Marxism, Should It Be Dogmatic?

[DisIllusion]

I remember talking to somebody on the board about Marx's plans for the world, and he said I shouldn't be so dogmatic about Marxism and should spread out and try different things. This being said, do you believe that we should be die-hard to Marx or Lenin's ideals or should be add our own personal values and beliefs into the mix?

[DisIllusion]

Aw crap, I just realized I made a typo in the title. "Marxism, Should IT Be Dogmatic"

[Zingu]

I don't really see the need why you need to extend it any further than just Marx and Engels, sure, you could work on Cultural Theory like Herbert Marcuse or some other subject about human sociology that Marxist analysis can be applied, but I think it is very dangerous and unwise to forumlate "theories" of how the "proletarian revolution" will be structured and happen (ex. Leninism and Anarchism).

[redstar2000]

"Dogmatism" has a "bad rep"...mostly due to the history of organized superstition.

But when we insist that 2 + 2 always equals 4 -- not 3.9 or 4.1 -- can we not be accused of "dogmatism"?

It's actually happened to me that I have been accused of "dogmatism" because of saying things like "The absence of credible scientific evidence proves that gods do not exist."

Marxism, like anything else, can be treated as if it were a "dogma" -- a body of "revelations" which must never be questioned by the "true believer".

But we know from Marx's own words that he did not want that.

Doubt Everything! is something that he said.

Thus a scientific and revolutionary approach means that you should subject even Marx's own words to the test of material reality.

When he said this particular thing, did it turn out that he was right or that he was wrong?

Indeed, that's how to look at everything scientifically. Whenever anyone says anything about the real world, are they right or are they wrong?

We should be dogmatic about reality.

There is no reason to "tolerate" self-evident nonsense on the grounds of "oh, we mustn't be dogmatic".

That's just stupid.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

Marx and Lenin were both great thinkers. Marx provided the definitive analysis of capitalism and Lenin provided the best concrete framework for revolution. We should definitely read and study them both and heed their wisdom where it applies. With that being said, the world is a dynamic place that is constantly changing and we must continue to analyze our world and not just depend on those that came before us. We should also ALWAYS factor in our own personal beliefs. If you adhere blindly to a doctrine that you dont really believe in then I would say that is not Communism.

[black magick hustla]

Marxism is just a theory, it isn't absolute. Making it absolute only will convert it into an ideology, something near to what religion is.

Some parts of it are outdated, others aren't. We need to know what to take and what to throw away. Proletarian theory shouldn't be crystalized into a mere ideology.

As Debord said:

Revolutionary ideology is the worst enemy of revolutionary theory.

[DisIllusion]

Thank you comrades, I have also realized that just because Marx was the "creator" of Communism as we know it, he might not always be correct, if he was, he would be some sort of deity, and that's just crazy.

[DisIllusion]

Oh, and thanks to the Admin or Mod who fixed my title for me. :)

[barista.marxista]

I always refer to Marxism not as philosophy or ideology, but as methodology. Because that's what it is. Marx's writings were a methodological analysis of history and capitalism, and a logical extension of that analysis. So far, nothing has proved them wrong. Capitalism is based on the drive for the greatest accumulation of surplus value -- this is as true today as it was in 1850. This hasn't changed, and thus insisting how true it is is not dogmatic: it is a concrete conclusion based on material analysis. "Dogma" is a term commonly used by bourgeois opponents to make Marxists seem loony or unreliable, when their entire society is based on keeping the trust and ignorance of its populace. Just as continually insisting that 2+2=4 is not dogmatic, neither is continually insisting on the Marxist analysis of history and political economy.

But, also in this vein of the dialectical materialist deduction of society, to be a Marxist involves being constantly critical. We must always study and criticize our methodology, our history, and our line. Dogmatism comes when one does not challenge one's own thought process and methodology, but rather continues to stubbornly insist upon something without the scientific analysis necessary to defend it.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Marx should not be take dogmatically anyway. I can not see this as a reasonable conclusion, except perhaps to hardcore follwers of Marx's dialectics.

I say the same towards science also to some extent, although I do think that "normal science" has its uses.

2+2=4 is not neccessarily dogmatic, at least by what is implied by the term. It is a tautology. It is a standard by which we understand things, although arguably not a thing in itself.

Marmot I disagree with your criticisms of ideology. I think that a continued perserverance towards improved material conditions, and destrcution of conflict would help create a more utoian (by our current stance) society. However I think that stagnance will also not be a problem, and new, presently unconceivable goals will become desireable. This is why Marxism should not be dogmatic, if a better approach comes along I will take it.

[Axel1917]

I don't think that anyone who is serious about Marxism actually takes it dogmatically, given that we stand on firm foundations, of which no capitalist ideologue in history has been able to refute. The charges of dogmatism by cappies are both dead wrong and utterly hypocritical.

[AK47]

Carl Marx was a genious. He tried to descover the direction of society using groth in population and available resources. He tried over and over again to descover the pattern. He would be asked a question about a part of his theory in one city when he had already changed it the previous day. He was a true scientist. Had he lived 5 minutes longer I am sure marxist theory would be different. In order to follow "Marxist Theory" one must continue trying to descover that pattern of social evolution he was looking for. One That he could not find with his victorian lenz. One that we will have a hard time seeing with our post industrial lenz. I do not think we need to faithfully follow any theoretical explanation. We need to push ideas and actions that further the prosperity of the people. Nothing more and nothing less.

[The Red Scare]

If you treat Marxism as a dogma, then you aren't a Marxist...at least not a very good one. The whole basis of Marxism, dialectical materialism, refutes the notion of "dogma" and "ideology" in general. It is a philosophy that changes and adapts to fit with devleoping world conditions. Marx and Lenin repeatedly stressed this fact. Those who claim that Marxism is a "dogma" have no idea of the basic teachings behind Marxist philosophy.

[KC]

The whole basis of Marxism, dialectical materialism

You mean historical materialism.

[The Red Scare]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 10:03 PM

The whole basis of Marxism, dialectical materialism

You mean historical materialism.
You can use either one....I prefer to say dialiectical materialism because dialectics is the heart and soul of Marxist thought.

[Bannockburn]

But when we insist that 2 + 2 always equals 4 -- not 3.9 or 4.1 -- can we not be accused of "dogmatism"?

Well to compair math, or logic to Marxism is like compairing apples to oranges. Math and logic works on a ideal science of identity and the principle of non contradiction. They have no existential properties. Whereas, Marxism does work with existential properties, and really as a result, as all of you have said can not be dogmatics. In fact, the material conditions imply it can't be dogmatic.

[Amusing Scrotum]

You can use either one....I prefer to say dialiectical materialism because dialectics is the heart and soul of Marxist thought.

Uh, no.

All of Marx's early work was based on historical materialism alone. Even his later work more or less completely avoided dialectal terminology. He relied almost solely on historical materialism for most of his life, he only "dabbled" in dialectics.

[The Red Scare]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 8 2005, 10:53 PM

You can use either one....I prefer to say dialiectical materialism because dialectics is the heart and soul of Marxist thought.

Uh, no.

All of Marx's early work was based on historical materialism alone. Even his later work more or less completely avoided dialectal terminology. He relied almost solely on historical materialism for most of his life, he only "dabbled" in dialectics.
Marx rarely, if ever, used the term "dialectical materialism," but dialectics was the major theoretical foundation of all his major work. He was, after all, a "Young Hegelian" who took Hegel's theory of dialectics and expanded and developed it.

I think its pretty pointless to argue semantics, but I guess if you wanted to make a distinction between historical and dialectical materialism, you could say that historical materialism is the specific realm of dialectics that deals with social relations. Historical materialism uses dialectical principles to explain history. Marx concentrated on this branch of dialectics, and always used dialectics to develop his theories (even if he never specifically used the word). So he did much more that "dabble" in dialectics.

[redstar2000]

I strongly urge the participants in this thread not to let it "degenerate" into a discussion of "dialectics"...unless you wish me to move it to the Philosophy Forum.

Here is a long thread that deals directly with the matter of "dialectics"...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43292

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[The Red Scare]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 03:12 AM
I strongly urge the participants in this thread not to let it "degenerate" into a discussion of "dialectics"...unless you wish me to move it to the Philosophy Forum.

Here is a long thread that deals directly with the matter of "dialectics"...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43292

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Its impossible to discuss "dogmatism" and Marxism without addressing Marxian dialectics, because dialectics is by its very nature anti-dogmatic. So, at least from my point of view, this thread will have to degenerate into a discussion of dialectics if the question at hand is to be addressed appropriately.

anyway, just my 2 cents

[Vanguard1917]

But when we insist that 2 + 2 always equals 4 -- not 3.9 or 4.1 -- can we not be accused of "dogmatism"?

Hmmm... Interesting point.

Though something about too deep to think about at 8.30 in the morning over a slice of toast and a cup of tea...

[NewWorldDisorder]

Blindly following someone elses ideas exactly without making any differences of your own is a very scary thing to do, a lot of people will choose to do this though so they dont have to think of anything for themselves

[carlito]

Its simply not ever going to be much of an issue whether or not 'marxism' will be treat as dogma, because there will always be that person who thinks differently. Its not really something that can be made.
If it were, the next step would be to prostrate in fount of a picture of marx every morning!
And i can't do that with justin timberlake and carl marx.

[schumi]

I believe that no idea should ever be dogmatic because then it doesnt allow you to develop yourself and your own ideas. redstar pointed out that 2+2=4 and that we have to be dogmatic about that but that's maths and marxism is a social idea, something that changes with time. things like geometry, math and physics that are PROVEN to work usually dont change (not always but very few 'facts' have changed in history) but society DOES change and so does the idea of how our society should develop and if you keep that same old idea in place it won't work, you have to develop society and yourself and sometimes that requirs changes in the ideas that you had. Change is not a bad thing as it can improve your ideas and your world :huh:

[Bannockburn]

Hmmm... Interesting point.

Umm, not really. I've already explained that. Look above. You don't have to be dogmatic concerning the truth value of 2=2 = 4 because anything else would be a) counter intuitive b) contradiction

However, dogma, generally doesn't apply a contradiction, or being intuitively certain. You can't demostrate dogma, whereas you can with math and logic. One is ideal, the other existential imports. Huge difference.

[Vanguard1917]

You can't demostrate dogma, whereas you can with math and logic.

But the analogy was in connection to Marxism. If Marxists believe that 'Marxist theory' is 'true' (for Marxist theory is always dialectically linked with Marxist practice), then we must prove the truth. Mankind has proven, through practice (i.e. through practical experimentation and intervention), that 2+2=4 (and not 3.9 or 4.1). Similarly, Marxists need to prove, through their experimentation and intervention, that a workers' revolution is the outcome of capitalist society.

In this sense, there is no domaticism in genuine Marxism whatsoever. A 'Marxist theory' that does not seek to prove its claims in practice is a purely speculative theory. A mathematician that does not seek to prove, in practice, his hypothesis that 2+2=4 is merely hypothesising. In other words, Marxists need to prove the truth; and this comes about through Marxist experimentation and intervention in society.

[Martyr]

No why should it be because remember

"Most people who read "The Communist Manifesto" probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of "the workers".
-Thomas sowell

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 02:21 PM
No why should it be because remember

"Most people who read "The Communist Manifesto" probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of "the workers".
-Thomas sowell
Marx never worked a day in his life? He spent his life writing and spreading his ideas, which is what I thought was what a writer was supposed to do. That hardly accounts for being a hobo, even though he did accept several financial contributions from Engels. Engels also travelled over Europe, started the Communist League, and even fought against the Prussians in 1848. They spent the last of their lives in poverty, after fighting for what they believed in and being exiled from their homelands.

Please research more about basic Marx and Engels before you make such strong convictions.

[Martyr]

^^ The question is did he work in any of the factories? You abandoned your beliefs for two men who dreamed of an impossible world and who were never even part of the class. A good writer writes about what he lived through and those two men lived through hardly anything just looked at it.

[Hiero]

Marxism is an analysis, it becomes dogmatic when we talk about the words of Marx, or think we can read Marx and know everything about the world. The idea is to apply Marxism to the world we live in today. This is how Lenin showed the emergance of Imperialism, this is how Mao and the Chinese conducted their revolution, by applying Marx to their current world.

It would of been dogmatic for Lenin to deny Imperialism based on Marx not estimating the emergance of Imperialism, or for China and the Maoist not to fight the struggle based on Marx's analysis of peasants in Marx's time.

I think to be a dogmatic Marxist is to not take Marx's method rather what Marx wrote about his world. We need to apply Marxism to our world, not Marx's world,


No why should it be because remember

"Most people who read "The Communist Manifesto" probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of "the workers".
-Thomas sowell

It doesn't change the fact they are right, and doesn't change the fact that Marxism has helped the workers world wide.

Thomas Sowell is probally some twat liberal imperialist.

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 10:52 PM
Marxism is an analysis, it becomes dogmatic when we talk about the words of Marx, or think we can read Marx and know everything about the world. The idea is to apply Marxism to the world we live in today. This is how Lenin showed the emergance of Imperialism, this is how Mao and the Chinese conducted their revolution, by applying Marx to their current world.

It would of been dogmatic for Lenin to deny Imperialism based on Marx not estimating the emergance of Imperialism, or for China and the Maoist not to fight the struggle based on Marx's analysis of peasants in Marx's time.

I think to be a dogmatic Marxist is to not take Marx's method rather what Marx wrote about his world. We need to apply Marxism to our world, not Marx's world,


No why should it be because remember

"Most people who read "The Communist Manifesto" probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of "the workers".
-Thomas sowell

It doesn't change the fact they are right, and doesn't change the fact that Marxism has helped the workers world wide.

Thomas Sowell is probally some twat liberal imperialist.
Well, not all new spins of Marxism work out. The Soviet Union under Lenin seemed pretty good, given the amount of resources they had to work with. Mao however, didn't work out so well. He got into power and had the people start worshipping him and twisting the people so they could accuse anybody they didn't like of being a "counterrevolutionary" or "reactionary". Maoist China pretty much became a 24/7 witch hunt, filled with paranoia of who could be a capitalist or a reactionary. And after Mao died, his successors just made it a capitalist state again. Especially today, I don't even see why they still use the red flag and claim that they own Taiwan, they're pretty much no better than Taiwan's capitalist system.

[Martyr]

I still don't get how you could make a country with no individuality and no ambition?

[Kamerat Voldstad]

Dogmatism is always wrong, because it stands in the way of the truth. We should not be Communists and then decide how dogmatically we should go about it; we should on the contrary be critical and critically decide to support those parts of Marx, Engels, whatever that we find consistent and true. So I guess my answer is: We should follow the truth, no matter what - and this means we must mix or water out Communism with other theories if we find it right to do so, without worrying about being "clean" Communists.

Besides, to be critical is a great part of Communism. Communism is evolving, liberal, truthseeking.

In my country, we have a small, insignificant party that had a considerable (though not large or great, of course - this is the west, after all) influence some decades ago. Their problem is that they have taken one part of Lenin's wisdom - that of keeping the revolutionary party revolutionary: that one must have a strict party that does not waver - and forgotten a greater part: Lenin's practical wisdom, his ability to se older teachings value for his own time and place, and to then adapt them on the concrete level to serve that time and place. And look at them now. They hardly recognize that times have changed because thetre so busy at keeping the party revolutionary - they have forgotten to adapt the revolution.

When it comes to revolutionary tactics, Communists should never be dogmatic - for it hinders the implementation of Communism not to adapt it to the concrete situation. And when it comes to being Communists and supporting its values and principles for society, no one should be dogmatic - for in the service of truth we must achknowledge that there might be a better way than exactly that system of society which is Communism.