What makes an analysis "Marxist"?

[BIXX]

Basically title. What makes an analysis Marxist?

Can someone give an example?

Thank you.

[Sinister Intents]

I've never quite figured that out xD I guess maybe a Marxist makes the analysis or they're using the methods of Marx n Engels to analyse shit that's interesting and maybe cool.

[Bala Perdida]

In literature my teacher said that it's the analysis of the elements of bourgeoisie vs proletarian. Usually proletarian rising up against the bourgeoisie.
This is supposedly in literature, but this is obviously an oversimplified version of it. Also I learned this in a myth class, so that devalues the definition. It did lead to some funny conclusions in class, and the annoying conclusion that Marxism is a cycle and a failure politically.

[Tim Cornelis]

Analyses predicated on materialist premises. For example, if we analyse capitalism we do not start with reading Adam Smith, we start with the actual social development as a result of (proto-)industrialisation.

[theblackmask]

I would say that something being Marxist means it subscribes to dialectical materialism.

[BolshevikBabe]

To name just a few basic points: makes use of the dialectical method, begins not with the state or with the individual but with the economically given time period, sees political forces as being based in classes and the class struggle and emphasizes class struggle as the motor of history

[RedMaterialist]

I would say class struggle. One example might be the Tea Party movement in the U.S. Marx and Engels showed in the Manifesto that the petit-bourgeois would come to attack both the proletariat and the capitalist class. The Tea Party considers themselves to be middle class, small business ("I built that") people who are opposed to the takers, slackers, leeches, etc, in other words the working class and socialists, but they are also opposed to the "crony capitalists" and to the bailout of Wall Street. There are also obviously elements of racism there.

In 1932 this combination produced the anti-capitalism and anti-communism of the Nazi Party (along with anti-Semitism) and the Italian Fascists.

Picketty's book "Capital" (what a disgusting piece of slime he was for using that title) is, I think, about the divide between the capitalist and proletariat classes. However, it is only discussed in the media in terms of "wealth disparity" and never in terms of class antagonism.

[ckaihatsu]

I regularly use excerpts from Chris Harman's _People's History of the World_, so you might do a search for 'ckaihatsu revleft Harman' to find some examples in the context of other threads on RevLeft.

Also I just found that doing a search for the book title will yield a link that has the entire book available in PDF form.

[ProletariatPower]

This is disputable. Arguably a general analysis of anything in terms of the key Marxist concepts (class warfare and such) is a Marxist analysis. However some would argue the cornerstone of a Marxist analysis is the use of Didactic Materialism or Historical Materialism. I'm not certain in my understanding of these myself, however this is analysis in terms of Engels' and Marx's theories basically assessing the evolution of society and using the material resources, means of production etc., basically the socio-economic circumstances as a context for the analysis of something.

For example, a Marxist Analysis of a piece of literature could consist of:
- What stage of evolution was society at the time it was written.
- What were the socio-economic circumstances at the time.
- What was the class of the writer.

Often this results into classification of literature (or with other issues/topics) as being reactionary, revolutionary, manifestations of a class's situation or whatever else. The basic point is that Marxist Analysis do not simply look at the base content, they determine things based on the existing socio-economic context as a whole.

This is of course a very disputed thing though as many people may dispute what a 'true' Marxist interpretation may be, some reject Didactic Materialism (given much of how a Didactic approach is carried out was constructed based on Marx's works by later Marxists and not directly what he dictated) and only accept Historical Materialism and some may differ on interpretations of course, but the point remains that usually a Marxist Analysis assessing the class structure and the socio-economic circumstances as the context of human culture such as literature.

[BolshevikBabe]

I would say class struggle. One example might be the Tea Party movement in the U.S. Marx and Engels showed in the Manifesto that the petit-bourgeois would come to attack both the proletariat and the capitalist class. The Tea Party considers themselves to be middle class, small business ("I built that") people who are opposed to the takers, slackers, leeches, etc, in other words the working class and socialists, but they are also opposed to the "crony capitalists" and to the bailout of Wall Street. There are also obviously elements of racism there.

In 1932 this combination produced the anti-capitalism and anti-communism of the Nazi Party (along with anti-Semitism) and the Italian Fascists.

Picketty's book "Capital" (what a disgusting piece of slime he was for using that title) is, I think, about the divide between the capitalist and proletariat classes. However, it is only discussed in the media in terms of "wealth disparity" and never in terms of class antagonism.

The producerist petit-bourgeois mentality is an interesting one because it's one of the things which I think is going to pose a major problem to any alliance between the proletariat and elements of the petit-bourgeoisie, especially at the centres of imperialism. An informal alliance between labour aristocracy and petit-bourgeoisie can easily provide the basis for a repressive apparatus of either social democracy or fascism in crises of capitalism.

The basis of "wealth disparity"/productive forces over relations of production also seems to be the one which animates Maoist Third Worldism to a large extent, which is weird since they claim to be opposed to the theory of productive forces and economism. It manifests itself more as a left-deviation with them than the traditional right-deviation that economism creates, however.

[RedWorker]

As popularly used, it means exactly nothing, just a word that is used to make an opinion from a left-wing point of view sound smart. And circlejerking about Marxism being some sort of machine where any input run through it will always generate the same output and that "Marx would have had the same view as me on this!!!".

[BolshevikBabe]

As popularly used, it means exactly nothing, just a word that is used to make an opinion from a left-wing point of view sound smart. And circlejerking about Marxism being some sort of machine where any input run through it will always generate the same output and that "Marx would have had the same view as me on this!!!".

Well, no, it's just that there's basic principles underlying the Marxist method, historical materialism, dialectical materialism etc. which can be applied to concrete situations. It's nothing to do with saying what Marx would have agreed with necessarily.

[RedWorker]

Well, no, it's just that there's basic principles underlying the Marxist method, historical materialism, dialectical materialism etc. which can be applied to concrete situations. It's nothing to do with saying what Marx would have agreed with necessarily.

Of course. I said "as popularly used", though. Most "Marxist analyses" that I have read on the Internet are just a write up of some leftist's opinion on a certain topic. Now, if we're talking about actual analysis by known Marxists, it's completely different.

[ckaihatsu]

I created a framework a few years ago that's meant to be a tool for 'do-it-yourself' historical analysis -- meaning for *any* situation -- and it has 'class struggle' as being of paramount significance, invariably.

What can be taken from this, then, is that, no matter *what* the situation is that's being examined, there will *always* be an element of class involved, even if seemingly distant. Yet the framework isn't crudely reductionistic to class alone, since it allows for various other 'levels' of factors to be present and significant as well.


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

http://s6.postimage.org/zbpxjshkd/1_History_Macro_Micro_Precision.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/zbpxjshkd/)

[BIXX]

I created a framework a few years ago that's meant to be a tool for 'do-it-yourself' historical analysis -- meaning for *any* situation -- and it has 'class struggle' as being of paramount significance, invariably.

What can be taken from this, then, is that, no matter *what* the situation is that's being examined, there will *always* be an element of class involved, even if seemingly distant. Yet the framework isn't crudely reductionistic to class alone, since it allows for various other 'levels' of factors to be present and significant as well.


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

http://s6.postimage.org/zbpxjshkd/1_History_Macro_Micro_Precision.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/zbpxjshkd/)

You have no idea how weirded out I am that I've started understanding your diagrams.

Thank you!

I think what I'm thinking it's easy to accidentally* run into a Marxist analysis (in fact it seems most analyses coming from the left are labelled "Marxist") as they analyze material conditions etc... Focusing on the economy. I guess what I wanted to ask (more clearly stated) is what differentiates between a "Marxist" analysis and a materialist analysis?

[ckaihatsu]

You have no idea how weirded out I am that I've started understanding your diagrams.

Thank you!


Yup -- no prob. That's definitely the funniest-strangest compliment I've ever gotten -- only the first of many more, I'm sure.... (grin)

tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-diagrams-revleft





I think what I'm thinking it's easy to accidentally* run into a Marxist analysis (in fact it seems most analyses coming from the left are labelled "Marxist") as they analyze material conditions etc... Focusing on the economy. I guess what I wanted to ask (more clearly stated) is what differentiates between a "Marxist" analysis and a materialist analysis?


Hmmmmm, I can't answer that one definitively, but I'd say offhand that there'd have to be a lot of overlap, if those two terms aren't synonymous outright. (Since the class divide is both objective / materialist, and also Marxist.)

[ComradeOm]

I think what I'm thinking it's easy to accidentally* run into a Marxist analysis (in fact it seems most analyses coming from the left are labelled "Marxist") as they analyze material conditions etc... Focusing on the economy. I guess what I wanted to ask (more clearly stated) is what differentiates between a "Marxist" analysis and a materialist analysis?It depends on the field. Marxian economics is a fairly self-contained current within the wonderful world of economics, while most works of modern sociology or socio-economic history will owe something to Marx. In these areas it's often hard to tell whether or not the author is/isn't a Marxist.

In general though the distinguishing features are a heavy emphasis on class and particularly the relationships between classes. Materialism is a given; only in politics is a materialist analysis the exception.

[Comrade #138672]

An analysis is Marxist if it is at least (1) materialist, and (2) takes the means of production and class relations as its starting point. Any analysis lacking those two things is certainly not Marxist.