Overwhelmed by Marxism

[Blanquist]

There is just so many things you have to know. You have to be an expert across the board;

you have to know everything about war and its history, economic history and theory, current economic trends, geography, languages, philosophy, a little bit of technology, and on and on.

How do you deal with it?

[gorillafuck]

no you don't. but when you debate on something, and someone has a better understanding of it than you, they're likely to win. that's not just leftist politics, it's anything.

[Raúl Duke]

over time, you get a lot of knowledge...everyone started from zero.

[theblackmask]

Realize that "war and its history, economic history and theory, current economic trends, geography, languages, philosophy, a little bit of technology" are fields that have been created by rulers and their servants. Even so-called Marxist versions of these fields are still merely responses or antitheses to the former. The radical Left's current obsession with being a bunch of know-it-alls is probably the main reason their ideas have/will not ever reach a mass audience.

My advice is to focus less on winning arguments with "facts," and more on appealing to people's sense of truth.

[Leftsolidarity]

I've learned the most from getting my ass handed to me in debates and being made to look like a fool.

It's all part of learning though. Sometimes I just dive straight into a newer subject that I don't know much about, try to pick a side and argue for it. Sometimes I'll look like a dumbass and sometimes not. It's how I learn, though, and I've learned to actually listen and think about what the other person is trying to get across instead of shutting my brain off and screaming my side.

That's how I learn at least.

I also spend a lot of time on marxists.org

Sometimes I just think of a famous author that I feel I'm not properly read up on to debate so I start reading their literature.

I don't know how other people have learned what they have but that's how I do it.

It's a constant process too. I learn (esspecially here) about new subjects every single day. Some days I look like a complete idiot and some days it's on a topic I feel confident on.

[NewLeft]

Realize that "war and its history, economic history and theory, current economic trends, geography, languages, philosophy, a little bit of technology" are fields that have been created by rulers and their servants. Even so-called Marxist versions of these fields are still merely responses or antitheses to the former. The radical Left's current obsession with being a bunch of know-it-alls is probably the main reason their ideas have/will not ever reach a mass audience.

My advice is to focus less on winning arguments with "facts," and more on appealing to people's sense of truth.
Good advice for someone looking to become a great leader of the revolution..

[Franz Fanonipants]

do drugs

listen to rap music

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

I'm a neophyte in Marxian cogitation. I've never been an avid follower of Marxism to begin with. But since coming to revleft, I've realized to accept Marxists, considering they're a numerous and imperative part of the socialist movement, and learning Marxist thought is a good idea, especially during debate.

There's a copious of books you could read, albeit it's written with redundant intricacy.

Marx for Beginners by Rius would be a good starting point.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Realize that "war and its history, economic history and theory, current economic trends, geography, languages, philosophy, a little bit of technology" are fields that have been created by rulers and their servants. Even so-called Marxist versions of these fields are still merely responses or antitheses to the former. The radical Left's current obsession with being a bunch of know-it-alls is probably the main reason their ideas have/will not ever reach a mass audience.

My advice is to focus less on winning arguments with "facts," and more on appealing to people's sense of truth.

haha yeah

[Tim Finnegan]

In my experience, those "Marxists" who make a big show of knowing every damn thing about every damn thing usually turn out to have shitty theory and rancid politics. Better to get to the heart of the matter than to know everything but the heart; to be able to make a coherent case for the abolition of wage labour than to to find yourself, when push comes to shove, resorting to nebulous appeals to "science" and "progress". The rest is useful insofar as it supplements and supports that, but it's fuck-all good without it.

[Rafiq]

Materialism is the Structural base of all Marxist thought. When you understand this, everything becomes clearer.

[theblackmask]

Materialism is the Structural base of all Marxist thought. When you understand this, everything becomes clearer.

Do you think a significant amount of people will ever care to know anything about materialism? By defining your ideology as such, don't you think you are alienating yourself?

[Franz Fanonipants]

Do you think a significant amount of people will ever care to know anything about materialism? By defining your ideology as such, don't you think you are alienating yourself?

i mean its true but you're super dumb

[theblackmask]

i mean its true but you're super dumb

Oh thanks dude.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

How do you deal with it?
By always trying to learn more. That said, I'll take someone with an instinctive understanding of class struggle and has practical experience over someone who understands all the theory but has little or no practical experience.

[Blanquist]

By always trying to learn more. That said, I'll take someone with an instinctive understanding of class struggle and has practical experience over someone who understands all the theory but has little or no practical experience.

What do you mean by practical experience?

[BE_]

You deal with it by reading as much as you can of Marx and Engels, which will lead you into understanding their theories. The more you study, the better. It's like trying to understand any other theory out there.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

What do you mean by practical experience?
Practical experience as a class struggle activist or as a worker. Someone for whom it's not all theoretical.

[Blanquist]

Practical experience as a class struggle activist or as a worker. Someone for whom it's not all theoretical.

I dont think activist-politics and working in a factory are as important as a sound theoretical base.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I dont think activist-politics and working in a factory are as important as a sound theoretical base.
Theory is important, but it can come later. Someone whose experience has led them to an instinctive understanding of and support for class struggle can learn theory as they go.

[Kronsteen]

There is just so many things you have to know.

If you want to discuss everything in marxism, yes. But there'll be loads that doesn't really interest you, and a load more that's highly specialised.

I suggest you find a few corners which appeal to you, and read up on them intensively - while keeping aware of the other stuff, just not in detail.

Of course, if you're more interested in activism than theory, that's fine too. There's plenty of good activists who only know basic theory.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

1. Rail ritalin.
2. Focus on learning that is related to the projects you're involved in, and branch out from there (all that shit intersects, yo!).

[theblackmask]

I dont think activist-politics and working in a factory are as important as a sound theoretical base.

Activist-politics and working in a factory are precisely the problem because they ARE the theoretical base. The theoreticians with their noses in endless volumes of books tell us that these are they way to revolution, instead of people acting of their own accord.

It's even gotten to the point now where the majority of "radicals" see more value in standing outside a bank protesting than smashing its window. Any person can plainly see that smashing the window provides instant gratification for the smasher, and costs the bank money in repairs. Your theoretician, however, will explain this away with ideas like "nonviolence" and "public opinion."

Real change will come from people acting according to their wants and needs, not from the pages of any book.

[daft punk]

There is just so many things you have to know. You have to be an expert across the board;

you have to know everything about war and its history, economic history and theory, current economic trends, geography, languages, philosophy, a little bit of technology, and on and on.

How do you deal with it?
Not really. Most people on here cant see the wood for the trees, the basics are simple yet beyond their grasp.

You could start here:

http://www.marxism.org.uk/images/logo2.gif
http://www.marxism.org.uk/
Introducing Marxism


http://www.marxism.org.uk/images/cover100.gif
1. Introduction (http://www.marxism.org.uk/pack/intro.html)
2. A different Outlook: Marxist Philosophy. (http://www.marxism.org.uk/pack/dialetics.html)
3. Capitalism's big con: Understanding Marxist economics (http://www.marxism.org.uk/pack/economics.html)
4. What is the State? (http://www.marxism.org.uk/pack/state.html)
5. More than just kings and queens – the Marxist view of history (http://www.marxism.org.uk/pack/history.html)
6. Changing the world: The Role Of A Revolutionary Party (http://www.marxism.org.uk/pack/party.html)

Then read this

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/11/oct.htm

Leon Trotsky

In Defence Of October

A speech delivered in Copenhagen, Denmark in November 1932

This explains why the Russian revolution happened, with some sound Marxist theory including Permanent Revolution

[daft punk]

In my experience, those "Marxists" who make a big show of knowing every damn thing about every damn thing usually turn out to have shitty theory and rancid politics. Better to get to the heart of the matter than to know everything but the heart; to be able to make a coherent case for the abolition of wage labour than to to find yourself, when push comes to shove, resorting to nebulous appeals to "science" and "progress". The rest is useful insofar as it supplements and supports that, but it's fuck-all good without it.
All Marxists support the abolition of wage labour. Tell me in a brief paragraph how you see it happening, especially the time scale. How quick would you have wage labour abolished after a revolution? Would there be money?

To me, as a Trotskyist, it would be a gradual process taking many years. It would start with free healthcare and education, then free public transport, then free housing and so on, until you had an allowance for luxuries and everything else was free. Likewise public ownership would start with taking the biggest companies over, and then gradually working down to the small ones.

So, yes of course people would still get wages after the revolution, they would be phased out as above.

[Jimmie Higgins]

There is just so many things you have to know. You have to be an expert across the board;

you have to know everything about war and its history, economic history and theory, current economic trends, geography, languages, philosophy, a little bit of technology, and on and on.

How do you deal with it?

Don't worry about it - it can seem daunting and overwhelming at first, but then again that's how I feel when I see people who are into some complex video or role playing game - they say, "Nah it's easy" but the more they try and explain it to me, the more I'm confused until I just walk away and say, "have fun with that".

Ok, that's a silly example, but I think really to be a revolutionary Marxist (or other traditions) you are basically having to learn generations of ideas and theories and jargon while also unlearning a lot of the myths and assumptions that are taught to us through school. I think it's this combination that makes it seem overwhelming - a lot of this history and these ideas are brushed aside by mainstream history, historical lit, economics and current events, so it's an extra hurdle.

Despite all of what I argued above, I think the fundamentals and basics of revolutionary Marxism are fairly easy to grasp and since they actually make sense compared to some of the idealist explanations we get for why things happen from the media or politicians or academia, once you have the basics the more nuanced or detailed things will begin to fall into place like Tetris blocks.

So the fundamental things to know include: we live in class societies (most workers can be convinced of this from their own experience unless they are basically ideologically blocking themselves from this reality), the underlying logic of this society is the drive for profits which, while not always blatant or overtly obvious, is the most common denominator in capitalist societies; capitalism produces what it does and has created it's wealth by exploiting workers through wage-labor; workers already produce collectively, but are alienated from this process; workers can not only produce collectively but can potentially run production collectively; workers must unite and organize themselves to achieve this because they will be resisted by the current rulers and defendors of the status quo.

I think pretty much everything else flows from there.

[daft punk]

Materialism is the Structural base of all Marxist thought. When you understand this, everything becomes clearer.

Marxism is not just materialism, it is dialectical materialism. Many people on revleft are too hasty to completely write off the role of the individual.

Stalinists (Marxist-Leninists) do it so as to downplay the criminal role of the monster they worship. However that does not stop them telling lies about Trotsky and building shrines to Stalin. Their argument is, Trotsky couldnt have done any better.

Left Coms do it because they want to avoid discussing Lenin and Trotsky in a good light. However this does not stop them blaming everything that went wrong on these two. Their argument is, Trotsky and Lenin were to blame. But still they accuse you of great man theorism when it suits them, ie when you point out the inadequacies of their arguments by showing what Trotsky and Lenin would have done different to Stalin. They say the damage was done earlier, but it was unavoidable, but it was the cause, so they chase their tails. That's how it seems to me anyway.

What I want to stress is that dozens, hundreds maybe, of revolutionary opportunities have been wasted because of the lack of leadership. Socialism wont happen on its own.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

The central point of Marxism is to explain with scientific reasoning as to why the working class should become its own master and not be ruled by classes anymore. I will give you a basic description of the two players in current revolutionary world history: Capital vs. Proletariat.
Capital is the phenomena of making more money out of money... on the backs of the wage dependent part of humanity, off of their surplus. This is the central historical contribution of Marx, the idea of the surplus and the constant increase of the productive forces in history.


"Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks." -Karl Marx

http://www.marxists.org/index.htm

[Tim Finnegan]

All Marxists support the abolition of wage labour. Tell me in a brief paragraph how you see it happening, especially the time scale. How quick would you have wage labour abolished after a revolution? Would there be money?
I'm afraid that I'm not in the business of sooth-saying. Things will happen as they happen; it's not for the self-appointed "Left" to decide.

[pluckedflowers]

My advice is to focus less on winning arguments with "facts," and more on appealing to people's sense of truth.

This sounds an awful lot like truthiness.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Sounds an awful lot like pol potism

RAAN gonna purge society of intellectual leeches

[Leftsolidarity]

It's even gotten to the point now where the majority of "radicals" see more value in standing outside a bank protesting than smashing its window. Any person can plainly see that smashing the window provides instant gratification for the smasher, and costs the bank money in repairs. Your theoretician, however, will explain this away with ideas like "nonviolence" and "public opinion."



What a stupid example. Smashing a bank window does jack shit for the revolution. I don't need to preach about nonviolence and public opinion, it just isn't a revolution. It's an angery person breaking a window. That's it.

I'm not against property destruction nor am I against violence but this quoted section is just all sorts of stupid.

[daft punk]

I'm afraid that I'm not in the business of sooth-saying. Things will happen as they happen; it's not for the self-appointed "Left" to decide.
sounds a bit vague. The impression I get off some on here who talk of the abolition of wages is that it should happen overnight, though I could be wrong.

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't much see the point in replacing a White boss with a Red boss, if that's what you mean.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

All Marxists support the abolition of wage labour. Tell me in a brief paragraph how you see it happening, especially the time scale. How quick would you have wage labour abolished after a revolution? Would there be money?[...]sounds a bit vague. The impression I get off some on here who talk of the abolition of wages is that it should happen overnight, though I could be wrong.

There needs to be complete socialisation of the economy first of all. Once social monopolies are made on economic sectors, certain commodities can be abolished from market exchange. There needs to be a constant abolishment of markets as a means of exchange; it would go faster in already Vergesellschaftete or capital consumed advanced capitalist societies. The more commodities are removed from private, competing control; the closer to the end of wage labor.

[Leftsolidarity]

I don't much see the point in replacing a White boss with a Red boss, if that's what you mean.

This ^ is rhetoric not a debate.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Lots of books, documentaries, articles, etc.

[Franz Fanonipants]

theblackmask is a pig

[Rafiq]

Do you think a significant amount of people will ever care to know anything about materialism? By defining your ideology as such, don't you think you are alienating yourself?

If they care to know anything about Marxism, then they will do the same in regards to Materialism. And that's not an "Ideology". Marxism, for the last time, isn't an Ideology.

[Tim Finnegan]

This ^ is rhetoric not a debate.
I hadn't realised that we were debating...? :confused:


There needs to be complete socialisation of the economy first of all. Once social monopolies are made on economic sectors, certain commodities can be abolished from market exchange. There needs to be a constant abolishment of markets as a means of exchange; it would go faster in already Vergesellschaftete or capital consumed advanced capitalist societies. The more commodities are removed from private, competing control; the closer to the end of wage labor.
Do the working class enter into this at any point, or...?

[Railyon]

If they care to know anything about Marxism, then they will do the same in regards to Materialism. And that's not an "Ideology".

But it sure is metaphysics.

[theblackmask]

theblackmask is a pig

Have I wronged you personally or something? Maybe you should take a break from all this internet and go outside.


What a stupid example. Smashing a bank window does jack shit for the revolution. I don't need to preach about nonviolence and public opinion, it just isn't a revolution. It's an angery person breaking a window. That's it.

I'm not against property destruction nor am I against violence but this quoted section is just all sorts of stupid.

If a person smashing a window isn't revolution, then protesting in front of a bank certainly isn't either...it's just a bunch of angry people standing outside a bank. As I stated earlier, at least smashing a window has tangible benefits. Protesting and "building movements" is a slight step above idle talk when it comes to seeing actual consequences from one's actions.

[ColonelCossack]

Do you think a significant amount of people will ever care to know anything about materialism? By defining your ideology as such, don't you think you are alienating yourself?

-You need materialism to properly understand Capitalism in its historical context.

-You need to properly understand something in order to criticize it and ultimately "take it down".

-Therefore, we need materialism in order to get rid of capitalism.

it is important for people to be able to identify with us- which is why we need to get rid of idealism in the left. However, without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary practice.

[Rafiq]

But it sure is metaphysics.


No, Marxian materialism is not metaphysical. You're missing the point.

[Kronsteen]

Marxism, for the last time, isn't an Ideology.

Ideology as in 'set of beliefs': Rafiq is claiming to believe as a marxist that he doesn't have any beliefs.

Ideology as in 'the point of view of a class, and it's interests': Rafiq is claiming the working class view of the world isn't a view.

Ideology as in 'false belief': Rafiq is claiming marxism is perfect revealed truth.

Take your pick.


Marxian materialism is not metaphysical.

Rafiq is claiming that a belief about the ultimate nature of reality - more fundamenal than what's accessible to observational science and therefore beyond physics (meta-physical) - is not metaphysical.

[Leftsolidarity]

If a person smashing a window isn't revolution, then protesting in front of a bank certainly isn't either...it's just a bunch of angry people standing outside a bank. As I stated earlier, at least smashing a window has tangible benefits. Protesting and "building movements" is a slight step above idle talk when it comes to seeing actual consequences from one's actions.

I never said protesting outside a bank is revolution. Worker's seizing the means of production and dismantling the capitalist state is revolution.

Breaking a window doesn't have "tangible benefits" other than there being a broken window that will quickly get replaced. Also, "tangible benefits" are nessecarilly the only thing that matters. A lot of time you won't have them even if what you've done has been widely successful. A lot of people coming around to leftist ideology isn't tangible but it's a fuck of a lot better than just breaking a window.

Even if it's fun, the revolution isn't breaking windows and spraypainting anarchist symbols.

(this is coming from someone who may or may not have done these kinds of things before ;) and wouldn't dismiss the idea of doing it, I just don't hold any illusions about it being revolutionary to do these things)

[Art Vandelay]

As someone who DOES NOT DO THESE KINDS OF THINGS and DOES NOT ADVOCATE DOING THESE THINGS (do you understand how I am NOT advocating these things ;)) I would say that it does make a, albeit a small, difference. I find it funny that a lot of the "revolutionaries" that I have had contact with actually think its bad to attack capital, even if in a small or even symbolic gesture.

As if all the leftist nerds in their sectarian clubs are making any progress. After spending a decent amount of time on revleft its pretty easy to come to the conclusion that revolution will happen despite the majority of the posters on this site. So they can say smashy smashy stuff is dumb or whatever their excuses are and I will continue to call them selling their newspapers dumb.

At least smashy smashy shit brings close friends together for a night of fun and is self liberating. Capital can be attacked at any time, regardless of what "revolutionaries" say. Revolution is not happening tomorrow and even if it did, it would happen without any of us; so if you find a certain activity self rewarding and fulfilling knock yourself out.

[Kronsteen]

After spending a decent amount of time on revleft its pretty easy to come to the conclusion that revolution will happen despite the majority of the posters on this site.

There is the view that, even if this or that party can't make the revolution happen, they can still influence the revolution if/when it does. Which means their job is to keep the party together until the workers rise up.

And how do you keep a party together? Rallies, protests, joining or starting campaigns on smaller progressive issues etc. Group activities to maintain personal bonds and interest. The alternative would be to have a party composed entirely of sleeper agents who'll hopefully wake up when they're needed.

Except (1) they probably wouldn't wake up in the event and (2) it's probably not possible to find enough people prepared to be sleeper agents - not enough to influence the course of a revolution anyway.

[Leftsolidarity]

As someone who DOES NOT DO THESE KINDS OF THINGS and DOES NOT ADVOCATE DOING THESE THINGS (do you understand how I am NOT advocating these things ;)) I would say that it does make, albeit a small, difference. I find it funny that a lot of the "revolutionaries" that I have had contact with actually think its bad to attack capital, even if in a small or even symbolic gesture.

As if all the leftist nerds in their sectarian clubs are making any progress. After spending a decent amount of time on revleft its pretty easy to come to the conclusion that revolution will happen despite the majority of the posters on this site. So they can say smashy smashy stuff is dumb or whatever their excuses are and I will continue to call them selling their newspapers dumb.

At least smashy smashy shit brings close friends together for a night of fun and is self liberating. Capital can be attacked at any time, regardless of what "revolutionaries" say. Revolution is not happening tomorrow and even if it did, it would happen without any of us; so if you find a certain activity self rewarding and fulfilling knock yourself out.

I never condemned those activies. I merely said how that's not exactly revolutionary.

[Geiseric]

Causing a scene and embarissing the rest of whoever chooses to come out on a demonstration is increadibly counter revolutionary, and by doing that you're saying that your fetishism for violence is more important than raising the consciousness of whoever is watching or is influenced by any action that's underway.

I don't see how a small isolated act of vandalism can in any way raise the consciousness of anybody other than the poor sod who is forced to clean that mess up, and the employees whose jobs and income are under threat if the constant capital they owe their current livelihood as proletarians to is under attack. In which case it will be the raising of negative, i.e. bourgeois, anti-leftist, aggressive, conservative consciousness for those "asshole protesters." In the case of the L.A. riots, we are shown that violence doesn't improve class consciousness but aggravates current conditions that Capitalism creates.

That usually police are the ones who aggitate for these kinds of things and often do the acts themselves in order to specifically have a negative effect on the movement as a whole. You're doing their jobs for them if you want to "Attack capital." At this point things have to be peaceful so we don't alienate people... It's no rocket science, we have to look like what most people describe as "sane."

[daft punk]

Well, I'm offering a concrete plan. Your posts, Tim, imply some kind of fatalism, que sera sera. But you dont get anything without a plan (theory). Not socialism, that's for sure. All you get is wasted opportunity.

[Art Vandelay]

Causing a scene and embarissing the rest of whoever chooses to come out on a demonstration is increadibly counter revolutionary, and by doing that you're saying that your fetishism for violence is more important than raising the consciousness of whoever is watching or is influenced by any action that's underway.

I don't see how a small isolated act of vandalism can in any way raise the consciousness of anybody other than the poor sod who is forced to clean that mess up, and the employees whose jobs and income are under threat if the constant capital they owe their current livelihood as proletarians to is under attack. In which case it will be the raising of negative, i.e. bourgeois, anti-leftist, aggressive, conservative consciousness for those "asshole protesters." In the case of the L.A. riots, we are shown that violence doesn't improve class consciousness but aggravates current conditions that Capitalism creates.

That usually police are the ones who aggitate for these kinds of things and often do the acts themselves in order to specifically have a negative effect on the movement as a whole. You're doing their jobs for them if you want to "Attack capital." At this point things have to be peaceful so we don't alienate people... It's no rocket science, we have to look like what most people describe as "sane."

Well frankly, it is of my opinion that "popular opinion" will become polarized during a revolutionary period (most likely) regardless of pro-revolutionaries. Also the act of "attacking capital" has the effect of attracting militants during non-revolutionary periods. I would of never got into radical politics if not for seeing people making actual differences in their lives by cutting out politicians and making tangible differences in their communities through direct action.

[Art Vandelay]

I never condemned those activies. I merely said how that's not exactly revolutionary.

This is my beef, if you will, with people who say things like you said above. No one claims that such activities are the epitome of revolutionary activity (if they do their idiots and should be ignored) but to completely deny individuals who find such activities self liberating is ridiculous.

[OnlyCommunistYouKnow]

I feel that way too, but then I realize I actually know quite a lot for only being a communist for 7 months now.

[black magick hustla]

i pissed away my fee time since i was like 12 in the internet instead of getting laid and as i result i became a 23 yo manchild dont do that pls

[black magick hustla]

sounds a bit vague. The impression I get off some on here who talk of the abolition of wages is that it should happen overnight, though I could be wrong.

so ok give us your blueprints for the future socialist state you devised when playing the sims or civilization 4

[Revolution starts with U]

I dont think activist-politics and working in a factory are as important as a sound theoretical base.
So what you're saying is if I took a time machine to 3400 bce Sumerian culture and made everyone read and understand Marx, that we would currently be living in a full-blown communist society?

Man... and here I was thinking Marx merely pointed out that the interests of the working class were socialism. Now you're telling me they would have never had such interests if he hadn't existed...


so ok give us your blueprints for the future socialist state you devised when playing the sims or civilization 4
:lol: (I did that when I was like 15 :blushing:)

[Tim Finnegan]

Well, I'm offering a concrete plan. Your posts, Tim, imply some kind of fatalism, que sera sera. But you dont get anything without a plan (theory). Not socialism, that's for sure. All you get is wasted opportunity.
I've got theory. So just happens that my theory rules out the Workers' Revolutionary Socialist Party of Workers' Socialism (Bolshevist-Internationalist) being the axel on which history turns. It's not a position entirely without precedent, however little it may appeal to you.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well frankly, it is of my opinion that "popular opinion" will become polarized during a revolutionary period (most likely) regardless of pro-revolutionaries.You mean in a revolutionary period people will have revolutionary ideas? Wow is that like how in feudalism people have feudal-era ideas?

Revolution is not "the rapture" for alienated punk rockers. Workers who have already drawn revolutionary conclusions, in order to do something about it, have to try and advocate and draw people around these ideas because other social forces are also vying to provide explanations for why things happen in society. Workers aren't wind-up toys who just have to reach a certain level of frustration and then the pin is pulled and they revolt - they are not "abstract" workers but real workers who judge how they see the world based on their own experiences and the ideas around them. Hence, if a worker has never met an Arab, US propaganda might make inroads by arguing that all arabs are religious fanatics who are unreasonable. On the other hand class-realities can counter ruling class propaganda - so if the news talks about how the economy is great too much, people reject it. But rejecting ruling class lies will more often result in cynicism and pessimism rather than class consciousness and so that's why organizing a counter-view and even better, praxis that will show that this counter-view is actually more usueful and true to the experiences of workers.


Also the act of "attacking capital" has the effect of attracting militants during non-revolutionary periods. I would of never got into radical politics if not for seeing people making actual differences in their lives by cutting out politicians and making tangible differences in their communities through direct action.Neither would I, but the question is, do most workers see an induvidual act of symbolic vandalism as improving the lives of anyone? Or is it just a cry of frustration and impotence in being able to actually create an opposition?

In the lack of any militant movements, I see the attraction of these kinds of ideas and individual actions, but I think the problem is that these tactics are adapted to the idea that workers won't be militant and so it's not worth trying to organize and "sit in boring coalition meetings" because it will "just be taken over by liberals anyway". It's fatalism from the time of the anti-war movement when the coalitions weren't really democratic, leading to militant actions, or organizing in working class communities. But now, there's a lot more working class support for militant ideas and a willingness to break the law and take more militant action. So to have politics that have developed around the idea that workers are just passive until one day they will just stop, is actually missing an opportunity to reconnect radical politics organically with working class communities.

[Geiseric]

If workers were born with class consciousness, we'd be communist already. People learn through life experiances, so if we're not around to organize for Communism, the Nazis/Tea Party are that much closer to creating another bigot.

[Tim Finnegan]

People learn, sure, but why does that imply that they need to be taught?

[Franz Fanonipants]

Have I wronged you personally or something? Maybe you should take a break from all this internet and go outside.

pigs and infiltrators love to talk exclusively about illegal shit

quit acting like a pig

[Franz Fanonipants]

People learn, sure, but why does that imply that they need to be taught?

Pedagogy says: yes

[Jimmie Higgins]

People learn, sure, but why does that imply that they need to be taught?Taught from life experience or from a book or through discussions with people - that is not the issue. If people see radical politics as "the good word" to tell people, then they are already setting themselves up to fail.

So, as I see it, the point is not to "teach a bunch of passive people" (which is a straw-man anyway IMO) but to organize around working class consciousness. People who draw the conclusions about the need to fight for class interests or about opposing imperialism or whatever, need to organize together and consolidate their viewpoint in order to develop it and present it as a counter to the dominant ideas in society.

Yes this might me spreading ideas or making arguments sometimes, but this is necessary because "common sense" ideas are by default bourgeois "common sense" in our society. So if Republicans and Democrats don't have to go out an "teach people" to "support our troops" while we do have to try and spread ideas about capitalist crisis and imperialism and how these function, it doesn't mean that we're elitists and they are egalitarian - it just means that bourgeois ideas have hegemony and it takes more effort to organize counter to hegemonic ideas.

Daily life experience is fundamental to consciousness, but it doesn't automatically lead to working class consciousness since much of bourgeois ideology is set up to try and reconcile the class realities with the bourgeois myths. People experience racial inequalities in life, so the ruling class develops ideas to explain away this reality or to re-frame it.

[Geiseric]

Anybody can learn and some people it happens to naturally, but for those who it doesn't come naturally and who still think "the cops are here to help us!" or "Obama will fix all of our problems!" we need to clear that up, for obvious reasons. During the Great Depression, people still thought that Bourgeois politicians were on their side, while the banks were fucking over people on an unprecedented scale.

But think about Russia and how backwards the peasentry was. Many of them were illiterate and the cultural level was Midieval. Apply the same principle to most Black and Immigrant people in the U.S. who don't recieve an education. The illiteracy rate is astounding in most impoverished areas, so how can you expect people who are worried about surviving to worry about a revolution? You can't, that's why we need to "educate," people who otherwise would be too preoccupied to worry about Politics.

[Tim Finnegan]

Taught from life experience or from a book or through discussions with people - that is not the issue. If people see radical politics as "the good word" to tell people, then they are already setting themselves up to fail.

So, as I see it, the point is not to "teach a bunch of passive people" (which is a straw-man anyway IMO) but to organize around working class consciousness. People who draw the conclusions about the need to fight for class interests or about opposing imperialism or whatever, need to organize together and consolidate their viewpoint in order to develop it and present it as a counter to the dominant ideas in society.

Yes this might me spreading ideas or making arguments sometimes, but this is necessary because "common sense" ideas are by default bourgeois "common sense" in our society. So if Republicans and Democrats don't have to go out an "teach people" to "support our troops" while we do have to try and spread ideas about capitalist crisis and imperialism and how these function, it doesn't mean that we're elitists and they are egalitarian - it just means that bourgeois ideas have hegemony and it takes more effort to organize counter to hegemonic ideas.

Daily life experience is fundamental to consciousness, but it doesn't automatically lead to working class consciousness since much of bourgeois ideology is set up to try and reconcile the class realities with the bourgeois myths. People experience racial inequalities in life, so the ruling class develops ideas to explain away this reality or to re-frame it.
I don't disagree that a working class movement is constructed on a cultural as well as material level; that's actually something that I think a lot of the left-com discussions of the classical workers movement don't address in a particularly satisfying manner. But I don't think that this naturally implies that self-declared "concious" workers have a privileged position as compared to "unconscious" workers, that there is a "we" who need to organise for "their" benefit. There are certainly accumulated insights that the left can and should make available, lessons learned and histories transmitted, but those are things the significance of which the working class must decide for itself, not a canon packaged with received interpretations.

Even if you're right to say that this approach isn't simply about "spreading the good word", even to talk about "organising around class conciousness" seems to miss the mark. Class conciousness isn't a thing, a state of being to be achieved like a Stoic sagehood, it's relational: it is conciousness of something, and that something is the working class given concrete existence as a class-for-itself. The existence of the class-for-itself is the condition of authentic class conciousness, as opposed to mere ideology, so conciousness in a very general sense is an expression of proximity to the class-for-itself. (I don't regard myself as being class-concious, for example, because I am not a participant in a coherent class-for-itself. I'm just somebody who reads a lot of pamphlets.)

To talk about "organising for communism", as Syd does, is to place the cart before the horse, to pose communism as the driver and the working class as the vehicle by which it is realised, when in fact the working class is the driver, and communism, in the sense of the "real movement", is the vehicle of its self-liberation. The question isn't how we bring workers to the communist movement, a movement ontologically prior to their participation in it, but how workers come together with other workers that they might become the communist movement, as something which consists entirely and precisely in their organisation as workers. That involves a cultural and "educational" dimension, no doubt, and I don't think it's enough to assume- as some leftcoms seem to- that this is mere ephemera riding on the back of a purely material movement, but nor is it something prior to it, as if communism was just another ideology.

So I guess what I'm getting at, in this unnecessarily winding spiel of mine, is that while I entirely agree that the construction of a working class movement necessarily involves a cultural and thus "educational" dimension, being a "leftist" does not suggest that one has any greater insight than any other worker as to what that might mean, because the culture in question does not yet exist. We are not, whatever we like to think, the seeds of the future, the bearers of the sacred flame of 1917, because that isn't how culture works; it is created and recreated in every moment, particular rather than essential. All we can say is that we have access to the culture of the far-left c.2012, with absolutely no knowledge as to how or even if that will manifest itself in the culture of a future workers' movement. We are going to have to learn that as much as anyone; all we can say is that we have a few analytical tools at our disposal that might allow us to understand it more thoroughly.


But think about Russia and how backwards the peasentry was. Many of them were illiterate and the cultural level was Midieval. Apply the same principle to most Black and Immigrant people in the U.S. who don't recieve an education. The illiteracy rate is astounding in most impoverished areas, so how can you expect people who are worried about surviving to worry about a revolution? You can't, that's why we need to "educate," people who otherwise would be too preoccupied to worry about Politics.
If our politics isn't grounded in their preoccupations to begin with, then, with all due respect, why should they give a fuck what we have to say? We're not missionaries in the Congo, trying to "elevate" the "savage" to the level where they are capable of ingesting our wisdom. If our politics is not the articulation of the concrete experience of labour under capital- and of the resistance of labour to capital- then it's just more ideology, and that is the last thing the impoverished need.

[daft punk]

I've got theory. So just happens that my theory rules out the Workers' Revolutionary Socialist Party of Workers' Socialism (Bolshevist-Internationalist) being the axel on which history turns. It's not a position entirely without precedent, however little it may appeal to you.

Is your theory a secret or are you gonna share it with us one day.

[Leftsolidarity]

But I don't think that this naturally implies that self-declared "concious" workers have a privileged position as compared to "unconscious" workers, that there is a "we" who need to organise for "their" benefit.

But isn't there a "we"? Aren't we, the people on this board and other revolutionary leftist organizations/individuals, that "we"? It is not a seperation of us from "them" (the rest of the working class). It is that "we" form a subgroup within that working class.

We also (from my perspective) aren't, or at least should not be, organizing the rest of the working class. We are but providing ways for the rest working class to organize itself, which is what "we" have already done. We are the members of the working class thus far that have more-or-less organized ourselves and now it is our (from my view) responsibility to help the other of the working class to organize and to overthrow the capitalist system.


The question isn't how we bring workers to the communist movement, a movement ontologically prior to their participation in it, but how workers come together with other workers that they might become the communist movement, as something which consists entirely and precisely in their organisation as workers.



This seems to suggest that there is no communist movement at the moment.

[Rafiq]

Ideology as in 'set of beliefs': Rafiq is claiming to believe as a marxist that he doesn't have any beliefs.

Ideology as in 'the point of view of a class, and it's interests': Rafiq is claiming the working class view of the world isn't a view.

Ideology as in 'false belief': Rafiq is claiming marxism is perfect revealed truth.

This is what I refer to as "Ideology". The others, of course, if valid, allows us to suppose that every scientific mode of thought (even something like quantum physics) is an "Ideology".

Marxism is not the expression of hte interests of the proletarian class. It's something external from this, in nature. Communism, on the other hand, is the expression of the interests of the proletarian class.

Your invalidity resides within the notion that Marxism is a "Working class view". It isn't.



Rafiq is claiming that a belief about the ultimate nature of reality - more fundamenal than what's accessible to observational science and therefore beyond physics (meta-physical) - is not metaphysical.


The notion that Materialism implies "Everything is made of matter" of course is metaphysical. That isn't at all the point of Materialism, though. One could of course say Dialectical Materialism, isolated from Historical Materialism is metaphysical, no doubt. Though, Historical Materialism isn't metaphysical by any means.

[JustMovement]

Ideology as in 'set of beliefs': Rafiq is claiming to believe as a marxist that he doesn't have any beliefs.

Ideology as in 'the point of view of a class, and it's interests': Rafiq is claiming the working class view of the world isn't a view.

Ideology as in 'false belief': Rafiq is claiming marxism is perfect revealed truth.

Take your pick.



Rafiq is claiming that a belief about the ultimate nature of reality - more fundamenal than what's accessible to observational science and therefore beyond physics (meta-physical) - is not metaphysical.

Historical materialism is not the same as (metaphysical) materialism. Historical materialism is a theory of history, namely that society changes in accordance to the development of productive forces. It does not attempt to explain the "ultimate nature of reality".

Ideology, used in a Marxian sense, is the way that men make (distorted) sense of their place within the (capitalist) system while Marxism is a scientific understanding of the system (and so science does not equal ideology); to quote a blog I was reading about Althusser:

"ideology expresses, not the relationship between "men" and their conditions of existence, but the way they live, or imagine that relationship...giving them an imaginary relationship to their actual relation with the world, it distorts their real situation and binds them to the social structure."

http://leninology.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/louis-althusser-and-socialist-strategy.html

[Tim Finnegan]

Is your theory a secret or are you gonna share it with us one day.
It says "left communist" in my profile. Should give you some clue to how I think.


But isn't there a "we"? Aren't we, the people on this board and other revolutionary leftist organizations/individuals, that "we"? It is not a seperation of us from "them" (the rest of the working class). It is that "we" form a subgroup within that working class.

We also (from my perspective) aren't, or at least should not be, organizing the rest of the working class. We are but providing ways for the rest working class to organize itself, which is what "we" have already done. We are the members of the working class thus far that have more-or-less organized ourselves and now it is our (from my view) responsibility to help the other of the working class to organize and to overthrow the capitalist system.
I agree, but I don't think that this is how much of the organised left actually functions. Our grouplets are based around theory or principles, rather than participation in class struggle; around the abstract, rather than the concrete. I don't think that there's anything wrong with this in itself, simply that it does not constitute the organisation of workers as workers.


This seems to suggest that there is no communist movement at the moment.Could be. Depends on exactly how you understand communism. Speaking only for myself, I would tend towards a very broad interpretation; that any collective resistance to capital, be it something as utterly petty as two workers conspiring to take an extra five minutes for lunch, constitutes in the most fundamental sense a communism, simply a communism enfeebled by its isolation from the rest of the working class.

[Manic Impressive]

It says "left communist" in my profile. Should give you some clue to how I think.
So you've gone completely Leninist now? That's a shame but the label Left communist isn't exactly cohesive as it's made up of two opposing stances. So which is it have you gone Italian or Dutch?

[Geiseric]

It says "left communist" in my profile. Should give you some clue to how I think.


I agree, but I don't think that this is how much of the organised left actually functions. Our grouplets are based around theory or principles, rather than participation in class struggle; around the abstract, rather than the concrete. I don't think that there's anything wrong with this in itself, simply that it does not constitute the organisation of workers as workers.

Could be. Depends on exactly how you understand communism. Speaking only for myself, I would tend towards a very broad interpretation; that any collective resistance to capital, be it something as utterly petty as two workers conspiring to take an extra five minutes for lunch, constitutes in the most fundamental sense a communism, simply a communism enfeebled by its isolation from the rest of the working class.

So what do you recommend for the next step foward? I would consider myself working class, class conscious working class, so should I move to aggitate and educate people on issues that they may be unaware of? Should I not of organized the student walkout on March 1st (anti-cuts) earlier this year? Because I know for a fact that me and a few other people kicked it off with a few meetings, did a shitload of work, and then people came out and supported it. And it didn't feel like I was "Educating those dumb lazy students into revolution!" It just felt like I was leading people for something we all believe in.

In the mean time, I had to deal with people who didn't know what the point was, who were disillusioned with knowing or participating in politics at all, and who had too much to risk by walking out. Those are the challenges we come on, so how would you deal with those kind of apathetic, demoralized, and alienated attitudes other than by forming an engine of people who know the answers to the questions that the working class raises?

[Kronsteen]

Historical materialism is not the same as (metaphysical) materialism.

You're getting confused between historical materialism and dialectical materialism, which is the topic under discussion.


Ideology, used in a Marxian sense, is the way that men make (distorted) sense of their place within the (capitalist) system

That's one way marxists use the term. We also use it to refer to beliefs foisted on the population by the rulers to justify their rule.



Ideology as in 'false belief'
This is what I refer to as "Ideology".

But not all false belief is ideological. Only false belief which serves the interests of a group or class - generally the ruling class.


Marxism is not the expression of hte interests of the proletarian class. It's something external from this,

So you're saying Marxism isn't a viewpoint, it's the objective truth, from no viewpoint. The kind of viewpoint only a god could have. So you're agreeing that you view marxism as the revealed truth.

It's not difficult to see why some people dismiss marxism as a religion.


Dialectical Materialism, isolated from Historical Materialism is metaphysical, no doubt. Though, Historical Materialism isn't metaphysical by any means.

Historical materialism is (according to Plekhanov, Lenin and Trotsky) the application of dialectical materialism to human history and political struggle.

Dialectical materialism is, you agree, metaphysical. But you say it's application somehow isn't.

[Geiseric]

What does "metaphysical," mean?

[Railyon]

What does "metaphysical," mean?
as Kronsteen wrote,



a belief about the ultimate nature of reality - more fundamenal than what's accessible to observational science and therefore beyond physics (meta-physical)

[Geiseric]

Oh, well in that case I can see Dialectics as meta physical. It's just the attempt of finding truth from two polar different world viewpoints, when rhetoric and debate are trying to get a point across. I never really realised it but inadvertently I was led to Marxism by Dialectics...

[Rafiq]

But not all false belief is ideological. Only false belief which serves the interests of a group or class - generally the ruling class.

Friend, this is not what I meant. I was reffering to this as what I mean by Ideological:
Ideology as in 'the point of view of a class, and it's interests': Rafiq is claiming the working class view of the world isn't a view.

Hence why I bolded it.



So you're saying Marxism isn't a viewpoint, it's the objective truth, from no viewpoint. The kind of viewpoint only a god could have. So you're agreeing that you view marxism as the revealed truth.


That's absurdity. Of course Marxism is not an objective truth, but it certainly isn't a reflection of the interests of the proletarian class. Marxism, if you want to call it a science, is our very means of analyzing what is called a proletarian, or the proletariat, a means of analyzing capitalist society and aspects of human history.

Is quantum physics and ideology? Where is it's class basis? Perhaps, we could say, and maybe this might be a step away from Marx, but there is a certain grain of truth in the notion that perhaps the several Social Sciences of several currents of academia, perhaps, are not directly a reflection of the interests of a class, in the classical Marxian sense. Of course there are several, several exceptions, it's jsut that Marxism isn't one of them. Or, at the very least, Classical Marxism, as the Marxism that many think of today, for example, the "Vulgarized" Marxism of Leninists, or of Libertarians, etc. is to some extent class based. But the core structural makeup of Marxism itself is not an ideology, and not the "World view" of the proletarian class. It is something entirely different from a direct reflection of the affairs of the several classes in relation to one and other.



It's not difficult to see why some people dismiss marxism as a religion.


It isn't difficult, you're right. They rely on false pressuposions about Marxism in order to come to such a conclusion.


Historical materialism is (according to Plekhanov, Lenin and Trotsky) the application of dialectical materialism to human history and political struggle.


Dialectical Materialism, as in the explanation for the Universe, perhaps is to some extent metaphysical. Historical Materialism is not metaphysical by any means whatsoever. It is strictly a means of understanding the several relations humans have to each other and the entities of which they unintentionally produce.


Dialectical materialism is, you agree, metaphysical. But you say it's application somehow isn't.


It depends what you are trying to say by Dialectical Materialism. The dialectical Materialism that is intertwined with Historical Materialism is not. But the dialectical materialism, which tries to explain the several laws and motion of matter has a lot of metaphysical aspects of it.

[theblackmask]

pigs and infiltrators love to talk exclusively about illegal shit

quit acting like a pig

Pigs and infiltrators love to accuse people of being pigs and infiltrators

quit acting like a pig

[Hiero]

no you don't. but when you debate on something, and someone has a better understanding of it than you, they're likely to win. that's not just leftist politics, it's anything.

That is the competitive nature of our society, and sadly it has spilled onto revleft. Not every debate should be about wining, not every discussion should be about debating.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Pigs and infiltrators love to accuse people of being pigs and infiltrators

quit acting like a pig

lol yeah

[Kronsteen]

Of course Marxism is not an objective truth, but it certainly isn't a reflection of the interests of the proletarian class.

I rather thought a proletarian revolution was in the interests of the proletarian class. It's certainly not in the interests of any other class.

And if it's not the interests of some group being served by a revolution...what is the point of having a revolution at all?


Marxism, if you want to call it a science, is our very means of analyzing what is called a proletarian, or the proletariat, a means of analyzing capitalist society and aspects of human history.

Your syntax is quite difficult to follow, so I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

I don't want to call marxism a science. More like a project for political change which produces bits and pieces of theory as and when they're needed.

The 'means of analysing' is a very loosely defined set of methods - just like the methods used to theorise biology. In neither case is there a master key or single procedure.


Is quantum physics and ideology? Where is it's class basis?

That's like asking what is the class basis of arithmetic. Or what's the class basis of the periodic table.

A case could be made that any accurate description of any part reality is in the interests of any class that's being lied to. But it's a pretty abstract case.



the "Vulgarized" Marxism of Leninists, or of Libertarians, etc. is to some extent class based.

Aha! So you reject the philosophical doodles of Lenin? Me too!


It isn't difficult, you're right. They rely on false pressuposions about Marxism in order to come to such a conclusion.

That's an argument about the 'real' marxism, by which I suppose you mean the later writings of Marx, some of Engels, but not Lenin or Trotsky. Not sure about Luxembourg.

Which is fair enough, but it does mean the great majority of marxists 'rely on false pressuposions about Marxism'.


Dialectical Materialism, as in the explanation for the Universe, perhaps is to some extent metaphysical. Historical Materialism is not metaphysical by any means whatsoever.

Plekhanov explicitly wrote that Historical Materialism is Dialectical Materialism applied to history.

But I'm guessing you reject Plekhanov. Though if I recall correctly (and tell me if I'm wrong), the term 'Historical Materialism' isn't in Marx or Engels. You'd probably argue that the idea is there even if the term isn't.

As for Dialectical Materialism being 'to some extent metaphysical', both terms seem entirely metaphysical to me. For instance:

* The universe is entirely made of something called 'matter' - which rather resembles the old notion of 'ether'.
* Every category contains its contrary category - though these categories are presumably purely mental, so not present in matter.
* For spatial movement to occur, a piece of matter has to be in two places at once.


It depends what you are trying to say by Dialectical Materialism. The dialectical Materialism that is intertwined with Historical Materialism is not. But the dialectical materialism, which tries to explain the several laws and motion of matter has a lot of metaphysical aspects of it.

So now there's two Dialectical Materialisms?! Maybe one of society and one of nature?

[Leftsolidarity]

That is the competitive nature of our society, and sadly it has spilled onto revleft. Not every debate should be about wining, not every discussion should be about debating.

lol wut?

It sounds like you're just upset about being made to look like a fool in debates.

This is a place where leftists come to discuss things. Many of us hold differing views so we debate them. Some ideas are correct and some are incorrect. In turn, there will be "winners" and "losers" in debates. Sometimes it all comes down to opinion so it becomes who can make their view more appealing.

These are not bad things. Debating helps us become better at getting your views across, re-evaluation of your own views, learning the thought processes of others, and expanding our knowledge.

[Rusty Shackleford]

for me, the main thing was understanding the basics of marxism. like the core points of materialism, a shaky understanding of dialectics, a decent understanding of history, and then the economics. really from there you can launch into anything and have a grounding for where you need to apply certain concepts. what you should focus on learning is what you need to know. for me right now, studying most of the basic points of marxism are out the window and i need to know how to organize a union(trust me, its totally different field) and be aware of the current US political scene instead.

[Loony]

There is just so many things you have to know. You have to be an expert across the board;

you have to know everything about war and its history, economic history and theory, current economic trends, geography, languages, philosophy, a little bit of technology, and on and on.

How do you deal with it?

I feel equally overwhelmed. The more I read the more apparent it becomes how little I know.

I think maybe the most important thing is know that what you believe is in your heart and not just in your head. After that reading and gaining knowledge is like building on to a foundation.

[Hiero]

lol wut?

It sounds like you're just upset about being made to look like a fool in debates.



When have I been made to look like a fool?


This is a place where leftists come to discuss things.

Discussions does not mean debate or argument.



Many of us hold differing views so we debate them. Some ideas are correct and some are incorrect. In turn, there will be "winners" and "losers" in debates. Sometimes it all comes down to opinion so it becomes who can make their view more appealing.

These are not bad things. Debating helps us become better at getting your views across, re-evaluation of your own views, learning the thought processes of others, and expanding our knowledge.

This contradicts with revolutionary praxis. Leftsolidarity, in contradiction to the image you project, you embody the very hegonomic discourses we are taught throughout the state structures and popular culture.

Lots of people lack the ability to be able to discuss and work in disagreement. This site is an example where people lack investigative rigour and rarely ask questions.

What you propose is a very competitive approach that is taught through Western education, which is harmful to an organisation or group of like minded individuals whose plan is to change that society. You propose a simplified approach that you have to lose to re-evaulate your situation rather that reevaluate through the processes of dialogue and action, the procces should be dynamic.

Bourgeois politicians win debates on economy, welfare, politics and culture all the time in the political race, that does not mean they are right. Why would you want to incorporate that into a revolutionary situation.

Secondly you are right, I do not want to be made fool in a debate. If I have something to say, I should be shown respect to be heard, it can be denied, accepted, incorporated or it can be left for later to be seen if it is true. I could bring something to a discussion that can not be proved in the immediate and only in the progression of action (not to propose stale empiricism but this would be important for say working on activism where you need praxis, not narcistic debate).

On that point, you actually discourage people from engaging in disucssion. These can be the very people who you want to attract to a revolutionary organisation. If someone has not had formal education they can still have a wealth of knowledge, but not the articulation to forward this knowledge. Having such a narcistic ethic of winning and losing will intimidate such people from engaging. That would in turn not develop their communication skills. You can't teach someone by humiliating them.

Your position is overall a naive dialectics and not a dynamic position aimed at progress. What you propose is an narcsitic spectacle where we sit in order and listen to two people try to win each other over based on articulation and not on relevance, importance, fact and usefullness. When we are trying to change society, why would we incorporate the system's dicourses which are built on power and oppression?

[TrotskistMarx]

Dear friend, what leads to greatness is not really knowledge, it is humility, love, generosity, solidarity, compassion, honesty and friendlyness with people. That can make you a great leftist leader, a lot more knowledge. Besides there are no absolute truths in this world. Just interpretation of those truths. But try to be as humble and as friendly and loving as you can with everybody, with your friends, families and even with capitalists.

Thanks


.



There is just so many things you have to know. You have to be an expert across the board;

you have to know everything about war and its history, economic history and theory, current economic trends, geography, languages, philosophy, a little bit of technology, and on and on.

How do you deal with it?

[TrotskistMarx]

Indeed, and I support knowledge book-reading habits, book-reading skills, and lots of book-reading stamina, and knowledge of philosophy, great philosophers, psychology, sociology and the great marxist writters. But like you said there is an important element that I think the whole world left needs to work on a lot harder which is humility, generosity, open mind mentality for united-frontism, putting away the petty differences, love and working toward the goal of overthrowing the capitalist governments, and replacing them with workers-governments composed of united-fronts of leftist parties in all countries of this world

.



When have I been made to look like a fool?



Discussions does not mean debate or argument.



This contradicts with revolutionary praxis. Leftsolidarity, in contradiction to the image you project, you embody the very hegonomic discourses we are taught throughout the state structures and popular culture.

Lots of people lack the ability to be able to discuss and work in disagreement. This site is an example where people lack investigative rigour and rarely ask questions.

What you propose is a very competitive approach that is taught through Western education, which is harmful to an organisation or group of like minded individuals whose plan is to change that society. You propose a simplified approach that you have to lose to re-evaulate your situation rather that reevaluate through the processes of dialogue and action, the procces should be dynamic.

Bourgeois politicians win debates on economy, welfare, politics and culture all the time in the political race, that does not mean they are right. Why would you want to incorporate that into a revolutionary situation.

Secondly you are right, I do not want to be made fool in a debate. If I have something to say, I should be shown respect to be heard, it can be denied, accepted, incorporated or it can be left for later to be seen if it is true. I could bring something to a discussion that can not be proved in the immediate and only in the progression of action (not to propose stale empiricism but this would be important for say working on activism where you need praxis, not narcistic debate).

On that point, you actually discourage people from engaging in disucssion. These can be the very people who you want to attract to a revolutionary organisation. If someone has not had formal education they can still have a wealth of knowledge, but not the articulation to forward this knowledge. Having such a narcistic ethic of winning and losing will intimidate such people from engaging. That would in turn not develop their communication skills. You can't teach someone by humiliating them.

Your position is overall a naive dialectics and not a dynamic position aimed at progress. What you propose is an narcsitic spectacle where we sit in order and listen to two people try to win each other over based on articulation and not on relevance, importance, fact and usefullness. When we are trying to change society, why would we incorporate the system's dicourses which are built on power and oppression?

[Rafiq]

I rather thought a proletarian revolution was in the interests of the proletarian class. It's certainly not in the interests of any other class.

Indeed, however Marxism doesn't equate proletarian revolution. A Marxist may come to the conclusion that proletarian revolution is to be supported, given his understanding of the capitalist mode of production, but this isn't always the case (As members of the ruling class can most definitely be Marxists).


And if it's not the interests of some group being served by a revolution...what is the point of having a revolution at all?


Again, you're presupposing Marxism being some kind of Ideological vanguard of the proletariat, it is not.


Your syntax is quite difficult to follow, so I'm not sure what you're arguing here.


The point is that Marxism is the method in which we define and analyze what a proletarian is, not necessarily an ideology which is the embodiment of it's interests.


I don't want to call marxism a science. More like a project for political change which produces bits and pieces of theory as and when they're needed.


That's not Marxism, that's socialism. If anything, it's post Kautsky Marxism, which includes Kautsky (obviously) to every current Marxian Socialist party.

Marxism most definitely is not a project for political change, and it's theoretical composition certainly doesn't exist to achieve this.


The 'means of analysing' is a very loosely defined set of methods - just like the methods used to theorise biology. In neither case is there a master key or single procedure.


Historical Materialism isn't loosely defined at all.


That's like asking what is the class basis of arithmetic. Or what's the class basis of the periodic table.


The comparisons don't hold up as those are singular, Marxism is the composition of a wide range of concepts and means of analyzing them. If there was ever a real current of Darwin's thinking that wasn't bastardized, than Darwinism would be much more comparable.


A case could be made that any accurate description of any part reality is in the interests of any class that's being lied to. But it's a pretty abstract case.


I don't follow here... Not every current of Scientific thought is necessarily inherent to the interests of a certain class.


Aha! So you reject the philosophical doodles of Lenin? Me too!


No, I'm very much a Leninist only in the Bordigist sense.


That's an argument about the 'real' marxism, by which I suppose you mean the later writings of Marx, some of Engels, but not Lenin or Trotsky. Not sure about Luxembourg.


That's quite subjective. I consider aspects of all three of those people to have deviations from Marxism, but I don't see Trotsky as ever being a useful Marxist in anyway. As for Lenin and Luxemburg, I hold them both as Marxists to an extent. I am, after all, an Orthodox Marxist.


Which is fair enough, but it does mean the great majority of marxists 'rely on false pressuposions about Marxism'.


Indeed. One must only take a glance at the clusterfuck we call Marxism Leninism, or "Trotskyism" in order to realize this.


Plekhanov explicitly wrote that Historical Materialism is Dialectical Materialism applied to history.


Yes, and I've stated that the Dialectical Materialism intertwined with Historical Materialism isn't necessarily metaphysical, but the one that serves as an explanation for the Universe is.


But I'm guessing you reject Plekhanov. Though if I recall correctly (and tell me if I'm wrong), the term 'Historical Materialism' isn't in Marx or Engels. You'd probably argue that the idea is there even if the term isn't.


There's a lot to disagree no doubt. But I don't fully reject him.


As for Dialectical Materialism being 'to some extent metaphysical', both terms seem entirely metaphysical to me. For instance:

* The universe is entirely made of something called 'matter' - which rather resembles the old notion of 'ether'.


Yes, this is the Dialectical Materialism which serves as an explanation for the Universe.


* Every category contains its contrary category - though these categories are presumably purely mental, so not present in matter.


When applied to Social analyzation, it is sometimes effective in understanding a lot of things (For example, Labor and Capital, and so on). It's just a formula that is used to analyze X mode of production and the social relations within it.


* For spatial movement to occur, a piece of matter has to be in two places at once.


To some extent Metaphysical, yes.


So now there's two Dialectical Materialisms?! Maybe one of society and one of nature?


Yes, the terms are indeed loosely defined. As you said, Marx and Engels never spoke of Historical Materialism. I would just consider Historical Materialism the one in regards to Society, but as I've heard there is a current of Marxian thought which abandons Dialectical Materialism but still adheres to Historical Materialism, so it would be somewhat inappropriate to categorize historical materialism as inherently Dialectical.

[JustMovement]

Just for the record I dont think dialectics must necessarily imply any metaphysics. I prefer to think of it as a method of conceptualisation applied to the human sciences. I think its wrong to transfer it to the natural sciences.

I do get what rafiq is saying though. Marxism is a way to analyse society. It doesnt necessarily imply any political action, because you cannot move from describing what is to what should be. Socialism is the political movement that uses a marxism analysis.

The two things are not that clear cut though because Marx kind of mixes both of those things together, as in he writes as both a social scientist and a political theorist at the same time.