Marxism; Help? (Various questions)

[Fin]

So as I sit here in my bed, thinking, I decided to learn more in depth about Marxism. I've heard a lot/read a lot online/and in general feel like I know some main ideas. I really want to know truly what it is, and understand it, so I can actually talk about it, rather than just listening.


From what I can tell Marxism consists of the proletariat taking over, forming a "Proletarian dictatorship" Where the proletariat control the means of production (and distribution?)

What happens to the old class (the richer upper class, or bourgeois?), and the middle class? What do Marxists generally believe in regards to healthcare, pensions, etc?

I also understand that Marxism talks a lot about economic history, like how Marx talked about tribal communism, of a sort, where everyone in a sense was equal, all the way to feudal economics? Would someone be able to tackle that for me?

I would basically like an overview of actual beliefs, and how things would work. Putting it into context for me would be great! I would like to be able to know about this subject, and speak about it in an actual conversation rather than be clueless.

So basically, the general ideas, and main points of Marxism, how it would work (as in how does the 'proletarian dictatorship' work exactly... I feel I don't particularly grasp it correctly)

I know these questions have been asked multiple times before, I'm sure of it, but I am soon to fall asleep and don't really have a time to research it. I would love help about Marxism in general very much!

If anyone wants to be really great, I would love a comparison of economic and political systems to Marxism and Leninism, or the different stages of communism. Maybe even a more in depth summary of Socialism and how it works with Marxism. Sorry if this is to much, I just really want to get an idea if Marxism is something I -actually- like, and where to get started! I have skimmed through the links provided in the stickied threads already.

Thanks again!

[Fin]

Got up and read a little bit more on what I had said was "Economic History" which I found to be "Historical Materialism"?

From what I understand about what Marx had said, historical materialism basically is the history of governments, their economies, and repeating patterns throughout history?
Basically, the means of production change, and so do the people, and the more and more they produce, and the way they produce changes, in the end the current form government changes?

Starting with primitive communism in which there was basically one "government" and each member all had a part in society. Eventually becoming what he referred to as a "slave society" like, for example, Sparta, or Athens, or other ancient nations, in which a small group of aristocrats rule, and these aristocrats are born by becoming slave owners, or owning the people that are the means of production. Later, it advanced into a more feudal society in which aristocrats are still the ruling class, but they now control serfs, in a sense slaves, and the merchants become the capitalists. Finally, the merchants eventually begin to take control with their capital, and thus, in a sense, capitalism is born? Correct me if I'm wrong, or add on it. This is just a very base understanding.

What exactly does this have to do with the future? Was Marx predicting that the proletariat would take over, like how the other prior classes in history had?

[Red Star Rising]

So as I sit here in my bed, thinking, I decided to learn more in depth about Marxism. I've heard a lot/read a lot online/and in general feel like I know some main ideas. I really want to know truly what it is, and understand it, so I can actually talk about it, rather than just listening.


From what I can tell Marxism consists of the proletariat taking over, forming a "Proletarian dictatorship" Where the proletariat control the means of production (and distribution?)

What happens to the old class (the richer upper class, or bourgeois?), and the middle class? What do Marxists generally believe in regards to healthcare, pensions, etc?

I also understand that Marxism talks a lot about economic history, like how Marx talked about tribal communism, of a sort, where everyone in a sense was equal, all the way to feudal economics? Would someone be able to tackle that for me?

I would basically like an overview of actual beliefs, and how things would work. Putting it into context for me would be great! I would like to be able to know about this subject, and speak about it in an actual conversation rather than be clueless.

So basically, the general ideas, and main points of Marxism, how it would work (as in how does the 'proletarian dictatorship' work exactly... I feel I don't particularly grasp it correctly)

I know these questions have been asked multiple times before, I'm sure of it, but I am soon to fall asleep and don't really have a time to research it. I would love help about Marxism in general very much!

If anyone wants to be really great, I would love a comparison of economic and political systems to Marxism and Leninism, or the different stages of communism. Maybe even a more in depth summary of Socialism and how it works with Marxism. Sorry if this is to much, I just really want to get an idea if Marxism is something I -actually- like, and where to get started! I have skimmed through the links provided in the stickied threads already.

Thanks again!

1) That is the basic principal behind a dictatorship of the proletariat, different people here will have different ideas about how it is to be achieved an what it looks like though. Anarchists for example wouldn't agree with a state institution to distribute resources early on but Leninists would.

2) The bourgeoisie would have their private incomes taken away, any exceedingly high wealth and their accumulated unearned income would be confiscated. They would be placed into the same position as everyone else. They would not be arrested or anything unless they have a history of unreasonable, criminal exploitation such as wall street. Your average CEO has an anti-Marxist undeserved power and status, but most aren't truly malevolent enough to be punished in any way, especially seeing as they didn't choose their birth into privilege any more than people in sweatshops chose to be born into poverty. The upper class would basically be abolished, they would stop being a thing.

3) Basically we can assess that most hunter-gatherer societies (which are pretty much the earliest and therefore most natural state of homo-sapien social structure) were probably egalitarian and collectivised. The agricultural revolution was one of the things that began the concept of private ownership. We know this through a) observation of indigenous societies in Africa and other areas largely untouched by the modern world and b) what archeological evidence points to. This basically counters the "CAPITALISTIC GREED IS NATURAL!!!11!!11" argument.

4) You can learn all about Marxist beliefs through reading Marx/Engels, looking at the section on tendencies on this forum, looking on the internet for lectures, articles etc. on the subject (David Harvey's works are a good way to break into reading Marx's more wordy volumes). Contemporary books on capitalism/communism and Marxist theory are probably also good. Basically, it's hard to sum up all the concepts of Marxism in a neat little bow, but it is still very relevant and with the internet and current economic climate, it is easier than ever to dig your teeth into it. If you have questions about anything you find I'm sure people here will help explain if you ask (this is 'Learning' after all).

The difficulty with this is that everyone has different ideas about Marxism, Leninism and Socialism etc. But debates and discussions are still a great way to learn, you have to look at your own ideas to assess which one is right.

Welcome to Revleft Comrade :hammersickle:

[Zanthorus]

From what I can tell Marxism consists of the proletariat taking over, forming a "Proletarian dictatorship" Where the proletariat control the means of production (and distribution?)

This is true in a limited sense. The working-class will at first establish itself as the political ruling class and refashion the state to suit it's ends. But the political rule of the working-class is not conceived of as an end, but merely a means to an end, the end itself being the end of class society. In achieving it's ends, the proletariat will abolish itself as a class along with all other classes.

To put it in another way, the proletariat is that class which obtains it's livelihood by selling it's labour-power in exchange for wages. What is aimed at is the abolition of the system of wage-labour - "Instead of the conservative motto, ‘A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!’ they [the workers' movement] ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword, ‘Abolition of the wages system!" (Marx, 1865). Since the economic domination of the capitalist class is also dependent on their political domination, the legal system of property relations, defense of these relations by the police etc, the first objective aimed at is the acquisition of political power by the proletariat. But this power is only sought in order to be directed against the whole system of wage-labour, to seek for it's abolition.


What happens to the old class (the richer upper class, or bourgeois?), and the middle class?The individuals who constituted those classes will continue to exist, but their existence as a class will be made impossible by the socialist system of production, which excludes all class relations.


I also understand that Marxism talks a lot about economic history, like how Marx talked about tribal communism, of a sort, where everyone in a sense was equal, all the way to feudal economics? Would someone be able to tackle that for me?Marxism understands capitalism as a historically specific system, arising out of pre-capitalist relations in or around the 16th century, rather than, for example, considering capitalist relations of production as eternal, and ascribing changes in economic history to interferences by society or the government with circulation. Because capitalism has a definite beginning, this also raises the specter of it's having a definite end, and being replaced by a new system of production relations. And this replacement is not only considered as a possibility in the abstract, but as something, the conditions of which have been brought about by capitalism itself with, for example, the creation of the world-market, the bringing of most areas of the world within it's sphere, the centralisation of the means of production in the hands of a few private individuals, and the creation of a class of wage-labourers with interests opposed to those capital.

I second the recommendation to go the source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/index.htm) and the read the man (men) himself (themselves). I don't have a very high opinion of secondary sources when it comes to interpreting Marx though.

[Creative Destruction]

So as I sit here in my bed, thinking, I decided to learn more in depth about Marxism. I've heard a lot/read a lot online/and in general feel like I know some main ideas. I really want to know truly what it is, and understand it, so I can actually talk about it, rather than just listening.

From what I can tell Marxism consists of the proletariat taking over, forming a "Proletarian dictatorship" Where the proletariat control the means of production (and distribution?)

What happens to the old class (the richer upper class, or bourgeois?), and the middle class? What do Marxists generally believe in regards to healthcare, pensions, etc?

The middle class is a mix of proletarians and petit-bourgeoisie. Understanding Marxist class analysis does away with the conception of the "middle class." It becomes a class war between those who do not own the means of production and those that do.


I also understand that Marxism talks a lot about economic history, like how Marx talked about tribal communism, of a sort, where everyone in a sense was equal, all the way to feudal economics? Would someone be able to tackle that for me?

That's a really broad topic. Do you have any specific questions?


I would basically like an overview of actual beliefs, and how things would work. Putting it into context for me would be great! I would like to be able to know about this subject, and speak about it in an actual conversation rather than be clueless.

So basically, the general ideas, and main points of Marxism, how it would work (as in how does the 'proletarian dictatorship' work exactly... I feel I don't particularly grasp it correctly)

Go to www.marxists.org and read the Marx-Engels directory. That's better than any one person talking at you here at RevLeft. When you have specific questions about what you're reading is a better time to have a discussion.

[Blake's Baby]

Zanthorus is right that the best sources are Marx and Engels (some people would even deny that Engels should be consulted); the theorists who came after them (I'd say Lenin, Luxemburg and Trotsky, particularly) tried to interpret Marx in the context of the early 20th century.

But some things are relatively clear anyway. Marx saw the working class as embodying a new form of organisation of society, and thought that the working class would eventually unite to overthrow capitalism and transform the capitalist society into socialist society. In doing so, it would cease to exist as a class (section of the population) because with the end of oppressive property relations, everyone would be the same class, which is the same as there being no separate classes.

Marx saw this as being likely by a mixture of armed revolutions and parliamentary action (though at different periods he emphasised different tactics and had different opinions of the feasibility of different methods). Either way, it was necessary for the proletariat (working class) to take control of society by politically taking over the power of the state (either to use it, or to smash it). The proletariat would use its power - which he referred to as 'the revolutionary dictatorship' - to do away with property (the basis of class society). This would begin the transformation to socialist society in which the needs of everyone could be met, instead of the whims of a few on the backs of the labour of the many.

That's kinda it in a nutshell.

[Zanthorus]

In doing so, it would cease to exist as a class (section of the population) because with the end of oppressive property relations, everyone would be the same class, which is the same as there being no separate classes.

I would quibble with this formula, on the grounds that class is a relational category. For example, the serf is a serf by virtue of the relationship with the feudal lord, and the lord is a lord by virtue of his relationship with the serf. It is only within the context of their relationship that one is a serf and the other a lord. Similarly, the proletariat is constituted on the basis of their position within the social relations of production and not, for example, on their absolute wealth, livelihood or existence as workers in the abstract (there were workers before the proletariat). It makes no sense to say that 'everyone would be the same class', because one class requires another class to relate to in order to be constituted as a class.

I realise that this is in some sense semantic, but I think it's essential for us to hold in our minds the idea of class as a relational category in order to recognise the errors in popular conceptions of 'the middle class' for example.

[RedWorker]

According to Marxism, the key structures of society are determined through the mode of production. Class struggle is essential to advances throughout the modes of production. We are in capitalism, possibly the most advanced mode of production in class society. Society has divided itself into two major groups: proletariat and bourgeoisie. The class struggle between these groups, which aim to advance their interests, becomes progressively radicalised. The only way for the proletariat to 'liberate' itself is to abolish bourgeois private property (not personal property), in other words, to put the means of production in common ownership. Therefore altering the key points which sustain the capitalist mode of production, and ushering society into a new age: the communist mode of production. See the preamble of the programme of the French Workers' Party (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm), written by Marx, for an excellent extremely short explanation of this.


From what I can tell Marxism consists of the proletariat taking over, forming a "Proletarian dictatorship" Where the proletariat control the means of production (and distribution?)Marxism advocates the establishment of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, a democratic society which is characterized by organs of class rule and control of key elements in society, which would enable a change in the mode of production, through such organs. According to some Marxists, such "dictatorships" have existed before; some others deny it.


What happens to the old class (the richer upper class, or bourgeois?), and the middle class?There is no 'middle class' - the term was created by neoliberalism to fool workers into believing they are not part of their class, and lead a successful campaign to eliminate many rights acquired by the workers' fight. What unites people into classes as understood in connection with the mode of production is the relationship to the means of production and its expression in the capital-labour contradiction in the current age - not income. e.g. a worker who earns $2000 has fundamentally the same class interests as one who earns $1000, whether they work in the same field or different ones.


What do Marxists generally believe in regards to healthcare, pensions, etc?Marxists believe that change in healthcare and pension policy within the capitalist mode of production can only be a small step, and also a strategical or tactical issue.


I also understand that Marxism talks a lot about economic history, like how Marx talked about tribal communism, of a sort, where everyone in a sense was equal, all the way to feudal economics? Would someone be able to tackle that for me?Marxism upholds the materialist conception of history. What has the potential to fundamentally change society is the change in the mode of production. History is not down to great leaders but to change in the material conditions. Such material conditions also determine the superstructure of society - culture, art, politics, etc.


and how things would work.We don't blueprint. Communism is a derivation of material conditions, not an imagined ideal society designed by some intellectuals from behind a desk which is to be implemented by social experiments.


If anyone wants to be really great, I would love a comparison of economic and political systems to Marxism and Leninism, or the different stages of communism.Marxism and Leninism are ideologies, not systems. Leninism is the ideology of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov ("Lenin"), a Marxist who led the Russian Revolution of 1917. Lenin was the leader of the most important Marxist party in Russia. The dictatorial government was overthrown, with power being bloodlessly transferred to hundreds of councils of workers ('soviets'), which democratically elected Lenin as head of government and his council of ministers. However, the violent counter-revolution started a civil war. This and other conditions, such as the decimation of the working class, which was only a minority to begin with, led into a transformation of the supposed proletarian state into an overt bourgeois state - a dictatorship in the bourgeois sense. The revolution failed (to achieve its actual goals) and Stalin took over. Stalin promulgated the anti-Marxist idea that state ownership (nationalization) forms the basis of socialism, as opposed to socialization. Thus, Stalinism, its covert name used by proponents, Marxism-Leninism, and its derivations, e.g. Maoism - all results of the degeneration of one revolution. Most Marxists agree that Cuba, East Germany, the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and so on, were or are bourgeois states under the capitalist mode of production.

Two broad stages of communism can be distinguished: in the lower, only common ownership of the means of productions would exist. In the upper one the full change in society would have finished. According to Lenin, the lower one may be named 'socialism'.

Essential reading:

The Communist Manifesto (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm)
Principles of Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm) (FAQ by Engels)
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm)
[A Critique of] the German Ideology (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/index.htm)

[Fin]

Great, thank you all. I'll get to reading the resources provided in the thread and on this specific board. I appreciate it greatly!

I'd already done a bit of research on "historical materialism" today before I came on. Was surprised to see such detailed answers.

Thanks again!

[Blake's Baby]

I would quibble with this formula, on the grounds that class is a relational category... It makes no sense to say that 'everyone would be the same class', because one class requires another class to relate to in order to be constituted as a class...

I quite agree, which is why I wrote, straight afterwards, ''... which is the same as there being no separate classes".

A class is a division of a whole and therefore can only exist in numbers greater than one; you can't cut a cake into one slice. It is, as you say, relational, because it represents a section of something else and implies at least one other section of the whole. Identity between 'a class' and 'the population of which a class is a part' means 'a class' does not exist as a meaningful category.

This was rather the point. The extension of the condition of the proletariat to the rest of society means the transcendence of class, not the creation of a worldwide 'working class' - such a notion is meaningless, as class is as you say a relational concept.


...
There is no 'middle class' - the term was created by neoliberalism to fool workers into believing they are not part of their class, and lead a successful campaign to eliminate many rights acquired by the workers' fight...

I'm sorry RedWorker, I can't let that stand. So untrue it make my eyes hurt.

[Tim Redd]

So as I sit here in my bed, thinking, I decided to learn more in depth about Marxism. I've heard a lot/read a lot online/and in general feel like I know some main ideas. I really want to know truly what it is, and understand it, so I can actually talk about it, rather than just listening

What you should remember is that in "What Is To Be Done?" Lenin said the aim of the communist struggle is to eliminate eventually all exploitation and oppression worldwide.

To achieve that requires realizing communism a classless society where production is controlled by the society as whole.

The way to do this is to use the struggle against exploitation and oppression on all fronts to establish the dictatorship (hegemonic rule) of the proletariat after capitalism until communism is achieved. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a period of continuing the struggle against exploitation and oppression on all fronts especially including against the bourgeoisie that crops up in the communist party and in the state.

[Dodo]

here is something crucial that you should know before getting into Marxism.

Marxism foremost is a philosophical stance, a way of looking at the world and understanding phenomena. It's emphasis is on critical attitude and showing whats behind the scenes rather than dealing with already established ideology(that is the whole set of ideas, way of thinking that dominates the society)

This critical attitude has produced the Marxist "theories" that many adhere to. A Marxists approach-relation to already established ethics/theories/values has to be very careful.
This second Marxism includes the defining stuff of Marxism in pop culture such as class struggle, dictatorship of this or that class, labor theory of value, historical materialism, materialism pwnz idealism and all that jazz.

The two schools can be generalized under
*hegellian/dialectician/open marxism, critical theory by 21st century. The lines of neo and post-marxism would also extend from here.

*The other is the "scientific theory" obsessed school. Which is in my opinion obsolete and a product of the modern period which ended decades ago. Marxist-Leninists and other organisation obsessed types go into here. They have a tendency to fight over details in their theories(especially ridiculous is the trotsky-stalin debates). That is essentially a dogmatic stance which imo is at odds with the essence of Marxism.


---
so when you deal with "theories" that sprung out of Marxism, you have to keep in mind the issue of dialectics and how science is to be handled. Those theories are guides, but people turn them into dogmas, beliefs and even ethical values.
For instance, socialism is an established doctrine for many people, there are certain things you have to do to be a socialist. But a Marxist does not need to be a socialist necessarily. Or, to put it more accurately, a Marxist does not need to have an "established" understanding of socialism. Socialism to a Marxist needs to be always on the flow, just like the current world. Socialism is a negation of capitalism, a system that does not remain static and constantly changes the social dynamics.
If a Marxist puts clear rules of what socialism is, and how this and that should be organized, there is a problem there.

[Rafiq]

here is something crucial that you should know before getting into Marxism.

Marxism foremost is a philosophical stance, a way of looking at the world and understanding phenomena. It's emphasis is on critical attitude and showing whats behind the scenes rather than dealing with already established ideology(that is the whole set of ideas, way of thinking that dominates the society)

This critical attitude has produced the Marxist "theories" that many adhere to. A Marxists approach-relation to already established ethics/theories/values has to be very careful.
This second Marxism includes the defining stuff of Marxism in pop culture such as class struggle, dictatorship of this or that class, labor theory of value, historical materialism, materialism pwnz idealism and all that jazz.

The two schools can be generalized under
*hegellian/dialectician/open marxism, critical theory by 21st century. The lines of neo and post-marxism would also extend from here.

*The other is the "scientific theory" obsessed school. Which is in my opinion obsolete and a product of the modern period which ended decades ago. Marxist-Leninists and other organisation obsessed types go into here. They have a tendency to fight over details in their theories(especially ridiculous is the trotsky-stalin debates). That is essentially a dogmatic stance which imo is at odds with the essence of Marxism.


---
so when you deal with "theories" that sprung out of Marxism, you have to keep in mind the issue of dialectics and how science is to be handled. Those theories are guides, but people turn them into dogmas, beliefs and even ethical values.
For instance, socialism is an established doctrine for many people, there are certain things you have to do to be a socialist. But a Marxist does not need to be a socialist necessarily. Or, to put it more accurately, a Marxist does not need to have an "established" understanding of socialism. Socialism to a Marxist needs to be always on the flow, just like the current world. Socialism is a negation of capitalism, a system that does not remain static and constantly changes the social dynamics.
If a Marxist puts clear rules of what socialism is, and how this and that should be organized, there is a problem there.

Your differentiation of these two different "schools" of Marxism is rather interesting. I have said previously that 20th century Communist states underwent the formalization of logic for Marxism, which is why it presented itself as rigid and dogmatic. Essentially, the problems with this kind of Marxism was not necessarily that it was too scientific, or too extreme in its Marxism: Quite the opposite actually. The problem is that it expressed the frustration between the utterly contradictory and inconsistent nature of Marxism and state ideology. The whole of 20th century Communism can be distinguished as a gradual decay: Likewise, the "historical" tendency for these states was the abandonment of Communism and the adoption of bourgeois liberalism: their prevalence was nothing more than a conscious resistance against that which, IN RETROSPECT we can call the historical inevitability of their collapse. Marxism-Leninism (including Trotskyism) is nothing short of a form of insecurity: it is the Marxism which operates within the domain of hegemonic liberal ideology and constantly forces itself to resist it.

(of course, nothing is so simple. But this is a very brief and general understanding: I think that bourgeois liberalism only became apparently likely ONLY AFTER the abolition of the vestiges of feudal social relations).

The incorporation of Marxism as a state ideology is what ultimately characterized Marxism-Leninism. Marxism, while some might call "ideological" is not an ideology as such, but one of the first real criticisms, or consciousness and of ideology itself. That being said, we cannot simply blame the faults of Marxism-Leninism on Communist states themselves, or more precisely, the prevalence of the state itself. Ultimately, the fluctuating reactionary patterns of Marxist-Leninist states, their constant need to legitimize themselves through unscientific and ideological means: their relation to world geopolitics, and whatever you like - necessitated justifying itself in pseudo-Marxist jargon. Throughout the entirety of the 20th century Communist experience, only one state, Albania attempted to consistently adhere to Marxism-Leninism as it had existed in Russia: Making it an exception. All other Communist states were forced to mutate and obfuscate the language of Marxism-Leninism to accommodate for their immediate problems. Hence why these were "closed" societies as Popper puts it: It's not that the problem can be traced back to Hegel, or whatever - it's that these societies were in a constant state of ideological insecurity: they had to consciously force themselves against the tides of history.

But we ought to not fall into the trap of being too comfortable in our own insignificance, or illegitimacy. The problem with the second branch of Marxism you refer to is not that it was "official" but that it coincided with the destruction of the world's first real proletarian dictatorship (excluding the Paris Commune). If we call 20th century Communism bourgeois in nature, i.e. a prolonged Jacobin phrase destroying the remnants of feudalism, it makes sense to recognize the necessity of fitting Marxism within the paradigm of a fundamentally bourgeois logic. But just as bad is a Marxism which RELIES the existence of its widespread rejection. I generally agree with the idea of the "obsessed" school though, it's just important we understand why they're obsessed. It's not that they're extreme, it's that to them, Marxism is not about recognizing or understanding the domains of life - but adhering to a set of principles and actively fulfilling them. What they fail to realize is that the word "Marxism" and "Materialism" are only words we use to apply to a real method of analysis and understanding. They fail to understand the importance of this method, and thus conceive it as being shrouded in a mystery - a secret key which, they believe deep down, answers all of the world's problems. The first step to re-vitalizing Marxism is to recognize this secret key to be an illusion.

[Dodo]

Your differentiation of these two different "schools" of Marxism is rather interesting. I have said previously that 20th century Communist states underwent the formalization of logic for Marxism, which is why it presented itself as rigid and dogmatic. Essentially, the problems with this kind of Marxism was not necessarily that it was too scientific, or too extreme in its Marxism: Quite the opposite actually.

Exactly, and thats why the word "scientific" is something to be careful with. Because it has turned into an ideological tool of legitimization of modernity(not unique to cold-war regimes or USSR). And yet, many of the so-called scientific stuff can be debunked or lose their legitimacy in time. A Marxist should strive for something scientific, scientific in its essence, as a method. But there needs to be careful line(a theory has to be let go if necessary). We are dealing with social phenomena and the tool we use, science, is not independent of this. Being aware of this is key to not fall into ideology. Science is a social phenomena. It is not free of wrongs, dogmatization and ideologization.

Marxists deal with social consciousness and ideologies from a critical perspective. Embracing the existing tools of society creates a problem in that.



The problem is that it expressed the frustration between the utterly contradictory and inconsistent nature of Marxism and state ideology. The whole of 20th century Communism can be distinguished as a gradual decay: Likewise, the "historical" tendency for these states was the abandonment of Communism and the adoption of bourgeois liberalism: their prevalence was nothing more than a conscious resistance against that which, IN RETROSPECT we can call the historical inevitability of their collapse. Marxism-Leninism (including Trotskyism) is nothing short of a form of insecurity: it is the Marxism which operates within the domain of hegemonic liberal ideology and constantly forces itself to resist it.
Haven't really thought of it that way.


(of course, nothing is so simple. But this is a very brief and general understanding: I think that bourgeois liberalism only became apparently likely ONLY AFTER the abolition of the vestiges of feudal social relations).

The incorporation of Marxism as a state ideology is what ultimately characterized Marxism-Leninism. Marxism, while some might call "ideological" is not an ideology as such, but one of the first real criticisms, or consciousness and of ideology itself.

That is exactly my point.


That being said, we cannot simply blame the faults of Marxism-Leninism on Communist states themselves, or more precisely, the prevalence of the state itself. Ultimately, the fluctuating reactionary patterns of Marxist-Leninist states, their constant need to legitimize themselves through unscientific and ideological means: their relation to world geopolitics, and whatever you like - necessitated justifying itself in pseudo-Marxist jargon.

Indeed. I am not exactly judging them. My issue of course is with the Marxists I meet. We are not maintaining a state atm and "comrades" need to get to the essence of what we are. What we deal with and how we deal with.
The reason I am so hostile to this shallow approach is because I come from there as well. I, like many others, have experienced dogmatization of thoughts, turning them into beliefs while believing that I am on the true path to human enlightenment and liberation. But after a few years, now when I think of my obsessions with LTV, class struggle, dictatorship of the proleteriat, modes of production, fascists...etc I realize how clouded I can be. No matter how "progressive" some set of ideas look, the trick lies in the "handling" of ideas and thats what Marxism is about.
The moment communism turns into a belief, a religion, it turns away from its essence.
A lot of Marxists, for instance, when confronted with a debunking of LTV will rush to its defence without even getting an insight on the other side. Because essentially, what comes in is ego in the form of ideology(well this applies to EVERYONE, but in the case of marxism, the deal is to be aware of this, thats a major theme in marxism). S/he feels as though the fall of LTV, or any "positive" theory as fall of his identity.


Throughout the entirety of the 20th century Communist experience, only one state, Albania attempted to consistently adhere to Marxism-Leninism as it had existed in Russia: Making it an exception. All other Communist states were forced to mutate and obfuscate the language of Marxism-Leninism to accommodate for their immediate problems. Hence why these were "closed" societies as Popper puts it: It's not that the problem can be traced back to Hegel, or whatever - it's that these societies were in a constant state of ideological insecurity: they had to consciously force themselves against the tides of history.
Thats feels accurate to me.


But we ought to not fall into the trap of being too comfortable in our own insignificance, or illegitimacy. The problem with the second branch of Marxism you refer to is not that it was "official" but that it coincided with the destruction of the world's first real proletarian dictatorship (excluding the Paris Commune). If we call 20th century Communism bourgeois in nature, i.e. a prolonged Jacobin phrase destroying the remnants of feudalism, it makes sense to recognize the necessity of fitting Marxism within the paradigm of a fundamentally bourgeois logic.
and into paradigms of "modernity", again, essentially a product of bourgeois.



But just as bad is a Marxism which RELIES the existence of its widespread rejection. I generally agree with the idea of the "obsessed" school though, it's just important we understand why they're obsessed. It's not that they're extreme, it's that to them, Marxism is not about recognizing or understanding the domains of life - but adhering to a set of principles and actively fulfilling them. What they fail to realize is that the word "Marxism" and "Materialism" are only words we use to apply to a real method of analysis and understanding.

But what is wrong with struggling to make people realize the essence of critical attitude in Marxism?
Many people who religiously follows Marxist "theories" do so because they are not confronted with other paradigms in an unbiased way. Many Marxists will come across other approaches to social sciences in a context where they have to defend Marxism rather than a situation where they are trying to find the "truth".
A person who has not exactly did an in-depth reading of economic history or social development from a large literature will fall in love with the idea of "stages of development"...when they are not aware of the essence of Marxism, it becomes the "truth" to them. Which creates a whole lot of reactionaries under the banner of Marxism.



They fail to understand the importance of this method, and thus conceive it as being shrouded in a mystery - a secret key which, they believe deep down, answers all of the world's problems.
hence the tendency to personality cults


The first step to re-vitalizing Marxism is to recognize this secret key to be an illusion.
exactly. Dialectics, as far as my reading have gotten is not a mystery, it is quiet straightforward. I know times I used to mystify it, then those who look like who knew what they were talking about looked lie gods to me.
I was not concerned with finding a truth, I was obsessed with understanding "laws" of dialectics.

These problems become prominent in young people and those who turn a blind eye to academia and especially to epistomology/ontology which I always emphasize.
IMO, a Marxist, should never turn away from the more difficult philosophical readings. That leads many to jump into "theories" without the critical attitude requirement. The philosophical readings should be a priority. Positioning yourself in something without understanding how those positions come up is a lost cause.
What makes Marxism so powerful, so timeless is this attitude. Not its magnificent revelation of class struggles and how they work...

[Fin]

Just got back on over the weekend, great stuff guys, thanks!

So, from what i'm getting Marxism is much more a way of thought, an ideology, or consciousness rather than a sort of State Politic/Government?

Really interesting stuff.

[Red Star Rising]

Just got back on over the weekend, great stuff guys, thanks!

So, from what i'm getting Marxism is much more a way of thought, an ideology, or consciousness rather than a sort of State Politic/Government?

Really interesting stuff.

Yes - it is opposed to the state in general. And in order to understand Marx you need to understand his dialectical method, which is much more of a process than an ideology. This is the process Marx uses to analyse the immaterial/material and objective principals of capital, as well as how he deconstructs them.

[Dodo]

Just got back on over the weekend, great stuff guys, thanks!

So, from what i'm getting Marxism is much more a way of thought, an ideology, or consciousness rather than a sort of State Politic/Government?

Really interesting stuff.

check here:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/communism-ideologyi-t191270/index.html?t=191270

Marxism is not really an ideology, it is more of a way of looking at the world, a philosophical stance.
Marxism has nothing to do with state-government models besides their analysis and understanding.