Things that Marxism is Not

[synthesis]

I've been wanting to write something like this for awhile now, but this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-want-t180992/index.html) really prompted me to get moving. I feel like there are certain things that need to be clarified and concentrated into one specific place so as to clear up some common misconceptions about Marxism.

Without further ado:



Marxism is not asceticism. Being a Marxist does not require you to live in a dingy apartment, wear the same clothes every day, and forgo the pleasures of modern life. You're not a hypocrite if you live as well as you can while still being a Marxist, as long as you're not a boss. Plenty of people live in quasi-monastic conditions only because they don't have any other choice, and those are the conditions that Marxists seek to alleviate.
Marxism is not puritanism. Being a Marxist does not require you to give up things that some Maoists, for example, might call "bourgeois decadence." You can be a Marxist and still fuck as many people as you want, do as many drugs as you want, and dance every night if you want to, as long as you don't lose sight of class politics. (The fucking must be consensual, of course.) These things are only called "bourgeois decadence" because they are typically things that only the bourgeois can afford to do. Decadence should be equally available to everyone.
Marxism is not moralism. Being a Marxist does not mean that you oppose capitalism and exploitation and imperialism on the basis of their immorality. Morality is subjective and arbitrary and often irrational; class politics are not. Opposing these things on the basis of their immorality almost always results in a shift towards reformism as the moralist comes to believe that capitalism and exploitation and imperialism are acceptable as long as they meet his or her moral standards. He or she may even come to believe that they are the "lesser evil" when compared to the apparent immorality of revolutionary war.
Marxism is not altruism. Being a Marxist does not require you to abandon the concept of self-interest, so long as you keep that self-interest in the framework of class politics. Socialism is in the self-interest of every worker on the planet.
Marxism is not idealism. Of course, one of the core tenets of Marxism is the rejection of philosophical idealism in favor of materialism. But being a Marxist also does not require you to maintain idealism in the colloquial sense of the word, an antonym of cynicism - indeed, blind optimism and utopianism have worn many a Marxist to the bone when they are confronted with the reality of class politics. A "communist paradise" should never be the foremost objective of a Marxist; you must always concern yourself first with the necessity of establishing working class power by means of forcibly overthrowing the bourgeois state.
Marxism is not workerism. Being a Marxist does not require you to glorify an idealized conception of "working class culture" at the expense of genuine class politics. A Marxist should never mistake opportunism for pragmatism. Workerism (http://www.prole.info/texts/critiqueofworkerism.html), when taken to its logical conclusion, is the ultimate negation of Marxism, as it leads the Marxist to infer that workers with any form of false consciousness are beyond reproach.
Marxism is not culturalism. Being a Marxist does not require you to balance cultural considerations with class politics. Divorcing a culture from its material conditions, the mark of a culturalist or reactionary anthropologist, is one of the most prevalent forms of bourgeois idealism that has taken root in the modern leftist movement. The ramifications of culturalism are very similar to those of workerism; again, it consistently takes the form of apologia for false consciousness on the basis of culture. Culturalism is arguably worse than workerism, because workerism at least has some roots in historical materialism; also, there is almost always a very thin line between culturalism and outright apologia for nationalism.
Marxism is not Carlyleanism. Being a Marxist does not require you to lionize or demonize prominent figures from the annals of Marxist history, to divorce their theories from their actions, and to place responsibility for entire eras of political history on the backs of specific individuals without regard for context, conditions, and, ultimately, historical materialism. (Thomas Carlyle is the historian responsible for the "Great Man theory of history.")
Marxism is not determinism. Being a Marxist does not require you to operate under the fatalistic pretense that communism is a historical inevitability by virtue of faith alone. The pragmatic Marxist focuses on promoting the interests of the working class in the present, not content to shrug off any activity in class politics solely because the dictatorship of the proletariat and its transition into communism was prophesied by a wise man long ago. Indeed, determinism and defeatism - as used in philosophy, not as used by Lenin to mean something completely different - are two sides of the same coin, as they are both ultimately contingent on whether your mood is optimistic or pessimistic. If the faith is shaken, if the glass is half-empty, class consciousness is often the first fatality.
Marxism is not (blind) anti-theism. Being a Marxist does not require you to condemn each and every expression of religion, spirituality and superstition as reactionary. It is, of course, necessary to oppose reactionary expressions of religion, but to view these expressions as independent of their context in class society is an extreme rejection of historical materialism in favor of bourgeois idealism. Without class analysis, anti-theism is as useless to a Marxist as any equally radical expression of theism. Everyone knows of Marx's assertion that "[religion] is the opiate of the people," but very rarely is it acknowledged that, in its proper context, this passage was entirely sympathetic to religion; the sentences immediately preceding that statement clarify that religion is also "the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions," and that "religious suffering is [both] the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering." Reactionary expressions of religion must be challenged, but if you wish to abolish religion entirely, you must first abolish the conditions that enable it, for better or worse, to pervade the lives of almost everyone alive today.

That's all for now. As an addendum, I tried to list these in an ascending order reflecting the level of familiarity with Marxism with which each point seeks to engage. (That is, the first few are oriented towards people who may not be particularly familiar with Marxism at all, while the points at the end are directed towards people with at least a cogent understanding of Marxist theory.)

Of course, clarifications, additions, questions and rebuttals are more than welcome. This was written to function as a sticky-style post/thread here in the Learning forum, so hopefully it will prove to be a useful resource even if it does not get pinned up top. I tried to think of a good ending to this post, but I'm tired as shit right now; I'm sure I'll think of something when it's no longer relevant. So: Excelsior!

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Marxism is not culturalism. Being a Marxist does not require you to balance cultural considerations with class politics. Divorcing a culture from its material conditions, the mark of a culturalist or reactionary anthropologist, is one of the most prevalent forms of bourgeois idealism that has taken root in the modern leftist movement. The ramifications of culturalism are very similar to those of workerism; again, it consistently takes the form of apologia for false consciousness on the basis of culture. Culturalism is arguably worse than workerism, because workerism at least has some roots in historical materialism; also, there is almost always a very thin line between culturalism and outright apologia for nationalism.

!

You put into words wisdom incarnate.

To think how many liberal apologists and pomos I could've used this on. I mean there are so many fuckers in liberal (and maoist) academia who defend shit like religious fundamentalism, sexism, homophobia, racial segregation, etc. under the pretense of cultural relativity its' not funny.

[Left Turn]

Marxism is not infalibilism -- Karl Marx was a great thinker who made great contributions to our understanding of how the world works, but he was not infaliable; and he wouldn't expect those who use his analytical method to be infalliable either. As such, Marxists do not need to subscribe to a series of 'correct' positions on issues that have little or no relevance to the day to day struggles of the working class. There is no one strand of Marxism that can be held up againt all others as the one true heir to the legacy of Marx and Engels. And the works of Marx and Engels cannot be parsed to uncover essential 'truths' and determine what positions Marx would take on various historical and contemporary issues.

Marxism is not vanguardism -- Marxists do not need to belong to a vanguardist organisation of the most class-conscious layer of the working class in order to engage in class struggle on behalf of the working class. Indeed, those whose primary political activity consists of recruiting fellow workers to their respective vanguardist organisation have in fact withdrawn from class struggle into sectarianism. The class struggle needs to be waged at the level of consciousness of the large mass of workers, not at a significantly higher level of consciousness that most workers do not understand.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Unending stream of wisdom


....Are you Jesus? I think you might be Jesus.


No, seriously though. I don't think I can add a single thing to it. This is pure brilliance. If I had something like this to just show people, we might convert alot more. So many people think that socialists/communists are supposed to be these monastic catamites that flog ourselves before busts of Marx. FUCK THAT. Marx loved life and enjoyed every part of it that he could, along with his family...he even skipped rent so that he could dote on his wife and daughters. He loved drink. He loved music. He loved LIFE.

......Fuck it, you ARE Jesus. I will die for you.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think 1-4 ought to be subject to some problematization. For one, the criteria "not a boss" is pretty vague. Do professors, professionals, and bureacurats - the various well-heeled (in historical terms, fantastically wealthy) strata of the petty-bourgeoisie and labour aristocracy really have "self-interest" in class war?
Further, are the utterly unsustainable and destructive lifestyles of these strata really things that "should be equally available to everyone"? What would that entail, practically speaking? How much of it implies, necessarily, a service sector? Will there be a post-capitalist service sector on the scale necessary to provide everyone with the conveniences now afforded to the so-called "middle class" of the imperial centre? Will private automobiles, suburban townhouses, and Kobe beef burgers really be possible? All hail the red dawn where the workers of the Congo are expected to accelerate the poisoning of their landbase so that the workers of the world might enjoy iPhones?
Your list is notably lacking, "Marxism is not a fairy-tale with a happy ending." Marx talks about an end to alienated labour, and "to each according to his need" - not "heinous wealth for one and all."
Anyone who expects as much will, I suspect, abandon the hardships of class war relatively early on. Many on this board no doubt included.

[synthesis]

Thanks to Jam and Brandon for the kind words.


Marxism is not vanguardism -- Marxists do not need to belong to a vanguardist organisation of the most class-conscious layer of the working class in order to engage in class struggle on behalf of the working class. Indeed, those whose primary political activity consists of recruiting fellow workers to their respective vanguardist organisation have in fact withdrawn from class struggle into sectarianism. The class struggle needs to be waged at the level of consciousness of the large mass of workers, not at a significantly higher level of consciousness that most workers do not understand.

I respect your contribution, but I just want to clarify that I tried to avoid stuff that had at the very least a solid theoretical foundation in the Marxist tradition, regardless of whether I agreed with it or not. The list is really more about the bourgeois ideological baggage that people bring with them when they learn about Marxism, which they don't necessarily shed as they progress. It's not intended to be a sectarian piece.

[Omsk]

Yeah man, sorry, but isn't this all old stuff?

[synthesis]

I hate doing line-by-line responses, but I don't see any other way to respond here.


I think 1-4 ought to be subject to some problematization. For one, the criteria "not a boss" is pretty vague. Do professors, professionals, and bureacurats - the various well-heeled (in historical terms, fantastically wealthy) strata of the petty-bourgeoisie and labour aristocracy really have "self-interest" in class war?

I think the list makes it pretty clear that this stuff is in reference to the working class.


Further, are the utterly unsustainable and destructive lifestyles of these strata really things that "should be equally available to everyone"? What would that entail, practically speaking? How much of it implies, necessarily, a service sector? Will there be a post-capitalist service sector on the scale necessary to provide everyone with the conveniences now afforded to the so-called "middle class" of the imperial centre? Will private automobiles, suburban townhouses, and Kobe beef burgers really be possible? All hail the red dawn where the workers of the Congo are expected to accelerate the poisoning of their landbase so that the workers of the world might enjoy iPhones?

These are all valid concerns, but this is sort of a beginner's text for Marxism. It's hard to accommodate everyone's pet issues that are tangential to classical Marxism. And when I say "decadence should be equally available to everyone," it would be hard to fulfill that if it didn't apply to everyone, workers in the Congo (and everywhere else in the world) included.


Your list is notably lacking, "Marxism is not a fairy-tale with a happy ending." Marx talks about an end to alienated labour, and "to each according to his need" - not "heinous wealth for one and all."
Anyone who expects as much will, I suspect, abandon the hardships of class war relatively early on. Many on this board no doubt included.

Isn't this pretty much exactly what #5 says? I mean, how is it different?

[synthesis]

Yeah man, sorry, but isn't this all old stuff?

Can you explain this further? I mean, of course no idea is original; I just thought it might be helpful to have this stuff all in once place.

JWPYF6tnoy8

[Omsk]

Well, i saw some parties which had such statements in their propaganda and party-building material, and historically, these points were presented by various Marxists. Of course, it is an interesting debating subject and it's good it's piled up in a single thread. Usually, the points are separated, and you can find things about the last point (Marxism is not blind anti-theism) in things like the collected tomes from the congress of the Bulgarian Communist Party and you can find paragraphs about the fact that Marxism is not about puritanism in the collected work of Lenin.

This is basically a good idea, i never said it wasn't.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Isn't this pretty much exactly what #5 says? I mean, how is it different?

I appreciate your response. I guess I just feel like #5 doesn't do quite enough to problematize the first four things.
It's like, "Marxism is not asceticism" . . . but revolution isn't going to be materially comfortable. "Marxism is puritanism" - but bourgeois decadence premised on appalling super exploitation isn't (just) something Maoists made up out of thin air. "Marxism isn't moralism" but the lifestyles of yuppie scum are objectively premised on horrendous violence, which ought to stir disgust in any honest person. "Marxism is not altruism" but you've got to take a pretty long view of "self interest" when you have a choice between focusing on your MA or getting your arm broken by cops. And let's face it - pretending that you don't have to make those choices is idealism. If you're a Marxist in the sense of embarking on a communist project, and not "a Marxist" for your graduate thesis, you're going to have to give up some creature comforts unless you're doing it wrong. To have one's cake and eat it is idealism.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Yes and apparently every generation has to relearn it -- and burn their hair shirts. (Keep your flog if you swing that way.)


Yeah man, sorry, but isn't this all old stuff?

[synthesis]

I appreciate your response. I guess I just feel like #5 doesn't do quite enough to problematize the first four things.
It's like, "Marxism is not asceticism" . . . but revolution isn't going to be materially comfortable. "Marxism is puritanism" - but bourgeois decadence premised on appalling super exploitation isn't (just) something Maoists made up out of thin air. "Marxism isn't moralism" but the lifestyles of yuppie scum are objectively premised on horrendous violence, which ought to stir disgust in any honest person. "Marxism is not altruism" but you've got to take a pretty long view of "self interest" when you have a choice between focusing on your MA or getting your arm broken by cops. And let's face it - pretending that you don't have to make those choices is idealism. If you're a Marxist in the sense of embarking on a communist project, and not "a Marxist" for your graduate thesis, you're going to have to give up some creature comforts unless you're doing it wrong. To have one's cake and eat it is idealism.

So, basically, lifestylism? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, not trying to take a cheap shot because of your title, it just seems like that's your biggest objection to those points, that the list doesn't demand that Marxists lead a "Marxist" lifestyle. And on a similar note, which I think addresses the rest of your points, this list wasn't written specifically for college students or people who are able to attend college, nor was it written for the affluent. It is, again, only intended to challenge preconceptions that are prevalent among people learning about Marxism.

I do have a major problem with one part of your post, though:


"Marxism is not altruism" but you've got to take a pretty long view of "self interest" when you have a choice between focusing on your MA or getting your arm broken by cops.

If you're just a Marxist out of the goodness of your heart, you're missing the point of Marxism in general.

[Teacher]

Great post. Amen to the comments about culturalism.

[synthesis]

Well, i saw some parties which had such statements in their propaganda and party-building material, and historically, these points were presented by various Marxists. Of course, it is an interesting debating subject and it's good it's piled up in a single thread. Usually, the points are separated, and you can find things about the last point (Marxism is not blind anti-theism) in things like the collected tomes from the congress of the Bulgarian Communist Party and you can find paragraphs about the fact that Marxism is not about puritanism in the collected work of Lenin.

This is basically a good idea, i never said it wasn't.

Thanks for clarifying. At first I thought you were implying that the list was unnecessary, which might have bruised my ego a little. ;)1

I think this is a serious question, though, not just a rebuttal: how many people are going to read the collected tomes from the Congress of the Bulgarian Communist Party in their lifetime? Or even a majority of the other party-oriented texts you mentioned? More to the point, I don't think it's such a bad thing if people are coming here to learn about these ideas rather than slogging through the Marxist canon, or at least supplementing their studies with contemporary commentary, or to sort out the parts of those texts that are relevant to them now.

Furthermore, it also seemed like it would be useful if these points could not only be collected in one place, but also be rewritten to be more accessible to people with varying degrees of knowledge and experience with Marxism.

(This is the Learning forum, after all.)

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So, basically, lifestylism? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, not trying to take a cheap shot because of your title, it just seems like that's your biggest objection to those points, that the list doesn't demand that Marxists lead a "Marxist" lifestyle. And on a similar note, which I think addresses the rest of your points, this list wasn't written specifically for college students or people who are able to attend college, nor was it written for the affluent. It is, again, only intended to challenge preconceptions that are prevalent among people learning about Marxism.

It's not "lifestyle" - it's walking the walk.
In terms of popular misconceptions (and popular misconceptions that largely grow out of contemporary first world practice of "Marxism"), "Marxism is not a pastime for intellectuals" is notably absent. It needs to be emphasized that being a "Marxist" is not a matter of a particular theoretical outlook, but a matter of engaging, on the ground, with real struggle.




I do have a major problem with one part of your post, though:

[quote from my previous post]

If you're just a Marxist out of the goodness of your heart, you're missing the point of Marxism in general.

I agree, but, similarly, your usage of "self-interest" (I'd argue that Marxism implies a problematization of the "self", but, whatever, that's getting into some wanky shit) is equally out-of-touch. The "collective self-interest" of workers - class interest - is not only different, but often at odds with the self-interest of individual workers. Pretending otherwise is a recipe for cadre that split when shit gets rough. This alternative isn't moralism - it's a long view, a strategic view.

That said, and I mean this as an aside only, Marxism does have an ethical dimension, but this can be differentiated, sharply I think, from either a moralism or altruism. This is particularly apparent in "Young Marx" and Marx's writings on alienation. While Marx's economic/"scientific" understandings are certainly valid irregardless of this ethical dimension, when faced with the question of "Socialism or barbarism?" a particular ethical stance, vis- alienation, gemeinwesen, is implied by answering the former.

[Rurkel]

I'd agree that Marxism has an ethical dimension. Rephrasing the point to "Marxism isn't sorely an ethical movement (and that's what differentiates it from other leftist-utopian approaches)" would be better.

[synthesis]

God damn it, I have to do another line-by-line response now :lol:


It's not "lifestyle" - it's walking the walk.

It most certainly is a lifestyle. It's not that lifestylism is a bad thing, but it's not necessary to be a Marxist. There is nothing in Marx's works, to my knowledge, that would suggest that asceticism, puritanism, or really any particular way that someone lives their day-to-day life is relevant to his agenda. Again, this is outside of the realm of class politics, you seem to ignore this when I say it.

Now, if you're saying that Marx was missing something at the time, that's fine too - but that's not the point of this thread. You seem to conflate your criticism of Marx with your criticism of the list, which makes it difficult to respond, since veridicality is the primary focus here.


In terms of popular misconceptions (and popular misconceptions that largely grow out of contemporary first world practice of "Marxism"), "Marxism is not a pastime for intellectuals" is notably absent. It needs to be emphasized that being a "Marxist" is not a matter of a particular theoretical outlook, but a matter of engaging, on the ground, with real struggle.

Again, the list is primarily aimed at addressing the ideological baggage from bourgeois class society that people often bring into their understanding of Marxism. How would you phrase this assessment if you were adding an entry to the list?

I personally wouldn't add it, because Marxism is a pastime for intellectuals, whether we like it or not, regardless of the usefulness of academic Marxism (or lack thereof) to the working class. And not all praxes are created equal: "An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory, but a ton of action without an ounce of theory is worth nothing at all."


I agree, but, similarly, your usage of "self-interest"... is equally out-of-touch. The "collective self-interest" of workers - class interest - is not only different, but often at odds with the self-interest of individual workers.

I don't know why you assume that part wasn't talking about collective self-interest. I thought it was pretty obvious it wasn't referring to individual self-interest at the expense of class consciousness.

[synthesis]

I'd agree that Marxism has an ethical dimension. Rephrasing the point to "Marxism isn't sorely an ethical movement (and that's what differentiates it from other leftist-utopian approaches)" would be better.

My personal distinction between ethics and morals, at least in their colloquial usage, is that ethics are a system that people create internally through innate emotional reactions, while morals are systems that are created socially and by society. (This is why you have Republican Senators condemning homosexuality as immoral and then getting caught having anonymous sex with men in an airport bathroom or whatever. Because of the distinction I defined earlier, I'd argue that in his own mind, Larry Craig genuinely believed that homosexuality was immoral but not unethical.)

Bourgeois moralism is a system of morality defined by bourgeois values. It is impossible to have any sort of genuinely Marxist moralism because we do not live in a communist society. There is no system of morality that is useful to Marxism or usable by Marxism, which is why Marxists should never argue that prostitution, drug use, abortion or any form of consensual yet "deviant" sex should be condemned - those are common Maoist positions, because as they are strongly on the right-wing of Marxism (if not simply bourgeois nationalists) they are the least divorced from the cultural values, which dictate morality, of the society in which they live.

Yet anarcho-communists and Trotskyists are not exempt either; they sometimes argue from moralistic standpoints as well, although generally from the other side of the spectrum; anarchists often combine genuine class analysis with moralistic, abstracted condemnations of the state and other social constructions, while Trots condemn Marxism-Leninists because of their support for what Trots perceive to be immoral abuses of power in the past. These are liberal morals: better than conservative morals, but still aspects of bourgeois moralism.

Of course, plenty of anarcho-communists, Trotskyists and Maoists also argue from well-defined historical-materialist standpoints as well. But none of them can rely on anything other than historical materialism for their arguments, in part because they then become susceptible to the slippery slope that is the moralism of capitalist society.

[Skyhilist]

Threads like this always make me feel bad because I don't know or remember a lot of the words and end up having to look them up.

Anyways, after looking some things up, I would say that I agree with most of this, though not all, despite not being a Marxist.

Some considerations that I didn't personally 100% agree with:

#3: I think everything involving the humanities really involves some type of moral argument. For example, when a Marxist argues against capitalism, he/she generally cites reasons why it is immoral (although usually not using that word), like for example when saying it causes alienation and atomization. When you get down to it, concepts like "alienation is bad" boil down to your own morals, whether your a Marxist or not. So I think Marxism does, at some level involve morality, although the way to address moral issues are laid out logically.

#4: I'm pretty sure that's it's actually been determined that altruism is really just a complex type of self interest. Sometimes you might incorporate the "what goes around comes around" attitude when doing something nice for someone, even if no reward for your actions looms on the immediate horizon. Other times, helping other people might just make you feel really good. Seeing as we generally enjoy feeling really good, this might also explain the self interest behind altruism and why the two aren't necessarily different.

#6: This sort of just seems like a clever way to call groups like autonomists who support workerism "not true Marxists". Generally these people (I'm not one myself currently) might respond that workers, being class conscious and more logical by the time of a true revolution, would be capable of coming up with systems on their own to regulate the negative behavior in other workers, given that it's not so fun to work with, say, slackers when it means you have to do more work.

#9: Isn't Marxism supposed to follow a scientific method though? If so, then modern Marxism should in fact incorporate determinism. Science has already shown that there is no such thing as true "conscious action", because all decisions that we think we've made consciously were actually made before we were even consciously aware of them by our subconscious, which we have no control over. In this sense, determinism is science and therefore something that should be a part of Marxism if it should fall in line with science and the scientific method.

Please note that most of these aren't saying "I think you're completely wrong on this aspect." These are just some considerations that I thought might be worth making. I thought it was a pretty good list overall, and you certainly have a wider ranging vocabulary than I do.

[Remus Bleys]

#9: Isn't Marxism supposed to follow a scientific method though? If so, then modern Marxism should in fact incorporate determinism. Science has already shown that there is no such thing as true "conscious action", because all decisions that we think we've made consciously were actually made before we were even consciously aware of them by our subconscious, which we have no control over. In this sense, determinism is science and therefore something that should be a part of Marxism if it should fall in line with science and the scientific method. That bastard Freud.
How many people do I need to tell that the subconscious isn't real?
Was the thought about pizza I just had bound too happen too?

However, it was my understanding a lot of marxism is deterministic.

[Skyhilist]

That bastard Freud.
How many people do I need to tell that the subconscious isn't real?

Oh come on. Do you consciously decide to breathe? I'll answer that for you, of course not, no one does normally. I don't know if you have a different definition of subconscious then, but I'm referring to it as any part of the brain that controls actions that we're not consciously choosing (e.g. Breathing)


Was the thought about pizza I just had bound too happen too?

As odd as it sounds, I'd say yes. I mean *something* occurred the thought about pizza to happen. It didn't occur out of thin air. You don't have conscious control over that something if you don't know what that something is.
To cite more science more though, there was a study that was done where people were shown images. Their reactions to those images were being prepared by the parts of the brain not in charge of "conscious" action. This is the same with everything really. Your subconscious mind decides before your "conscious mind" knows the decision. So on the contrary to your statement I would suggest that if anything, there is no conscious mind.


However, it was my understanding a lot of marxism is deterministic.

Same

[Remus Bleys]

Oh come on. Do you consciously decide to breathe? I'll answer that for you, of course not, no one does normally. I don't know if you have a different definition of subconscious then, but I'm referring to it as any part of the brain that controls actions that we're not consciously choosing (e.g. Breathing) I was using the traditional Freudian interpretation of subsconsious, whereby we have thoughts and personality that is innate, not automated systems like breathing.




As odd as it sounds, I'd say yes. I mean *something* occurred the thought about pizza to happen. It didn't occur out of thin air. You don't have conscious control over that something if you don't know what that something is. That's a philosophical point I'll have to disagree with you on. I hold that, while I am not in charge of many of my thoughts, they do not necessarily *have* to be those thoughts.

To cite more science more though, there was a study that was done where people were shown images. Their reactions to those images were being prepared by the parts of the brain not in charge of "conscious" action. This is the same with everything really. Your subconscious mind decides before your "conscious mind" knows the decision. So on the contrary to your statement I would suggest that if anything, there is no conscious mind. [QUOTE] Sauce? I would like to read the specific wording. This is intriguing.



[QUOTE]Same Although, in full disclosure, this is one of the reasons I don't identify as a marxist.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Oh, you're absolutely 100% self-reflexive? :rolleyes:
I don't want to put myself in the position of defending coked out misogynists, but, really, c'mon. The subconscious def. exists, or, like, break-ups would be easy. Duh.

[synthesis]

Sorry if I'm resurrecting this thread; I just wanted to clarify one specific point here.


#6: This sort of just seems like a clever way to call groups like autonomists who support workerism "not true Marxists". Generally these people (I'm not one myself currently) might respond that workers, being class conscious and more logical by the time of a true revolution, would be capable of coming up with systems on their own to regulate the negative behavior in other workers, given that it's not so fun to work with, say, slackers when it means you have to do more work.

This is the "other" definition of the term workerism, not the one I was working with. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workerism#Workerism_as_a_negative_cultural_phenome non) I assumed it would be apparent after people read the part following the bolded sentence, but in hindsight I should have specified that at some point.

Regardless of whether I agree with the positions described by the definition you're using - the autonomist analysis of capitalism (which I generally do agree with) - those positions do have a strong basis, historically speaking, in Marxist theory, which is why it wouldn't be included in the list, for the same reason as vanguardism/substitutionism (which I generally do not agree with).

The workerism referred to in the list would perhaps best be typified by the example, relatively common in the U.S., of people who are nominally Marxist but defend their opposition to reproductive rights because "a lot of the working class is against it." It refers to the tendency of people promoting or defending reactionary politics on the basis of supposed support for those politics among the working class.

[Decolonize The Left]

Why hasn't this thread been stickied?

[Klaatu]

To the O.P.
You have nailed it, comrade
Marxism is true freedom

[Decolonize The Left]

To the O.P.
You have nailed it, comrade
Marxism is true freedom

There is no such thing as freedom. Marxism is the most human social and economic organization. There's not much more we can ask for.

[Orange Juche]

You're not a hypocrite if you live as well as you can while still being a Marxist, as long as you're not a boss..

Two questions:

1) What if you start a business where you are the sole employer (and intended it that way, that's how it will be run)?

2) What if you're a boss, however, it's at a worker cooperative, you were democratically elected, and are easily re-callable?

[synthesis]

Two questions:

1) What if you start a business where you are the sole employer (and intended it that way, that's how it will be run)?

2) What if you're a boss, however, it's at a worker cooperative, you were democratically elected, and are easily re-callable?

I think you're missing the point of that particular section, but it's fine since you're not nitpicking. I assume you meant to say "sole employee"; correct me if I'm wrong. If not, this is pretty much the definition of the "petit-bourgeoisie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie)," who can have employees without becoming bourgeois as long as they themselves must still work to survive.

That section wasn't intended to detail the differences between the classes and their respective relationships to the means of production which defines them; people who are proletarian or petit-bourgeois or bourgeois will go on being proletarian or petit-bourgeois or bourgeois regardless of what I or anyone else thinks about that. To believe otherwise is the sort of moralism to which the list refers.

As for your second question, it all depends on whether markets are still present. If that cooperative still exists within the context of capitalist relations, it has nothing to do with Marxism; the same principle applies to nationalized industries and other such ventures of self-proclaimed "socialist governments."

[synthesis]

A couple more points I wanted to briefly address.


#3: I think everything involving the humanities really involves some type of moral argument. For example, when a Marxist argues against capitalism, he/she generally cites reasons why it is immoral (although usually not using that word), like for example when saying it causes alienation and atomization. When you get down to it, concepts like "alienation is bad" boil down to your own morals, whether your a Marxist or not. So I think Marxism does, at some level involve morality, although the way to address moral issues are laid out logically.

Here I think it's important to distinguish between morality and moralism. While there are different definitions of morality, arguing against something on the basis of its "immorality" is moralism, no matter how the argument is cloaked.


#4: I'm pretty sure that's it's actually been determined that altruism is really just a complex type of self interest. Sometimes you might incorporate the "what goes around comes around" attitude when doing something nice for someone, even if no reward for your actions looms on the immediate horizon. Other times, helping other people might just make you feel really good. Seeing as we generally enjoy feeling really good, this might also explain the self interest behind altruism and why the two aren't necessarily different.

I've read similar stuff, but "altruistic" still seems like a handy description for, say, anonymously giving away your entire life savings and not telling anyone about it, although people have different motivations for doing things like that - sometimes it's out of guilt, for example, which would make it "less altruistic."

The point is that while people might find that admirable in a personal sense, in no way can it be conflated with Marxism. It's another one of those things that presumes to dictate how people should live their day-to-day lives without even paying lip service to class politics.


#9: Isn't Marxism supposed to follow a scientific method though? If so, then modern Marxism should in fact incorporate determinism. Science has already shown that there is no such thing as true "conscious action", because all decisions that we think we've made consciously were actually made before we were even consciously aware of them by our subconscious, which we have no control over. In this sense, determinism is science and therefore something that should be a part of Marxism if it should fall in line with science and the scientific method.

You're right, of course, but again we're working off different definitions, or perhaps conceptions, of the term. This is another case where I presumed that the usage of the word in context would be an acceptable substitute for just specifying the definition to which I was referring.

In its context, it is intended to be an antonym of political voluntarism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/v/o.htm). It refers to the concept among some socialists that being active in the promotion of working class politics is devoid of meaning and utility. There can be both short-term and long-term goals under the umbrella of Marxist praxis.


Please note that most of these aren't saying "I think you're completely wrong on this aspect." These are just some considerations that I thought might be worth making. I thought it was a pretty good list overall, and you certainly have a wider ranging vocabulary than I do.

Thanks. I actually really appreciate these opportunities to clarify some aspects of the list. But I'd argue that having a large vocabulary is only useful if it helps you to better express what you want to say, an aspect of writing I think I'll always be working on trying to improve.

[Orange Juche]

I assume you meant to say "sole employee"

Yeah, it was late.

[RA89]

Morality is subjective and arbitrary and often irrational; class politics are not.

Can you expand on this/simplify please?

Is this saying that we must do what is in the best interest of the working class because it is logical to do so?
If someone said "why?" then wouldn't it essentially be a moral reason, to not be exploited etc.?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Can you expand on this/simplify please?

Is this saying that we must do what is in the best interest of the working class because it is logical to do so?
If someone said "why?" then wouldn't it essentially be a moral reason, to not be exploited etc.?

There is no "why" - there is no fact that could force someone to seek to further their self-interest. If someone wants to be a God's fool, well, they're not factually wrong. But the fact is, most people do want to further their self-interest. That is the sentiment we have to appeal to - do you want to eat? Do you want to drink? Do you want to defeat the cold? Do you want to defeat hunger?

[RA89]

There is no "why" - there is no fact that could force someone to seek to further their self-interest. If someone wants to be a God's fool, well, they're not factually wrong. But the fact is, most people do want to further their self-interest. That is the sentiment we have to appeal to - do you want to eat? Do you want to drink? Do you want to defeat the cold? Do you want to defeat hunger?

So you're saying it is best to appeal to the self interest of the majority (working class - since the very rich would lose out) than to try to appeal to the morals of everybody?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

So you're saying it is best to appeal to the self interest of the majority (working class - since the very rich would lose out) than to try to appeal to the morals of everybody?

Not "the majority" but the proletariat - the bourgeoisie (who are more than just "the very rich") would lose, but so would the petite bourgeoisie, the cops, managers, landowners, executives, and so on. And yes, in fact appealing to some abstract, supra-class morals "of everybody" is revisionism.

[synthesis]

Can you expand on this/simplify please?

Is this saying that we must do what is in the best interest of the working class because it is logical to do so?
If someone said "why?" then wouldn't it essentially be a moral reason, to not be exploited etc.?

I think 870's answer pretty much nails it, but I also wanted to add that it was an element of a broader challenge to the idea that communism and self-interest are diametrically opposed, that communism is "idealistic," colloquially speaking, because it is purported to be completely dependent on people's altruism to function properly. Bourgeois philosophers and economists have spent a lot of effort propagating the idea that class interest and self-interest are mutually exclusive, and many new (and old) students of Marx have internalized this false dichotomy to some degree or another.

Working class politics doesn't mean pressing for revolution because it is morally right or because capitalism is morally wrong, but because socialism, to quote the OP, is in the self-interest of every worker on the planet.

[Zanthorus]

The fucking must be consensual, of course... Morality is subjective and arbitrary and often irrational; class politics are not.

Either rape is a moral evil and bodily autonomy is a moral good or morality is subjective and arbitrary (Which is tantamount to saying morality doesn't exist, since rules which can't make a claim to universality are hardly rules at all). You can't have your cake and eat it.


Opposing these things on the basis of their immorality almost always results in a shift towards reformism as the moralist comes to believe that capitalism and exploitation and imperialism are acceptable as long as they meet his or her moral standards. He or she may even come to believe that they are the "lesser evil" when compared to the apparent immorality of revolutionary war.This only works if we assume that our hypothetical moralist is morally opposed to war, or hasn't already devised their moral code such that capitalism and imperialism are unconditionally evil, in other words, we assume prior to the fact that they're a reformist, and come to the surprising conclusion that reformists are reformists. I suppose it's a revolutionary enough statement that it might cause some contention if you presented it to, say, any given Trotskyist groupuscule that thinks voting for the Labour party has something to do with class struggle. Maybe if you were more of a puritan your theoretical insights wouldn't be so tautological.


Working class politics doesn't mean pressing for revolution because it is morally right or because capitalism is morally wrong, but because socialism, to quote the OP, is in the self-interest of every worker on the planet. That brings us to the interesting dilemma of how it was ever possible for Marx, or Engels, or Rosa Luxemburg, or Lenin, or Trotsky or etc etc to have working class politics when it was never in their self interest.


There is no such thing as freedomI suppose it will be a comfort to prisoners everywhere to learn that being behind bars is just as free as being on the outside, because the freedom of those on the outside is an illusion.

[synthesis]

Either rape is a moral evil and bodily autonomy is a moral good or morality is subjective and arbitrary (Which is tantamount to saying morality doesn't exist, since rules which can't make a claim to universality are hardly rules at all). You can't have your cake and eat it.

I disagree that "the fucking must be consensual," in that context, is a moral prescription. It's an addendum to the argument that promiscuity is compatible with class politics - the addendum being that this is only the case with consensual sex.


This only works if we assume that our hypothetical moralist is morally opposed to war, or hasn't already devised their moral code such that capitalism and imperialism are unconditionally evil, in other words, we assume prior to the fact that they're a reformist, and come to the surprising conclusion that reformists are reformists.

I see your point, below, about this conclusion being tautological or at least teleological. If you use it as an analysis of a transition to reformism after the fact, then of course ascribing it to "moralism" is going to be a pretty useless analysis of that transition.

But in the present, the here and now, if you notice that someone is railing against capitalism and imperialism for their moral wrongs, and only on the basis of their moral incorrectness, it's a safe bet that they will lose their "edge" as the violence of revolutionary war becomes more and more unacceptable to their moral standards.


I suppose it's a revolutionary enough statement that it might cause some contention if you presented it to, say, any given Trotskyist groupuscule that thinks voting for the Labour party has something to do with class struggle. Maybe if you were more of a puritan your theoretical insights wouldn't be so tautological.

I don't see the OP as original "theoretical insight." I see it as a clarification and distillation of such. It is oriented more towards individuals learning about Marxism than towards groups as a political program in itself.


That brings us to the interesting dilemma of how it was ever possible for Marx, or Engels, or Rosa Luxemburg, or Lenin, or Trotsky or etc etc to have working class politics when it was never in their self interest.

Well, there is the non-class analysis argument that as intellectuals and political leaders it would be in their interest to gain as much influence as possible.

But on the other side of the coin, I don't think that "working class politics are in the self-interest of every worker" and "certain individuals throughout history can and have held working class politics in contrast to their own class interest" are contradictory statements.

[Luís Henrique]

My eight pence of wisdom:

Marxism is not a meta-judicial system to ascribe blame to this or that group of people (yes, MLMs, I am staring at you).

Marxism is not Christianism with the working class substituting for Christ. Suffering isn't a moral bonus.

Marxism is not an ad-hoc justification for inaction.

Marxism is not a theory about the working class (it is a theory for the working class).

Marxism is not academical.

Marxism is not a philosophy, or a philosophical tendency. Specifically, Marxism is not a philosophy of history.

Marxism is not about building a perfect world.

Marxism is not a a meta-historical theory that validates a post-capitalist society merely because it is "inevitable". As such, it is not about ignoring the actual lives and troubles of actual working class people as mere tools for the achievement of "historic progress" regardless of whether such "historic progress" will bring a better life for common working class people.

Luís Henrique

[synthesis]

Luis, I like your additions, but I'm a little confused about this:


Marxism is not a philosophy, or a philosophical tendency. Specifically, Marxism is not a philosophy of history.

What are you relating this to? Meaning, where do you see historical materialism or the "improper" applications thereof fitting into this analysis?

[Luís Henrique]

Luis, I like your additions, but I'm a little confused about this:

What are you relating this to? Meaning, where do you see historical materialism or the "improper" applications thereof fitting into this analysis?

To an extent, it is already included in the previous point - that Marxism is not academical. "Philosophers have only sought to interpret the world... but the point is to change it". Thence, "Marxism is not philosophy".

As for "Marxism is not a philosophy of history", it somewhat anticipates the last point - that Marxism is not a meta-historical theory. It isn't an explanation of all history, past and future, through a few general principles. It isn't a teleology, and it isn't a millenarist ideology (even if it sometimes looks like that, and even if it is easy to present an actual teleology and/or apocaliptical prediction in Marxist dressings). It can only proceed from what is already given by practice, and it must proceed through "concrete knowledge of the concrete case", not by sweeping generalisations.

Luís Henrique

ETA. These things really overlap with each others, so many of my points are merely rearranging issues that had already been brought up by you and other people...

[(A)]

Is it just me or does this need a follow up thread///

Things that Marxism is.

:o

[[email protected]]

I agree that morality is OFTEN irrational and arbitrary but could someone please further elaborate on the whole "marxism is not moralism" bit for me? If we do not oppose capitalism and imperialism based on a mutual understanding that they are inherently harmul to human beings on a mass scale and that harming human beings on a mass scale is ethically detesteable-- then why?

[Broviet Union]

I agree that morality is OFTEN irrational and arbitrary but could someone please further elaborate on the whole "marxism is not moralism" bit for me? If we do not oppose capitalism and imperialism based on a mutual understanding that they are inherently harmul to human beings on a mass scale and that harming human beings on a mass scale is ethically detesteable-- then why?

Communism is usually presented in Marx as a economic system that would enrich life and remove useless toil. A critique of capitalism along moralist lines is sometimes useful at swaying opinion, but Marx's critique was never really "Capitalism is evil!" so much as "Capitalism is arbitrary and structurally unsound, even though it has provided the material basis for a superior human society"

[Creative Destruction]

I like this OP for the overwhelming part of it but this:


You're not a hypocrite if you live as well as you can while still being a Marxist, as long as you're not a boss.

I don't understand how, if you're a boss and a Marxist, then you are a hypocrite? Nothing in Marx's works would preclude being a communist and also a boss under a capitalist system. I kind of feel like that's unnecessarily moralizing the issue. I think it's more correct to say that, in general, if you're a boss, chances seem to say that you'll fight on behalf of the petit-bourgeoisie... but that isn't necessarily so. I've met plenty of people who were bosses, even owners, and were steadfastly Marxists who would have had no problem with giving up their position if a revolution came about.

Other than that, the post is great and I agree with it.

[Creative Destruction]

Communism is usually presented in Marx as a economic system that would enrich life and remove useless toil. A critique of capitalism along moralist lines is sometimes useful at swaying opinion, but Marx's critique was never really "Capitalism is evil!" so much as "Capitalism is arbitrary and structurally unsound, even though it has provided the material basis for a superior human society"

I'm not sure about that. Marx did quite a bit of moralizing regarding how the capitalist system treated the working class. He saw a fundamental unfairness in how people were exploited simply because of their relationship to the means of production. It happened that unfairness also causes crises, but that doesn't prevent him from giving a moral opinion on it... which he did. Marx wasn't that mechanical in his works and it was possible for him to see the system "scientifically" and also as a human with extreme moral reservations about the shit he was seeing happening as a result of the system.

The desire to push for a liberated society that is free of exploitation and where people would go without want necessarily has a moral dimension to it. Without a moral point informing this position, you'd just be led down a path where you could reasonably say "Yeah, this is the way it works, but it isn't necessarily good or bad, so why fuck with it?" That's the amoral position.

[Broviet Union]

The desire to push for a liberated society that is free of exploitation and where people would go without want necessarily has a moral dimension to it. Without a moral point informing this position, you'd just be led down a path where you could reasonably say "Yeah, this is the way it works, but it isn't necessarily good or bad, so why fuck with it?" That's the amoral position.

I see it as primarily being based on amoral self interest for the Proletarian class.

[Sabot Cat]

I see it as primarily being based on amoral self interest for the Proletarian class.

Egoist ethics still fail to be amoral, however.

[BIXX]

Egoist ethics still fail to be amoral, however.


That's why I don't accept egoist ethics. I just act in my self interest, not because I think it's better but because I like it more.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

If I can add another - Marxism is not Marx. In fact, no "ism" is ever directly analogous to the thought of the person who it is named after, from Confucianism to Platonism.


Luis - Marx did say elsewhere that a part of the liberation of the proletariat was in making philosophy popular such that the working class could use it to critique their conditions and possibilities.


Synthesis - if Marxists can't be bosses (at least not without being "hypocrites"), what do we say about Engels? Other than that I agreed with much on your list.

[sadsocialist]

An ascetic marxist is a good thing.

[Loony Le Fist]

Marxism is not asceticism. Being a Marxist does not require you to live in a dingy apartment, wear the same clothes every day, and forgo the pleasures of modern life. You're not a hypocrite if you live as well as you can while still being a Marxist, as long as you're not a boss. Plenty of people live in quasi-monastic conditions only because they don't have any other choice, and those are the conditions that Marxists seek to alleviate.


What if you are a boss who uses that position to help employees? I'm not sure I'd be comfortable claiming that all bosses are excluded from being Marxists simply on the basis of their occupation. However, I overall agree with your point here.

I don't consider anyone a hypocrite if they are able to use the capitalist system to advance a positive cause. In fact, I find it ironic to see capitalism used against itself. I could only hope that more Marxists are able to be successful by capitalistic standards, so they can use that material success to further the cause of alleviating the aforementioned conditions.



Marxism is not puritanism. Being a Marxist does not require you to give up things that some Maoists, for example, might call "bourgeois decadence." You can be a Marxist and still fuck as many people as you want, do as many drugs as you want, and dance every night if you want to, as long as you don't lose sight of class politics. (The fucking must be consensual, of course.) These things are only called "bourgeois decadence" because they are typically things that only the bourgeois can afford to do. Decadence should be equally available to everyone.


I could get behind this.



Marxism is not moralism. Being a Marxist does not mean that you oppose capitalism and exploitation and imperialism on the basis of their immorality. Morality is subjective and arbitrary and often irrational; class politics are not. Opposing these things on the basis of their immorality almost always results in a shift towards reformism as the moralist comes to believe that capitalism and exploitation and imperialism are acceptable as long as they meet his or her moral standards. He or she may even come to believe that they are the "lesser evil" when compared to the apparent immorality of revolutionary war.


We might part ways a bit here. I'm interested in hearing you elaborate more on how class politics is not subjective. Furthermore (and contrary to your claim) I would say that it is moral fiber that provides us with the inner strength to stand up to mere reformism and not simply accept slightly better conditions on the basis of rationalism.



Marxism is not altruism. Being a Marxist does not require you to abandon the concept of self-interest, so long as you keep that self-interest in the framework of class politics. Socialism is in the self-interest of every worker on the planet.


I agree. I would claim that it is in our self-interest to work together. Through the collective the individual is strengthened. No person is an island.



Marxism is not idealism. Of course, one of the core tenets of Marxism is the rejection of philosophical idealism in favor of materialism. But being a Marxist also does not require you to maintain idealism in the colloquial sense of the word, an antonym of cynicism - indeed, blind optimism and utopianism have worn many a Marxist to the bone when they are confronted with the reality of class politics. A "communist paradise" should never be the foremost objective of a Marxist; you must always concern yourself first with the necessity of establishing working class power by means of forcibly overthrowing the bourgeois state.


Completely agree. Being a Marxist certainly doesn't make one an idealist. Expecting a utopia from the implementation of Marxist ideas will not usher in utopia. However, I think you and I would agree that it would help to alleviate many of the problems we face as a society.



Marxism is not workerism. Being a Marxist does not require you to glorify an idealized conception of "working class culture" at the expense of genuine class politics. A Marxist should never mistake opportunism for pragmatism Workerism (http://www.prole.info/texts/critiqueofworkerism.html), when taken to its logical conclusion, is the ultimate negation of Marxism, as it leads the Marxist to infer that workers with any form of false consciousness are beyond reproach.


I agree. However, I think that leftists (in general) certainly have an uphill battle, though. The propaganda is strong. However, I have hope that humanity will overcome the problem of being truly free that seems to have plagued us since we started forming large civilizations. There are a lot of years to undo. Only in the last century has there been any attempt to turn things around. In a sense, perhaps we should be pleased that progress is happening so quickly, considering the time these problems have been going on.



Marxism is not culturalism. Being a Marxist does not require you to balance cultural considerations with class politics. Divorcing a culture from its material conditions, the mark of a culturalist or reactionary anthropologist, is one of the most prevalent forms of bourgeois idealism that has taken root in the modern leftist movement. The ramifications of culturalism are very similar to those of workerism; again, it consistently takes the form of apologia for false consciousness on the basis of culture. Culturalism is arguably worse than workerism, because workerism at least has some roots in historical materialism; also, there is almost always a very thin line between culturalism and outright apologia for nationalism.


Could you elaborate more on what you mean by culturalism. Do you mean that Marxists should be multiculturalists as opposed to culturalists? Do you mean that Marxists should reject the concept of culture altogether? Is there something wrong with having a cultural identity in general--even if say that identity doesn't carry with it the desire to impose it on others? What if that cultural identity actually represents certain principles very much compatible with a sort-of Marxist worldview (I can't really think of a better way to put this, perhaps someone can throw me a bone here, :laugh:)? Consider a tribal society where there is no word for thank you, because it's assumed everything belongs to the tribe. I recently learned about a group of South American indigenous people who fit this description. Wouldn't that culture be completely compatible with Marxism? In fact, isn't the desire to spread Marxism a sort of desire to create a new form of culture--one that is more egalitarian and better for all.



Marxism is not Carlyleanism. Being a Marxist does not require you to lionize or demonize prominent figures from the annals of Marxist history, to divorce their theories from their actions, and to place responsibility for entire eras of political history on the backs of specific individuals without regard for context, conditions, and, ultimately, historical materialism. (Thomas Carlyle is the historian responsible for the "Great Man theory of history.")


Agreed. No one should be elevated to heroic status. Not even Marx.



Marxism is not determinism. Being a Marxist does not require you to operate under the fatalistic pretense that communism is a historical inevitability by virtue of faith alone. The pragmatic Marxist focuses on promoting the interests of the working class in the present, not content to shrug off any activity in class politics solely because the dictatorship of the proletariat and its transition into communism was prophesied by a wise man long ago. Indeed, determinism and defeatism - as used in philosophy, not as used by Lenin to mean something completely different - are two sides of the same coin, as they are both ultimately contingent on whether your mood is optimistic or pessimistic. If the faith is shaken, if the glass is half-empty, class consciousness is often the first fatality.


Definitely. I would say that history tells us that humans in more elaborate societies have gradually found a way to make themselves more free. I'm not sure there's anything that could alter that trend. However, no one has a crystal ball.



Marxism is not (blind) anti-theism. Being a Marxist does not require you to condemn each and every expression of religion, spirituality and superstition as reactionary. It is, of course, necessary to oppose reactionary expressions of religion, but to view these expressions as independent of their context in class society is an extreme rejection of historical materialism in favor of bourgeois idealism. Without class analysis, anti-theism is as useless to a Marxist as any equally radical expression of theism. Everyone knows of Marx's assertion that "[religion] is the opiate of the people," but very rarely is it acknowledged that, in its proper context, this passage was entirely sympathetic to religion; the sentences immediately preceding that statement clarify that religion is also "the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions," and that "religious suffering is [both] the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering." Reactionary expressions of religion must be challenged, but if you wish to abolish religion entirely, you must first abolish the conditions that enable it, for better or worse, to pervade the lives of almost everyone alive today.


Well there's liberation theologists. So Marxism certainly doesn't exclude the religious. In fact, I think religion (and moral principles, more generally) can provide a sort of grounding for Marxist ideas. However, I tend to be in the minority position here. :grin: I also happen to think there are good moral arguments in favor of Marxism, despite the propensity of many Marxists to call them irrational or subjective. After all, that's just my opinion, man. :laugh:

[Tim Cornelis]

Marxism is amoral in that it provides an objective analysis of social structures in general, and capitalism in particular. A Marxist analysis should never include oughts, only is', no appeals to good or justice.

Socialism is not amoral, and appeals to justice can be used (while acknowledging that morality is not objective).

[Sabot Cat]

That's why I don't accept egoist ethics. I just act in my self interest, not because I think it's better but because I like it more.

Why do you value actions that you like more? If you were truly amoral, they wouldn't be given priority over others.

[BIXX]

Why do you value actions that you like more? If you were truly amoral, they wouldn't be given priority over others.


I don't value them, unless by value you mean enjoyment. In which case there is no hope for you, if you think you must have morality to enjoy things.

[Sabot Cat]

I don't value them, unless by value you mean enjoyment. In which case there is no hope for you, if you think you must have morality to enjoy things.

That's not my argument at all.

I'm saying that you value [to consider beneficial or preferable] actions which make you feel enjoyment, and this consistent valuation is the manifestation of a consequentalist morality, one that is focused on the utility gained or suffering incurred by a single subject: yourself. Actions which make you happier are good, actions that make you unhappier are bad. The only difference between this alleged amorality and utilitarianism is the number and range of people to be considered.

[BIXX]

No... I find them enjoyable so I do them. I don't find them valuable. I don't think my happiness is good or bad, I just like my happiness.

I feel you are trying to find a connection when there isn't one. If I thought the actions that made me happy were good because of it then yes, that would be moral.

Again if you consider taking action be enjoy yourself to require morality, there is no hope for you.

[Sabot Cat]

No... I find them enjoyable so I do them. I don't find them valuable. I don't think my happiness is good or bad, I just like my happiness.

You find them enjoyable, so you do them, thus you value those actions over non-enjoyable ones.


I feel you are trying to find a connection when there isn't one. If I thought the actions that made me happy were good because of it then yes, that would be moral.

It's an egoist morality, with a clear good-bad dichotomy based upon the pleasure principle as applied to one person. That's not a condemnation by the way. Morality, or ethical philosophy in general, is not the intrinsically awful thing that it is made out to be.

[Kingfish]

Good list although I think there is another fairly important Marxism-is-not:

Marxism is not easy – Not only will a vastly higher burden of proof be demanded from you by others but given the great level of charged misunderstanding about it a long road of mostly self directed learning lies ahead of you. There is no one book you can read no video (or even video series) you can just watch to grasp the lessons from a seemingly endless backlog of writers and historical and economic events. In such an environment it is all too easy to fall victim to the siren song of idealism and dogmatism with its false promise of quick and easy understanding and in doing so adopting the worst features of the utopians and theists which Marxism originally distinguished itself as a school of thought by opposing. Likewise these problems are just as present when it comes to practice, there is no quick easy answer and pushing through those decades where nothing happens for those weeks where decades happen is a trying process. So just as before the same siren song of hyper-activism, with its emphasis on newspaper sales and protest walks comes again.

[BIXX]

You find them enjoyable, so you do them, thus you value those actions over non-enjoyable ones.







It's an egoist morality, with a clear good-bad dichotomy based upon the pleasure principle as applied to one person. That's not a condemnation by the way. Morality, or ethical philosophy in general, is not the intrinsically awful thing that it is made out to be.


Morality is false.

Again you're failing to comprehend what morality constitutes, especially as I don't see my enjoyment as good.

As an egoist you find my choice to masturbate a moral one, but under any other moral system it'd wouldn't matter.

Liking=/=good. Until you get that across your head then I repeat, there is no hope for you.

[Sabot Cat]

Morality is false.

Again you're failing to comprehend what morality constitutes, especially as I don't see my enjoyment as good.

How do you not find your enjoyment good? What do you believe morality means?

I believe morality is any heuristic for discerning the value of multiple possible actions based upon a consistent standard, e.g. good vs. bad, pleases me vs. doesn't please me, increases utility v. decreases utility.


As an egoist you find my choice to masturbate a moral one, but under any other moral system it'd wouldn't matter.

I'm not an egoist, but I could assure that it would matter in other moral systems. Utilitarianism would advocate for everyone who would enjoy it to masturbate as much would make them happy, to increase net utility, while someone who adheres to the virtue ethics school of thought would favor masturbation if it an exemplary action in line with some positive quality, and if masturbation would be a good act no matter the consequences, the deontologist would recommend it as well.


Liking=/=good. Until you get that across your head then I repeat, there is no hope for you.

There isn't any hope for anyone, honestly. But that's irrelevant.

[BIXX]

How do you not find your enjoyment good?

It's neither good nor bad, it just is. It doesn't really matter, it's just set of preferences. It's irrelevant, essentially.


What do you believe morality means?

Morality is an addition to ideology. Here is my definition of ideology from the other forum:


Ideology gives prescriptions based on assumptions that have basis in a value set (which are used in the formation of a body of ideas).

Morality takes that and goes one step further and says that if you ignore the prescription you have "sinned", or committed a "wrong".


I believe morality is any heuristic for discerning the value of multiple possible actions based upon a consistent standard, e.g. good vs. bad, pleases me vs. doesn't please me, increases utility v. decreases utility.

I don't really have a standard, or a system, or anything that I use to determine my actions. It is entirely impulse, and it is incredibly inconsistent. This is due to the nature of who I am being in flux at any given point in time, which in turn alters my whole reality. It may seem consistent and standardized from the outside, but due to the nature of my existence (and any other person's existence) desire is amoral.

In a way I'm more like a stream that follows no "rules". I flow in a bunch of different directions without any consistencies. If you consider the flow of stream a action based in morality then I guess I'm moral, but that would render morality itself useless and really, it would mean nothing.

Plus your definition of morality (if it does assumes all actions/events are based in morality) definitely makes morality bunk, as no system of morality can be proven better or worse, more invalid or less valid, etc... Essentially, taken to it's logical conclusion, you're saying mathematics is a moral system... Again, fucking ridiculous.

I like my computer, but it is no morally good or bad. I like sex, but sex is not morally good or bad for me. I really hope I'm making myself clear.

You basically are arguing that every single action/event are moral, which either means all morality is equally false r that there is a base morality that is the best and inherently there, which implies that there was something back then to decide what was moral and what wasn't- dare we call this being... God?. This is the logical conclusion of your idea of what is or isn't morality- either it's self-defeating or God exists.


I'm not an egoist, but I could assure that it would matter in other moral systems. Utilitarianism would advocate for everyone who would enjoy it to masturbate as much would make them happy, to increase net utility, while someone who adheres to the virtue ethics school of thought would favor masturbation if it an exemplary action in line with some positive quality, and if masturbation would be a good act no matter the consequences, the deontologist would recommend it as well.

What I meant in this case (which I should have clarified) is that you then believe every action to be morally based, which some sets of morality cannot possibly account for. In those sets of morality (where they have not established rules to deal with whether or not masturbation was ok or not) then it would necessarily be amoral. This is how the nihilist sees things- we reject rules, as we see there is no such thing as value.

[QUOTE=Sabot Cat;2766093]There isn't any hope for anyone, honestly. But that's irrelevant.

This is the most true shit I've heard someone say in a while, thogh I meant there is no hope for you understanding me.

Anyway I'm out.

[Sabot Cat]

It's neither good nor bad, it just is. It doesn't really matter, it's just set of preferences. It's irrelevant, essentially.

To be curt: Not to you.


Morality is an addition to ideology. Here is my definition of ideology from the other forum:

Morality takes that and goes one step further and says that if you ignore the prescription you have "sinned", or committed a "wrong".

If you exclusively care about your own enjoyment, wouldn't any choice that doesn't contribute to that be the 'wrong' choice which you would avoid? 'Amoralism' so enacted is egoist ethics, with a readily observed set of prescriptions, valuations, and moral appraisals- whether or not you acknowledge as much.


I don't really have a standard, or a system, or anything that I use to determine my actions. It is entirely impulse, and it is incredibly inconsistent. This is due to the nature of who I am being in flux at any given point in time, which in turn alters my whole reality. It may seem consistent and standardized from the outside, but due to the nature of my existence (and any other person's existence) desire is amoral.

By making desire the pivot by which you select actions, you elevate desire to a moral principle. And if you attempt to reject even this, and pursue just random actions in an attempt to avoid morality, you have deemed whatever actions that could be construed by you as moral as 'wrong'- to be avoided in preference of other actions; this would still be a morality system.


In a way I'm more like a stream that follows no "rules". I flow in a bunch of different directions without any consistencies. If you consider the flow of stream a action based in morality then I guess I'm moral, but that would render morality itself useless and really, it would mean nothing.

No, it would make morality a viable map for observable phenomena, namely how people evaluate what choices are 'right' and 'wrong'. I would infer that you are not as chaotic as you are proclaiming, either. Just because you claim you do not value anything, have no morals, and operate under no rules does not make any of these claims true, because I can at least partially infer that you do, in fact, exhibit all of these qualities [and again, this is not a condemnation... I'm not sure why you would consider anything a condemnation if you're amoral, because there would be no wrong actions, but yes.]


Plus your definition of morality (if it does assumes all actions/events are based in morality) definitely makes morality bunk, as no system of morality can be proven better or worse, more invalid or less valid, etc... Essentially, taken to it's logical conclusion, you're saying mathematics is a moral system... Again, fucking ridiculous.

Many epistemologies can be argued to be ethical valuation systems based on truth/falsehood, but I'm not sure how you extrapolated all of those other things.

Furthermore, I could make a better case for your amorality exhibiting this anything goes approach to claims and actions. Is it wrong for me to adhere to a morality? Why shouldn't I? Why should I care about your valuations of it? What is 'ridiculousness' if not an appraisal from a values-based system?


I like my computer, but it is no morally good or bad. I like sex, but sex is not morally good or bad for me. I really hope I'm making myself clear.

You basically are arguing that every single action/event are moral, which either means all morality is equally false r that there is a base morality that is the best and inherently there, which implies that there was something back then to decide what was moral and what wasn't- dare we call this being... God?. This is the logical conclusion of your idea of what is or isn't morality- either it's self-defeating or God exists.

Alternate hypothesis: Or 'good' can be used to describe observable phenomena like happiness or positive emotions, and 'bad' to describe the inverse. But otherwise, this is a lot of conclusion jumping. I mean you plowed from 'moral realism' to 'theism' so fast that I think you set a land speed record unmatched by even theologians.

Indeed, why would it matter if an extra-universal alien that has universe-making technology said that certain things were moral? It really wouldn't change how we use the terms or navigate reality, or reality itself.


What I meant in this case (which I should have clarified) is that you then believe every action to be morally based, which some sets of morality cannot possibly account for. In those sets of morality (where they have not established rules to deal with whether or not masturbation was ok or not) then it would necessarily be amoral.

Not all ethics are rule based, or deontological. Consequentialist ethics can be pretty much applied universally.


This is how the nihilist sees things- we reject rules, as we see there is no such thing as value.

Nihilists close their eyes and shout really loudly to ignore the fact that 'value' and 'rules' are perfectly accurate descriptions for things in their lives; and this is for absolutely no reason at all, if they are to be consistent with their own system of non-belief.


This is the most true shit I've heard someone say in a while,

I'm sincerely glad we agree on something, even if it is kind of pessimistic. :)


thogh I meant there is no hope for you understanding me.

Would that be bad? I'm not trying to be facetious here, either. You really do seem to be abiding by a morality while claiming otherwise, and, once more, I mean no disrespect in saying so.

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't really have a standard, or a system, or anything that I use to determine my actions. It is entirely impulse, and it is incredibly inconsistent. This is due to the nature of who I am being in flux at any given point in time, which in turn alters my whole reality. It may seem consistent and standardized from the outside, but due to the nature of my existence (and any other person's existence) desire is amoral.So basically what you're saying is that you don't ever stop and think before doing something. Of course, with a noticeable veneer of philosophical mumbo jumbo about being in flux at any nanosecond.

[The Modern Prometheus]

One thing that i get pissed at explaining to Liberals, Conservatives, so called right libertarians and the rest of the reactionaries that Marxism is not State Capitalism ala the Soviet Union. It is also Marxists taking the high ground of morality as morality in our society is constructed by the bourgeois and hardly a universal sense of principles anyway.

Someone mentioned bourgeois art and this is one aspect of some Maoist circles that confounds me abit. If we where to chuck out what they call bourgeois art then we could have to condemn most of the great artists in history. So do we really want to start burning books, paintings, LP's, CD's and such? That's not Marxism that's being a prude who is not going to win themselves any favors with the working class.

[Broviet Union]

This is an uninteresting derail of this thread.

[DigitalBluster]

I don't really have a standard, or a system, or anything that I use to determine my actions. It is entirely impulse....

You seem determined not to be told that you operate according to a set of ideals. This seems obviously ironic. It also seems incredibly unlikely. Like the rest of us, you're a social being, shaped by your social environment. You operate, consciously or not, according to the assumptions of that social environment. This didn't change when you read Stirner.

[consuming negativity]

Being a social being influenced by your environment does not mean that your preferences are morals. According to all of you who are being pedantic, the only people who could be amoral would be the dead. Can we please get back on topic?


Marxism is not asceticism. Being a Marxist does not require you to live in a dingy apartment, wear the same clothes every day, and forgo the pleasures of modern life. You're not a hypocrite if you live as well as you can while still being a Marxist, as long as you're not a boss.

I have a lot of problem with this. Yeah, Marxism is not asceticism, but if you're raking in a six figure salary and doing jack shit to help the struggle or anyone around you who has a much shittier lifestyle, you're not only a bad Marxist but a shitty person. This shit is not a game. People who are living in abject misery are in abject misery while you're fucking around. But if you get promoted to manager at McDonalds and get a few extra bucks an hour suddenly you're a class traitor? Give me a fucking break and stop being an apologist for champagne socialists.

[Halert]

I have a lot of problem with this.

The Original post is mostly aimed at misconceptions of marxism. aimed at lines such as "if you are a commie then why do you own an iphone" or "if you are a socialist why do you drink at starbucks".


if you're raking in a six figure salary and doing jack shit to help the struggle or anyone around you who has a much shittier lifestyle, you're not only a bad Marxist but a shitty person. You are right, but that is not what this post is aimed at.

or at least that is what i believe the OP meant.

also this sentence is a important part of his post.

as long as you don't lose sight of class politics.