How up-to-date is Marxism at the moment?

[Arrin Snyders]

I'm still quite new to Marxism at the moment, but as I read more something began to bug me. When Marxism first developed, the capitalist economy was strongly grounded in industrial manufacturing and the writings of all prominent Marxists reflect this. Since then this fact has changed dramatically with the services-based economy slowly but surely replacing the manufacturing-based economy of the 19th and early 20th centuries in the developed world.


So my questions are these: how has this change affected the nature of the working class and what it means to be part of the Proletariat? Sure, the system of exploitation is basically the same, but many of the details of that exploitation have changed. How does this affect the world view of the working class and the prospects for building class consciousness? Also, how does this shift from manufacturing to services affect the prospect of a successful revolution? Finally, how many of the key concepts of Marxism remain relevant within the current economic setting and what work has been done so far to update those parts of Marxist theory that require it?

[AmilcarCabral]

Hi, this is not specifically related to your question, but it is still relevant to your question. Read these 5 answers I got from this forum of why most people even poor people of the world vote for capitalist parties:

QUESTION BY A LEFTIST FROM THIS FORUM OF WHY MOST POOR PEOPLE, MOST OPPRESSED VOTE FOR CAPITALIST PARTIES INSTEAD OF VOTING FOR MARXIST LEFTIST PARTIES: Just a question why do poor people vote for capitalist political parties, instead of marxist parties in most elections? do they want to have private schools, private healths care, bigger taxes. And just dont say that they arent educated, because you don't need to be a Karl Marx and an Albert Einstein to really tell the difference between a guy that wants to give you totally free heath care, totally free public schools, totally absolute free university professions. And another guy who wants to take all this away from you !!

1- The resentment the American working class has towards the liberal left exists for a very good reason. The white working class are seen as infantile inbred moonshiners and bible beaters. If only they listened to what the learned academic liberals had to say they'd be fine. The liberal left is just as condescending to the black working class, but aren't as up front about it. Overall the story is a lot worse, though. The democrats hijacked the black liberation movement, robbed it of its revolutionary potential to preserve the white supremacy integral to western capitalism. People are right too be distrusting of the left establishment, they are just to discriminatory with who they blame for their oppression.

2- In the United States, the white proletariat in the Southern states votes for the major "rightist" party (Republicans) because Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, who belonged to the Democratic Party, signed the civil rights and voting rights bills which extended the right to vote in the South to people of color. The Republicans under Richard Nixon capitalized on the extreme reactionary and racist nature of most of the white proletariat in the Southern United States, and as a result most of them have voted right wing since 1968, whereas before they were dyed in the wool Democrats. In essence, racism and reaction to equal rights for people of color.

3- Because of the ideology and ideas of the ruling elite, which is imposed by this dominant elite onto all members of society, and makes the interest of the elite appear to be the interest of all. The ideology of the capitalist society is enormously important, since it confuses many workers and causes them to vote against their own economic and political best interests.

4- Social issues sometimes play a big part in elections. Many poor people are religious. Marx pointed this out. If it comes to issues on gay marriage and abortion, they vote in accordance to there religious views. When it comes to economic issues, I think many poor people know that democrats really don't give a fuck. But when they see a republican saying "see, you can be like me too! A rich person who came from nothing and rose to this height" the lower echelon of people will vote for them. It's part of the American psyche. Even though it is not true, we are brainwashed into thinking that the "American dream" is accessible to everyone at anytime. Obama has not done a good job of portraying a rags to riches story/policy. So if one is in rags, why vote for someone who doesn't say they can become extremely rich?

5- The answer is this: "Did you know that we are ruled by television?" -Jim Morrison, The Doors. I think that the real cause of why many poor americans vote for capitalist parties is the very very powerful effect of the newspapers, television and radio stations have on people. You know where I live, some times I listen to the classical rock music station, and that station has lots of anti-black people, anti-spanish, anti-muslims, anti-gays, anti-poor people jokes. You know jokes in the mainstream media are another way of mind-manipulating the masses toward right-wing parties. Another tool and vehicle used by the US rulers is the movies. Lots and lots of hollywood movies have even anti-Castro, anti-muslims subliminal messages. The USA as a whole is a hardcore ultra-right wing propaganda terrorism all over the place. The extremism and radicalism of ultra-right wing advertising is all over the place in America. So I think that the real answer to your question is the high levels of ultra-right wing pro-capitalism anti-socialism psychologic terrorism played on the minds of all americans is really the real reason of why 90% of US citizens vote for capitalist parties (Democrats and Republicans), and only 10% or even less vote for marxist parties (Socialist Party, Communist Parties etc)





I'm still quite new to Marxism at the moment, but as I read more something began to bug me. When Marxism first developed, the capitalist economy was strongly grounded in industrial manufacturing and the writings of all prominent Marxists reflect this. Since then this fact has changed dramatically with the services-based economy slowly but surely replacing the manufacturing-based economy of the 19th and early 20th centuries in the developed world.


So my questions are these: how has this change affected the nature of the working class and what it means to be part of the Proletariat? Sure, the system of exploitation is basically the same, but many of the details of that exploitation have changed. How does this affect the world view of the working class and the prospects for building class consciousness? Also, how does this shift from manufacturing to services affect the prospect of a successful revolution? Finally, how many of the key concepts of Marxism remain relevant within the current economic setting and what work has been done so far to update those parts of Marxist theory that require it?

[Tim Cornelis]

In my experience, most Marxists these days ignore the bourgeoisification of the proletariat which changes the rules of the game of class struggle. Of course, Engels and Marx in their time had even noted the bourgeoisification of the British proletariat and the labour aristocracy, as did Lenin:


Here we have the programme and tactics of the economic struggle and of the trade union movement for several decades to come, for all the lengthy period in which the proletariat will prepare its forces for the “coming battle.” All this should be compared with numerous references by Marx and Engels to the example of the British labor movement, showing how industrial “property” leads to attempts “to buy the proletariat” (Briefwechsel, Vol. 1, p. 136).[3] to divert them from the struggle; how this prosperity in general “demoralizes the workers” (Vol. 2, p. 218); how the British proletariat becomes “bourgeoisified”—“this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie” Chartists (1866; Vol. 3, p. 305)[4]; how the British workers’ leaders are becoming a type midway between “a radical bourgeois and a worker” (in reference to Holyoak, Vol. 4, p. 209); how, owning to Britain’s monopoly, and as long as that monopoly lasts, “the British workingman will not budge” (Vol. 4, p. 433).[5] The tactics of the economic struggle, in connection with the general course (and outcome) of the working-class movement, are considered here from a remarkably broad, comprehensive, dialectical, and genuinely revolutionary standpoint.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/granat/ch05.htm

This has, I think, changes the nature of class struggle insomuch that the working class in highly developed economies no longer has a constant interest in the overthrow of capitalism as the want for stability outweighs the level of exploitation. Only when this stability is removed will the working class have an interest in revolution.

[Sea]

I'll come back to this later, right now I have to get some sleep, but "services" were pretty big in even in Marx's day in England, etc. If I recall he makes note of this in Capital too.

[Dodo]

I'm still quite new to Marxism at the moment, but as I read more something began to bug me. When Marxism first developed, the capitalist economy was strongly grounded in industrial manufacturing and the writings of all prominent Marxists reflect this. Since then this fact has changed dramatically with the services-based economy slowly but surely replacing the manufacturing-based economy of the 19th and early 20th centuries in the developed world.


Finally, how many of the key concepts of Marxism remain relevant within the current economic setting and what work has been done so far to update those parts of Marxist theory that require it?

It does not matter that these changes happen. Marxism is, at its core a way of perceiving the world. All of Marx's analysis could be obsolete(which they are not to a great extend) tomorrow but that would not mean Marxism ends. Marxism is foremost, purely a methodology of analyzing, it is a guide to change an unrelenting criticisim of whatever you live in.

I am not going to reply to the rest for now as they are up-to debate. One thing is certain, things have changed and a Marxist MUST always accept that. The idea is to analyze current conditions for revolutionary change.

[WilliamGreen]

"The idea is to analyze current conditions for revolutionary change."

- Anarchist ;)

[Arrin Snyders]

@AmilcarCabral: It's interesting, but not quite what I was looking for. It deals mostly with the US and I was looking for something more general than that.

@Tim Cornelius: Interesting. I'll have to look into that.

@Dogukan: Fair enough, Marxist methodology does seem to still be relevant, but what about the conclusions that have been drawn so far based on that methodology? This is what I'm most interested about. How many of those conclusions are still valid today given the changes that have taken place in the last hundred years?

[Remus Bleys]

Marxism is eternal.

[AmilcarCabral]

Tim: Hi, yeah you are 100% right about the mechanical way in which many leftists out there think that all poor people, all workers, all lower class people, all people who live in real bad economic conditions, all humans who have very low living standards are marxists, leftists or are soon ready to become leftists, hardcore supporters of leftist organizations in their own countries. If this was the case Haiti would already have a state in transition toward a workers-state. Panama, Nigeria, and even Mexico which is not so poor, but it is still full of poverty would already have Andres Lopez Obrador in power.

We have to realize that many poor people in this world are not even right-wingers, they are non-wingers (they hate politics) and even though they are trying to get out of poverty. The vehicles and tools that they rely on to get out of poverty are ultra-individualist vehicles like garage sales, e-bay, other types of side businesses. Or in other cases, some resort to black market activities, to illegal activities like many women who decide to resort to prostitution and males to drug smuggling and/or other types of illegal ways of earning money.

So this rejection against socialism and leftist ideology by a super large section of the poor people of this world, is something that leftists will have to deal with. And think of a scientific plan on how to get the poor of the whole world to join leftist revolutionaries organizations in their own countries, as the only way to get out of poverty into a life with opportunities to reach their self-realization



In my experience, most Marxists these days ignore the bourgeoisification of the proletariat which changes the rules of the game of class struggle. Of course, Engels and Marx in their time had even noted the bourgeoisification of the British proletariat and the labour aristocracy, as did Lenin

[skitty]

Arrin, I'm going to go out on a limb here and hope this is of interest. I found it a while back and saved it...don't remember all the details; but it came out of events in France in the late 60's. It's called Obsolete Communism:
http://libcom.org/files/Obsolete%20Communism%20-%20The%20left-wing%20alternative%20-%20Daniel%20Cohn-Bendit%20&%20Gabriel%20Cohn-Bendit.pdf

[Dodo]

@Dogukan: Fair enough, Marxist methodology does seem to still be relevant, but what about the conclusions that have been drawn so far based on that methodology? This is what I'm most interested about. How many of those conclusions are still valid today given the changes that have taken place in the last hundred years?

Putting "class struggle" into the heart of historical change, regardless of the content change of the class can apply to any time in history still.

Contradictions within systems are pretty relevant yet still, although capitalism has certainly evolved. The thing is, core mechanisms are still the same to a large extend. Marxist economical theories from 19th century might loose a lot of meaning at that by now but core contradictions are still there.

Materialism is still a valid philosophical stance(actually its quiet stronger) therefore we can still base creation of thoughts and ideas to the world we are a product of. Societies can still be largely explained by substructure-superstructure relations.
Believing in a dialectical world is a bit of a choice but I have not really seen a strong counter-argument to dialectics. It is quiet an humble approach itself.

It is also worth keeping in mind that a lot of new theoretical perspectives are not necessarily "incompatible" with Marxism.

Do you have something more spesific in mind? The inner dynamics of classes are not as simple as before which is true. It is also open to debate greatly but other than that? I'd like to know too actually.

[Arrin Snyders]

Putting "class struggle" into the heart of historical change, regardless of the content change of the class can apply to any time in history still.

Contradictions within systems are pretty relevant yet still, although capitalism has certainly evolved. The thing is, core mechanisms are still the same to a large extend. Marxist economical theories from 19th century might loose a lot of meaning at that by now but core contradictions are still there.

Materialism is still a valid philosophical stance(actually its quiet stronger) therefore we can still base creation of thoughts and ideas to the world we are a product of. Societies can still be largely explained by substructure-superstructure relations.
Believing in a dialectical world is a bit of a choice but I have not really seen a strong counter-argument to dialectics. It is quiet an humble approach itself.

It is also worth keeping in mind that a lot of new theoretical perspectives are not necessarily "incompatible" with Marxism.

Do you have something more spesific in mind? The inner dynamics of classes are not as simple as before which is true. It is also open to debate greatly but other than that? I'd like to know too actually.

Thanks. :) That does basically cover it since my question was general in nature to begin with. I've been reading up on Marxism for a few months now and most of what I read is 100 or more years old. I eventually simply began to wonder how much of it was still relevant today.

I do have two more specific questions that are bugging me.

1. I've been wondering for a while now why the left is so weak these days. The fractured nature of the left, aggressive capitalist propaganda and disillusionment following the failure of the first attempt at building Socialism can account for part of the problem, but they don't really deal with the material circumstances that people live in. So I've been wondering how these have changed in the past hundred years and if they may explain the weakness of the left today. Tim Cornelis mentioned earlier the bourgeoisification of the proletariat and this may be a good lead, but I haven't had time to look into it yet. So, how have the classes changed in the past hundred years?

2. Somewhat related is the transition to a service-based economy, which my intuition says plays a part in the weakness of the left. It has, quite simply, changed what it means to work and made it more abstract. A good part of the working class no longer produces anything concrete, instead a service is sold just like a commodity. How does this change impact the world-view of the worker, if at all? If it does have an effect, then this may go a long way in explaining the lack of class consciousness that exists today.

An idea that I had very recently (and which might not have any link to my questions) is on the economic nature of this service. While it has value and use-value, it resembles labor power more than a commodity in that it is inseparable from the worker who offers the service. This may or may not mean anything, since the idea is only half-formed and I'm not sure about it's importance.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This has, I think, changes the nature of class struggle insomuch that the working class in highly developed economies no longer has a constant interest in the overthrow of capitalism as the want for stability outweighs the level of exploitation. Only when this stability is removed will the working class have an interest in revolution.

Tim, either that's precisely the definition of a non-revolutionary period vs. a revolutionary period, or that goes against the argument put forth in the Anatomy of Revolution. :confused:

[Tim Cornelis]

Tim, either that's precisely the definition of a non-revolutionary period vs. a revolutionary period, or that goes against the argument put forth in the Anatomy of Revolution. :confused:

I don't think so. In Bangladesh the proletariat has a constant interest in the overthrow of capitalism, but does not always act on it (the difference between a non-revolutionary period and a revolutionary period). It does not act on it, I would imagine, because of a sense of hopelessness or learned helplessness (the narrative, if I recall correctly, of the Anatomy of Revolution -- a book which I've bought for still haven't read). In contrast, the well-off proletariat -- whom have attained a level of affluence, job and financial insecurity unparalleled by the lower classes of society at any time in human history -- has no constant interest in the overthrow of capitalism, but rather a periodically occurring interest when the "forces of competition" hurl the proletariat back into a position of insecurity and instability, such as in Greece. In that sense, it is similar to the petty-bourgeoisie (though not in all aspects).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

In terms of tactics and strategy, Marxism is hopeless out-of-touch with the everyday lives of workers, and currently offers little in the way of providing a concrete basis for politically organising and giving consciousness to workers on a collective, homogenising basis. Politically, the Social Democracy of pre-1914, and Marxism-Leninism of the 20th century, is a dead end, yet there hasn't been any update of Marxist political ideology that has shined light on a new organisational route for the working class to take since these failures.

In terms of giving us a methodological framework for analysing society, Marxism the philosophy is as relevant as ever. I think it is a very strong and reputable method we can apply to analyse capitalism, its features, flaws and contradictions, its crises and instabilities, and above all, its social relationships.

[Q]

Marxism exists of several parts: A scientific part, a philosophic part and a grand vision.

The latter two stood the test of time, but the scientific part needs critical review. As Moshé Machover recently put it well (http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/985/the-party-we-need):


But whether Marx said it or not is Marxology. The real question is whether the idea and the conclusion can be defended logically and empirically.

Mind you, it is the science part of Marxism that is in most need of amendment. A philosophical idea can last for hundreds of years and still be very usable - you can find people adhering to very ancient philosophies without much change. But in science that does not happen. No scientific doctrine of the mid-19th century can remain intact today without serious amendment.

The best comparison is Darwin’s Origin of species. Mostly it is right and it has survived very well. (I also think that Capital too has survived very well, but that not everything it contains is correct.) If there is something attributed to Darwin when actually it was TH Huxley, ‘Darwin’s bulldog’, who said it, it does not really matter. What is important is, does it stand the test of present-day understanding of evolution? And obviously not everything does. Similarly you cannot expect every conclusion, every statement of Marx on political economy to hold up today. If it did, that would be very unusual in the history of science. And political economy is the scientific part of Marxism - other parts are more philosophic, more visionary and so on.

[Queen Mab]

This has, I think, changes the nature of class struggle insomuch that the working class in highly developed economies no longer has a constant interest in the overthrow of capitalism as the want for stability outweighs the level of exploitation. Only when this stability is removed will the working class have an interest in revolution.

What about May '68, a revolutionary situation that came at the tail-end of the Trente Glorieuses? You're obviously correct that the stability or material wealth of capitalism is a barrier, but I don't think we can be dogmatic and say that revolution can never happen in such an environment.

[reb]

There have been many attempts to shake off the old dogmas that the tradition of marxism has accumulated. I'm too busy to actually flesh out a proper reply right now but you can have a look at autonomia, the marxist-humanist initiative, communization theory and have a look into a journal called Endnotes which should be online for free


Marxism exists of several parts: A scientific part, a philosophic part and a grand vision.

The latter two stood the test of time, but the scientific part needs critical review. As Moshé Machover recently put it well (http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/985/the-party-we-need):

The problem you have, and rest of the dogmatists, is in thinking that Marxism is actually scientific. Marx never considered it a science, as per this:

"... 'scientific socialism'...

...was only used in opposition to utopian socialism, which wants to attach the people to new delusions, instead of limiting its science to the knowledge of the social movement made by the people itself"

So it's not surprising that a quasi-social-democrat like yourself would uphold such a notion, and even that idea that such a fantasy needs amending.

[Tim Cornelis]

The problem you have, and rest of the dogmatists, is in thinking that Marxism is actually scientific. Marx never considered it a science, as per this:

"... 'scientific socialism'...

...was only used in opposition to utopian socialism, which wants to attach the people to new delusions, instead of limiting its science to the knowledge of the social movement made by the people itself"

So it's not surprising that a quasi-social-democrat like yourself would uphold such a notion, and even that idea that such a fantasy needs amending.

Kind of ironic that you call someone a dogmatic for diverging from the scripture of Marx and Engels.

The fact that orthodox Marxism is not the same as classical Marxism does not mean that orthodox Marxism is wrong.

[Hit The North]

In my experience, most Marxists these days ignore the bourgeoisification of the proletariat which changes the rules of the game of class struggle. Of course, Engels and Marx in their time had even noted the bourgeoisification of the British proletariat and the labour aristocracy, as did Lenin.

This has, I think, changes the nature of class struggle insomuch that the working class in highly developed economies no longer has a constant interest in the overthrow of capitalism as the want for stability outweighs the level of exploitation. Only when this stability is removed will the working class have an interest in revolution.

Tim, if you think the problem for the working class in advanced capitalism is bourgeoisification then I don't think you have been paying attention for the past thirty years. Neither is it true that capitalism is stable. Take a look around! The real problem for the working class is that it has become fragmented and increasingly alienated from itself and lacks the organisation to impose itself politically. This is why, as society is in the grip of deep economic crisis, the working class has not imposed itself. It's not because they are enjoying bourgeois privileges, but quite the opposite.


I don't think so. In Bangladesh the proletariat has a constant interest in the overthrow of capitalism, but does not always act on it (the difference between a non-revolutionary period and a revolutionary period).

Depends what you mean by interest - if you mean objectively, detached from its recognition by workers, as you imply, it raises the question: When do workers in the advanced capitalist nations not have a constant interest in overthrowing capitalism?

Btw, I think the key difference between the Western working class of, roughly, the 1880s to the 1970s, compared to now, is that it more clearly recognised itself and its value to the system (although not with absolute clarity), and was better organised than it is now. This didn't necessarily make it more revolutionary as a class.


In terms of tactics and strategy, Marxism is hopeless out-of-touch with the everyday lives of workers, and currently offers little in the way of providing a concrete basis for politically organising and giving consciousness to workers on a collective, homogenising basis. Politically, the Social Democracy of pre-1914, and Marxism-Leninism of the 20th century, is a dead end, yet there hasn't been any update of Marxist political ideology that has shined light on a new organisational route for the working class to take since these failures.


But these things have to come from the class and its struggles, it can't be built top-down by theories. At most, Marxism offers a distinctive analysis of the general line of march which should be taken, but it's analysis has to be grounded in the local and emergent; it cannot prescribe what organisational forms the struggle takes, because it cannot control the struggle. Marxism didn't create the strike and the general strike; didn't hold the first factory occupation; didn't create the mass movement of workers; didn't invent the soviet; didn't invent the political party.


In terms of giving us a methodological framework for analysing society, Marxism the philosophy is as relevant as ever. I think it is a very strong and reputable method we can apply to analyse capitalism, its features, flaws and contradictions, its crises and instabilities, and above all, its social relationships.


I agree. Its job is to provide content, not form, to the struggle.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

But these things have to come from the class and its struggles, it can't be built top-down by theories. At most, Marxism offers a distinctive analysis of the general line of march which should be taken, but it's analysis has to be grounded in the local and emergent; it cannot prescribe what organisational forms the struggle takes, because it cannot control the struggle. Marxism didn't create the strike and the general strike; didn't hold the first factory occupation; didn't create the mass movement of workers; didn't invent the soviet; didn't invent the political party.

Absolutely right, the problem being that Marxism becomes just an exercise in academic masturbation if its insights are not drawn from evidence within the real existing class struggle. The problem currently is that this is the case - we are in an extended non-revolutionary period, combined with a lack of class and political consciousness amongst the proletariat in general. This leaves Marxism at something of a dead end; it has no fuel to fire it. Anything that claims to be new is likely to be a false dawn as there aren't a huge amount of struggles in the world whose experiences an update of Marxism can be drawn from. Anything that claims to have examined the past and synthesised it is likely to be useless in terms of its relationship to modern forms of organisation and struggle.

[ckaihatsu]

The problem you have, and rest of the dogmatists, is in thinking that Marxism is actually scientific. Marx never considered it a science, as per this:

"... 'scientific socialism'...

...was only used in opposition to utopian socialism, which wants to attach the people to new delusions, instead of limiting its science to the knowledge of the social movement made by the people itself"

So it's not surprising that a quasi-social-democrat like yourself would uphold such a notion, and even that idea that such a fantasy needs amending.


The only thing required for something to be scientific is for it to use the scientific method, and I don't see where Marxism is *incompatible* with the scientific method....


You Are Here

http://s6.postimg.org/z6z3hzt65/130828_You_Are_Here_aoi_xcf.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/z6z3hzt65/)

[AmilcarCabral]

Great analysis of yours on the reasons of why even within this current economic world crisis, the radical left of most countries of the world is so weak. While the only powerful left rising to power is the reformist, social-democrat, electoralist, bourgeoise, anti-revolution left.

However I am a little bit agnostic in my blame, I don't know if wether we should blame the working class of all countries of the world or wether we should blame the radical leftist pro-revolution organizations of the whole world.

At least around where I live, the low-wage blue collar workers of businesses like Wal Marts, Kroger supermarkets, Publix supermarkets, K-Marts, Home Depot etc. are very egocentric, stuck-up, self-absorbed and from my own observation of the behaviour patterns of the working class of America, they seem to me, very optimists about the capitalist system, about their own businesses, about their own manager. And even the workers of Wal Marts, Mcdonalds etc. think that by working real hard, and kneeling down to their masters (Their store owners), some day they will be raised to a higher rank, to supervisor, or even to becoming an administrator of the franchise businesses where they are working.

Another thing is that the working class of USA tends to feel like if they are part of the upper ruling class. And even though they live terrible lives (Many of those workers according live in their own cars in parking lots, in trailers etc), but even if their lives are painful, they try as hard as they can to hide all their pains and sufferings inside a closet. Because in America there is this teaching and mental viruse out there, that if you are poor, if you dress with poor cheap clothes, if you drive and older car, you are a piece of human trash and people will put you down.

The mentality and philosophy of life in USA is like a fashion modeling competition of clothes and cars, where people even Mcdonalds workers, try as hard as they can to fit in with the "haves", with the "jones" in order not to feel lowlife and in order to feel loved and accepted. Because americans live for others, not for their own selves, and people in this country try as hard asa they can to please others, not their own selves and their own interests.

Even the political behaviour of people is shaped by that lack of self-interest of americans. Many americans vote for Obama because their friends, families vote for Obama and Republicans are like that as well. The whole country has too many mental problems, inferiority complexes, unchecked appetites, low-self opinion, suicidal tendencies, self-destructive personality disorders, which must be adressed before all american poor people can be ready, come out of their closet, and get all their pains and sufferins out of their closets. And quit living to please others, their society and be willing to join and support radical marxist leftist organizations. Like people in venezuela, even middle class people in Venezuela are openly socialists and leaning to the left.

But in America which is supposed to be a more developed country than Venezuela, the behaviour of people is more backwards, more obsolete and less modern, than the venezuela society.

Here if you go to a social event, you can't even talk about politics, economics and controversial topics, here in America people behave like the people of the 15th century of Louis 14 in Europe

This country needs a radical change in attitude and mind, before we can see people supporting socialist marxists radical pro-revolution, pro-dictatorship of the proletariat organizations

Maybe americans need amphetamines, or to get drunk (Because alcoholic drinks kill shyness), I swear, i am fed up with the excessive shyness of most people in this country who live inside a closet and are super-scared of exposing all their pains, poverty, lack of money and sufferings to the world





In terms of tactics and strategy, Marxism is hopeless out-of-touch with the everyday lives of workers, and currently offers little in the way of providing a concrete basis for politically organising and giving consciousness to workers on a collective, homogenising basis. Politically, the Social Democracy of pre-1914, and Marxism-Leninism of the 20th century, is a dead end, yet there hasn't been any update of Marxist political ideology that has shined light on a new organisational route for the working class to take since these failures.

In terms of giving us a methodological framework for analysing society, Marxism the philosophy is as relevant as ever. I think it is a very strong and reputable method we can apply to analyse capitalism, its features, flaws and contradictions, its crises and instabilities, and above all, its social relationships.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

People shouldn't "support socialist marxists". That's phony. Marxists should support and integrate themselves into real-world political struggles led by working people.

A socialist blaming the working class for a lack of revolution comes about precisely because they are attached to Marxism and detached from the real-world struggles of the working class, and thus operate from a somewhat reactionary basis, given the age of Marxism relative to the struggles of the present day working class, which are contemporaneous to the present always and everywhere.

And to be fair, look around you. The political reality of today is as stark and depressing as ever. After working a hard week for minimum wage, or perhaps not having been able to work at all, i'm sure the last thing any worker wants is to spend their 1 social night of the week talking about such depressing shit. I know I don't like to do that.

[Alonso Quijano]

Marxism is the only ideology still alive.

With all its labour divisions, and tainting Marx with Stalinusm, it's still alive. It stands the test of time.

Marx didn't predict everything, but still Marxism is the only alternative to capitalism - which keeps making its own giant crises.

Marx was right.

Marxism will always be relevant. Until and after capitalist is overthrown.

The spirit of Rosa Luxemburg is still alive, despite both the USSR and the USA, and that says it all.

[AmilcarCabral]

The Boss: You are right, physical tiredness, fatigue, is a real destroyer of motivation. Even in the book The Politics by Aristotle, Aristotle wrote that people who are searching for knowledge shouldn't get into very exhausting athletic activities. And there is a social-democrat thinker Barbara Ehrenreich, who got into a personal case study, to see how workers feel. The case-study was based on her getting a full time job at K Mart and she claimed that, when she was doing that, she had to quit all her book-reading and all her book-writting altogether. This is another proof of how the excess of tiredness is an impediment for a clear mind.

Lenin also pointed out that when people are on the edge of a cliff and when they are stressed they can't think clearly. So I think that what you said about workers working 40 hours a week, and then driving to the supermarkets, and then driving home to cook what they have bought at the supermarkets, to clean their kitchens, and do other domestic labor, can be a hardcore destroyer of motivation to join any political movement and to be pro-active member of a political party.

And specially in America where cities and towns are built horizontally where distances are super far, where every thing is very far, and where people spend lots of energies just driving every day to fulfill their basic needs. Life in America for the majority is not a piece of cake, it is not a walk in the park

I know that we shouldn't blame the working class of America for their lack of motivation to join communist organizations. But however, american communists are humans with feelings, and souls, what I mean is that it will not be an easy task for communists to break the ice and strike a conversation with the workers of Wal Mart, Mcdonalds,and all the other corporations about how socialism, a workers-state is the only solution for their own economic problems, in a nation where most people, most workers are very introverted, uncommunicative and hide all their pains and sufferings inside a closet, and I am sure most US workers still believe that they can rise out of poverty into a sort of upper-middle class lifestyle (like the lifestyle of doctors and lawyers) within the Republican Party and Democratic Party governance's capitalism

So leftists of USA will have to have the patience of martyrs in order to motivate, educate and teach US low-wage workers and their families of how supporting authentic marxist leftist organizations is the only solution for their selves and loved ones


.


.


.



And to be fair, look around you. The political reality of today is as stark and depressing as ever. After working a hard week for minimum wage, or perhaps not having been able to work at all, i'm sure the last thing any worker wants is to spend their 1 social night of the week talking about such depressing shit. I know I don't like to do that.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Politically, the Social Democracy of pre-1914, and Marxism-Leninism of the 20th century, is a dead end, yet there hasn't been any update of Marxist political ideology that has shined light on a new organisational route for the working class to take since these failures.

How is adapting pre-1914 strategy to modern circumstances a dead end, when it hasn't been replicated enough? :confused:

There have been "updates," just bad ones (councilisms, spontaneisms, strike fetishes, etc.).

[Die Neue Zeit]

At most, Marxism offers a distinctive analysis of the general line of march which should be taken, but it's analysis has to be grounded in the local and emergent; it cannot prescribe what organisational forms the struggle takes, because it cannot control the struggle. Marxism didn't create the strike and the general strike; didn't hold the first factory occupation; didn't create the mass movement of workers; didn't invent the soviet; didn't invent the political party.

I agree. Its job is to provide content, not form, to the struggle.

Yes, because analyzing without paying much attention to changing the world has made a difference, hasn't it? :glare:

"Marxism" cannot control the class struggle, but it must program it! It didn't create strikes, factory occupations, or soviets, but it sure contributed immensely to the formation of worker-class party-movements.

The job is to program the content and form, for without revolutionary program there can be no revolutionary movement.

[AmilcarCabral]

Yes, you are right, a great cake chef, cannot make a great cake if he didn't go to a specialized school on how to bake cakes. And the same is true with the importance of marxism on educating poor people, how to get out of poverty in a scientific way. Indeed, marxism is better than e-bay and garage sales, however it requires lots of patience.

I think one of the main causes of why many poor people of this world do not really support leftist parties is not because of lack of knowledge, but lack of patience. Many poor people have inmediate economic needs, hunger, diseases, the need of extra money to pay bills. And for that side businesses, and working extra hours is a lot better than marxism. However in the near future, when the US economy will get a lot worse, when there would be a situation of over-production combined with under-consumption (an excess of supply of goods and services combined with lack of demand), people won't be able to rely on e-bay, garage sales and side-businesses anymore. And that's when radical marxists will have to organize in order to teach people that marxism, and the realization of a workers-state is the only solution for their economic problems






Yes, because analyzing without paying much attention to changing the world has made a difference, hasn't it? :glare:

"Marxism" cannot control the class struggle, but it must program it! It didn't create strikes, factory occupations, or soviets, but it sure contributed immensely to the formation of worker-class party-movements.

The job is to program the content and form, for without revolutionary program there can be no revolutionary movement.

[Professional Revolution]

There is nothing that needs to be changed. The works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky, plus the noble efforts of modern Orthodox Trotskyists are all we need to wage class war.

[Dodo]

There is nothing that needs to be changed. The works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky, plus the noble efforts of modern Orthodox Trotskyists are all we need to wage class war.

That is not a Marxist approach to how things are. This is a dogmatic approach in itself, acceptance of "old works" blindly without a proper contemporary analysis which gives the Marxists a bad name.

Marxism is not acceptance of a set of pre-determined rules and their application to practice. It is, on the contrary a guide to revolutionary action though its analytical method.
I am not saying works of the past Marxists are worthless, they are applicaple even to today. But there is so much wrong with the way you say in this sentence, combined with a weird partisan Trotskyism.

Dogmatic, static thinking is anti Marxist in itself.

[Per Levy]

There is nothing that needs to be changed. The works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky, plus the noble efforts of modern Orthodox Trotskyists are all we need to wage class war.

i dont even know anymore.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

How is adapting pre-1914 strategy to modern circumstances a dead end, when it hasn't been replicated enough? :confused:

There have been "updates," just bad ones (councilisms, spontaneisms, strike fetishes, etc.).

The politics of the SPD to 1914, and Marxism-Leninism, themselves were revisions of Marxism in some sense.

Rather than starting from those revisions and updating, given that they were revisions according to specific temporal, cultural, geographic and economic conditions, we should start from source. Update Marxism, not one of the various revisions it's undergone.

I know that's going to be hard for an ahistoric social democrat like you to understand, but tbh, I don't give a fuck. It needs to be said.

[Hit The North]

Yes, because analyzing without paying much attention to changing the world has made a difference, hasn't it? :glare:


Where have I argued that analysis should not pay attention to changing the world? If you want to debate my position then, please, represent it correctly instead of making shit up :rolleyes:. Besides, your accusation is laughable, coming from someone who wants to transplant 19th Century models of social democracy to 21st century realities, without seemingly paying any attention to the changes in the structure and composition of capital and the working class in the past 100 years.

It is this kind of dogma and its lack of creativity and imagination, this harking back to dead, historical models, that is a major contributor to the malaise which besets revolutionary theory.

[La Comédie Noire]

There's a few things to keep in mind with Marx

1. The capitalist system he presents in all 3 volumes of Das Kapital is a simple model with assumptions that don't hold in the real world.

2. His oeuvre is incomplete, Capital only comprises one book in what was supposed to be a 5 book series. He didn't explain the state or it's relation to world trade.

3. He totally takes into consideration that productive industrial labor and agriculture would be shrinking parts of the overall economy. Although I don't think even he realized the extent to which the division of labor could extend without switching over to socialism.

There's also a few things to keep in mind with 19th century and the 20th century.

1. If you read the communist manifesto all ten planks have been instituted in one form or another in all first world capitalist nations.

2. This was done on the one hand by working class organization and political agitation on behalf of the workers as a class on the other.

3. If one thing defeated the socialists it would have to be victory. It's one thing to call for the overthrow of a system, but what if you were to wake up tomorrow and be on the left wing of that system?

The ruling class learned their lesson from the two preceding centuries, you can't treat labor as just another factor of production, these are living people who get pissed off if you mistreat them and will organize.

This is of course an uneasy alliance because the demands of the capitalist system call for expanded growth and reproduction by any means necessary. This includes dismantling the welfare state and extending private credit to unheard of proportions.

So what I think we are seeing now is an uneven development on a world economic scale. You have areas that are post scarcity, coupled with areas that are miserable or distorted by imperialism.

So are the observations that Marx made relevant today?

Yes, while he underestimated the adaptability of capitalism and the willingness of capitalist to take a cut in profit he was right to see the falling rate of profit as a powerful motivator for expansion.

You already see right wing economic theorists coming out of the wood work preaching the merits of deregulation and austerity.

They want to return to the 19th century, something communists are more than willing to do.


EDIT:

I'd also like to point out Marx thought that capitalism and imperialism was inherently politically progressive, which is untrue so if there was one thing he was wrong about it was that. Probably due to his enlightenment era development.

[ckaihatsu]

However in the near future, when the US economy will get a lot worse, when there would be a situation of over-production combined with under-consumption (an excess of supply of goods and services combined with lack of demand), people won't be able to rely on e-bay, garage sales and side-businesses anymore. And that's when radical marxists will have to organize in order to teach people that marxism, and the realization of a workers-state is the only solution for their economic problems


As the crisis of growth (GDP) worsens all over the world, it'll leave the politicians with exceedingly scant 'wiggle room' in which to maneuver -- already we're seeing a flaring-up of bourgeois-internal factionalism, as with the partial government shutdown of last month.

Right now credit for business is incredibly cheap, with interest rates very close to zero percent -- so instead of seeing *finance* hit the wall I think it'll more likely be a final crisis of *state*, in that bourgeois solidarity will fracture, leaving business with a chaotic, ambiguous system that will make transactions nearly impossible. *That* would be the situation in which people would then begin looking desperately for a path to a new kind of social order.

[ckaihatsu]

3. If one thing defeated the socialists it would have to be victory. It's one thing to call for the overthrow of a system, but what if you were to wake up tomorrow and be on the left wing of that system?


I'll not-so-humbly contend that we on the revolutionary left are *not* at a loss for politics, program, or even method. (See my blog entry.)





You already see right wing economic theorists coming out of the wood work preaching the merits of deregulation and austerity.

They want to return to the 19th century, something communists are more than willing to do.


Communists are "more than willing to return to the 19th century" -- ??

Would you mind elaborating on this? It's unclear.





I'd also like to point out Marx thought that capitalism and imperialism was inherently politically progressive, which is untrue so if there was one thing he was wrong about it was that. Probably due to his enlightenment era development.


Well, development, as through imperialism, is a double-edged sword. While the genocide associated with imperialism is absolutely deplorable, imperialism can be seen as "progressive" in that it creates infrastructure and common administration over the domains of many nations.

Without a revolutionary overthrow of bourgeois rule worldwide, we should prefer modernism and geographical integration over localism and traditional forms of rule.

[Q]

Besides, your accusation is laughable, coming from someone who wants to transplant 19th Century models of social democracy to 21st century realities, without seemingly paying any attention to the changes in the structure and composition of capital and the working class in the past 100 years.

It is this kind of dogma and its lack of creativity and imagination, this harking back to dead, historical models, that is a major contributor to the malaise which besets revolutionary theory.
You could be accused of the same thing, be it that your model is "1917"...

As a matter of fact, humans in general base their behaviour and ideas on experiences of the past, adapted to current conditions or not so much.

[RedMaterialist]

Marxism is still up to date. The problem is that only Marxists (mainly auto-didacts) know about it. If the average worker knew about the labor theory of value, that part of his or her product was being appropriated (not stolen, as per Proudhon) by his employer, there would be a huge new interest in Marx.

One of the most popular election issues is the minimum wage increase. Marxists should be explaining to workers that they are not asking for something which they have not worked for, but rather, that they are demanding a part of their product which the capitalists have taken and not paid for.

Also, the recent election of the socialist (although probably a social democrat) in Seattle could be a sign of something changing. If it can happen there it can happen in hundreds of cities.

[Arrin Snyders]

Marxism exists of several parts: A scientific part, a philosophic part and a grand vision.

The latter two stood the test of time, but the scientific part needs critical review. As Moshé Machover recently put it well:

While all the replies so far have been interesting, this one by Q is probably the best one, in my opinion. It not only contains some of the ideas that have been slowly taking shape in my mind as I read more about Marxism, as well as a few that I had not thought of yet. Still, while it suggests what is needed I also get the sense that most of it has not been done yet, which is saddening for me.

So what is my own conclusion so far? Rather than choosing one current over another and sticking with it I believe we need to go back to the basics of Marxism and reanalyze the world we live in just like Marx did so long ago. Only then can the worker's movement be truly brought to life. All the currents and tendencies that exist out there are the product of the time and place where they developed. It would be a mistake, I think, to consider that they can remain fully applicable today, though they also need to be carefully checked for whatever useful knowledge they may contain.

Of course, this conclusion may or may not change as my studies progress.

[AmilcarCabral]

Arrin: That's 100% correct, that's why for motivation, for self-help i read original thinkers like Kant, Voltaire, Goethe, Descartes, Freud instead of the modern self-help books like the books written by Tony Robbins and other modern self-help motivational writters.

And I think that the same applies to socialism and anarchist-communism (the political stage after workers-dictatorship-socialism)

And I think that another thing that the world left needs is more love, humility, honesty, patience, tolerance, forgiveness (forgiving other comrade leftists for any personal problems, etc.), understanding, generosity, doing real deeds of goodness, sharing wealth with the poor etc. I know that these virtues are not very scientific, but more or less psychologic, emotional and spiritual, but these qualities would help a lot the left and would even lead to a unity of the left. Because one of the main enemies of the unity of the left in each country of this world is group-narcissism, individualism-narcissism, and egocentrism in many leftists.


PivWY9wn5ps
We must start with a change with a man in the mirror (Our own selves)


So we must begin by destroying our old evil, unfriendly, (unfriendly even with other leftists) unloving, narcissist, stingy, egocentric, self and replace it with a self full of love for other human beings, our neighbors, the country, the whole world and the whole universe, solidarity, generosity, cooperativeness and forgivness. These virtues can work great wonders and can fill the left with positive energies


.



While all the replies so far have been interesting, this one by Q is probably the best one, in my opinion. It not only contains some of the ideas that have been slowly taking shape in my mind as I read more about Marxism, as well as a few that I had not thought of yet. Still, while it suggests what is needed I also get the sense that most of it has not been done yet, which is saddening for me.

So what is my own conclusion so far? Rather than choosing one current over another and sticking with it I believe we need to go back to the basics of Marxism and reanalyze the world we live in just like Marx did so long ago. Only then can the worker's movement be truly brought to life. All the currents and tendencies that exist out there are the product of the time and place where they developed. It would be a mistake, I think, to consider that they can remain fully applicable today, though they also need to be carefully checked for whatever useful knowledge they may contain.

Of course, this conclusion may or may not change as my studies progress.

[La Comédie Noire]

I'll not-so-humbly contend that we on the revolutionary left are *not* at a loss for politics, program, or even method. (See my blog entry.)


I was pointing out the historical failure of early 20th social democracy. Once they gained political power they abandoned utopian schemes for world socialism. Not that these schemes couldn't work if actually tried today.


Communists are "more than willing to return to the 19th century" -- ??

Would you mind elaborating on this? It's unclear.

Rhetorical flourish merely pointing out that deregulation won't create the paradise that capitalist ideologues think it will, but will bring back the political radicalism they thought they'd availed themselves of.


Well, development, as through imperialism, is a double-edged sword. While the genocide associated with imperialism is absolutely deplorable, imperialism can be seen as "progressive" in that it creates infrastructure and common administration over the domains of many nations.

Without a revolutionary overthrow of bourgeois rule worldwide, we should prefer modernism and geographical integration over localism and traditional forms of rule.

It's not as progressive as Marx thought it was though and it usually takes a protracted revolution to throw the imperialists out. It doesn't lead to a full rounded development like he thought it would and sometimes it will even keep conservative forces in power.

But you are right in the main.

[AmilcarCabral]

I would like to add another thing to the possibility of a socialist marxist radical political party rising to the US government. The problem I see for a socialist revolution to place in USA right now, is that even though many people in USA are economically oppressed, billed to death and taxed to death. But the whole population of USA is *not living in the middle of a crisis*.

According to Lenin there needs to be such a powerful crisis that even the upper classes would need to feel economically harassed and stressed for the objective conditions of a revolution to take place.

The overthrow of the capitalist state can be successfully accomplished only when certain absolutely necessary conditions exist, if those conditions do not exist there can be even no question of the revolutionary left of taking power.

Here is what Lenin says about these conditions in his book Left-Wing Communism: An infantile disorder:


"The fundamental law of revolution, which has been confirmed by all revolutions, and particularly by all three Russian revolutions in the twentieth century, is as follow: it is not enough for revolution that the exploited and oppressed masses should understand the impossibility of living in the old way and demand changes. It is essential for revolution that the exploiters should not be able to live and rule in the old way. Only when the 'lower classes' do not want the old way, and when the 'upper classes' cannot carry on in the old way, -only then can revolution triumph. This truth may be expressed in other words: revolution is impossible without a nation-wide crisis (affecting both the exploited and the exploiters). It follows that for revolution it is essential, first, that a majority of the workers (or at least a majority of the class conscious, thinking, politically active workers) should fully understand that revolution is necessary and be ready to sacrifice their lives for it; secondly, that the ruling classes should be passing through a governmental crisis, which draws even the most backward masses into politics ... weakens the government and makes it possible for the revolutionaries to overthrow it rapidly" -Vladimir Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: An infantile disorder


You can still see many happy people in America buying things at Wal Marts and at shopping malls. I think that the objective conditions for a revolutioin in USA to take place will happen around 2016, that's what Thom Hartmann predicted http://www.democracynow.org/2013/11/12/the_crash_of_2016_thom_hartmann


,

[Die Neue Zeit]

Another area needing serious update is coalition and administrative politics. Coalition isn't merely a "tactical" question, and there are too many examples of "red mayors" that do bourgeois-style wheeling-and-dealing.

[consuming negativity]

I'm still quite new to Marxism at the moment, but as I read more something began to bug me. When Marxism first developed, the capitalist economy was strongly grounded in industrial manufacturing and the writings of all prominent Marxists reflect this. Since then this fact has changed dramatically with the services-based economy slowly but surely replacing the manufacturing-based economy of the 19th and early 20th centuries in the developed world.


So my questions are these: how has this change affected the nature of the working class and what it means to be part of the Proletariat? Sure, the system of exploitation is basically the same, but many of the details of that exploitation have changed. How does this affect the world view of the working class and the prospects for building class consciousness? Also, how does this shift from manufacturing to services affect the prospect of a successful revolution? Finally, how many of the key concepts of Marxism remain relevant within the current economic setting and what work has been done so far to update those parts of Marxist theory that require it?

Let's talk about Wal-Mart.

During the industrial revolution up until the rise of the big multinational retail store, if you wanted a shop, you would have to negotiate prices with manufacturing companies. You couldn't get your store off of the ground unless you gave the manufacturing companies what they wanted, really, and this gave more power to the producing sections of the economy to set wages and the prices of goods.

However, today, if your goods aren't at the big retailer, you're missing out on all of your income, as the mom and pop shop is all but destroyed. Wal-Mart in particular, but also the others, have taken advantage of this and now increasingly demand more goods at lower prices from producers who can either accept the cost or go out of business. And, in many cases, accepting these costs causes them to go out of business, because they can't cut costs anywhere and end up running a deficit.

What this means for Marxism is that those at the top in Wal-Mart are exerting constant unneeded pressure on manufacturing companies to cut labor costs and making not only these companies unable to compete without slapping the exploitation on hard, but also have minimal wages for their own workers who rely on public assistance to make ends meet, thereby setting the tone for the entire retail sector. You either do it the Wal-Mart way, or you go out of business.

With the increasing concentration of capital in the hands of even fewer bourgeoisie with the simultaneous globalism happening that is creating this around the world - from the US to China - you have a situation whereby a revolution is increasingly more likely and the target bourgeoisie of that revolution are increasingly the same enemies. Global revolution that doesn't lead to socialism-in-one-state backup plans is, therefore, much more feasible and realistic than ever before.

[AmilcarCabral]

I have a question. I heard a theory by a marxist who claimed that the poor class led by the leftists of rich countries will join and unite with the poor class led by the leftists of poor countries, into a world united leftist military-political front against the international oligarchic-capitalist class, in the near future, maybe around between the year 2020 and 2030. Do you think that this prediction might come true?

Because I am very optimist about this prediction, however I am also very realist about the egocentric behaviour patterns, the family-narcissism and the addictions to pleasures in the low-wage and oppressed poor people of both rich countries and poor countries. Their mind-manipulation and mind-control by the excess of technology in their lives like cell phones, cable-tv etc.

Because 100 years ago around Lenin's time the masses were not so technologically entertained and mind-controlled so much like the working classes and masses of today.

I mean one doesn't have to be a psychologist, a psychoanalyist to observe the "Do it your self" sort of Ayn Rand philosophy of life of the working class of USA and many other countries. In which instead of joining progressive movements, what they do is they get into anti-social solutions like garage sales, e-bay etc.

Maybe I am wrong, and maybe the economic conditions of most poor americans will get so bad that they will have to quit their libertarian Ayn Rand social-phobia mental disorders (which are impediments) to join and support protests and the survival mechanism that all humans have, will force them to support communist labor organizations around the year 2020

.


With the increasing concentration of capital in the hands of even fewer bourgeoisie with the simultaneous globalism happening that is creating this around the world - from the US to China - you have a situation whereby a revolution is increasingly more likely and the target bourgeoisie of that revolution are increasingly the same enemies. Global revolution that doesn't lead to socialism-in-one-state backup plans is, therefore, much more feasible and realistic than ever before.

[AmilcarCabral]

Wait, i forgot another enemy that marxists-leftists of this world have: The power and rise of the reformist left in most countries of this world. Remember folks that the reformist fake-left like The Green Party and many social-democratic parties in many countries of this world will take advantage of the coming economic world crisis. So that's one enemy that the authentic leftists (that are in favor of armed wars of the exploited against the exploiters in all countries of this world, instead of elections) will have to deal with.

SO REMEMBER: THE REFORMIST, PRO-ELECTION, SOCIAL-DEMOCRAT LEFT IS ONE CHINESE WALL THAT WE HAVE TO DESTROY!!

[tallguy]

The proles are all overseas now, working in third world sweatshops. Over here, we are largely left with the bourgeoisie and an ignored, non-homogeneous, non-collectivised, disorganised underclass who are kept quiet by feeding them a poisonous diet of bread and circuses via the media. The only light at the end of the tunnel I can see is that a lot of our bourgeoisie are now feeling the pinch.

And they don't like it.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

At least around where I live, the low-wage blue collar workers...are very egocentric, stuck-up, self-absorbed
I remember watching a documentary about advertising a few years ago. One of the advertising "gurus" flat out said those are the values that need to instilled in people by advertising.

[Arrin Snyders]

Let's talk about Wal-Mart.

During the industrial revolution up until the rise of the big multinational retail store, if you wanted a shop, you would have to negotiate prices with manufacturing companies. You couldn't get your store off of the ground unless you gave the manufacturing companies what they wanted, really, and this gave more power to the producing sections of the economy to set wages and the prices of goods.

However, today, if your goods aren't at the big retailer, you're missing out on all of your income, as the mom and pop shop is all but destroyed. Wal-Mart in particular, but also the others, have taken advantage of this and now increasingly demand more goods at lower prices from producers who can either accept the cost or go out of business. And, in many cases, accepting these costs causes them to go out of business, because they can't cut costs anywhere and end up running a deficit.

What this means for Marxism is that those at the top in Wal-Mart are exerting constant unneeded pressure on manufacturing companies to cut labor costs and making not only these companies unable to compete without slapping the exploitation on hard, but also have minimal wages for their own workers who rely on public assistance to make ends meet, thereby setting the tone for the entire retail sector. You either do it the Wal-Mart way, or you go out of business.

With the increasing concentration of capital in the hands of even fewer bourgeoisie with the simultaneous globalism happening that is creating this around the world - from the US to China - you have a situation whereby a revolution is increasingly more likely and the target bourgeoisie of that revolution are increasingly the same enemies. Global revolution that doesn't lead to socialism-in-one-state backup plans is, therefore, much more feasible and realistic than ever before.

Very interesting. Thank you. :)

@AmilcarCabral

That sort individualism is something I know quite well since it has become increasingly endemic in Romanian society since 1990 as well. There has been a breakdown in any form of solidarity and that greatly hinders the progress of the left. The media and especially advertising are actively promoting this sort of thinking and as leftists we will need to find ways to counteract this.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I remember watching a documentary about advertising a few years ago. One of the advertising "gurus" flat out said those are the values that need to instilled in people by advertising.

Well, class consciousness needs to appeal to a collective form of self interest and, if necessary, extremes like "greed."

"Greed is good" needs to have a collective and worker-class reinterpretation.

[AmilcarCabral]

You know i love psychology, and I've noticed a trend in the oppressed poor low-wage neighborhoods of America, that many poor people behave in a very egotistical, narcissistic mysanthropist way even against their own street neighbors, as a sort of weapon of ego-boosting, to boost up their already destroyed low egos, low self esteems. I think that oppressed people of all ethnicities and races adopt that pre-ordained behavioral script in America.

I know that we don't see in the streets of America street signs that say: "If you are poor, behave like an angry fuck, trash your own neighbors, follow the philosophy of life of Ayn Rand, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin baseball moms, ignore, evade your own neighbors. When you shop at Wal Marts, Krogers, K-Marts, and do your daily hassles evade eye-contact, do not smile at anybody, do not talk with anybody, be an angry fuck, do not show any signs of sympathy for anybody. If somebody has accident evade them, do not help them. Do not give money to beggars, hate the homeless. Evade the real world and evade humans by walking while talking on your cell phone. If you work in a Mcdonalds, Publix, Wal Marts, Target stores, and if you feel poor, try to get a new leased brand new car, to trash your other neighbors who drive older cars. Do not have friends, do not talk about your own economic problems, and remember hate any third party, even the Green Party. Keep voting for Democrats, Republicans and keep supporting wars, to defend USA the home of the great"

I think that this behavioural script is being followed by the great majority of poor americans. This is their learned behaviour script learned from movies, churches, mass media and the whole educational system. And the great problem i see with this evil Ayn Rand mysanthropist hateful behaviour of practically most US citizens is a category in sociology and psychology called "Emotional Contagion", which means that people adopt, emulate and follow the same behaviour, facial expressions and philosophy of life of the society in which they live. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_contagion

Read about it here in something a progressive writter Jason Miller wrote in a humoristic way called "American Personality Disorder 1776"


AMERICANISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER 1776 BY JASON MILLER

Link: http://cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2007/10/27293.php

The essential features of Americanistic Personality Disorder include pervasive patterns of extreme self-absorption, profound and long-term lapses in empathy, a deep disregard for the well-being of others, a powerful aversion to intellectual honesty and reality, and a grossly exaggerated sense of the importance of one’s self and one’s nation. These patterns emerge in infancy, manifest themselves in nearly all contexts, and often become pathological. These patterns have also been characterized as sociopathic, or colloquially as the “Ugly American Syndrome.” Note that the latter terminology carries too benign a connotation to accurately describe an individual afflicted with such a dangerous perversion of character.

For this diagnosis to be given, the individual must be deeply immersed in the flag-waving, nationalistic, and militaristic fervor derived primarily from the nearly perpetual barrage of reality warping emanations of the “mainstream media,” most commonly through the medium of television. Typically indoctrinated from birth to believe that they are morally superior, exceptional human beings, these individuals suffer from severe egocentrism, a condition further engendered by the prevalence of the acutely toxic dominant paradigm known as capitalism. Individuals with Americanistic Personality Disorder are generally covertly racist, xenophobic, and openly speciesistic. They readily participate in the execution of heinous crimes against human and non-human animals, even if their complicity is banal and limited. As long as they are comfortable, safe, and enjoying the relative affluence and convenience afforded by their nation’s economic extortion, cultural genocide, rape of other species and the environment, and imperial conquests, such individuals display an apathetic disregard for the well-being of other human beings, sentient creatures, and the environment.

Individuals with Americanistic Personality Disorder tend to exhibit unabated greed and an insatiable desire for material goods. Fueled by a compulsion to shop and acquire excessive amounts of material goods, a condition sometimes referred to as consumerism, they have no regard for the misery and destruction caused by their pathological need for “more stuff”. When confronted with the finitude and fragility of the Earth, they frequently react with level one ego defenses by denying that their behavior is a part of the problem or by distorting reality by asserting that concerns about Climate Change, resource depletion, and irreversible damage to the environment are over-blown. Their deeply entrenched sense of entitlement renders excessive consumption a nearly immutable aspect of their behavior.

Individuals with Americanistic Personality Disorder are virtually devoid of empathy or compassion. They view life as a game played by “law of the jungle” rules and co-exist with others in a chronic state of hyper-competitiveness, seeking only to advance their careers and “keep up with the Joneses.” Their desire to win, get ahead and “protect what is theirs” has been so deeply etched into their psyches that their capacity to empathize and experience true concern for the well-being of others is severely stunted or extinguished. The pursuit of property, profit, and power rules their malformed psyches, nearly eliminating their capacity for humane behavior. Individuals with Americanistic Personality Disorder almost always rely on extortion or violence to get their needs met and to resolve conflict. Believing in their inherent superiority, they eschew laws or rules except when they can utilize them for personal gain or when they fear punishment. Given a choice between a just resolution to a situation and the opportunity to humiliate, subdue, or subjugate the other party, they will choose the latter with a high degree of frequency. They have an amazing capacity to justify their unethical or criminal behavior using false pretexts such as self defense, good intentions, ignorance of the consequences of their actions, or asserting that they were merely carrying out orders.

Individuals with Americanistic Personality Disorder tend to manifest traits indicative of two of Erich Fromm’s personality orientations. They thrive on adding to their possessions (and appreciate their acquisitions more) when they attain them through coercion, theft, or manipulation, thus showing strains of Fromm’s exploitative type. They also exist at a very superficial level, offering the world the “friendly face” of the marketing personality that Bernays and Madison Avenue have taught them is the most effective way of advancing their selfish agenda. Opportunism, careerism, and narcissism poison nearly all of their interactions and relationships.

Specific Culture Features

Americanistic Personality Disorder appears to prevail in a very high percentage of those in the upper strata of the socioeconomic order in the United States (and to persist tenaciously because these individuals have little motivation to alter their pathological behavior as they are largely immune from the consequences of their actions). While it is epidemic amongst the opulent, this characterological deficiency does not recognize socioeconomic boundaries. Various segments of the middle, working and impoverished classes comprise a notable percentage of those exhibiting this condition, including those practicing deeply conservative Christianity, many residents of reactionary states such as those in the south, Kansas, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming, and many members of the Republican Party.

Prevalence

The overall prevalence of Americanistic Personality Disorder was recently measured at approximately 35% of the overall population in the United States.

Diagnostic Criteria for 1776.0 Americanistic Personality Disorder:

A pervasive pattern of greed, selfishness, and lack of empathy, beginning the moment he or she begins to intellectualize and presented in nearly all contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. lacks empathy due to an excessive degree of self-absorption
2. believes that he or she is exceptional and morally superior
3. frequently engages in exploitative behaviors
4. requires frequent acquisition of goods he or she doesn’t need
5. usually resorts to some form of overt or covert violence, coercion, or extortion to resolve conflicts
6. perceives others as obstacles to his or her “success”
7. disregards laws and rules except as a means to achieve his or her agenda
8. demonstrates deep hypocrisy by projecting a righteous, benevolent image while committing reprehensible acts
9. refuses to accept the consequences of his or her actions

My # 1 conclusion is that these narcissistic behaviour patterns of most US citizens is an impediment for the creation of a super large leftist revolutionary labor party in America.

My # 2 conclusion is that maybe a very hard economic crisis (like gasoline rising to 10 dollars, chicken rising to 4 dollars per lb, etc) can destroy the narcissistic way of life of most americans, humiliate americans so that most americans destroyed their evil pride and turn americans into truely humble, open minded friendly cooperative (willing to help), (willing to support a leftist front) (willing to destroy their own stupid Reaganist patriotism and turn most americans (even americans from ultra-right wing nazi states) into humble individuals, and maybe this powerful spiritual destruction of evil old behaviour patterns and its replacement by new altruist behaviours can pave the way for a communist revolutionary party of about 100 million american workers armed and ready to destroy the capitalist government












The proles are all overseas now, working in third world sweatshops. Over here, we are largely left with the bourgeoisie and an ignored, non-homogeneous, non-collectivised, disorganised underclass who are kept quiet by feeding them a poisonous diet of bread and circuses via the media. The only light at the end of the tunnel I can see is that a lot of our bourgeoisie are now feeling the pinch.

And they don't like it.

[consuming negativity]

I have a question. I heard a theory by a marxist who claimed that the poor class led by the leftists of rich countries will join and unite with the poor class led by the leftists of poor countries, into a world united leftist military-political front against the international oligarchic-capitalist class, in the near future, maybe around between the year 2020 and 2030. Do you think that this prediction might come true?

Because I am very optimist about this prediction, however I am also very realist about the egocentric behaviour patterns, the family-narcissism and the addictions to pleasures in the low-wage and oppressed poor people of both rich countries and poor countries. Their mind-manipulation and mind-control by the excess of technology in their lives like cell phones, cable-tv etc.

Because 100 years ago around Lenin's time the masses were not so technologically entertained and mind-controlled so much like the working classes and masses of today.

I mean one doesn't have to be a psychologist, a psychoanalyist to observe the "Do it your self" sort of Ayn Rand philosophy of life of the working class of USA and many other countries. In which instead of joining progressive movements, what they do is they get into anti-social solutions like garage sales, e-bay etc.

Maybe I am wrong, and maybe the economic conditions of most poor americans will get so bad that they will have to quit their libertarian Ayn Rand social-phobia mental disorders (which are impediments) to join and support protests and the survival mechanism that all humans have, will force them to support communist labor organizations around the year 2020

.

I think that if such a thing did happen, it would have to be like you implied, where the leftists of the wealthy, developed countries would be joining conflict started in developing nations. However, I'm not sure if that would take the form of "okay everybody, let's fly to India!" as much as it would take the form of something like the Arab Spring, where simultaneous revolutions inspire each other in different areas and sort of light a fire that spreads.

As far as Americans abandoning their Ayn Rand cowboy individualism, we weren't always as right-wing as we are today. I can see things getting increasingly worse and driving people to the left - even stuff like OWS happening at the time that it did was actually shocking to me, and that wasn't exactly a communist revolution. So I guess you could say that, to an extent, popular American political views are not very stationary. Who knows? But that's what I'm thinking (out loud) might possibly happen. Hope you found it interesting.

[ckaihatsu]

Well, class consciousness needs to appeal to a collective form of self interest and, if necessary, extremes like "greed."

"Greed is good" needs to have a collective and worker-class reinterpretation.


Yeah, it's called 'Why-the-hell-are-the-elites-controlling-a-vastly-disproportionate-amount-of-the-economy-and-why-can't-we-instead'.

Collective bargaining should be backed to the hilt by public opinion so that trade unions can realize mass support -- as for pensions, etc.

[tallguy]

You know i love psychology, and I've noticed a trend in the oppressed poor.........


Nice post mate. thanks

[Red Shaker]

Industrial workers are a smaller portion of the entire working class than they were a century ago but there are still a lot of them. Soldiers and service workers are a larger part of the working class today. All of these are victims of capitalist exploitation and they would all be better off if we got rid of capitalism. there are many differences among workers today. Figuring out how to overcome them is the job of revolutionaries. Marxism help us do that.

[Zizz01010101]

How has this change affected the nature of the working class and what it means to be part of the Proletariat?
I think the nature of the working class itself has now been suppressed. Instead of an exploited necessity to society, a now expanded working class is a luxury. Current workers, now being treated as expendable, are almost viewed as being lucky just for being "chosen" or "working for it." This fabricated image big business has impressed upon prospecting workers keeps their current employees properly leashed. The proletariats are simply the affected at this point.

How does this affect the world view of the working class and the prospects for building class consciousness?
I suppose this question is primarily answered by the last one, but the outside opinion is certainly largely changed now which wasn't addressed. People everywhere are hardening their hearts to the everyday struggle of this currently very large group of average people struggling, including proletariats. Certainly, these kinds of people (mostly presented as right-wingers) aren't new but a streamline has now been established to allow such people to act on this sheer selfishness and ignorance which is now spreading it reach unto the world.

How does this shift from manufacturing to services affect the prospect of a successful revolution?
I think it affects such prospects very little, people will revolt no matter what the situation. In fact, by being able to stop services, manufacturing becomes quite meaningless, bringing down the infrastructure around it. Same goes for manufacturing, same boat.

How many of the key concepts of Marxism remain relevant within the current economic setting and what work has been done so far to update those parts of Marxist theory that require it?
Well, I think more focus on general needs has updated Marxist theory over the years with tolerance on religion mainly. Many things about Marxism are imperfect, naturally many varying ideas now exist which make up for much of such "updates."

Hope this helps :grin:

[AmilcarCabral]

Zizz: What a great psychologic observation of the working class, including the low-wage blue-collar working class of the 21st Century. I've noticed that trend of the proletariat of Wal Mart, Publix supermarkets, Target stores, K-Marts, Exxon, Verizon, ATT. Workers that we see every day on our regular lives, the customer service workers of Wal Marts, K-Marts, supermarkets, mega-stores, retail stores etc. And their egocentrical behaviour toward others.

You don't have to be a psychiatrist, a psychoanalist to observe the sort of stuck-up, self-asorbed behaviour of the workers of most corporations in America. (Except of course banks, hotels, where workers are forced to be friendly with their costumers). But if you go to Wal Mart you can see how unfriendly workers are with the shoppers, how that created image of workers being part of the ruling class is now being applied and embedded in the behaviour gestures, physical gestures facial expressions of the employees of Wal Marts

It is fair to assume that even the recent protests of the workers of Mcdonalds, Burger King, Wendys, and other fast food restaurants for higher wages, were group-narcissistic protests (They were only protesting for their own sector). Many in the left thought that those protests would lead to a socialist revolution in America. Even many members of the Occupy Protests only cared about their own white-collar jobs sectors.

And the egocentrical narcissistic behaviour which is the official behaviour script of America is very strong in the full-time workers. You know in America which is a very competitive society based on social-darwinism, where in many cities like here in Miami, Orlando, etc. people invest in 30,000 dollars cars just to trash their own neighbors. I think that being a full-time worker, even a full-time worker increases the already narcissistic attitude of the oppressed majority.

We all know that most americans have been economically oppressed since 1776, and that as Michael Parenti says in this video "Wealth spreading" has always been a myth.


jFzV5TGIjik


And this economic oppression of USA being a third world country since 1776 (237 YEARS OF PAIN, BOREDOM AND POVERTY) (for the great majority of US workers) instead of radicalizing US workers toward humility, open mindedness, friendliness, more will to communicate their economic problems, destroying racism and hatred between sub-divided groups of the nation, and radicalizing most US citizens toward the left. Is actually doing the opposite, it's increasing racism, xenophobia, classism and hatred between the different groups and different cultures of the nation.


vYaqEgyrh1M
Progressive writter Joe Bageant (RIP) talking about how he hates the middle-classes for being a class that is against the lower classes


We have to be awake, because in the USA which is a very anti-socialism nation, any ultra-right wing populist crazy demagogue can take advantage of the ultra-right wing anti-socialism behaviour of the majority of american people and market himself as a saviour of the country. Like the ultra-right wing european fascist parties that are on the rise in Europe as a solution for the economic problems of England, Italy and other nations of Europe


How has this change affected the nature of the working class and what it means to be part of the Proletariat?

I think the nature of the working class itself has now been suppressed. Instead of an exploited necessity to society, a now expanded working class is a luxury. Current workers, now being treated as expendable, are almost viewed as being lucky just for being "chosen" or "working for it." This fabricated image big business has impressed upon prospecting workers keeps their current employees properly leashed. The proletariats are simply the affected at this point.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Very interesting posts this topic has.

But I notice a lot of American centrism. Most of the world's population is on East Asia.
prafulla.net/wp-content/sharenreadfiles/2013/06/450177/world-map-population-in-the-circle-1024x626.jpg
If the revolution has to be international (I still don't get this point) shouldn't we focus on this places more?

[ckaihatsu]

If the revolution has to be international (I still don't get this point)


Capitalism's mode of production is one in which various private interests compete with each other in order to gain more market share and profits, at the expense of others, which lose-out over the same.

An anti-capitalist revolution *has* to be global because the idea of it is to displace all private ownership of productive assets with a workers' cooperative, to control all social productivity in common.

It should be apparent that there is no middle ground between these two approaches to political economy -- it has to be one or the other.

[Comrade Chernov]

@OP: Not very.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Capitalism's mode of production is one in which various private interests compete with each other in order to gain more market share and profits, at the expense of others, which lose-out over the same.

An anti-capitalist revolution *has* to be global because the idea of it is to displace all private ownership of productive assets with a workers' cooperative, to control all social productivity in common.

It should be apparent that there is no middle ground between these two approaches to political economy -- it has to be one or the other.But then how can that happen? The revolution has to be global on the same moment?
Since the world is still divided by borders isn't it more likely to exist revolutions in some geographical locations first than the others? If part of the world started the revolution on day and the other one week after would that be global? What if it was one year appart? and one decade?

I don't see this happening in a hundred years.

[ckaihatsu]

But then how can that happen? The revolution has to be global on the same moment?


Ideally, yeah, more-or-less.





Since the world is still divided by borders isn't it more likely to exist revolutions in some geographical locations first than the others?


Yup, and it's historically been the case, too.

That said, though, I'd argue that the world is even "smaller" than ever before, thanks to a more tightly integrated world economy, the Internet, etc., so it'd be very possible to see more Arab-Spring and Occupy-type mass movements sweep through rather quickly next time around.





If part of the world started the revolution on day and the other one week after would that be global? What if it was one year appart? and one decade?


More critical than the *geography* or *timing* of world revolution, imo, is the *content* and *substance* of what's being called for by mass movements. Just look at where Egypt is *now*, or Syria....

(By this I mean to say that the more *explicitly* proletarian the politics of protest are, the better for revolution, since people will be 'on the same page' and headed in the same direction, and less willing to be consciously co-opted or sidelined.)





I don't see this happening in a hundred years.


Sorry to hear this note of pessimism, but it's understandable.

I tend to be more optimistic and see material social conditions in a somewhat technical way -- if people are more and more *materially* enabled for revolution, perhaps as with communications technology, then their / our efforts will be more *leveraged* and much more accessible and comprehensible than ever before.

Also consider that people's everyday experience may be much more *global* and non-local than in past decades and centuries, due to the globalized economy and also due to the gains of the civil rights movement -- the current state of economic stagnation may be on our side if people realize that the whole world is just treading water right now, at best.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Guys on Revleft are probably more optimistic because they deal with Communists daily on this forum and maybe with their peers. But everywhere else the number of people who actually knows and cares about Communism is very dismal.
In the last ten years how much progress have Communists made to spread Communism into the workers minds? I'd say not much.

Also, how would you react if one country made a revolution (proletariat one, not from a minority seeking power), but the other countries didn't follow through?

[fractal-vortex]

In the last third of XIX century we have in Russia an argument between “narodniks” (populists) and Marxists about “which class shall be the main force of the coming revolution”. Similarly today: there is an argument between Marxists and …?

The problem of “a leading class” boils down to our understanding of “what is a revolution”. Revolution is a multidimensional process, specifically it takes place in the sphere of production, and in the social relations. The class of people which leads the revolution in the sphere of production also leads it in the sphere of social relations. Sometimes the two aspects of revolutions coincide in the same individual, as for example we have in the case of Benjamin Franklin, in the course of the American revolution of XVIII century, and Nikolai Kibalchich, in the course of the Russian revolution of XIX-XX centuries.

More, read here: http://fractal-vortex.narod.ru/2013/discourse_on_party.htm

hello from Ukraine, the country where the statue of Lenin was just toppled, and most of the people regret that!:grin:

[Red Shaker]

To get more people involved in the communist movement requires that we deal with the failures of the old communist movement. The article "Dark Night" on the Progressive Labor Party's web site is a good beginning.