Dogmatic marxists vs. monotheists

[Skyhilist]

Dogmatic marxist: "Everything in Capital is true because it is the word of Marx" (or everything said by Bordiga/Lenin/whoever because they inherently have the "correct/true interpretation of Marx).
monotheist: "Things in the Bible/Torah/Quran is true because it is the word of God."

Dogmatic Marxists: Divided into multiple tendencies that often bicker with each other about which one is the best interpretation of Marx.
Dogmatic Christians, Jews, or Muslims: Divided into multiple sects that often bicker with each other about which one is the best interpretation of the Bible/Torah/Quran.

Dogmatic Marxists: Often operate with the idea that non-Marxists are automatically incorrect because they aren't Marxists.
Dogmatic monotheist: Often operate with the idea that non-Christians/Jews/Muslims are automatically wrong because they aren't the same religion as them.

I'm sure there are a few more comparisons. These are just the ones off the top of my head. Obviously, this isn't intended for all Marxists, many of whom are not so inflexible with their beliefs. But, given that at least some of the people who would call themselves Marxists on this forum, does anyone else see this as a major problem? And before anyone points this out, yes there are of course sectarian anarchists like this too. This seemed, however, to be more common with supposed "Marxists" on this forum who denounce anything other than the exact beliefs of a specific tendency (beliefs that are often so specific that a combination of them all would never be formed by one's own mind but by presupposing that because some things involved in the beliefs of a tendency seem true, all facets of that tendency must be true. Obviously this is a fallacious notion). The fact that people are so dogmatic while renouncing religious dogma seems almost paradoxical. Again, obviously this isn't inherent in Marxism or anarchism. But it certainly seems troublesome that so many on the left are this way.

Thoughts?

[Fourth Internationalist]

I have never ever met a single Marxist who thinks point #1 (if there are any then they are by definition not Marxists), and many Marxists only use #3 to a very much lesser extent (not that the person they're debating on a certain issue is wrong because they're not Marxists, but that because their thoughts on a certain issue is not a Marxist analysis, which to a Marxist, is the way to analyze issues).

#2 is a reality to any sort of belief or position on any issue(s). Of course one tendency is going to think they're more correct than the other, and of course they're going to argue about that, and of course that will turn into petty bickering sometimes.

All in all, I think these comparisons between Marxist "dogmatists" and religious zealots/believers is flawed.

[Thirsty Crow]

I have never ever met a single Marxist who thinks point #1 (if there are any then they are by definition not Marxists)
The point isn't if a person actually holds such an opinion, but rather if she actually produces arguments based on something similar, without actually either understanding what, e.g., Marx argued, or how that relates to the existing state of affairs. There are people who approach problems in such a way, treating theory as tradition, and not asking these difficult questions (thus leaving out something very important, namely, how class relations work nowadays).

[Lenina Rosenweg]

As I understand Amadeo Bordiga, who was something of a"Marxist fundamentalist", literally thought everything Marx said was true.Not to say of course that Bordiga wasn't an interesting guy.

On the other hand the Hungarian Marxist philosopher Gyorgy Lukacs said something to the effect that if it can be shown that if everything Marx said was wrong he would still be a Marxist..

Marxism is meant to be a science and a set of tools for analyzing human societies, especially capitalist society, not dogmatic beliefs.

Marxism of course has been used as a religion at times which was not the original intention. It can be said that socialism fulfills some of the same needs as does organized religion for many people-community, hope for the future, giving one's life a purpose, personal identity, etc.

Anything taken dogmatically can become destructive.

[Skyhilist]

As I understand Amadeo Bordiga, who was something of a"Marxist fundamentalist", literally thought everything Marx said was true.Not to say of course that Bordiga wasn't an interesting guy.

On the other hand the Hungarian Marxist philosopher Gyorgy Lukacs said something to the effect that if it can be shown that if everything Marx said was wrong he would still be a Marxist..

Marxism is meant to be a science and a set of tools for analyzing human societies, especially capitalist society, not dogmatic beliefs.

Marxism of course has been used as a religion at times which was not the original intention. It can be said that socialism fulfills some of the same needs as does organized religion for many people-community, hope for the future, giving one's life a purpose, personal identity, etc.

Anything taken dogmatically can become destructive.

Yeah, this is exactly what I'm getting at; there shouldn't be Marxist "fundamentalists", because it's counterproductive in that people become unable to process ideas on their own outside of the context of "what would Marx do?"

I somewhat understand the Lukacs quote, though not completely. If everything Marx believed was wrong, wouldn't that make his way of viewing the way the world works wrong?

[Hit The North]

All the OP shows is that all dogmatists share a similar set of attitudes irrespective of the content of their beliefs.

It is neither a critique of Marxism or monotheism but only a commonplace criticism of dogmatism.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Lukacs meant that even if everything Marx said was wrong he'd still be a Marxist in the sense that he took Marxism as a method, a set of tools, which is what he thought valuable about Marx's work.The conclusions Marx may have reached using these tools (LTV,historical materialism, TSV, etc.) at times were wrong. Some of his stuff on imperialism written in the 1850s -on India, Mexico, Eastern Europe, on German nationalism-were way off base and are even a bit cringe worthy to leftists today. Its the method Marx developed, not all his conclusions, that we should honor..

[Skyhilist]

All the OP shows is that all dogmatists share a similar set of attitudes irrespective of the content of their beliefs.

It is neither a critique of Marxism or monotheism but only a commonplace criticism of dogmatism.

You obviously aren't understanding what I'm trying to say. This isn't meant to be an outright critique of Marxists or monotheists. My point is simply that it is frightening how many supposed Marxists are so dogmatic (at least on here), and that it's a dogma very similar in nature to that of the monotheists that Marxism is supposed to oppose.

[Skyhilist]

Lukacs meant that even if everything Marx said was wrong he'd still be a Marxist in the sense that he took Marxism as a method, a set of tools, which is what he thought valuable about Marx's work.The conclusions Marx may have reached using these tools (LTV,historical materialism, TSV, etc.) at times were wrong. Some of his stuff on imperialism written in the 1850s -on India, Mexico, Eastern Europe, on German nationalism-were way off base and are even a bit cringe worthy to leftists today. Its the method Marx developed, not all his conclusions, that we should honor..

I understand now, thank you. That definitely makes sense.

I guess the question is, if someone uses the tools of Marxism then to arrive at somewhat reactionary conclusions, does that still make them a Marxist? Suppose someone uses these tools, but being raised in a fascist household, ends up being reactionary like a national Bolshevik. Are they still Marxists since they "used the tools of Marxism"?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Interesting point.The tools of Marxism can be used by capitalists as well as the working class. Some of the business press-Business Week, the Financial Times seem to almost use a sort of reverse Marxism. Thomas Friedman, an apologist for neo-liberalism, seems to know Marx very well.He quotes Marx extensively in The World is Flat. I originally even thought he was a Marxist when I first read it.

Of course ruling class apologists can't follow the conclusions of a Marxist analysis-that crisis is inevitable in capitalist society. It is very useful to capitalists though to understand that labor power is the root of all value under capitalism and that politics is class struggle.I don't think, in their heart of hearts, the ruling classes really take neo-liberalism seriously as an economic ideology. Of course this doesn't make someone a Marxist.

[Skyhilist]

Perhaps there should be considered two types of Marxists then:

1) Those who use Marx's method but disagree with some of Marx's conclusions.
2) Those who both use Marx's methods and agree with most of Marx's conclusions.

Of course, another question that that would raise is how much you could disagree with certain conclusions made by Marx's before you could no longer be considered a part of the latter group. Council communists, and many anarchists, for example, have very similar views, yet only council communists are considered by most to be Marxists, even when many anarchists reject a single or only a few of the conclusions drawn by Marx (e.g. DOTP, states). If rejecting a single of Marx's therefore means one cannot be a Marxist (in the sense that the latter of the two groups are Marxist), then wouldn't such an idea make only the fundamentalist Marxists members of this latter group? In which case all others would fall in the same category as even the most reactionary figures who have used Marx's methods.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Not at all surprising considering how many "college revolutionaries" there are out there -- individuals that were campus militants right up to the day they graduated. I disagree with the inability to recognize that crisis is inevitable in capitalist society. The brightest embrace it, refusing to let a good crisis go to waste.

“Only a crisis-actual or perceived-produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.”
-- Milton Friedman


Interesting point.The tools of Marxism can be used by capitalists as well as the working class. Some of the business press-Business Week, the Financial Times seem to almost use a sort of reverse Marxism. Thomas Friedman, an apologist for neo-liberalism, seems to know Marx very well.He quotes Marx extensively in The World is Flat. I originally even thought he was a Marxist when I first read it.

Of course ruling class apologists can't follow the conclusions of a Marxist analysis-that crisis is inevitable in capitalist society. It is very useful to capitalists though to understand that labor power is the root of all value under capitalism and that politics is class struggle.I don't think, in their heart of hearts, the ruling classes really take neo-liberalism seriously as an economic ideology. Of course this doesn't make someone a Marxist.

[Dagoth Ur]

#1 for monotheists is confusing. Unless you mean true to be historically accurate then it's just retarded. Most monotheists are not literalists.

[Skyhilist]

#1 for monotheists is confusing. Unless you mean true to be historically accurate then it's just retarded. Most monotheists are not literalists.

I edited it. Also, why the use of the ableist term?

[MarxSchmarx]

#1 for monotheists is confusing. Unless you mean true to be historically accurate then it's just retarded. Most monotheists are not literalists.

This is a verbal warning Dagoth ur for using the term "retarted" in a derogatory context. In the future, please be mindful that that is not allowed here.

[Dagoth Ur]

Oy vey. Apologies.

@skwiz: you didn't edit anything in the first monotheist example. You fail to define truth.

[Skyhilist]

Oy vey. Apologies.

@skwiz: you didn't edit anything in the first monotheist example. You fail to i define truth.

I changed it from "everything" to "things", because certainly monotheists at least view certain things within those books to be true, even if (as you mentioned) they don't find "everything" in those books to be true.
"things" is intentionally vague so that it can represent both monotheists who believe "everything" in these texts, as well as monotheists who believe "just some things" in these texts.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Dogmatisms do share traits in common-sectarianism, many splits, intolerance towards dissidents. Marxist and monotheist dogmatisms share material causes. One could do a materialist history of Marxism, Christianity and Islam.Engels actually wrote bout the similarities of sthe socialist movement and early Christianity.

Dogmatism develops when a movement is taken over by a powerful state inthe interests of its ruling class and is made to function as a state ideology. Christianity under Constantine-the Council of Nicea codified and rigidified what had been a more open movement and Marxism in the Stalinist SU became rigid and "orthodox".

Movements also become dogmatic when they have no hope of achieving power and lose contact with outside influences.The "56 varieties" of socialist sect in our time.

Racism and other peculiarities of the US South, combined with recent neo-liberalism,gave rise to Christian fundamentalism.

The major difference between Marxism and monotheism though is that Marxism is a science.Monotheism can only be a subjective experoence. One may believe they are "saved" because "God loves them" but this can't explain anything outside of one's own psychological state.