"A defense of Marxism"

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I am supposed to do a paper for school.

So I, with the encouragement of our social democratic teacher, decided it is to be about marxism.


I am a little insecure.

Should it be one similar to that of Albert Einstein "Why Socialism"? Should it be the history and an explanation of Marxism, or should it be a die-hard Marxist critique of class society and uncoditional support for marxism?


What should you suggest? I am asking for help.

[Dwarf Kirlston]

"what should you suggest?" -I'm not sure I should do anything at all... and don't worry about being insecure, everyone is.

I think I should helpfully suggest that you help yourself. You'll do just fine.

[Guest1]

Marxist critique of class society. That's Marxism's stromgest point afterall.

[Colombia]

You should also devote some time as to why capitalism is horrible.

[DoomedOne]

It's unnecessary to go on a bashing spree and praise him. Most don't know much about Marx or his ideals, it might be a good idea to go into a brief description of his life, and then describe Marxism in detail.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

I wouldn't go with a full suck-up job on Marx. Critique both Marxism and the present society as well. Marxism has its flaws just like everything else, don't let him get off without a mark! Such problems are that he said nothing about how his ideas would be implemented, he gave no outline of how the economy would be organized or function, his labor ideas are horrible in assuming that everyone will just automatically be a fisherman one day and a steelworker the next! ... and those are just a few big ones, there's a ton more.

The first role of us should be to realize Marxism's shortcomings as well as its advantages. We don't need to look like infallible dogmatists anymore than we already do.

The first step in understanding it all is not to worship Marx as some diety, but instead identify what he and his system have errored and then accept them. Only then can we make concrete decisions and theories.

TGOW

[lvialviaquez]

I pretty much agree with Grapes of Wrath. I would devote a good amount of the paper to the real theory of Marxism (dialectic based on Hegel's works, base/superstructure model, etc.). These explanations really allow people to understand the basis for Marx's conclusions. Too many times in school is Marxism/Communism summed up in the statement that a Communist system is a theoretical classless society in which everyone in equal. Then there is, of course, the moment when the teacher tells the students that Communism will never be established because people are naturally flawed. A real explanation of the underlying theories Marx had about society and economics would do a great deal to help students develop opinion of Marxism.

I'm not sure if I answered your question or not. I really got caught up and lost focus. Oh well, good luck with the paper.

[Djehuti]

I would say that there is few flaws in Marx' theories, and unlike "Grapes of Wrath" I think it was good that Marx' never wrote anything on exactly how "his ideas would be implemented". Communism is not even about Marx' ideas being inplemanted, communism is not an ideology it is a material movment, and it is not up to Marx nor the marxists to decide exactly how communism will look. That is just utopian and useless, even the best plans is ruined when the first gun is fired. Communism is formed in the class struggle, and after that by us all together. Problems can be taken care of first when it is on the cards; when we know how the problems and the situation look. Marx only put forth the facts for us to deal with, the exact organization of everything is left for the working class do create in the class struggle.

And on his "labor ideas", I do think that there might be some misunderstanding. I have not read the part where Marx explains this, but I doubt he ment that you should change your profession every day or so. But he did not like the specialisation of work, that work is getting more and more monotonous and dull. Work should rather be an expression of the creative potential of the human mind. It should be the expression of that what makes us humans. Most of the monotonous non-creative work can be automatisised, and humans should be working with stuff that alows them to use their whole creativity, mind as well as body, etc.

"...in which labour becomes attractive work, the individual's self-realization, which in no way means that it becomes mere fun, mere amusement, as Fourier, with grisette-like naivete, conceives it. Really free working, e.g. composing, is at the same time precisely the most damned seriousness, the most intense exertion."
Karl Marx, Grundrisse - http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...drisse/ch12.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch12.htm)


But sure, Marx was not perfect. And he was not even done, he was not finished with Capital, and he had not even begun his book on the state, etc. And that is unfortunate. However, there is a great deal to criticize the marxists for.



--------
NWOG

If you decide to write on the theories of Karl Marx, so check out the
English wikipedia entry on Karl Marx. en.wikipedia is accually ok for a wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

On dialectics you would check my post at:
http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?boar...397975&start=15 (http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=theory&action=display&num=1090397975&start=15)

[Fidelbrand]

Try create then concentrate on a niche if your teacher appreciates an in-depth piece of work.

Hmmm.... e.g. "A Marxist critique of political participation and representation in a capitalist democracy"

How many words do you have to write?

[Big Boss]

I suggest that you criticize the marxist ideal as well as the capitalist one. Compare both of them and show their weakness as well as strenghts. No system is completely perfect but one has to make a choice. I chose Communism.

Good luck, comrade! :D

[NovelGentry]

Such problems are that he said nothing about how his ideas would be implemented, he gave no outline of how the economy would be organized or function, his labor ideas are horrible in assuming that everyone will just automatically be a fisherman one day and a steelworker the next! ... and those are just a few big ones, there's a ton more.


I'm sorry, but this is no fault of Marx's. While I agree there is no real single and cumulative outline, there are several positions where he makes the structure clear. But even that is overstepping his bounds. Marxism was not about "this is how we make socialism." It wasn't designed to tell you how to do it, and quite frankly I don't think Marx suspected it would matter -- it is, afterall not a single person or even a minority group who is to "make socialism." It grows out of the very material conditions that have sprung fourth every previous society.

In short, Marx didn't create a plan because it was not the plan of humans that was to develop this, but very simply a transcendence of capitalism, where, if times were ripe, if the means of production was advanced enough, the nature of this system would form out of the new necessity and new property relations which capitalism can no longer survive with, and furthermore restricts, binds, and attempts to pull back in time. This is the whole point to Marxism. If you cannot understand why explaining government/economic organization was not necessary to explain in full, it would seem you don't particularly understand the overall point.

Could he have done more to explain how he thought socialism and communist society would work? Quite possibly, but it is not about "how his ideas would be implemented" as you put it, because they were not his ideas to be implemented, but as he says in his own words:


They merely express, n general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.