Purely Economic Communism

[BTroy]

For a while, I have considered myself a leftist and I advocate a communist economic system. However, despite this identification, I have read some of the basics of the more philosophical side of Marxism and I don't agree with a lot of it for a variety of reasons. I like communist economics, but not communist theory i.e. dialectical materialism. So I have three questions:

Does it actually make sense to support the economic and political goals of communism without all of the, in my view, unnecessary philosophy of Marxism?

Are there any specific movements or individuals who hold similar views?

Can one even calls oneself a communist without accepting dialectical materialism?


:grin:

[Sea]

There's a trend against dialectical materialism here on revleft that you may want to check out. This site: http://************************/ (http://************************/)has a lot of stuff about it.

I can't say I agree with you, but I can say you're not alone.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You haven't given us enough details. First you talk about "purely economic" communism, then about "economic and political" communism but not the "philosophy of Marxism", all without specifying. What do you think is "economic communism"? What parts of "the philosophy of Marxism" do you disagree with?

And I mean, obviously people can imagine all sorts of things. The late J. Rous thought communism would coexist with petty craftsmen, corporatism, a "strong state" and "French imperial unity". The point is that people like this are confused.

[Asero]

This site: http://************************/ (http://************************/)has a lot of stuff about it.

I'm guessing he isn't going to visit that site.

[Sea]

I'm guessing he isn't going to visit that site.Don't complain to me, I just copied and pasted the URL.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

We are having a bad problem and will not go to [REDACTED] today.

[Sea]

We are having a bad problem and will not go to [REDACTED] today.How long will the BA decide to keep making it a problem? I just assumed that, since this is so old, people would be able to post it by now and that those interested in sharing reading material - however revisionist and wrong it may be - wouldn't be prevented from doing so by now.

[ckaihatsu]

I like communist economics, but not communist theory i.e. dialectical materialism.


I'll proffer that 'dialectical materialism' *may* be seen as a heavily intellectualized way of saying that 'all things are subject to time, for growth, change, or decomposition'.

I myself happen to view 'complexity theory' as being valuable here, whenever we're looking at the *configuration* of component pieces, within a larger external environment:


Order - Complexity - Complication - Chaos

http://s6.postimg.org/b8fujhmgh/130421_order_complexity_complication_chaos.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/s8yqs5zhp/full/)


In the context of *history* we have 'historical materialism', which is distinctly about opposing class interests being the objective driver of social change and development, at great humane expense.

Some Marxists are entirely 'hands-off', saying that this dynamic of clashing class forces will *inevitably* give rise to the class overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat, whether workers are subjectively conscious of their roles in this or not.

Other Marxists are more 'hands-on', and see the mass class consciousness of the workers as being a *prerequisite* to the proletariat's successful social organization, for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie.

I think understanding the historical philosophical roots of Marxism is our individual debt to history, but certainly we don't have to be *beholden* to it in any sort of dogmatic way as we deal with planning for future realities.

[Sea]

Chris do you need help finding your space bar? 'Cause you're just throwing a whole bunch of weird-ass complicationschaos into this thread.

[G4b3n]

Communism does not exist independently of other societal aspects in an isolated realm known as "economics". So, judging by the way you frame the premise to your concerns, I think I would be justified in assuming that you need to learn more about Marxism as a mode of thought, not as a ready-made political agenda, which it is not.

However, if you do understand Marxism as a mode of thought and analysis, and do not agree with its most basic tendencies, then I would suggest reading Bakunin and Kropotkin. Maybe they are more your flavor.

[ckaihatsu]

Chris do you need help finding your space bar? 'Cause you're just throwing a whole bunch of weird-ass complicationschaos into this thread.


Sea, are you causing a split based on *stylistic* differences -- ?


x D

[BTroy]

I was tired when I made the post so I could have phrased some of the questions I made more clearly. My main issue with Marxism is with dialectical materialism for a variety of reasons. So to rephrase my questions:

Does it make sense to be communist without dialectical materialism?
Can one actually be 'communist' without DM?
And are there any movements or people that are communist but are against DM?

[Rudolf]

There's a trend against dialectical materialism here on revleft that you may want to check out. This site: http://************************/ (http://************************/)has a lot of stuff about it.

I can't say I agree with you, but I can say you're not alone.


Was that supposed to be a link to Rosa Lichtenstein's website by any chance?




And are there any movements or people that are communist but are against DM?


There are. Take a look at this thread maybe?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/beginners-guide-anti-t186397/index.html


My own views on DM is that i can't formulate one due to the difficultly finding a source that can explain it to me so i lean towards it being obfuscation.

[Pancakes Rühle]

Long live *******!