How do Marxists think?

[Saorsa Dearg]

I've read some Marxist stuff and I like it. But I don't understand how to analyze a situation as a Marxist would. They often say different things about different events, even though I would expect them to say something similar, when two events seem similar. I'd like to be able to analyze events myself, as a Marxist would. What kind of questions do Marxists ask themselves? I know enough to support workers over capitalists, oppose racism, things like that, but events are rarely that obvious.

[tuwix]

And analyze as you wish. As far as I know there is no only Marxist way to analyze. Nobody will be Marx again, so there is no need to care what "real" Marxist would think.

[ckaihatsu]

I created a visual metaphor to address this very question a few years ago -- one can think of (bourgeois) political power as 'spinning' the rest of us, while any internal friction in their ability to keep the whole thing going would equate to a *slowdown* of 'spin', thereby allowing the far left to finally confront the far right, as is our wont:


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

http://s6.postimg.org/3si9so4xd/110211_Ideologies_Operations_Left_Centrifug.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/zc8b2rb3h/full/)


Also:




[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://s6.postimg.org/6omx9zh81/3_Ideologies_Operations_Fundamentals.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/cpkm723u5/full/)


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

http://s6.postimg.org/nmlxvtqlt/1_History_Macro_Micro_Precision.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/zbpxjshkd/full/)

[Chomskyan]

Read the Communist Manifesto. It seems to demonstrate Marxist worldview well.

[Brutus]

Anti-Dhüring by Engels is one of the best overviews of Marxian thinking.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/

[RedMaterialist]

I've read some Marxist stuff and I like it. But I don't understand how to analyze a situation as a Marxist would. They often say different things about different events, even though I would expect them to say something similar, when two events seem similar. I'd like to be able to analyze events myself, as a Marxist would. What kind of questions do Marxists ask themselves? I know enough to support workers over capitalists, oppose racism, things like that, but events are rarely that obvious.

So, say the climate change protests this week.

What I see are a lot of people who are unsure of the political, class, and capitalist force which they are fighting. They don't seem to understand the massive state force which they are facing and which they must be willing to overcome to break the capitalist grip on the ecology of the planet.

The protesters obviously want to save the planet and they know generally that capitalism is responsible for the ecological crisis.

So, from a Marxist perspective, I would say that Marxist revolutionaries and theoretical leaders could be explaining how capitalism has finally come to the point of almost destroying the planet. And attempt to raise the consciousness of the protesters to see that revolutionary action is the only way to destroy capitalism before it destroys the planet.

Too many of the protesters want to "work within the system" to win this fight. History has showed over and over again that this does not work.

DESTROY CAPITALISM BEFORE IT DESTROYS OUR PLANET.

[Art Vandelay]

Marxist methodology is what is known as 'dialectical materialism.' There are a lot of different books on the subject. A couple texts, off the top of my head, that I quite enjoyed and found particularly useful are:

Bertell Ollman's 'Dance of the Dialectic.'
Leon Trotsky's 'In Defence of Marxism.'
George Novack's 'An Introduction to the Logic of Marxism.'

[RedWorker]

As far as I know, Marx himself never talked of a "dialectical materialism" and it is a dodgy concept. What clearly does exist is the materialist conception of history (historical materialism), and it is at the center of Marxist thought. Historical materialism is an analysis of a model which makes a historical outline based on class and property relations.

What historical materialism says is that the class struggle is at the center of historical development. Whereas utopian socialism had at its core a personal conception of how the "future society" should work (idealism), which has no clear way to be achieved - everyone is expected to just "switch to it" (voluntarism), scientific socialism (the conception of which in reality is Marxism) is based on a derivation from real life parameters.

Marxism says that it is only a coincidence that the next society (communism) is better than the current one, and that this society cannot be established based on any personal thoughts, but rather than it is an inevitable natural development which does not rely on anyone's personal ideas or will.

So historical materialism, analyzing the recent part of history, makes the following conclusions:


State and class society is a natural result of private property, which will therefore, based on this and other premises, become unnecessary as history evolves.
The distinction between economical stages is the mode of production.
The history known to date is the history of class struggles. Class struggle is the engine for change between the modes of production. History advances when a class liberates itself, pushing against the interests of another class.
Historical determinism. An input will always give the same output, therefore there can only one path of history. Communism is inevitable.


We can make a rough outline of historical materialism by saying: feudalism->capitalism->communism (inevitable development of history which has already progressed two-thirds).

Feudalism: we can make out the classes of the feudal ruling class and the bourgeoisie (industry-owning class), as well as some other classes. However, we focus on these two major ones because they are the classes which are at the core of history. The bourgeoisie's interests clashed with that of the feudal ruling class. It turned out that, in this model, only one class could be relevant for the development of history: the bourgeoisie. Following their material interests, and each time advancing more their own interests which could only be done by pushing against the ruling class' interests, the final culmination eventually happened (what is known in Marxism as a revolution); the bourgeoisie seized all power.

By means of this, they abolished all feudal privileges and established liberal law, among other things. In other words, by of all relations of private property, it abolished only part of them: the privileges. Inevitably, what at first were local developments turned out to become universal; everywhere the same changes followed up. The gears of history, once put into motion, cannot be stopped. The change could have only been triggered by the bourgeoisie: the ruling class already had all power and it only resulted in the continuation of the status quo (what already existed), and the other classes were not relevant.

Capitalism: By the means of this bourgeois revolution, the whole world ushered into capitalism and its society. Everywhere all privileges such as that of the feudal class were removed, and the most "liberal" mode of production came into existence. By the change in this mode of production, there also came therefore a change in all fields of society. The base and superstructure. These changes were so extended that even all culture changed. But let us focus on the economic part here. Capitalism is the final development of the economic system based on private property, which leads to a massive growth in the productive forces and therefore makes private property (such as private ownership factories, not personal items - final goods - such as computers or books)unnecessary (it was previously needed because of non-abundance). Therefore, the conditions came into existence so that private property, and therefore class and state society, can be abolished.

Capitalism leads to the concentration of society into two major classes: The proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie owns private property and employs the proletariat for profit, the proletariat does not own private property and can only ever hope to survive through being employed by the bourgeoisie. Only in capitalism does the proletariat exist, and thus can the working class come to power. Working classes always existed, but not the proletariat as we know it. Capitalism is the ultimate development of class, property, and state relations, where they are the most advanced. Therefore, the next development will necessary result in the overthrow of all existing conditions. Of all who exist in capitalism, only the proletariat can be at the core of the next historical development. The proletariat's struggle to advance its own interests result in the culmination, the capture of political power, and from there goes the next development towards the next form of human society. Whereas previous developments in the mode of production were based on abolishing certain relations of property, the proletariat can only liberate itself by abolishing private property in general.

Communism: The last known development of society in the model of historical materialism. The working class rose to power and abolished the bourgeoisie, then destroyed itself. No class, no state, no private property. Only the local assemblies of society remain. All that is relevant in production is held and managed in common, yet personal goods are managed as they are in nature, owned de facto by their users. There are changes in all fields of society which cannot even be imagined now.

Some books on historical materialism and scientific socialism are:

The Communist Manifesto (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/), K.Marx, F. Engels
Principles of Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm), F. Engels
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/), F. Engels

Another Marxist concept is the base and superstructure. It means that all society as we know it depend upon the relations of production. The base is all that which is relevant on production, and the superstructure is what is built upon it. A change in the mode of production changes everything in all fields of society: culture, politics, religion, philosophy, etc. All that is built upon the current mode of production and its particular relations.


Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?

What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.

When people speak of the ideas that revolutionize society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.

[...]

"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.
But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.

The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

The Marxists reject all idealism. They know that the bourgeoisie is not "evil", and neither is the working class is not "good". In fact, they reject the notions which are at the cores of such concepts. They reject all conspiracy theories, all quackery and empty talk. The Marxists analyze what is really at the core of society. They do not conceal their aims. They wage an open fight, at all times. Yet they support the immediate developments which are in their interests, not forgetting to take care of the future of the movement, by revealing the truth as it is at all times, never pretending that a small change within the current structure will lead to a major effect. The Marxists know all too well that only a structural change in the core of society will be meaningful, that only the overthrow of the current society, and thus all existing relations, will be relevant.

[Palmares]

I've read some Marxist stuff and I like it. But I don't understand how to analyze a situation as a Marxist would. They often say different things about different events, even though I would expect them to say something similar, when two events seem similar. I'd like to be able to analyze events myself, as a Marxist would. What kind of questions do Marxists ask themselves? I know enough to support workers over capitalists, oppose racism, things like that, but events are rarely that obvious.

I've been trying to figure out what the hell is going on in a Marxist's head for a long time too!

But seriously though, I used to be one.

Once upon a time, I used to think, "As a , what must I think, do, etc?" I think this is actually not an entirely useful way of thinking. It essentially encourages dogma and ideological thinking. If, by your own ways of experiencing the world and interpreting it you come to beliefs that approximate a given "ideology", go for it. But I think it's best to truly think for yourself and figure out what it is that [I]you believe.

Go read some Marxist books. Read some books that ain't Marxist. But figure out what you believe for yourself.

Wouldn't wanna be the Marxist equivalent of a Christian eh... :lol:

http://i3.cpcache.com/product/254511061/what_would_marx_do_mug.jpg?color=White&height=460&width=460&qv=90

[Palmares]

By the way...


Saorsa Dearg (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=181657)

Scottish Gaelic right? Means... free... something? :confused:

[Saorsa Dearg]

It's easy enough to look at history and say Marxists took this side for these reasons, but that doesn't help with unfolding events. How do Marxists do this? What questions do they ask themselves when analyzing a conflict? National liberation movements for example. When and why do Marxists support or oppose them? When a new event begins to unfold, what do Marxists look for to decide where they stand? It shouldn't require several books, or even one, to explain this. I like to read websites from various ideological perspectives as events unfold, to see where various tendencies stand. Marxists are the most confusing. They often take seemingly contradictory stances. It's easy to know where a free marketer will stand on any issue, just ask yourself what's best for the expansion of capital. I would expect Marxists to have a similar universal, but their analysis is often unexpected, probably because they're advocates of the working class, but that class contains many subdivisions, which makes analysis very complicated. Capitalists are subdivided too, but it doesn't matter for free markets because they're advocates of capital more so than capitalists.

@tuwix: But there must be a Marxist method of analysis, or why does Marxism exist?

@ckaihatsu: Thanks, I didn't understand that, but it's impressive!

@Chomskyan: I've read the Communist Manifesto, but it doesn't help me analyze current events, probably because I don't yet understand how Marxists think, that's why I asked.

@Brutus: It says Socialism, Utopian and Scientific comes from that book. I've read some of Socialism, Utopian and Scientific, but it didn't help me understand how to analyze current events.

@RedMaterialist: Like you sad, most climate change protesters know capitalism is to blame. I agree with you that they're mistaken to think they can solve climate change by working within the system, and I know that's a Marxist position, but I'm asking how Marxists think, not what they think.

@Old Bull Lee: Thanks. I probably don't understand dialectical materialism, but I think it basically means looking at the forces that shape events, instead of looking at the events in isolation. I agree with that, but it doesn't help me understand how to analyze unfolding events. It makes it easier to explain past events, but that's not what I'm asking about.

@RedWorker: Thanks, I already understand most of that, but I appreciate the effort! It's a good overview of history, but that's not really what I'm asking for.

@Palmares: Just because I want to understand how Marxists think doesn't mean I want to become a mindless drone. Scholars study things they don't believe in all the time. Maybe I'll become a Marxist, maybe not, but I have to understand it before I can decide. That's called "thinking for myself and figuring out what I believe." I disagree with what I think you're saying here, that everyone should make up their own mind about everything. I don't think that's smart, I don't know as much as other people about many things. I don't even think it's possible, we're all influenced by everything around us. Anarchism is an ideology too you know, a very simplistic one, if you'll forgive me for saying so. It's the same ideology little kids have, "you can't tell me what to do!" I usually side with the little kid there, unless it's really for their own good, but I don't find it a very interesting model for analyzing unfolding events. Saorsa Dearg means Red Freedom, if the translator I used was right.

[Hit The North]

Lenin (who was no slouch at being a Marxist) said that if you want to know why a certain policy is being put forward or why a certain arrangement persists, first ask who benefits.