Greetings!

[The Communard]

Marxism has been the core of my own views for a long time, so why not join a nice international community where I can exchange views with like-minded people. So I hope I'll be able to add some contribution. I'm from Austria and used to be involved with the Communist Party (KPÖ) but left as this party seems to have rejected Marxism and turned more into some sort of classic social democrats. With "communists" like this, the capitalists have nothing to worry about.
I'm not a dogmatic Marxist. No one has shaped my own views like Karl Marx but he is not a prophet nor is socialism a doctrine of salvation. It is my belief that the approach to socialism should be scientific. I think good old Karl would agree. Isn't this the basis of his ideas? Marxism has to be kept updated in order to face new challenges and conditions. So far not much has been achieved in that direction. A lot has been said but not done. The inability to organize the working people remains our biggest defeat. Large parts of the Left (Marxists included) are rather occupied with questions of identity and particularism, infested by postmodern nonsense, whether consciously or not.
Some of you may disagree and that's alright. Disagreements are part of a healthy debate and I'm looking forward to new insights and your company.

By the way, my name is Norbert and I'm 29 years old. It's great to be here.

[Q]

Welcome :)

If you have political questions, you can ask them in the Learning forum. That's why it's there after all!

If you have questions about your account, don't hesitate to send me a PM or ask here.

Why didn't you stay in the KPÖ and fight for your ideas? How big is the organisation, compared to other left groups? If it for example is the largest left organisation in Austria, I think comrades should take such forces seriously instead of walking away, looking in vain for a more 'pure' group. But that's just me.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

It is my belief that the approach to socialism should be scientific. I think good old Karl would agree. Isn't this the basis of his ideas? Marxism has to be kept updated in order to face new challenges and conditions. So far not much has been achieved in that direction. A lot has been said but not done. The inability to organize the working people remains our biggest defeat. Large parts of the Left (Marxists included) are rather occupied with questions of identity and particularism, infested by postmodern nonsense, whether consciously or not.
Some of you may disagree and that's alright. Disagreements are part of a healthy debate and I'm looking forward to new insights and your company.

By the way, my name is Norbert and I'm 29 years old. It's great to be here.

Welcome.

Karl Marx was 'scientific' to some degree, but not in the way that most people seem to adhere to on here. It needs to be said that the Marxist attempt to draw lessons with a 'scientific' value from failed revolutions of the past merely opened the door to the later degeneration represented by working-class bureaucracies, which I will explain a bit further by beginning with Kautsky.

Kautsky didn't really help things by seeing the movement to socialism as being guaranteed by the operation of ‘laws of history’, or things that resembled 'laws of nature', because this dropped the role of consciousness in class struggle as well as the philosophical aspects of Marx's work that combined with his economic focuses (forget the epistemological split for now). Consequently, Kautsky applied these 'laws' universally and ended up seeing human beings as their instruments, which is echoed in Orthodox Marxism, Social Democracy, Trotskyism, Leninism, Stalinism and (to a lesser degree) even some of Luxemburg's thought. This would explain the creation of the useless construct of ‘historical materialism’, or ‘the materialist conception of history’. Marx never even used the terms "historical materialism" or "dialectical materialism"! These terms were invented justifications of a crudely materialistic take on reality (and hence the bureaucratic organisations built off of this e.g. USSR), most notably found in Joseph Stalin's works. Read Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" for an indirect criticism of this erroneous Marxist development.

So there's a reason why people like Guy Debord and Lukács opposed a purely 'scientific' explanation of history. They thought that class struggle was key, but they also understood that this struggle was not a pure reflection of economic processes.


'Bourgeois' science takes the apparent independence of 'things' and 'facts' for the truth and strives to discover the “laws” that govern them. It looks upon economic crises or wars not as the more or less distorted outcome of human actions but rather as events obeying their own laws.

This is just another form of alienation. Something that a lot of Marxism contributes to. Especially Socialist/Communist parties that express alienation via militancy.

[Thirsty Crow]

Hi Communard,

Hope you have a good and productive (:lol:) time here. I'm also quite interested in what would you have to say to that proposition about "fighting for your views" inside social democrat parties.



This would explain the creation of the useless construct of ‘historical materialism’, or ‘the materialist conception of history’


The latter term comes from Marx's work:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm

Terminology aside, there isn't any necessary connection with the fatalism (metaphysical, at that) you bring up:


Consequently, Kautsky applied these 'laws' universally and ended up seeing human beings as their instruments, which is echoed in Orthodox Marxism, Social Democracy, Trotskyism, Leninism, Stalinism and (to a lesser degree) even some of Luxemburg's thought.

Apart from this (most noticeable in Engels' deluded statement that Hegel was right in considering freedom an "insight into necessity" in Anti-Duhring), I'd say this whole thing is pretty damn important. Foundational really.

[The Jay]

Welcome to the forum!

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Hi Communard,

Hope you have a good and productive (:lol:) time here. I'm also quite interested in what would you have to say to that proposition about "fighting for your views" inside social democrat parties.



The latter term comes from Marx's work:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm

Terminology aside, there isn't any necessary connection with the fatalism (metaphysical, at that) you bring up:



Apart from this (most noticeable in Engels' deluded statement that Hegel was right in considering freedom an "insight into necessity" in Anti-Duhring), I'd say this whole thing is pretty damn important. Foundational really.

Yes this view of things proceeding via 'natural laws' is pretty foundational which is why there has been so much bullshit from the groups I mentioned above.

I'm not bringing up fatalism but a strict determinism, stop misrepresenting my views.

When I referred to the 'materialist conception of history' I was emphasising the differences in meaning between Marx and the people who followed (came after) him. Marx wasn't a materialist in the sense that you understand it, assuming you are defending the ideas of the people I am criticising.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yes this view of things proceeding via 'natural laws' is pretty foundational which is why there has been so much bullshit from the groups I mentioned above.You're completely misunderstanding me.
The materialist conception of history that doesn't actually function as that kind of a fatalism - or what you call "strict determinism" - is foundational in the sense of it serving as a good, healthy foundation.


I'm not bringing up fatalism but a strict determinism, stop misrepresenting my views. Everything you said I'd label fatalism so the difference here is purely terminological, even more so since I do agree with the basic thrust of the argument.

Though it might be added that human interaction can be shown to be structured and therefore to exhibit some consistencies; that's the source of the perceived and predicted regularities that come to be rhetorically masked and obfuscated by appeal to laws of this or that. This is the reason why I don't think it is useful to discard this view of the laws of history (remember that Marx never advocated a linear vision of progress; the clue to that can be found in the Manifesto with the reference to the destruction of combatant social classes; anyway, there is absolutely no grounds to hold such views today).


When I referred to the 'materialist conception of history' I was emphasising the differences in meaning between Marx and the people who followed (came after) him.
These differences are there. And they're important.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

You're completely misunderstanding me.
The materialist conception of history that doesn't actually function as that kind of a fatalism - or what you call "strict determinism" - is foundational in the sense of it serving as a good, healthy foundation.

Everything you said I'd label fatalism so the difference here is purely terminological, even more so since I do agree with the basic thrust of the argument.

Though it might be added that human interaction can be shown to be structured and therefore to exhibit some consistencies; that's the source of the perceived and predicted regularities that come to be rhetorically masked and obfuscated by appeal to laws of this or that. This is the reason why I don't think it is useful to discard this view of the laws of history (remember that Marx never advocated a linear vision of progress; the clue to that can be found in the Manifesto with the reference to the destruction of combatant social classes; anyway, there is absolutely no grounds to hold such views today).


These differences are there. And they're important.

Your writing has unintentionally been misleading me, hence why I may have incorrectly attributed things to you.

I'm slightly confused about your stance here and I would like you to reiterate your understanding of Marx's materialist conception of history in relation to mine as well as Marxism (with Marxism being viewed as distinct and separate from Marx's ideas).

[The Communard]

Thank you all for the warm welcome.

Q, ever since its leadership decided to follow the "Eurocommunist" path of disorientation, the KPÖ has been in a permanent state of self-destruction. The elitist clique in Vienna had the magnificent idea of chasing off thousands of committed activists, especially since 2004. The youth and student organisations have already cut their ties with the party headquarters. It's not like the opposing voices remained idle. A party that has alienated itself from the working class is no longer worth fighting for. Part of the opposition established a new party last October. So there is hope. All of this is a huge shame. The KPÖ is one of the oldest CPs in the world, now dissapearing into complete irrelevance thanks to the arrogance and elitism of its so-called leaders both during the pre-1989 Stalinist era and the "reformist" era that would follow.

Greetings Rocinante!

If I remember correctly, the terms Marx (and Engels) used were materialistische Anschauung der Geschichte (materialist view of history), materialistische Geschichtsauffassung (materialist conception of history)and meine dialektische Methode (Marx; my dialectic method). The later Stalinist attempt to vulgarize, distort and simplify some of the core Marxist categories will hopefully remain in the Rumpelkammer of history.

I'm not sure how the scientific analysis of previous revolutions helped pave the way to the authoritarian bureaucracies as Marx' own conclusions refuted their justifications. Marx wasn't taking an inevitable future for granted. I hope we can continue this discussion in some of the many threads here.

LinksRadikal has already made some points I agree with.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

I'm not sure how the scientific analysis of previous revolutions helped pave the way to the authoritarian bureaucracies as Marx' own conclusions refuted their justifications. Marx wasn't taking an inevitable future for granted.

Kautsky is the problem for me, as well as Plekhanov and Engels (and Stalin and Bukharin). Their 'scientific analysis' is what I take issue with due to the way it applied a purely positivistic understanding of society that ejected all space for human consciousness and its role in changing history. That's what I was getting at when I said the materialist method was ridiculous, although I wasn't referring to Marx's and incorrectly stated that he never used the term (he did but in a different way from the "Marxists").

Nice to talk to you!

[Q]

Q, ever since its leadership decided to follow the "Eurocommunist" path of disorientation, the KPÖ has been in a permanent state of self-destruction. The elitist clique in Vienna had the magnificent idea of chasing off thousands of committed activists, especially since 2004. The youth and student organisations have already cut their ties with the party headquarters. It's not like the opposing voices remained idle. A party that has alienated itself from the working class is no longer worth fighting for. Part of the opposition established a new party last October. So there is hope. All of this is a huge shame. The KPÖ is one of the oldest CPs in the world, now dissapearing into complete irrelevance thanks to the arrogance and elitism of its so-called leaders both during the pre-1989 Stalinist era and the "reformist" era that would follow.
Those are important developmentsad it is sad to see the KPÖ moving, somewhat belated, on this path. My question stands though: Why not stay and fight? Especially with such an old and established organisation, it would be a tragedy to lose it.

There is an English organisation called the CPGB (http://weeklyworker.co.uk/), which started out as a fraction of the old CPGB, which liquidated itself under a Eurocommunist leadership in 1991. They failed in saving the organisation, but it was fundamentally a correct strategy to pursue I think. Maybe you can find some inspiration from their experiences (http://vimeo.com/6185943).