Why is Marxism in the first world so dedicated to a few causes?

[Comrade Thomas]

Let's be honest folks, most Marxists under the age of 30 only seem to focus on issues like feminism and gay rights. Why are less and less Marxists focusing on more economic issues? I am not saying that women's rights are disconnected from economics and they are not important; it is just I feel that too much Tim is spent debating it and practical action should be against the root cause of this: capitalism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Let's be honest folks, most Marxists under the age of 30 only seem to focus on issues like feminism and gay rights. Why are less and less Marxists focusing on more economic issues? I am not saying that women's rights are disconnected from economics and they are not important; it is just I feel that too much Tim is spent debating it and practical action should be against the root cause of this: capitalism.

So, er, do you have any political experience with an actual socialist group? Because most of them do focus on capitalism. Unless by "economic issues" you mean nonsense about banks and inane reformist plans like a universal basic income.

Or are you one of those people who thinks that any discussion of gay rights, for example, is too much?

[Connolly1916]

Let's be honest folks, most Marxists under the age of 30 only seem to focus on issues like feminism and gay rights. Why are less and less Marxists focusing on more economic issues? I am not saying that women's rights are disconnected from economics and they are not important; it is just I feel that too much Tim is spent debating it and practical action should be against the root cause of this: capitalism.

In short, it's because they are trendy lefties. To be fair, most of them are well intentioned, but as you say, until they come to realise that all the single issue campaigns they embark on are in fact caused by one thing - neo-liberalism - then they will never play a part in bringing about radical change in society.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Let's be honest folks, most Marxists under the age of 30 only seem to focus on issues like feminism and gay rights. Why are less and less Marxists focusing on more economic issues? I am not saying that women's rights are disconnected from economics and they are not important; it is just I feel that too much Tim is spent debating it and practical action should be against the root cause of this: capitalism.
Huh. I haven't noticed a trend among younger comrades of focusing on feminism or LGBT liberation to the exclusion of anti-capitalism, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

[tuwix]

Let's be honest folks, most Marxists under the age of 30 only seem to focus on issues like feminism and gay rights. Why are less and less Marxists focusing on more economic issues? I am not saying that women's rights are disconnected from economics and they are not important; it is just I feel that too much Tim is spent debating it and practical action should be against the root cause of this: capitalism.


I think you probably met only so-called Marxists. Now, it's becoming very fashionable to be Marxist. In Poland, there is one journalist of neoliberal newspaper who admitted that he voted for neoliberal party but he also admitted he's Marxist. In my opinion, he's best example of so-called Marxist. And also in my opinion economic problems are the most important for real Marxists, but it isn't for so-called ones.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

how peculiar, these sorts of posts always seem to define liberation struggles (e.g womens, LGBT etcetera) as the root cause of the general malaise of the left rather than the legions of other actual legitimate complaints you could make about a wide variety of leftist groups, not least the polar opposite of this 'problem' of groups who believe for whatever reason that focusing solely on economic issues is a magical panacea for all humanity's ills.

[Slippers]

Wow such a gross sentiment.

Yeah; def too much focus on woman's liberation definitely too much focus on lgbtqia liberation REAL socialists should focus on REAL issues :roll eyes: /sarcasm

Apologies if you didn't mean it like that but I've seen far too much bigotry-appologism from so-called leftists to not feel peeved and threatened when I hear that sort of sentiment.

We need liberation for all people and I'm uninterested in any "revolutionary" movement that doesn't put the socially oppressed at the front.

Sorry if I'm not making sense; I'm (again) posting when I should be asleep.

[Црвена]

Ethnic minorities, women, LGBTQs, disabled people and poor people are all oppressed. No type of oppression is worse than another, and creating a hierarchy of importance of oppressed peoples is pure hypocrisy. Everyone who's being oppressed in any way needs to be the focus of the communist movement otherwise we lose our identity as a movement for the people.

[Per Levy]

In short, it's because they are trendy lefties.

wanting womens liberation and that lgbt workers dont get discriminated against is "trendy" now? wow!


To be fair, most of them are well intentioned, but as you say, until they come to realise that all the single issue campaigns they embark on are in fact caused by one thing - neo-liberalism

oh neo-iberalism is the root of all problems? not capitalism? so shall we just go back to keynesiastic social democracy and everything is "good" again? capitalism as a whole is to be opposed and not just one way of managing it.


then they will never play a part in bringing about radical change in society.

most leftists wont play a part in "radical change", no matter how "trendy" they are or not. since its not up to leftists if that change is happening but up to the working class.

@op: "Let's be honest folks, most Marxists under the age of 30 only seem to focus on issues like feminism and gay rights."

i have not seen that, and i had plenty of contact with marxists under the age of 30 on here on other forums in real life and so on. i have seen the opposite of that though a few times. so yeah i dont know where you are comming from.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

A nice generalisation there.

Though I understand the perception of 'so-called Marxists' who only care about certain social issues and are ignorant / indifferent to the class struggle and the goal of communism, I don't think it's the norm for most comrades 'under 30'.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Let's be honest folks, most Marxists under the age of 30 only seem to focus on issues like feminism and gay rights. Why are less and less Marxists focusing on more economic issues? I am not saying that women's rights are disconnected from economics and they are not important; it is just I feel that too much Tim is spent debating it and practical action should be against the root cause of this: capitalism.

Because half the population are women, and if you include the LGBT community then you're probably going over half. That's why so much time is spent on social issues - because generally the people who are campaigning on these issues are directly affected by such discrimination.

[Kingfish]

I would wager that firstly because of people of this type seem to be much more vocal and memorable (for better or worse) than those more concerned with economic issues thus inflating the perception of their numbers and significance. Secondly these types of issues are closer to home for younger people and are ones that are fairly easy (both in regards to theory and risk of retribution) to get into.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I would wager that firstly because of people of this type seem to be much more vocal and memorable (for better or worse) than those more concerned with economic issues thus inflating the perception of their numbers and significance. Secondly these types of issues are closer to home for younger people and are ones that are fairly easy (both in regards to theory and risk of retribution) to get into.

What are you talking about?

Inflating numbers? Half the population are women.

"These types of issues are closer to home for young people"? So being gay is just a new 'fashion' is it?

"Fairly easy (...in regards to...risk of retribution) to get into?" I take it you've never been raped. Or blamed for the HIV/AIDS crisis. Or died from being refused an abortion on moral grounds during pregnancy.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Let's be honest folks, most Marxists under the age of 30 only seem to focus on issues like feminism and gay rights. Why are less and less Marxists focusing on more economic issues? I am not saying that women's rights are disconnected from economics and they are not important; it is just I feel that too much Tim is spent debating it and practical action should be against the root cause of this: capitalism.
From what I have read, there are many reasons, some that stand out more than most because of the history that has followed the end of the Second World War. But here are the biggest I've encountered in person.

1.) These days, Marxism is usually viewed as vulgar economic determinism. Whether consciously or unconsciously, many of today's Marxists believe that absorbing themselves in the rhetoric of bourgeois identity politics will give them enough "revolutionary street cred" to be taken seriously. Some may be overwhelmed by their obligation to befriend other leftists at the risk of isolation or dismissal and become little more than bourgeois liberals. "Privilege theory" is adopted uncritically and used to browbeat others or shut down discussions. Moderators and admins at RevLeft do this with the utmost glee. (Even worse, the bourgeois press love to compare Marxism and fascism and declare them to be twins at the opposite ends of violent "extremism", highlighting the acts of such figures as Pol Pot or Stalin to muddy the waters.)

2.) Marxism is also becoming viewed as nothing more than a futile, albeit interesting, intellectual and academic exercise. This view has apparently become so prevalent that at one point Marx's collected works were almost placed exclusively in the hands of university libraries, with the internet archive (marxists.org) being forced to remove all covered works under copyright (of the English translation).

3.) As a result of the first two points, less and less emphasis is placed upon Marxism's philosophical method, the materialist dialectic. Doubtless you will see many posters here condemn dialectics as mysticism without offering an alternative explanation that does justice to an assessment of Marx's thought as he grew older. Dialectics is rejected in favor of a more empirical approach that relies on superficial reading and misunderstandings of economic issues, which leads to equally superficial rejections. Andrew Kliman recently wrote a book defending Marx's most maligned concept, "The tendency of the rate of profit to fall", and how it is crucial for an understanding of the 2008 crash; there are not many books like this one that attempt to explicate Marx's actual ideas. Debates here tend to argue Marx's "intent" with "quote wars", rather than any theoretical discussion. It won't be long until you sense a parallel between these "orthodox" leftists and priests trying to grow closer to the Holy Father by praying louder.

[Kingfish]

What are you talking about?
Allow me to clarify.

Inflating numbers? Half the population are women.
When I was talking about inflating numbers I wasn’t referring to people affected by these issue. I was however talking about how vocal and more memorable (for better or worse) activists on these issues can stick out in people’s minds disproportionately (often as a form of confirmation bias) hence giving the false perception that activists are not concerned with economic issues.


For example when Gough Whitlam was deposed in Australia there was a great deal of protests initially and it appeared as though he was in a position to not only win the election but to outright resist the governor generals orders. However he chose not to and the resulting election revealed why; the perception of his strength was illusory and that the militancy of his few supporters gave a very inflated perception of his popular support.

"These types of issues are closer to home for young people"? So being gay is just a new 'fashion' is it?
Not at all, for many young people in school or just starting their career economic issues are more remote and abstract compared to the social challenges facing women and people in the LGBT community. It’s much easier to be optimistic (and often accept) the poorer working conditions which youth experience directly and that can inspire and fuel economic activism when it is viewed as a merely a temporary stage before ones “real” career starts, the same optimism just cannot be present for these social issues. This is why I say it is closer to home than economic issues.

"Fairly easy (...in regards to...risk of retribution) to get into?" I take it you've never been raped. Or blamed for the HIV/AIDS crisis. Or died from being refused an abortion on moral grounds during pregnancy.
Firstly you just demonstrated a proof for my point that these issues are much easier to get into than economic problems because as you have shown these are problems that can be understood (and accordingly acted on) without having to wade through heavy and dusty tomes of 19th century thinkers and reams of 20th century statistics simply because they are so simple and present.


*Note* being simpler does not imply that they are automatically mean they are lesser issues


Secondly when I was referring to risk of retribution I was referring to retribution incurred as a result of activism. The loss of wages and retribution that can come from illegal sympathy strikes is something that an activist on social issues is much less likely to face these days (which course is not to suggest that it never has which is of course false), retribution like we see in Russia (though wether one would call Russia 1st World by the OPs description is debatable) is an exception not the rule.

[Sea]

Communists advocate for the oppressed. Many of us are the oppressed. Of course some of us, like myself, are multi-billionaires.

We'll spend out Tim [sic] as we damn well please.

[#FF0000]

Let's be honest folks, most Marxists under the age of 30 only seem to focus on issues like feminism and gay rights. Why are less and less Marxists focusing on more economic issues? I am not saying that women's rights are disconnected from economics and they are not important; it is just I feel that too much Tim is spent debating it and practical action should be against the root cause of this: capitalism.

I wouldn't say they're focusing less on these issues. I hear communists talk about class all the time as well as issues of feminism and anti-racism. I think, though, that class struggle is at a hella low point and so talking about "class" doesn't have the legs that talking about these other issues might.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Let's be honest folks, most Marxists under the age of 30 only seem to focus on issues like feminism and gay rights. Why are less and less Marxists focusing on more economic issues? I am not saying that women's rights are disconnected from economics and they are not important; it is just I feel that too much Tim is spent debating it and practical action should be against the root cause of this: capitalism.

Bourgeois decadence + insidious revisionism but I mean really, who cares about women's rights or the gays, amirite?

[FSL]

Identity politics is a real thing and in some countries constitutes maybe 90% of what is considered left and progressive. But how many of the people acting like that really describe themselves as marxists?

[Prometeo liberado]

Most so called "Marxists" have little to no understanding of Dialectics, Internal Relations or any deep knowledge of how he and Engels came to the conclusions they did. As result young comrades take what ever the cause de jour may be.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Most so called "Marxists" have little to no understanding of Dialectics, Internal Relations or any deep knowledge of how he and Engels came to the conclusions they did. As result young comrades take what ever the cause de jour may be.

Have you considered that the problem may lie with the relevance of Marxism to people today, rather to working people's inability to fathom the unfathomable (dialectics) theory of 150 years ago?

[Sand Castle]

I'll admit, I skipped over a lot of posts in this thread. But I am a Marxist under 30 and I have been since I was 15 going on 16. I'm 23 now. I have seen plenty of older Marxists talk a lot about women and LGBT issues frequently.

I used to be in the PSL, which has a very large amount of youth in its membership, and it seemed one of its biggest projects, even when it wasn't a trendy topic, was anti-war stuff. They also talked a lot about economic issues, and we were all out there supporting, or annoying with newspapers, the Verizon workers when they went on strike in 2011.

I'm no longer a member, but most of my activism with other groups has been anti-war and anti-gentrification related.

So I don't know what you're talking about. Yes, there is a big focus on identity politics, but, from what I've seen historically, there always has been and will be until we have an equal, stateless, classless society.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure most young Marxists grasp the basics of dialectics, or will eventually.

[ralfy]

There is likely not enough focus on the three problems that are affecting the global capitalist economy: increasing debt, peak oil, and global warming (coupled with environmental damage).

[FSL]

There is likely not enough focus on the three problems that are affecting the global capitalist economy: increasing debt, peak oil, and global warming (coupled with environmental damage).

The only way global warming and peak oil are affecting the capitalist economy right now is being used to justify huge subsidies to sections of capital (solar power, electric cars, anything "green") that are presented as progressive.
And there is little focus in explaining why that isn't so.

There is a criminally excessive focus on debt, with many people who claim to be marxists making it out to be the cause of the crisis instead of a symptom.

[renalenin]

Have you considered that the problem may lie with the relevance of Marxism to people today, rather to working people's inability to fathom the unfathomable (dialectics) theory of 150 years ago?

Admitted that Marx described classes and capitalism 150 years ago, but these things seem to still apply. Our enemies use economic ideas a lot older than that. Classical economics is pre-industrial. Keynes does allow for industry but look how his ideas were blown away by the ruling class!

A person may campaign for better policies on health or education or stopping the damages arising from big business. Fine, but surely it is better to abolish capitalism and get to the problem at the source. Marx has actually never been more relevant than now, and we all need to stop getting side tracked on minor issues and go for the big prize.

:hammersickle::hammersickle::hammersickle:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=renalenin;2770463]Marx has actually never been more relevant than now,

In your eyes, but unless others also feel the same way, then you are beholden to your own beliefs and convictions and nothing more, which kind of misses the point.


and we all need to stop getting side tracked on minor issues and go for the big prize.

:hammersickle::hammersickle::hammersickle:

Opposing patriarchy and indeed discrimination & oppression in all their forms is not the least bit a 'minor issue', but only somebody who has never been on the receiving end of patriarchy, institutionalised racism etc. could make such a throwaway comment.

[FSL]

In your eyes, but unless others also feel the same way, then you are beholden to your own beliefs and convictions and nothing more, which kind of misses the point.



Opposing patriarchy and indeed discrimination & oppression in all their forms is not the least bit a 'minor issue', but only somebody who has never been on the receiving end of patriarchy, institutionalised racism etc. could make such a throwaway comment.
Truth is objective. Marxism is more relevant now than before because capitalism encompasses more countries and more sectors of the economy. It has nothing to do with what someone feels or what they believe.
If truth wasn't objective, then the "it's irrelevant" argument could be used against feminism. Most women seem perfectly happy as sexualized objects and go out of their way to photoshop themselves to perfection.


If you think marxism's relevance depends on its acceptance by the public but that fighting patriarchy and discrimination are always important, even when the world is full of bimbos and racists, then I guess you are one of the people that prompted the op.

[blake 3:17]

Let's be honest folks, most Marxists under the age of 30 only seem to focus on issues like feminism and gay rights. Why are less and less Marxists focusing on more economic issues? I am not saying that women's rights are disconnected from economics and they are not important; it is just I feel that too much Tim is spent debating it and practical action should be against the root cause of this: capitalism.

I'm well over 30 and come from a soc fem Trot tradition though I'm not part of that now.

Yes, fighting for economic justice, locally, nationally, and internationally is absolutely crucial for any movement towards to socialism.

I would question posing economic justice and women's and sexual minorites' liberation as inherently contradictory (not sure you were) -- my 2 cents on the matter is that they're have been hard won and incomplete victories on the latter two that benefit some that contemporary capitalism and the state have been willing to recognize, while at the same time rolling back the social, democratic and economic rights of the majority. In the middle of this there are huge contradictions and the spheres aren't so distinct.

[Patrice O'neal]

I think the rise of what is commonly refered to as identity politics is a direct result of the smashing of the unions a few decades ago. The workers movement was formerly based in the working class, to people like my grandad the union and his work mates and his community were the bedrock of his politics.

As a strong unionized workforce was smashed the communist movement seems to have become the 4-6 year cause of the student, I think a big problem is that working class politics were really important to people in the big factories like lots near me used to work, where working people had protection and teamed together. That kind of atmosphere is very condusive to workers realising the strength in collective bargaining.

Now we see workers such as myself doing low pay agency work, where there is no job security, where people have no real benefits from the union, where we can't fight to get the relatively awesome pay (under a capitalist wage slavery perspective) my dad got, working continental shifts etc and bringing home a couple of grand for a weekends work despite being a blue collar guy who never attended college.

And since now the communist movement seems primarily comprised of either students who do not work or better off profesional workers who get good jobs once leaving university, they typically approach issues such as race and sex, which while important not very connected to the current blue collar working class nescissarily.

Uber exuberent uni radicals would much rather take up sexy and fashionable (yet obviously also important) righteous crusades against institutionalised racism, wars overseas and high profile fashionable causes than they would take up typical boring unglamorous issues in working class housing estates like the attack on the unemployed, the elderly people pretty much put to death because they can't pay their eleccy bills, gang and criminal activity that is turning places like where I live into completely anti social shit heaps.

Again its not really a slight on the communist/anarchist movements its just they generally are not from here so they have no way of actually focusing on our issues. We in our community and workplace need to organise ourselves after all that is what revolution is, working people getting pissed off at their conditions and taking over the means of production, working together and affecting change, removing the capitalist mode of production and, in my personal fantasies, calling my employer and letting them know they are complete wankers :lol:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Truth is objective. Marxism is more relevant now than before because capitalism encompasses more countries and more sectors of the economy. It has nothing to do with what someone feels or what they believe.
If truth wasn't objective, then the "it's irrelevant" argument could be used against feminism. Most women seem perfectly happy as sexualized objects and go out of their way to photoshop themselves to perfection.

One of the things I hate in life is to be engaged in abstract philosophical discussions but I guess we must go there...

Truth is objective, but only when it is true. You are believing that something (Marxist analysis) is fully true, and therefore objective in its truth, yet beyond stating 'truth is objective' and 'Marxist is relevant', you are unable to empirically verify Marxism as 'truth', you are just personally accepting it as so. So therefore it is only fair to surmise that it is your belief that Marxism is true and therefore objective, rather than to objectively state that Marxism is true and therefore objective.

I also don't recognise what you say about feminism. At least in the UK at the moment, feminist ideas have gained a lot of traction, with several universities banning The Sun newspaper on page 3 grounds, the No More Page 3 campaign gathering a lot of popular support, the Everyday Sexism Project etc. I recognise that this may not be the case everywhere, but I would say that there is a whole world of difference between the irrelevance of Marxist discourse and the momentum of feminist campaigning and activism at the moment.



If you think marxism's relevance depends on its acceptance by the public but that fighting patriarchy and discrimination are always important, even when the world is full of bimbos and racists, then I guess you are one of the people that prompted the op.

Silly ad hominem.

Like I said above, you are unable to empirically verify Marxism as objective truth. Further, the whole point of Marxism is that it must be relevant to someone, or some group, otherwise it is just some pointless exercise in intellectual masturbation. And, as things currently stand, it is very clear that Marxism is largely irrelevant to most people in most societies. I just don't see how you can argue against that?

[renalenin]

And, as things currently stand, it is very clear that Marxism is largely irrelevant to most people in most societies. I just don't see how you can argue against that?


One of the really good things that has been happening in some parts of the world just recently is that subaltern and oppressed people have been reclaiming a voice without the apparent need to reject Marx. Those who were the silent ones who suffered the most I mean. In that way feminists and the indigenous peoples and minorities are now able to see their oppression as a function of capitalism. You might not have heard about it. It is all over Latin America just now. Even in the western countries there is more awareness of how connected the subaltern struggles are to the class struggle.

Charlie is back in the building.

:hammersickle::hammersickle::hammersickle:

[xnecron101x]

Let's be honest folks, most Marxists under the age of 30 only seem to focus on issues like feminism and gay rights. Why are less and less Marxists focusing on more economic issues? I am not saying that women's rights are disconnected from economics and they are not important; it is just I feel that too much Tim is spent debating it and practical action should be against the root cause of this: capitalism.

As so many others have said, the "Marxists" you're talking about are nothing more than young people trying to be cool. It is becoming more and more the case that being a socialist is cool because it's outside the norm. Hipsters left and right are taking up the LGBT or feminist cause and calling it Marxism because then more people will pay attention to them. Most of them will not address capitalism as the core issue because to them, it isn't. Most of these so called Marxists are simply capitalists that want attention. Once they achieve their cause (or it becomes "un-cool" again) they will go back to being Democrats or Green Party or whatever they may be.

[kevin09x]

From my own personal point of view, of why many american leftists are not worried about the food prices, gas prices the rising prices of aparments and houses. Is that they really might not belong to the lower class. I think that many of the USA leftists are middle class people. And when you are part of the middle class, you are not rich like Donald Trump, but at the same you are not in a state of economic desperation.

So I think that many of the marxists of USA and the whole world are part of the college middle class and that's why I think that they attack isolated issues like GMOs, Monsato etc.

Leftists should realize that our enemy is not Monsato, our enemy is capitalism, but they spend so much energies on isolated issues. Man, I agree with you, I think that the american left needs an "Introduction to Marxist Philosophy and a basic course on how to rise to political power.




.




Let's be honest folks, most Marxists under the age of 30 only seem to focus on issues like feminism and gay rights. Why are less and less Marxists focusing on more economic issues? I am not saying that women's rights are disconnected from economics and they are not important; it is just I feel that too much Tim is spent debating it and practical action should be against the root cause of this: capitalism.

[Rugged Collectivist]

I also don't recognise what you say about feminism. At least in the UK at the moment, feminist ideas have gained a lot of traction, with several universities banning The Sun newspaper on page 3 grounds, the No More Page 3 campaign gathering a lot of popular support, the Everyday Sexism Project etc. I recognise that this may not be the case everywhere, but I would say that there is a whole world of difference between the irrelevance of Marxist discourse and the momentum of feminist campaigning and activism at the moment.


Okay, but what does any of that have to do with Marxism?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Okay, but what does any of that have to do with Marxism?

I'm positing it the other way - what does Marxism (as applied in the past few decades) have to do with the struggles of women and minority and oppressed groups?

I know we can all make a handy theoretical connection, but my point is that Marxism has not been sufficiently developed since its inception as a major political theory to get past the reductive idea of 'class struggle and only class struggle'. There are other struggles that need to develop alongside class struggle between workers and the ruling class if we are to ever develop a true mass movement, instead of a few little sects or the odd Trade Union protest/strike here or there.

[Rugged Collectivist]

I'm positing it the other way - what does Marxism (as applied in the past few decades) have to do with the struggles of women and minority and oppressed groups?

I know we can all make a handy theoretical connection, but my point is that Marxism has not been sufficiently developed since its inception as a major political theory to get past the reductive idea of 'class struggle and only class struggle'. There are other struggles that need to develop alongside class struggle between workers and the ruling class if we are to ever develop a true mass movement, instead of a few little sects or the odd Trade Union protest/strike here or there.

I still don't see a connection. The communist movement was even more influential before it developed a fixation with identity politics so I don't see how you can argue that Marxism's inability to "develop" is the cause of the current malaise. If anything, it seems more apparent to me that the lack of emphasis on the class struggle is to blame.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I still don't see a connection. The communist movement was even more influential before it developed a fixation with identity politics

I don't see this at all. The communist movement in western Europe at least seemed to be on the wane from the early 70s at the latest.

It's also disingenuous to make a connection between the influence of the communist movement and 'identity politics' because it is very clear that the demise of the Soviet Union had dramatic consequences for the ability of the worldwide communist movement to physically and financially organise and resource itself. That is very clearly far more crucial a factor in the communist movement's demise than the idea of promoting women's, minority, and LGBT rights alongside the class struggle.

[kevin09x]

Great impecable analysis of the political tastes of the great majority of internet leftists, specially of Facebook leftists. Most leftists in the internet are part of the middle class left, the college left. Most of them claim that they are leftists and many of them have avatars in their Facebook profiles of Marx, Che Guevara, Lenin etc. But most of them rely on middle class college elitist leftist websites like socialistworker.org, alternet.org and infowars.com

Most of the leftists I've seen on Facebook are trying to overthrow the capitalist ideology with *emotions* and not with *scientific cold thinking*. They think that offending Obama, uploading images of Monsato, of The Koch Brothers, of Sarah Palin will do some harm to the capitalist system as a whole.

Besides most of the internet leftists I've seen never talk about the importance of party-building. If you tell them that according to Trotsky there is no way to save this world without political parties, as the only vehicle of change, they will totally ignore you, totally evade you.

Remember that we live in a celebrity oriented world, where well-read people that are very smart but who are not famous and who are not wealthy are totally ignored by the masses. While many liberal leftists who are very popular like Jon Stewart but who aren't very scientific are loved by the masses as messiahs of the american left






From what I have read, there are many reasons, some that stand out more than most because of the history that has followed the end of the Second World War. But here are the biggest I've encountered in person.

1.) These days, Marxism is usually viewed as vulgar economic determinism. Whether consciously or unconsciously, many of today's Marxists believe that absorbing themselves in the rhetoric of bourgeois identity politics will give them enough "revolutionary street cred" to be taken seriously. Some may be overwhelmed by their obligation to befriend other leftists at the risk of isolation or dismissal and become little more than bourgeois liberals. "Privilege theory" is adopted uncritically and used to browbeat others or shut down discussions. Moderators and admins at RevLeft do this with the utmost glee. (Even worse, the bourgeois press love to compare Marxism and fascism and declare them to be twins at the opposite ends of violent "extremism", highlighting the acts of such figures as Pol Pot or Stalin to muddy the waters.)

2.) Marxism is also becoming viewed as nothing more than a futile, albeit interesting, intellectual and academic exercise. This view has apparently become so prevalent that at one point Marx's collected works were almost placed exclusively in the hands of university libraries, with the internet archive (marxists.org) being forced to remove all covered works under copyright (of the English translation).

3.) As a result of the first two points, less and less emphasis is placed upon Marxism's philosophical method, the materialist dialectic. Doubtless you will see many posters here condemn dialectics as mysticism without offering an alternative explanation that does justice to an assessment of Marx's thought as he grew older. Dialectics is rejected in favor of a more empirical approach that relies on superficial reading and misunderstandings of economic issues, which leads to equally superficial rejections. Andrew Kliman recently wrote a book defending Marx's most maligned concept, "The tendency of the rate of profit to fall", and how it is crucial for an understanding of the 2008 crash; there are not many books like this one that attempt to explicate Marx's actual ideas. Debates here tend to argue Marx's "intent" with "quote wars", rather than any theoretical discussion. It won't be long until you sense a parallel between these "orthodox" leftists and priests trying to grow closer to the Holy Father by praying louder.

[Red Star Rising]

Communists have always been most successful when allying themselves to pre-existing struggles - workers unions, strikes etc. There is no reason to ignore ongoing issues. Taking the side of the oppressed (in this case the LGBT society), Marxists can always gain more support than by remaining neutral to any cause but their own. Reminding everyone that we still exist is incredibly important. This should not (and has no reason to be) at the detriment of the Marxist economic ideal - There are plenty of groups around the world to whom total equality and workers owning the means of production would be appealing.

[Rugged Collectivist]

I don't see this at all. The communist movement in western Europe at least seemed to be on the wane from the early 70s at the latest.

It's also disingenuous to make a connection between the influence of the communist movement and 'identity politics' because it is very clear that the demise of the Soviet Union had dramatic consequences for the ability of the worldwide communist movement to physically and financially organise and resource itself. That is very clearly far more crucial a factor in the communist movement's demise than the idea of promoting women's, minority, and LGBT rights alongside the class struggle.

You raise some good points but I want to specifically address the last sentence. Every communist party should be opposed to racism, sexism, and queer oppression. That's not what I'm objecting to and it's not what the op is about. Class struggle MUST BE the CENTRAL focus of a Marxist organization. I would give a more detailed response but I'm on my phone and in a hurry. Apologies.

[Hermes]

You raise some good points but I want to specifically address the last sentence. Every communist party should be opposed to racism, sexism, and queer oppression. That's not what I'm objecting to and it's not what the op is about. Class struggle MUST BE the CENTRAL focus of a Marxist organization. I would give a more detailed response but I'm on my phone and in a hurry. Apologies.

I'm not sure I understand why there needs to be a central focus, what's stopping us from acknowledging that we need to be free from oppression and that capitalism works to uphold it?

I mean, you can go into almost any thread on revleft and find people criticizing those in the lgbt movement who are assimilationist/bourgeois/etc. To be honest, I'm not even sure what 'marxists' the OP is addressing, I've never heard of a self-proclaimed marxist party that put anything other than the class struggle as a central focus.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You raise some good points but I want to specifically address the last sentence. Every communist party should be opposed to racism, sexism, and queer oppression.

Should be. The problem is that it often seems to get glossed over as an 'open/shut' issue; all communists should be opposed to these things, now can we move on to the real issue, the class struggle?

^^I think that the attitude in my sentence above seems to pervade many individuals and organisations on the left; it is stated that all communists should oppose these things, but it is implicit that they are not as important (or not important) as the class struggle.

As a result, I think communist parties (and, through their influence, many communists) do a really good job of making women, minorities and the LGBTQ community feel pretty excluded and this needs to be addressed before we can say "all communist parties should be opposed to these things...".

[Rugged Collectivist]

Should be. The problem is that it often seems to get glossed over as an 'open/shut' issue; all communists should be opposed to these things, now can we move on to the real issue, the class struggle?

^^I think that the attitude in my sentence above seems to pervade many individuals and organisations on the left; it is stated that all communists should oppose these things, but it is implicit that they are not as important (or not important) as the class struggle.

As a result, I think communist parties (and, through their influence, many communists) do a really good job of making women, minorities and the LGBTQ community feel pretty excluded and this needs to be addressed before we can say "all communist parties should be opposed to these things...".

It is open and shut. At least in the west. All western communist parties I'm aware of are opposed to "those things". You'll be hard pressed to find a party that still thinks homosexuality is "bourgeois decadence".

It's not a matter of what's "more important". It's a matter of focus. A communist party doesn't exist to represent the interests of women, lgbtq people, or people of color. It exists to represent the interests of workers, regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation.

[#FF0000]

It's not a matter of what's "more important". It's a matter of focus. A communist party doesn't exist to represent the interests of women, lgbtq people, or people of color. It exists to represent the interests of workers, regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation.

Yeah but the problem with that is that there is no uniform "working class" and while capitalism might exploit us all the same I don't know if we're "oppressed" all the same.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It is open and shut. At least in the west. All western communist parties I'm aware of are opposed to "those things". You'll be hard pressed to find a party that still thinks homosexuality is "bourgeois decadence".

The biggest 'left' party in the UK has shown itself to be very much anti-women.


A communist party doesn't exist to represent the interests of women, lgbtq people, or people of color. It exists to represent the interests of workers, regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation.

That's a line that is going to alienate a great many workers, though. And it is quite a reductionist view. A great many workers will be women, minorities or LGBTQ. I think that we need to find a greater empathy with these groups than saying "we will represent you but only as workers, not as women or minority groups or as part of the LGBTQ community". It seems a fundamental conflict of interest. You either accept all of the struggle, or I think you really start to lose the ability to connect with great swathes of people.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Yeah but the problem with that is that there is no uniform "working class" and while capitalism might exploit us all the same I don't know if we're "oppressed" all the same.
I never said all workers are equally oppressed or oppressed in the same ways. I said that a communist party must make the destruction of class society it's main priority.


The biggest 'left' party in the UK has shown itself to be very much anti-women.

True.


That's a line that is going to alienate a great many workers, though. And it is quite a reductionist view. A great many workers will be women, minorities or LGBTQ. I think that we need to find a greater empathy with these groups than saying "we will represent you but only as workers, not as women or minority groups or as part of the LGBTQ community". It seems a fundamental conflict of interest. You either accept all of the struggle, or I think you really start to lose the ability to connect with great swathes of people.

I fail to see a conflict of interest. It's okay to acknowledge these struggles as long as they aren't divorced from the larger class struggle. It's been shown that an analysis of these phenomena that doesn't take historical materialism into account leads to bad politics. Different forms of oppression must not be viewed in a vacuum.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Rugged Collectivist;2774182]I never said all workers are equally oppressed or oppressed in the same ways. I said that a communist party must make the destruction of class society it's main priority.

I don't disagree, but if communists are to command support for class struggle, then there must be a greater emphasis on issues that workers face as women, minorities and the LGBTQ community.

That's not my own ideology - i'm a white cisgender male -, rather that's what i've observed from a lot of others I know in the community. I think a lot of people do recognise the divide between rich and poor, rulers and ruled etc., but I also feel that a lot of workers face a double oppression if they are women, minorities or LGBTQ.

In short, I think actions speak very much louder than words and rather than paying homage to oppression but focusing actions very much on class struggle alone, I think that communists ought to interact more closely with groups, campaigns etc. for women's, minorities' and LGBTQ struggle, regardless of whether they originated within the workers'/communist movements.

[Orange Juche]

Let's be honest folks, most Marxists under the age of 30 only seem to focus on issues like feminism and gay rights. Why are less and less Marxists focusing on more economic issues? I am not saying that women's rights are disconnected from economics and they are not important; it is just I feel that too much Tim is spent debating it and practical action should be against the root cause of this: capitalism.

I would like to see much much more focus on Global Warming & green issues, definitely, but to pose this from a position of "only seem to focus on issues like feminism and gay rights"? Not cool, seriously. And really, not pragmatic.

Reality isn't black and white, or a vacuum. Capitalism is the root cause of these problems, but these problems, and we, exist within capitalism. Focusing time on them now is never a waste and is always a gain, and if we actually stand for ending all forms of hierarchy, we must challenge these things, during and after capitalism. To do so doesn't mean we have to stop challenging capitalism, and to stop doing so isn't going to make capitalism go away any faster.

[boiler]

Let's be honest folks, most Marxists under the age of 30 only seem to focus on issues like feminism and gay rights. Why are less and less Marxists focusing on more economic issues? I am not saying that women's rights are disconnected from economics and they are not important; it is just I feel that too much Tim is spent debating it and practical action should be against the root cause of this: capitalism.

In my experience the Marxists I know under the age of 30 are highly active in many different campaigns and issues from homeless and housing issues to international and anti imperialist issues as well as workers struggles. But on the other hand there are Marxists in Ireland especially within the communist party of Ireland that do pretty much nothing other than debate and have meetings amongst theirselves.