Conservative Marxism

[Capitalist Octopus]

*Before I dive into this, I apologize if I've posted it before. I have a vague memory of doing so, but no post history... So maybe it was a dream. Anyways*

Have you encountered any conservative Marxists? If we take Marxism to be an account of how the world works (think the way Rafiq describes it) then it doesn't necessarily follow that one needs to want the proletariat class to rise, be sympathetic to that, or do anything to aid it. In fact, they could celebrate or aim to be in the bourgeois class, knowing full well what it entails, without any of the capitalist feel good myths.

Am I wrong to ask this? Do you think most conservatives do view society in this way? Any thoughts on this would be appreciated as it's been baffling me a bit lately.

[Questionable]

They may certainly exist but if someone feels this way then they've misunderstood Marxism. Capitalism cannot last forever. Either the revolutionary proletariat will displace the bourgeoisie, or capital will continue to expand until it consumes everything and collapses upon itself, which could happen in a thousand different ways.

Socialism or barbarism.

[Capitalist Octopus]

They may certainly exist but if someone feels this way then they've misunderstood Marxism. Capitalism cannot last forever. Either the revolutionary proletariat will displace the bourgeoisie, or capital will continue to expand until it consumes everything and collapses upon itself, which could happen in a thousand different ways.

Socialism or barbarism.

I don't think it means that they have misunderstood Marxism.
For example, let's say I'm a 20 year old male, who does not plan on having kids, and will likely live to be ... 80.
The chances of a world wide revolution destroying the capitalist system in the next 60 years are probably worse than my chances of finding my way somehow into the bourgeois class.

If the bourgeois class is displaced after my death, who cares? I'm in it for the material benefits. #YOLO.

Do you still think they would necessarily have to mistake it then?

[Questionable]

I don't think it means that they have misunderstood Marxism.
For example, let's say I'm a 20 year old male, who does not plan on having kids, and will likely live to be ... 80.
The chances of a world wide revolution destroying the capitalist system in the next 60 years are probably worse than my chances of finding my way somehow into the bourgeois class.

If the bourgeois class is displaced after my death, who cares? I'm in it for the material benefits. #YOLO.

Do you still think they would necessarily have to mistake it then?

Well sure, hypothetically speaking you could have a full knowledge of what capitalism implies and just say "Fuck the world" and go along with it anyway. I don't know of any individuals like this, but I suppose there's nothing stopping you as long as you realize that capital will eventually self-destruct.

[Capitalist Octopus]

Well sure, hypothetically speaking you could have a full knowledge of what capitalism implies and just say "Fuck the world" and go along with it anyway. I don't know of any individuals like this, but I suppose there's nothing stopping you as long as you realize that capital will eventually self-destruct.

Yeah.
I honestly feel as though it may be more common than we think.
Does every rich capitalist really believe in capitalist myths about why they got where they did? Or do they just genuinely not care, but cover it up to avoid the obvious negative repercussions of being a raging asshole. Interesting..

[NGNM85]

*Before I dive into this, I apologize if I've posted it before. I have a vague memory of doing so, but no post history... So maybe it was a dream. Anyways*

Have you encountered any conservative Marxists? If we take Marxism to be an account of how the world works (think the way Rafiq describes it) then it doesn't necessarily follow that one needs to want the proletariat class to rise, be sympathetic to that, or do anything to aid it. In fact, they could celebrate or aim to be in the bourgeois class, knowing full well what it entails, without any of the capitalist feel good myths.

Am I wrong to ask this? Do you think most conservatives do view society in this way? Any thoughts on this would be appreciated as it's been baffling me a bit lately.

I would take a lot of what comrade Rafiq says with a large grain of salt.

Marxian economics is politically neutral. One can observe a vulgarized version of this among the elites, and their proxies. Marxism, however, is anything but neutral. Marx was unabashedly, unequivocally on the side of the working class.

All you are really discovering, and it's hardly a secret, is that the emancipation of mankind is a moral imperative.

[Capitalist Octopus]

I would take a lot of what comrade Rafiq says with a large grain of salt.

Marxian economics is politically neutral. One can observe a vulgarized version of this among the elites, and their proxies. Marxism, however, is anything but neutral. Marx was unabashedly, unequivocally on the side of the working class.

All you are really discovering, and it's hardly a secret, is that the emancipation of mankind is a moral imperative.

I mean I don't think I'm discovering anything, I'm just more interested in hearing if anyone has an experience with a conservative Marxist. Because to me it makes perfect sense that you could uphold Marx's perception of the world while being opposed to the changes he prescribes (or claims are inevitable).

Also, let's assume this is the case. Where would the revolutionary marxist go from there in a discourse with the conservative Marxist? Would they make an idealistic moralistic argument to try to convince the other to support class struggle? And let's assume it isn't in the class interest of the conservative marxist for this to happen.

[NGNM85]

I mean I don't think I'm discovering anything, I'm just more interested in hearing if anyone has an experience with a conservative Marxist. Because to me it makes perfect sense that you could uphold Marx's perception of the world while being opposed to the changes he prescribes (or claims are inevitable).

What you really mean to say is a Right-winger who believes in Marxian economics. Like I said; there are a number of individuals on the right who subscribe to a sort of vulgarized version of Marxism. However; none of these people study the literature. They're not spending their evenings pouring over Kautsky, and Bordiga. I don't think anybody like that actually exists. It's more usually more instinctual, more subconscious.


Also, let's assume this is the case. Where would the revolutionary marxist go from there in a discourse with the conservative Marxist? Would they make an idealistic moralistic argument to try to convince the other to support class struggle? And let's assume it isn't in the class interest of the conservative marxist for this to happen.

I still take issue with the language.

In any case; yes, the only arguments for Socialism that would be applicable to such a person, presuming they were fairly wealthy, would be moral ones. So what? Again; the emancipation of the working class is, at it's heart, a moral imperative, anyhow. Nobody's really involved in the Socialist movement, to the extent that it exists, to improve their station in life, because there isn't any indication that doing so will improve their station in life. If you want a better standard of living; you should try to find a better job, or get a second job, or get a degree, or make some smart investments, etc. I'm not telling you that you should abandon the Radical Left, I'm just pointing out that you that it isn't likely to increase your standard of living, which you, and everyone else, probably already knows. The fact that I'm in a labor union, or the fact that come from blue collar family, or that I grew up in an affluent suburb where working-class people like me were viewed as peasants, all of these things certainly influenced my gravitation towards Socialism, certainly. However; that's not why I am a Socialist, today. That's not why I will continue to be a Socialist. I will continue to be a Socialist because it is right, because in or modern age, the exploitation, and degradation that billions of people experience, daily, as a direct, and inevitable consequence of that system, is unnecessary, and more importantly; it's inexcusable. The emancipation of mankind, the very beating heart of Socialism, is a moral imperative.

[Let's Get Free]

The author Christopher Lasch has been described as a conservative Marxist.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Karl Marx felt that the transition from capitalism to another form of economic development was a positive development for humanity.

So being any sort of Marxist while being opposed to some sort of transition out of capitalism...that doesn't make much sense.

[Popular Front of Judea]

There is a profound difference between using Marxist analysis and being a self-identified Marxist. There is nothing inherently revolutionary about the labor theory of value, capitalist icon Adam Smith used it.

When I look back at the last 30 odd years it's arguable the neoliberal right were far better "Marxists" than their liberal/Labor opposition -- whether it is Thatcher breaking the miners or the present struggle in the States to bust public sector unions. Clearly their structural analysis has been superior. Being on the left is like being like Wil E Coyote in a Roadrunner film, being always one step behind.

[Hit The North]

What you really mean to say is a Right-winger who believes in Marxian economics. Like I said; there are a number of individuals on the right who subscribe to a sort of vulgarized version of Marxism.

They would have to have a vulgarized version, though, wouldn't they? Vulgarized to the point where Marx's analysis was considered as politically neutral. Because it's not like Marx's analysis of capitalism doesn't introduce its supercession as absolutely necessary!

On the contrary. Besides the LTV, which explains how accumulation of capital is possible, Marx also shows how that accumulation becomes its own impediment and shows how this is at the heart of the system and how it results in periodic crisis. All of these moments are in a chain that begins when a worker shakes hands with a capitalist.

But the upshot is that the Marxist theory of capitalism sees its termination and the potential destruction of society as historically inevitable. It also calls on the working class to throw off their chains, seeing this as the precondition for capitalism's supercession and the move towards the next higher mode of production. Without, conceding to these points, the 'conservative Marxist' might have certain economic convictions but they could not be described as Marxist.

So a conservative Marxist would either be in a state of ignorance about Marxism or in a permanent state of self-contradiction.

I mean, I guess it's possible that this character is also extremely nihilistic and welcomes the collapse of human society and so doesn't need to embrace the normative politics of Marxism...

But I'm tired of this hypothetical character already. He should fuck off.

[NGNM85]

They would have to have a vulgarized version, though, wouldn't they? Vulgarized to the point where Marx's analysis was considered as politically neutral. Because it's not like Marx's analysis of capitalism doesn't introduce its supercession as absolutely necessary!

Yeah; but that doesn't mean that this will happen in their lifetime. Furthermore; if they are above a certain standard of living, this might not be desirable.


On the contrary. Besides the LTV, which explains how accumulation of capital is possible, Marx also shows how that accumulation becomes its own impediment and shows how this is at the heart of the system and how it results in periodic crisis. All of these moments are in a chain that begins when a worker shakes hands with a capitalist.

Yup.


But the upshot is that the Marxist theory of capitalism sees its termination and the potential destruction of society as historically inevitable.

Marx probably believed that, but I don't. To be fair; Marx could not have conceived of nuclear weapons, anthropogenic climate change, or genetically engineered pathogens. While our government may be devided on these issues, the military, oddly enough, is not. The pentagon pretty much regards a terrorist attack utilizing a 'dirty bomb', within the continental United States as inevitable, an attack using an atomic bomb, either by a terrorist group, or a state, as likely. It predicts humanitarian disaster, increase in the spread of diseases, refugee crises, etc. The reports aren't classified. It's a pretty bleak picture. So; the destruction of society may very well be inevitable, but it is not inevitable that humanity will survive it.


It also calls on the working class to throw off their chains, seeing this as the precondition for capitalism's supercession and the move towards the next higher mode of production.
Without, conceding to these points, the 'conservative Marxist' might have certain economic convictions but they could not be described as Marxist.

That's what I said.


So a conservative Marxist would either be in a state of ignorance about Marxism or in a permanent state of self-contradiction.

Like I said; they wouldn't be a; 'conservative Marxist' they would be a; 'Conservative' (There aren't any real Conservatives, anymore.) who subscribes to Marxian economics.


I mean, I guess it's possible that this character is also extremely nihilistic and welcomes the collapse of human society and so doesn't need to embrace the normative politics of Marxism...

But I'm tired of this hypothetical character already. He should fuck off.

Agreed.

[Art Vandelay]

Christopher Hitchens later in his life, comes to mind.

[NGNM85]

Christopher Hitchens later in his life, comes to mind.

I read an article about Hitchens, I think it was in The Atlantic, the author said, and I'm paraphrasing a bit, here; 'Hitchens was a practicing Trotskyist his whole life, he just didn't practice hard enough.' They phrased it slightly differently, I can't remember exactly; but that cracked me up, a bit.

[graffic]

No, I don't think conservatives view the world in that way. I think most of them are reactionaries. Some of them are champagne socialists who give money to the poor out of guilt and some are religious but their corpulent wealth compromises their ideology or religion.

It's very difficult to be very wealthy and religious or be very wealthy and be a genuine socialist.

[Rafiq]

*Before I dive into this, I apologize if I've posted it before. I have a vague memory of doing so, but no post history... So maybe it was a dream. Anyways*

Have you encountered any conservative Marxists? If we take Marxism to be an account of how the world works (think the way Rafiq describes it) then it doesn't necessarily follow that one needs to want the proletariat class to rise, be sympathetic to that, or do anything to aid it. In fact, they could celebrate or aim to be in the bourgeois class, knowing full well what it entails, without any of the capitalist feel good myths.

Am I wrong to ask this? Do you think most conservatives do view society in this way? Any thoughts on this would be appreciated as it's been baffling me a bit lately.

To be a member of the bourgeois class and remain a Marxist is perfectly possible, without going out of your way to funnel millions to revolutionary organisations so they'll spare you. Bourgeois ideology is incompatible with Marxism, however the two can coexist in somewhat of a bizarre and obscene way. Any Marxist, though, recognizes that one of the most significant contradictions within the capitalist mode of production is class contradiction, and any Marxist recognizes the only class capable of doing away with the capitalist mode of production is the revolutionary proletariat. A member of the bourgeois class can live his life as a Marxist and contribute absolutely nothing to the revolution, and remain a Marxism. You can be a Marxist without being a revolutionary Communist. Social conservatists rely on idealist and ideological presupposions, about "tradition", usually religious in nature excluding your occasional bizarre irreligious-nationalism that we have seen with Fascism. No, you cannot remain a conservative and still remain a Marxist. Not because Marxism is inherently, politically revolutionary, but because it is not (The likes of Kautsky, Lenin had to condition it for being politically revolutionary within their own respective times) ideological. Conservatives rely on the notion that all of human history has essentially been the same and reject notions of social revolution, (I.e. what distinguishes Feudalism from Capitalism are just "new guys" taking the place of the old, and so on).

[Rafiq]

Christopher Hitchens later in his life, comes to mind.

Christopher called himself a "very conservative Marxist" but that doesn't necessarily mean he was a social conservative, he was (according to him) a conservative Marxist in that he preferred to retain the legacy of Marxism. Of course, I don't know of any traditional Marxists who claim the first world war was a result of religious beliefs, or claim 9/11 happened simply because of religion and not the conditions which birth religious fundamentalism. Galloway, that idiot, however I recall a grain of truth coming from him at an Amercian forum of sorts where he was being bood by the crowd, simply for asserting that the Middle East truly had degenerated into an even worse shit hole and that religious fundamentalism was a result of Imperialism, etc. while next to him Hitchens attacked him for being "soft" on the terrorists. Hitchens is an opportunist, really.

[NGNM85]

Hitchens is an opportunist, really.

I agree.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Bourgeois ideology is incompatible with Marxism, however the two can coexist in somewhat of a bizarre and obscene way.

Arguably, the obscene coexistence of Marxism and bourgeois ideology isn't "bizarre" at all, given the birth of Marxism out of liberal-scientific ideology. Marx's attitude toward progress and the progressive role of capital has meant that Marxism has often acted as a theoretical vanguard of capitalist development (theoretically, and in practice), running out ahead to understand the inevitable crises of capitalism. Certainly, the "left" emerging out of Marxism, and its various organizations, are deeply complicit in the emergence of the contemporary state-capitalist order / "empire". Whether or not a "conservative Marxism" is possible is a muddy matter in this context, since, at this point, s'all ideology (in the pejorative sense of the term used by Marx).

<3

[Rafiq]

That is true, but I'm talking about Bourgeois-Liberalism, i.e. Universal human rights, humanism, etc. Young Marx.

[Ostrinski]

Marxism is not itself a political doctrine. There have been Marxist political doctrines in the form of the Second, Third, and Fourth Internationals as well as in the form of the various outfits of the communist left.

Marxism itself is merely an application to historical and social study. The materialist conception of history, the fulcram of Marxism, is the method that Marxists use to understand all things social, historical, and economic with regard to both the past and present. Conservatives in my experience tend not to appreciate attempts to place things into historical context, which is what historical materialism is all about. They uphold certain ideals, certain values, certain principles that they want to, or think they can, impose on the rest of society.

This is what we mean we say that conservatives are idealists. Through their adoration of these (what often seem to us) bizarre perspectives, they disregard the Marxist understanding of the importance of always relating the existing ideological currents and how they manifest themselves into more socio-personal characteristics such as morals and principles and ideals, to the concrete social conditions that breed them.

Of course, liberalism itself is an idealistic doctrine, of which conservatism is only one strand.

Now, are there people who call themselves Marxists who at the same time harbor these idealistic tendencies? Absolutely. Does it mean that they are genuine Marxists? No!

And, while championing the bourgeois class would certainly be bizarre I don't think it would necessarily constitute a conservative worldview. There are plenty of progressives out there who feel the same adoration for the ruling class.

[Hit The North]

Marxism is not itself a political doctrine...

Marxism itself is merely an application to historical and social study. The materialist conception of history, the fulcram of Marxism, is the method that Marxists use to understand all things social, historical, and economic with regard to both the past and present.

I'm not sure Marx would agree:


Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it. Source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/index.htm) So if Marxism is merely a way of understanding the world, but not a project for changing it, then Marx will have considered himself a failure.

Those who think that Marxism is just a theory or that the economics can be safely separated out from the politics, forgets that Marx himself was a fierce political agitator and that he considered his major works to be blows struck in the class struggle.

[Hit The North]

That is true, but I'm talking about Bourgeois-Liberalism, i.e. Universal human rights, humanism, etc. Young Marx.

Young Marx? Whatever are you talking about?

[thethinveil]

Hmm there is of course the neo-cons who were made of former new york jewish communists who later after 67 changed their views on American power. Was Irving Kristol a trot?

[Rafiq]

I'm not sure Marx would agree:

So if Marxism is merely a way of understanding the world, but not a project for changing it, then Marx will have considered himself a failure.

Those who think that Marxism is just a theory or that the economics can be safely separated out from the politics, forgets that Marx himself was a fierce political agitator and that he considered his major works to be blows struck in the class struggle.

Not everything that came out of Marx's mouth is part of what we call Marxism. Had Darwin been a communist, it would have had nothing to do with evolutionary biology.

[Rafiq]

Young Marx? Whatever are you talking about?

Young Marx as in, the hegelian opiated Marx. Didn't we discuss this before? I abandoned that thread after my last post.

[Thirsty Crow]

Young Marx as in, the hegelian opiated Marx. Didn't we discuss this before? I abandoned that thread after my last post.
It's ridiculous to consider the These on Feuerbach as part of a Hegel drunk, idealist legacy (which is refuted by the very thesis that provokes your mighty opposition). Did you even bother to read it or just prefer to stick with abstract and unfounded periodizations? Especially when arguing against a sound argument (HtN in this case)?

[Vanguard1917]

Not everything that came out of Marx's mouth is part of what we call Marxism. Had Darwin been a communist, it would have had nothing to do with evolutionary biology.

It's not just some odd utterance but a vital aspect of Marx's approach - a dialectical view of social change that Marxism's academic vulgarises (G.A. Cohen et al. spring to mind as the obvious examples) have always failed to come to terms with. It says that people make their own history (within historically given bounds) and that ideas become material forces when they 'grip the masses'. Hence the central role of thinking men and women in bringing about social change. Marxism is not the detached, apolitical, 'bird's-eye-view' scholarly study of society that those in the ivory towers may, partly as a matter of personal convenience, wish it to be.

[NGNM85]

Hmm there is of course the neo-cons who were made of former new york jewish communists who later after 67 changed their views on American power. Was Irving Kristol a trot?

Don't forget David Horowitz. What an asshole.

[Jason]

I don't think it means that they have misunderstood Marxism.
For example, let's say I'm a 20 year old male, who does not plan on having kids, and will likely live to be ... 80.
The chances of a world wide revolution destroying the capitalist system in the next 60 years are probably worse than my chances of finding my way somehow into the bourgeois class.

If the bourgeois class is displaced after my death, who cares? I'm in it for the material benefits. #YOLO.

Do you still think they would necessarily have to mistake it then?

The lure of riches is very tempting. When you win, you tend to become more reactionary. Pretty soon, your justifying your status in society and praising capitalism. Perhaps, you might even change your view that capitalism will self distruct.

Anyhow, I suppose joining the "capitalist owner" class wouldn't be harmful, unless you were personally oppressing workers. For instance, if some pro athlete doesn't use his money to oppress, then I don't see no wrong in having it. Obviously giving it all away (or refusing to earn it when you have the ability to do so) out of some guilt trip wouldn't solve the world's problems, so why not just have fun?