worried about people in rural areas thinking that sawing off their own feet and marrying their cousins was a good idea.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

"The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world."

-Address of the International Working Men's Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America

Marx was probably high when he wrote this. The Civil War was going to open a new age of ascendancy for the working class? Nope. Abraham Lincoln was going to reconstruct a social world? WTF?

[Landsharks eat metal]

"The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world."

Holy shit... is that what the insane right winger I was talking to meant when he said America has been Marxist since the Civil War?? I had never heard this quote, so I just assumed the guy was talking out of his ass... (he probably was anyway.)

[Rafiq]

Let me get this straight.

No i dont reject historical materialism as a whole, but this certain aspect of it has prooven to not be to accurate. Exampel, Marx didnt belive that a major revolution wuold occure in less industrialized countries, such as Russia. Yet it did.

Actually, he did. Read about his works on Russian peasantry.

Anyway, Marx believed it would not SURVIVE in industrialized counters. History being linear is anthetical to historical materialism.

[Ostrinski]

-Address of the International Working Men's Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America

Marx was probably high when he wrote this. The Civil War was going to open a new age of ascendancy for the working class? Nope. Abraham Lincoln was going to reconstruct a social world? WTF?Well, the labor movement didn't pick up militancy until after the civil war, and there was a lot of social change after the civil war. I'd say he had something of a point, even if it was overstated.

[GoddessCleoLover]

IMO Marx missed the boat on this one; first, Lincoln was one of the three or four most prominent lawyers in the USA prior to becoming POTUS and he often represented railroad companies, one of the most rapacious type of capitalists of the time. Second, even if Lincoln had survived and somehow become an advocate of the working class, the Republican Party including the "Radical Republicans" were the political representatives of the bourgeoisie. In large eastern cities such as New York and Baltimore the workers voted Democratic not Republican and the Republican-dominated Congress would not have countenanced even reforms of a social democratic nature, even if proposed by Lincoln.

[Drosophila]

-Address of the International Working Men's Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America

Marx was probably high when he wrote this. The Civil War was going to open a new age of ascendancy for the working class? Nope. Abraham Lincoln was going to reconstruct a social world? WTF?

I'm not saying that Lincoln was a socialist, but he did say this:

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

[Os Cangaceiros]

The civil war ended chattel slavery, which I think we'd all agree was a good thing (although black americans were still treated terribly, of course). Beyond that though it was basically just one ascendant power bloc (northern industrial interests) expanding into and overthrowing another power bloc (southern agrarian interests). That was the rather cynical analysis of the radical abolitionist Lysander Spooner and it's one I pretty much agree with. The abolition of slavery certainly wasn't done out of the goodness of anyone's heart, that's for sure...there were of course individuals who's opposition to slavery came out of a profound sense of moral injustice, but that's not why political power ended the institution.

Now it would be one thing if what he wrote was just concerned with the rather impassionate analysis of how the working class would benefit from the fall of chattel slavery, but with rhetoric like "the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race", it does kind of make it seem like ol' Abe was just a really big-hearted guy.

[Ostrinski]

The civil war ended chattel slavery, which I think we'd all agree was a good thing (although black americans were still treated terribly, of course). Beyond that though it was basically just one ascendant power bloc (northern industrial interests) expanding into and overthrowing another power bloc (southern agrarian interests).Of course, Union victory in the civil war meant the expansion of industrial interests, which at the same time set the pretext for intensified working class aggression. Capital accumulation at a more rapid pace meant improvements in industrial machinery and enhanced means of communication and transportation, making the working class more versatile and dexterous which bolstered the strength of the labor unions and of the working class as an independent political force.

That's how I see it at least. There's probably some flaws with this view. But in my opinion that's why the civil war was the last progressive thing the bourgeoisie could do, as it furthered bourgeois interests and by extension intensified the class struggle and the development of class consciousness.


Now it would be one thing if what he wrote was just concerned with the rather impassionate analysis of how the working class would benefit from the fall of chattel slavery, but with rhetoric like "the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race", it does kind of make it seem like ol' Abe was just a really big-hearted guy.I agree he was flawed in his implications, it was probably just political.