Here is something interesting...

[Ilstar]

Greetings,

My name is Ilya, and I was born in the USSR. Now I am an American citizen. I was a Marxist until Ayn Rand's fans helped me realize that there is an urgent need for a compromise between collectivists and individualists. Having spent a year on the Objectivist Online Forum and having completed my MA thesis on Rand's rhetoric, I am now ready to move on to the Russian political rhetoric starting with Vladimir Lenin, whom I am researching right now for a PhD dissertation. I am a debater by nature, and I am hoping that this forum is a good ground for engaging discussions.

I am interested in Marxist materialists. Are there a lot of you active here?

[Palmares]

I'm confused...

So you see objectivism as the means to satisfying individualism in it's possible absence in Marxism? Or?

There are radical leftist tendencies, or ideas, that tend to individualism that are not objectivism, so to me, I feel that you have been duped. Objectivism has nothing to do with any form of radical politics.

Perhaps you'd care to elaborate?

Welcome to the forum btw.

[Q]

Welcome to the forum. I have a feeling you're going to get restricted soon enough. This is simple board policy and does not inhibit debates.

[Ilstar]

I'm confused...

So you see objectivism as the means to satisfying individualism in it's possible absence in Marxism? Or?

There are radical leftist tendencies, or ideas, that tend to individualism that are not objectivism, so to me, I feel that you have been duped. Objectivism has nothing to do with any form of radical politics.

Perhaps you'd care to elaborate?

Welcome to the forum btw.

Objectivism is indeed an individualism that inspired American libertarianism. Read Jennifer Burns's (2009) book on that.

Anarchism, however, I deem to be much more related to the left than the right; it's the stateless and individualistic version of "everything goes", subjectivist mentality. Objectivism is to the right, like Nazism, except with minimum government; it is elitist and individualistic but very restrictive (objectivist) in terms of conduct.

Objectivism and Marxism have a lot in common in terms of philosophic direction. Integrating their philosophical cores, however, would annihilate them (although most probably Marxism would win), so in this regard they are mutually exclusive. The issue is solved when the cores of both are changed toward a more Aristotelian philosophy.


Welcome to the forum. I have a feeling you're going to get restricted soon enough. This is simple board policy and does not inhibit debates.

Why would I get restricted if the forum policy does not inhibit debates?

[Ilstar]

Do you know of any Marxist forums where debates are allowed? I appreciate your help.

[Palmares]

This is a radical leftist forum, if you don't fit within thus parameters, it is policy to restrict, or possibly ban. In your case, it would most likely be that you were restricted - to Opposing Ideologies (http://www.revleft.com/vb/opposing-ideologies-f18/index.html)


Forum for opposing ideologies and beliefs to be discussed; only forum where right-wingers, capitalists, preachers, primitivists, and other restricted members can post. *No Fascists*

Check it out to get a better idea what it's about.

[Sewer Socialist]

Debates are allowed in opposing ideologies, and that's mostly what you'll find there.

How old were you when the USSR dissolved, Ilstar? And when did you move to the USA?

[Ilstar]

This is a radical leftist forum, if you don't fit within thus parameters, it is policy to restrict, or possibly ban. In your case, it would most likely be that you were restricted - to Opposing Ideologies
Check it out to get a better idea what it's about.

Thanks! I will keep it in mind. Maybe I will create a new thread there.


Debates are allowed in opposing ideologies, and that's mostly what you'll find there.

How old were you when the USSR dissolved, Ilstar? And when did you move to the USA?

I was 5 years old. I came to the US when I was 15.

[Subversive]

Objectivism and Marxism have a lot in common in terms of philosophic direction.
In what sense?
To be honest, I think you have a pretty messed up sense of what Marxism is, but I'm open to hearing your explanation.



Integrating their philosophical cores, however, would annihilate them (although most probably Marxism would win), so in this regard they are mutually exclusive.
I assume you mean integrating them 'together' would annihilate them both?
In that sense, I can't see how that would even be possible since one relies on a certain system (Capitalism) and the other is the revolutionary dissolution of that system. In no sense is there a "winner", per say, more as though there is only a 'completion' of their philosophies.

If you mean integrating them individually, what leads you to believe that Marxism would annihilate itself?


The issue is solved when the cores of both are changed toward a more Aristotelian philosophy.
To what end?
To me I think you're going the wrong direction, entirely, and have been a little confused so far. I think, perhaps, you spent a little too much time with those "Ayn Rand fans".
To be honest, I think what you're looking for, the "compromise between collectivists and individualists" is true Marxism itself. I'm not sure why you're looking for anything else, especially not within Aristotle.

Anyway, Welcome. :)

[Sasha]

read any Stirner? why would you be intrested in a synergy of objectivism and marxism if there is perfectly acceptable leftist egoist tendency out there which makes a lot more sense? I can recommend this book as it has been influential on the whole of anarchism even if the more anarcho-communist tendencies rejected it; http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/enee.html

[Sasha]

and not even only on anarchism for that matter, apparently Marx and Engels devoted more pages on discussing Stirner than Stirner ever wrote :lol:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/Skiz-hegel.png/220px-Skiz-hegel.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Skiz-hegel.png)


Caricature by Friedrich Engels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels) (1820–1895) of the meetings of "Die Freien"


Engels commented on Stirner in poetry at the time of Die Freien (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Freien):

Look at Stirner, look at him, the peaceful enemy of all constraint.
For the moment, he is still drinking beer,
Soon he will be drinking blood as though it were water.
When others cry savagely "down with the kings"
Stirner immediately supplements "down with the laws also."
Stirner full of dignity proclaims;
You bend your willpower and you dare to call yourselves free.
You become accustomed to slavery
Down with dogmatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogmatism), down with law.[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner#cite_note-32)
He once even recalled at how they were "great friends (Duzbrüder)".[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner#cite_note-autogenerated2-8) In November 1844, Engels wrote a letter to Marx. He reported first on a visit to Moses Hess in Cologne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cologne), and then went on to note that during this visit Hess had given him a press copy of a new book by Max Stirner, Der Einzige und Sein Eigenthum. In his letter to Marx, Engels promised to send a copy of Der Einzige to him, for it certainly deserved their attention, as Stirner: "had obviously, among the 'Free Ones', the most talent, independence and diligence".[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner#cite_note-autogenerated2-8) To begin with Engels was enthusiastic about the book, and expressed his opinions freely in letters to Marx:

But what is true in his principle, we, too, must accept. And what is true is that before we can be active in any cause we must make it our own, egoistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egotism) cause-and that in this sense, quite aside from any material expectations, we are communists in virtue of our egoism, that out of egoism we want to be human beings and not merely individuals."[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner#cite_note-33)
Later, Marx and Engels wrote a major criticism of Stirner's work. The number of pages Marx and Engels devote to attacking Stirner in (the unexpurgated text of) The German Ideology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_German_Ideology), in which they derided him as "Sankt Max" (Saint Max), exceeds the total of Stirner's written works.[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner#cite_note-34) As Isaiah Berlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Berlin) has described it, Stirner "is pursued through five hundred pages of heavy-handed mockery and insult".[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner#cite_note-35) The book was written in 1845–1846, but not published until 1932. Marx's lengthy, ferocious polemic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polemic) against Stirner has since been considered an important turning point in Marx's intellectual development from idealism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism) to materialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism). It has been argued that historical materialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism) was Marx's method of reconciling communism with a Stirnerite rejection of morality.[36]

[BIXX]

Yeah, there is a reason I never read that critique. I often get too bored reading Stirner, let alone Marx.

[Ilstar]

In what sense?
To be honest, I think you have a pretty messed up sense of what Marxism is, but I'm open to hearing your explanation.

I assume you mean integrating them 'together' would annihilate them both?
In that sense, I can't see how that would even be possible since one relies on a certain system (Capitalism) and the other is the revolutionary dissolution of that system. In no sense is there a "winner", per say, more as though there is only a 'completion' of their philosophies.

If you mean integrating them individually, what leads you to believe that Marxism would annihilate itself?

To what end?
To me I think you're going the wrong direction, entirely, and have been a little confused so far. I think, perhaps, you spent a little too much time with those "Ayn Rand fans".
To be honest, I think what you're looking for, the "compromise between collectivists and individualists" is true Marxism itself. I'm not sure why you're looking for anything else, especially not within Aristotle.

Anyway, Welcome. :)

I guess you are right. I always thought of Marxism as collectivism and not as anarchism. But then there are collectivist tendencies in anarchism, such as in Nestor Makhno's anarchism. It would seem that Marx and Lenin were egoists, but then they turned to materialism and applied it to society. Whenever you add society to the core of your philosophy and turn away from idealist principles, you lose that egoist part or become a self-deceived egoist. Please, correct me if I am wrong and elaborate on your theoretical assumptions and positions. I have just started studying Marxism (through Lenin) in order to write a dissertation, starting next year. I am not yet an expert on this topic but wish to be. This is the reason for my joining the forum: to learn more about Marxism/Leninism/anarchism/etc.

Here is my main assumption:
Marxism is a collectivist materialist philosophy.

Here are my general definitions:
Integration means uniting, not opposing.
Transcendence means opposing, not uniting.
Philosophical position is the core of a philosophy determined by a subject studied or its starting point (e.g., materialism, idealism, realism).
Philosophical direction is the method of studying a subject or the end goal of analysis (e.g., materialistic, idealistic, realistic).

The positions of Marxism (i.e., materialism) and Objectivism (i.e., idealism) cannot be integrated on their own terms without annihilation. The result, however, is still Marxism, since materialism is more fundamental than idealism. In this regard, Marxism "wins" or is more fundamental. I think it is inevitable for Objectivists to descend into Marxism. Their currently developing inductive system may be the first sign of the process. Marxism would not annihilate itself, unless there is a way to transcend it. Objectivism fails in this regard.

Aristotle is the greater end that I am seeking, but neither Marx nor Rand (even though both were inspired by Aristotle, among others) are going toward it. The position of Aristotle's philosophy is neither idealist nor materialist; it is realist with an idealistic direction. And here is the big difference between Marxist "realism" and Aristotelian realism: the first reduces reality, the second actualizes it.


read any Stirner? why would you be intrested in a synergy of objectivism and marxism if there is perfectly acceptable leftist egoist tendency out there which makes a lot more sense? I can recommend this book as it has been influential on the whole of anarchism even if the more anarcho-communist tendencies rejected it

I prefer Aristotle: his idealistic reason, humanist ethic, and his realist/mystic position, in which humans are inherently political. Marx turned away from idealism into materialism and made society his primary position. If an individual depends on society, then it is not egoism. How do you combine individualism and collectivism exactly? Aristotle said a political society develops from lesser groups, such as villages. Is Stirner at all similar to Aristotle?