When introducing someone to Marx

[drain.you]

When introducing someone to Marx what should be taught first?

I see the basics of Marxism overlapping and you cant really understand one without another so how do you go about teaching someone it.

Dialetics
Epochs of Time
Class Conflict

They all relate, Dialectics shows how change occurs because of class conflict, with the epochs of time you have to explain the class conflict in all of them, but to explain class conflict you have to use dialectics.

It seems a muddle when I try to write an introduction to it all.

[drain.you]

Do you think this sums it up....



MARXISM BASICS

The Historic Epochs
Historic Epochs are essentially periods of time separated by how society is structured. Society has pretty much always existed with two main social classes. There are five, according to Marx:

1) Asiatic – This is of primitive man who effectively lived in a communist lifestyle
2) Ancient – This is where Masters and Slaves existed
3) Feudal – This is where Land Lords and Serfs/Peasants existed
4) Capitalism – This is where we are now where the bourgeoisie and proletariat exist
5) Advanced Communism – This is where we are heading, a society of Equality.


Capitalism Class analysis
Marxists believe that in its pure form capitalist society is divided into two powerful social classes:
The working class or proletariat:
Marx defined this class as "those individuals who sell their labour and do not own the means of production" whom he believed were responsible for creating the wealth of a society (buildings, bridges and furniture, for example, are physically built by members of this class).

The bourgeoisie: those who "own the means of production" and exploit the proletariat. The bourgeoisie may be further subdivided into the very wealthy bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie: those who employ labour, but may also work themselves. These may be small proprietors, land-holding peasants, or trade workers. Marx predicted that the petty bourgeoisie would eventually be destroyed by the constant reinvention of the means of production and the result of this would be the forced movement of the vast majority of the petty bourgeoisie to the proletariat. An example of this would be many small businesses giving way to fewer larger ones, without increasing the number of petty bourgeois bureaucrats required to administer each company.


Dialectics
Dialectics is the science of the most general laws of development of nature, society, and thought. Its principal features are as follows:
1) The universe is not an accidental mix of things isolated from each other, but an integral
whole, wherein things are mutually interdependent.
2) Nature is in a state of constant motion.
3) Development is a process whereby insignificant and imperceptible quantitative changes lead to fundamental, qualitative changes. The latter occur not gradually, but rapidly and abruptly, in the form of a leap from one state to another.
4) All things contain within themselves internal contradictions, which are the primary cause of motion, change, and development in the world.

Dialectics is used by Marx to explain social change, using this formula:

Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis

The thesis and antithesis are opposing beliefs and views, the adding of these together creates conflict and equals change. There will be no conflict in communism as society will be equal; therefore there will be no class conflict. Marx said important social change into a new epoch occurs by revolution.

Example:
Bourgeoisie views + Proletariat views creates conflict = Revolution to Communism
It is because the Bourgeoisie views conflict with the Proletariat views that they cannot exist in the same social structure forever. Eventually there will be a revolution when the proletariat realises that the bourgeoisie is exploiting them.

[ComradeOm]

I wouldn't introduce dialetics directly and certainly not as part of a basic introduction to Marxism. It can be incorporated into other, more understandable, aspects of the theories.

If teaching someone Marx, I'd start off with some background on the man himself and how the writings came about. I'd then introduce historical materialism which is the easiest strands of Marxist theory to grasp and one of the most useful. Use this to illustrate how the material conditions have changed over time and how they develop under capitalism. It might be useful to bring in Lenin here to explain why the revolution has not yet taken place.

[Poum_1936]

If your gonna teach anyone dialectic, have them first go through this site.

Dialectics For Kids (http://home.igc.org/~venceremos/)

Just have them overlook "for kids", though it can be rather cheesy and childish. It's still the best site Ive seen for getting a very basic understanding of dialectics.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Just look at this part (http://home.igc.org/~venceremos/misesweb.htm) of the site if you want to know that dialectics is really not important. Basically dialectics can be used to prove or disprove anything.

[Bannockburn]

I wouldn't begin with primary sources. Begin with secondary.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Begin with class and why workers not only have an intrest in replacing capitalism but why they are best suited to accomplish this; this is the main picture... all the history and analysis of capitalism are useful, but they are probably already convinced that capitalism isn't that good if they are interested in reading marx in the first place.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 05:50 PM
If your gonna teach anyone dialectic, have them first go through this site.

Dialectics For Kids (http://home.igc.org/~venceremos/)

Just have them overlook "for kids", though it can be rather cheesy and childish. It's still the best site Ive seen for getting a very basic understanding of dialectics.
I agree. That site explains dialectics in the most basic and easy to understand way I have ever seen.

I would also recommend these: http://www.marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm
http://www.newyouth.com/archives/marxisttheory.asp
http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/marxismfaq.asp

[workersunity]

Its ridiculous of those that say dialectics is useless for communism, it explains scientificly why communism will prevail, or i guess you could skip over that and be a revionist, most revisionists dont use dialectics

[Amusing Scrotum]

Its ridiculous of those that say dialectics is useless for communism, it explains scientificly why communism will prevail, or i guess you could skip over that and be a revionist, most revisionists dont use dialectics

It was reading Redstar's papers on dialectics that finally convinced me of rejecting dialectics.

Here are two of his papers on the subject:
On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts May 8, 2003 by RedStar2000 (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082735164&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&).
"Dialectical" Drivel August 14, 2005 by RedStar2000 (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1124072310&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&).

If you feel capable of disproving Revolutionary Lefts version of Yoda on dialectics, why don't you take up his challenge:


So should you happen to be a "dialectical heavyweight", please come to the Theory forum at Revolutionary Left Forums and begin a thread on why "dialectics" is "true".

Also please explain how this scientific theory which "proves" Communism will prevail, has been used here (http://home.igc.org/~venceremos/misesweb.htm) to basically say that Communism is failed. Dialectics can be used to prove and disprove anything and unless you are able to present a convincing argument regarding the value of dialectics to the Communist movement. Then please refrain from insulting us Communists who have chosen to disagree with Marx on the issue of dialectics.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 05:25 PM
Its ridiculous of those that say dialectics is useless for communism, it explains scientificly why communism will prevail, or i guess you could skip over that and be a revionist, most revisionists dont use dialectics
As Trotsky said, Marxism is useless without dialectics; he compared it to a clock without a spring, i.e. useless.

Redstar's papers? Those are a load of crap. Obviously the author of those papers does not even understand dialectics!

Anti-dialecticians, chew on this! (http://www.marxist.com/rircontents.asp)

Seriously, comrades, don't listen to the anti-dialectical drivel. The rejection of dialectics is the rejection of scientific socialism altogether, and the aforementioned resourse I put forth uses discoveries of modern science to back up dialectics. Those that attack dialectics do not understand it at all. Study dialectics, and you will come to understand it. It is difficult initially, given that it is so different from ordinary "common sense," but further study will prove that it is correct.

[Amusing Scrotum]

As Trotsky said, Marxism is useless without dialectics; he compared it to a clock without a spring, i.e. useless.

And as I said, if you really think dialectics is a vital part of Communism why don't you start a thread in theory and explain to us all why dialectics is so important. Just because Trotsky said dialectics was important in a one line quote doesn't mean it is.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Redstar's papers? Those are a load of crap. Obviously the author of those papers does not even understand dialectics!


Way to refute Redstar's argument against dialectics. If saying his papers are a load of "crap" written by someone who doesn't understand dialectics is your whole argument for dialectics, then you won't convince many people.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 05:14 PM

Redstar's papers? Those are a load of crap. Obviously the author of those papers does not even understand dialectics!


Way to refute Redstar's argument against dialectics. If saying his papers are a load of "crap" written by someone who doesn't understand dialectics is your whole argument for dialectics, then you won't convince many people.
Why don't you start with looking at that "chew on this!" link I directed at people such as yourselves for starters? :rolleyes: It is on online version of a book that uses modern science to back up dialectics, of which has been translated into several languages. That alone refutes Redstar's flaming heaps of nonsense.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Why don't you start with looking at that "chew on this!" link I directed at people such as yourselves for starters? It is on online version of a book that uses modern science to back up dialectics, of which has been translated into several languages. That alone refutes Redstar's flaming heaps of nonsense.

Been as you provided the link, why don't you highlight the parts of the book which refute Redstar's position on dialectics. I really can't be bothered to sift through a whole book to find a few specific paragraphs. Or better still, why don't you refute them in your own words.

[drain.you]

lol. Now now, people. Could someone personally write something to introduce someone to Marxism please?

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 05:44 PM

Why don't you start with looking at that "chew on this!" link I directed at people such as yourselves for starters? It is on online version of a book that uses modern science to back up dialectics, of which has been translated into several languages. That alone refutes Redstar's flaming heaps of nonsense.

Been as you provided the link, why don't you highlight the parts of the book which refute Redstar's position on dialectics. I really can't be bothered to sift through a whole book to find a few specific paragraphs. Or better still, why don't you refute them in your own words.
I am quite busy with college and work to literally make a thread consisting of at least hundreds of my posts alone to do that. I doubt that anyone with a knowledge of dialectics is really going to take Redstar seriously, given that he reads Marx, yet does not understand all of it.

I am a bit busy, but I feel that the previous links I put forth are good resources to read up upon to learn Marxism, drain.you; Marxism is not learned overnight, and it takes the reading and digestion of various books and such.

[Led Zeppelin]

And as I said, if you really think dialectics is a vital part of Communism why don't you start a thread in theory and explain to us all why dialectics is so important. Just because Trotsky said dialectics was important in a one line quote doesn't mean it is.


To be honest, I hardly know anything about dialectics, and yet I "believe" in it, why do I "believe" in it? Because Marx, Engels, Lenin etc. were not idiots, they sure as hell knew what they were talking about.

I hope that one day I will learn everything there is to know about dialectics, but until that day comes I hope that someone who knows it already can refute redstar2000.

[workersunity]

When i get a better view of dialectics i will argue why marxism needs dialectics, although i will check out redstars papers. yes dialectics is the scientific way to prove the whole class conflict idea, and why capitalism is coming to a collapse, yet there is nothing we do about it, it just is, ill get back to ya on that one armchair

[Entrails Konfetti]

To argue against dialetics and to call yourself a Marxist, or have views originating from Marx is like denying that the dialectical reasoning had anything to do with the study of class-conflict, and why we must make way towards socialism.

It seems like Redstar2000 doesn't understand the dialectic, because he rejects the transitory stage: socialism. Socialism will occur, because the prolitariat will seize power and use power to suppress the bourgoeisie, the reason for a state is to suppress one class under the ruling class; this stage is inevitable when the prolitariat organizes to crush the counter revolution. He doesn't understand, how this is inevitable, he, like the anarchists, thinks he can go right to Communism.

Socialism didn't fail. The vanguards did, but that doesn't mean all vanguards will fail.The vanguard in Russia was too impatient when it came to teaching the remaining members of the working-class how to run things instead they let the pette-bourgoeis to run the factories and the Bolsheviks made all soviets subbordinate to the party and dissallowing dissent, though promising "this is only temporary".They also, let the peasents have individual plots of land, thus recreating a village bourgeoisie. Yes the economy was in tatters after the war communism period, and the Bolsheviks set up the NEP. However, this isn't the model of socialism, and Marx mainly envisioned socialism happening in the first-world, do you believe Marx envisioned socialism having some capitalist sectors in its economy?

In Germany, the revolution came too prematurely. It didn't gain enough support yet, to go full throttle.

[OleMarxco]

Well...where to start? Hu-hey! *Takes on pinstripe-jacket* ;) Okay, say, let's first beknowesth on one than'; Who is it ye're tellin'...and WHY? If it's a capitalist pig, is it because you want to convert? If it is because you want to hurt someone's believes and insult them, and force them to change NOW, because "fencewalking is bad, you must take a stance NOW, or be responsible of the consequences if you don't!" - Renember: Whatever Marx said about dialectics, he also admitted that whatever he says...he's just interpeting the world, the point is to change hi...eh, it. So try to introduce him as a person who knows to seperate his views from how it gets done :P

Renember, dialecticans: THE BURDNE OF PROOF IS ALWAYS ON YOU,
NOT THE CRITIC. The critic has an easy time; You just say it's right.
Sure, it makes certaint sense after-the-fact, but as prediction? Sure,
a spiral of political direction happen.....and SO DO COINCIDENCES.
It's just as reliable as historical prediction as lucky guesses: You don't
KNOW yet. No matter how often it can be true. There is no percent chanche
when it comes to this....sure, people have a mindset, and there's a struggle,
but all in all, there's individual decisions....and a theory can't rule that. Free
will, suckhas :ph34r:

[Amusing Scrotum]

EL KABLAMO, if you can show dialectics is vital to Communism then why don't you challenge Redstar in the theory section. So far no one has disproved Redstar and therefore I find it logical to agree with Redstar as he presents the better, more logical argument on dialectics.

It amuses me that everyone is so quick to dismiss the opinions of Redstar without actually bothering to challenge him. If you can prove Redstar wrong then I will be happy to accept dialectics, but been as no one has proved him wrong, it is stupid to think his opinions are false.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 27 2005, 02:35 PM

And as I said, if you really think dialectics is a vital part of Communism why don't you start a thread in theory and explain to us all why dialectics is so important. Just because Trotsky said dialectics was important in a one line quote doesn't mean it is.


To be honest, I hardly know anything about dialectics, and yet I "believe" in it, why do I "believe" in it? Because Marx, Engels, Lenin etc. were not idiots, they sure as hell knew what they were talking about.

I hope that one day I will learn everything there is to know about dialectics, but until that day comes I hope that someone who knows it already can refute redstar2000.
Marx used dialectics because that was the way he thought. It was a holdover from his education and his youth. Since then all socialists that study dialectics have done so simply because Marx did. And I have to agree with Redstar's conclusions that there is nothing in dialectics that cannot be explained, like everything Hegel wrote, in much simpler terms. Its not to say that Marx was wrong, only that he felt the need to justify his theories with the philosophic tools that he knew and were dominant at the time. We on the other hand know that Marx was correct and so don't need to bother with some useless philosophic concept.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Were just going to have to ask Marx if we need to understand the dialectic to understand his theory.

Follow me to Highgate Cemetary, I have a Qujia board!
:P

[Led Zeppelin]

So far no one has disproved Redstar and therefore I find it logical to agree with Redstar as he presents the better, more logical argument on dialectics.


I have yet to see redstar disprove Marx, Engels or Lenin, therefore I find it logical to agree with Marx, Engels and Lenin as they present better, more logical arguments on dialectics. :rolleyes:

[cph_shawarma]

The most important part of Marx's works is his critique of political economy and understood correctly it will give lasting impressions on the minds which grasps it, both theoretically and practically. Most leftist don't realise how far they are from a marxian notion of capital. Therefore, the first point of departure would be to get an introduction to Capital (for example the one published by Marx-Arbeitsgruppe in the 1970s, but I don't know if it is available in English). Without the critique of political economy, a person will probably read Marx quite differently and probably quite incorrectly.

[ComradeRed]

Well, I would say (if I were introducing someone to Marxism) to first point out the finer points of Marxism in understandable terms.

I mean, no one really understands what the hell the "Interpenetration of the negation of the negation" really is. Or cares to!

If you wanted to introduce dialectics (I really strongly advise against it), use a concrete example. Hey, look, here's a computer. It has the hardware and the software. The interplay between these two things makes it a computer. The hardware itself is the interplay between RAM and the Hard Drive, which provides a basis for programs. Programs are the interplay between objects and procedures. Etc.

That would be the very simplistic way of introducing dialectics: as the interplay between two poles. This is applied from big things, like a computer, to its parts, the hardware and software, and used on those respectively.

But that's not the important part of Marxism. It is important to explain what a class is...why Rich bastards screw over the workers. More importantly, applying it to history to explain historical materialism.

Assuming you are speaking to a worker, explain why it is important for him/her to be a Marxist. Explain how s/he is being exploited, etc.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 27 2005, 07:44 PM
EL KABLAMO, if you can show dialectics is vital to Communism then why don't you challenge Redstar in the theory section. So far no one has disproved Redstar and therefore I find it logical to agree with Redstar as he presents the better, more logical argument on dialectics.

It amuses me that everyone is so quick to dismiss the opinions of Redstar without actually bothering to challenge him. If you can prove Redstar wrong then I will be happy to accept dialectics, but been as no one has proved him wrong, it is stupid to think his opinions are false.
Uh, I put forth that book that completely destroys the nonsense of redstar. It is your loss, as well as his, for completely refusing to read the book and ignore it. I am extremely busy at the moment, and I don't have time to make numerous, long posts at the current moment.