Marxist assumptions.

[Chrysalis]

Theory-building always requires assuming some things to be true. In our critique of a theory, however, we find that some assumptions must be abandoned because new evidence or explanation refuting these assumptions stands very strongly. The problem is, it isn't always clear what assumptions must be abondoned and what must be held firmly so that the theory still stands and still be intelligible. I think this is the problem with understanding Marxism.

These, I believe, are what we cannot deny and still say "Marxism":

1. We cannot deny Marx's presupposition that the nature of the individuals lies within their material subsistence.
2. We cannot deny his postulate that conflicts (contradictions) are inherent in human interactions and interests.

Without these two, Marxism falls apart. They're like hinges that make the door turn.

What, I think, can be debated:

1. A violent revolution is necessary to achieve a classless society.
2. Reforms cannot bring us a classless society.


Any thoughts?

[Revolution 9]

All that I'll say is that revolution is necessary in order for a classless society to arise.

If you believe in reform, you are a reactionary in my eyes.

"Reform" does nothing but serve the leading powers.

[percept¡on]

I think you need to distinguish between Marxism as an analytic tool and Marxism as a political ideology. Marxism as an analytic tool can consist simply of historical materialism, while Marxism as a political ideology requires some assumptions about strategies and courses of action required to bring about a classless society.

[redstar2000]

What Did Marx "Get Wrong"? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1095081406&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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

[Scars]

He also assumes that there will always be a surplus of labour.

[black magick hustla]

The whole fantasy that history progresses through determined stages, only to find "divine communism" at the end of the road. ;)

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 11:19 PM
The whole fantasy that history progresses through determined stages, only to find "divine communism" at the end of the road. ;)
He never says that communism is the end.

But, in the past, it has proven very difficult to see beyond the next socioeconomic epoch on the horizon. For example, could serfs in the middle ages 'picture' communism? Of course not!

The only reason that we can envision the destruction of wage-slavery is because we've seen other forms of slavery abolished (chattel slavery).

I think it is inevitable that some group of radicals will come up with something even better than communism. What this will be, I have no idea (how could I?).


In response to the original quote, I actually think that we can assume that reformism takes us nowhere. It only 'lightens our chains', so to speak. We want to destroy them. There is no such thing as a kindler, gentler capitalism. Wem ust overthrow it. And the only thing that capitalists understand is force, and force is precisely what the proletariat shall give them.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 02:56 AM
What, I think, can be debated:

1. A violent revolution is necessary to achieve a classless society.
2. Reforms cannot bring us a classless society.



I think reformism can pretty much be declared false by now. Reformism has been tried in a lot of states and never succeeded.

And the transformation from capitalism to communism is a revolution no matter how it happens. And the revolution is never primarily about violence, it's about subversion, but I have a hard time seeing a revolution that don't include violence, heck we have not even seen an hour or even a minute of capitalism that does not include violence. General violence might decrease but it with not go away just because people start to destroy capitalism/create communism.


Marmot
The whole fantasy that history progresses through determined stages, only to find "divine communism" at the end of the road

Marx rejected such views, it goes against his dialectical materialism.
The "determined stages" bullshit does not originate from Marx himself, just as those "evolution picture-schemes" that begins with a monkey and ends with a tall upright man, does not originate from Darwin. Both Darwin and Marx has been accused of determinism even though both of them clearly rejected it (which was quite unusual for the time).

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Marmot+--> (Marmot)The whole fantasy that history progresses through determined stages, only to find "divine communism" at the end of the road.[/b]


Originally posted by [email protected]
Both Darwin and Marx have been accused of determinism even though both of them clearly rejected it (which was quite unusual for the time).

In the 19th century, it was the convention to describe insights into the workings of nature as "laws" and this convention was naturally extended into social theory that attempted, however inadequately, to apply a scientific method to the study of human societies.

To speak of the underlying "laws of history" is to, at least, strongly imply a deterministic outlook.

For example...


Marx
In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter Into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or — this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms — with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.

Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm)

To my ears, that sounds "deterministic"...and it doesn't bother me one bit!

In fact, I think of it as the crucial summary of historical materialism.

If Marx was wrong about that then he was wrong about everything! :o

So what about "stages of history" or "epochs of production"?

They're not "perfect" in the sense of mathematical precision.

Hydraulic despotisms rested on slave production...but neither Athens nor the American confederacy were despotisms in the classical sense.

There were different kinds of feudalism...some of them involving collective land ownership. And some of them closely resembled hydraulic despotisms.

And in our own era, we have seen different kinds of capitalism...shaped by the material contingencies of different countries.

But overall, I think Marx and Engels were correct to speak of "stages" that human societies all go through.

Has communism been "determined" to be inevitable?

And will that be "the end of history"?

In my view it "looks inevitable"...based on the fruitful consequences of the historical materialist paradigm.

That is, historical materialism has been so useful in explaining so many things that it "ought to be right" about communism's "inevitability".

I am much more skeptical of the "dialectical" idea of a "final synthesis" or an "end of history".

It may turn out to be an "end" to the kind of history that we are accustomed to dealing with...the kind that is "a history of class struggles".

But any suggestion that we're all going to just "settle down in communal bliss" strikes me as highly unlikely. For better or worse, we humans are an indisputably contentious species...and I expect that we will find many things to "struggle over" that we cannot even imagine at this point.

So no "communism as Heaven".

Just communism as a completely new epoch of human societies...as different from what we live in now as how we live now is different from the way makers of cave paintings lived.

It's a big difference. :D

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

[Chrysalis]

Thanks for the responses---great points. I'd like to talk more about "violent revolution". I agree, btw, that a revolution is needed to overthrow existing institutions. I think it is inevitable as part of the changes taking place. (Redstar has pointed out the determinism inherent in Marx's theory and I agree).

I think one of the "problematic" features of Marxism, to those still studying the theory, is the idea of a violent revolution. Because, it seems, violence in a massive scale to seize power from the hands of the dominant class has a classic image of barbarism----the population gone out of control. I suppose, there's this picture of everyone taking up arms and rounding up those in power, either killing them or taking them to a holding camp. BUT, whatever form it's going to take, violence on a large scale is, perhaps, not at all inconceivable nor impossible. We only have to look at history to see that violent overthrows have not really been diminished, rather they have continued to this day and still going strong. It seems, the advancement in science and progress in ethics and morality have not made Reason the order of the day after all: So, we have the insatiable appetites of the capitalists still ruling their decisions, in legal, political, and social matters. And of course, the only response to this is: a revolution, the kind that could overthrow in a massive scale, and all at once, their very institutions that assured them their continued existence.



Originally posted by redstar+--> (redstar)To speak of the underlying "laws of history" is to, at least, strongly imply a deterministic outlook.[/b]
Yes, I believe so. In fact, I think this is what Marx wants us to recognize. To posit the natural condition or state of man, is to endorse something of deterministic existence. Ex natura. There is something to be said about this. If we investigate all theories that try to explain the social condition, we would find that there is always the explanation of the Individual based on the natural laws---in this case, the psychological laws. Why? What is so appealing about Natural, as opposed to restriction imposed by man artificially?

Because anything ex natura must necessarily be unchangeable, hence, cannot be disobeyed. A theory can rely on something unchangeable, because it is indisputable. It's like we want to deliberately "hit a brick wall" in this case, to end all denial or dispute, and then the theory wins.


Originally posted by [email protected]
But any suggestion that we're all going to just "settle down in communal bliss" strikes me as highly unlikely. For better or worse, we humans are an indisputably contentious species...and I expect that we will find many things to "struggle over" that we cannot even imagine at this point.
My thoughts exactly. And I'd like to know how this is resolved in spite of the communist order. We don't fully understand human nature.


perception
I think you need to distinguish between Marxism as an analytic tool and Marxism as a political ideology. Marxism as an analytic tool can consist simply of historical materialism, while Marxism as a political ideology requires some assumptions about strategies and courses of action required to bring about a classless society.
Nice distinction. Thanks for pointing this out. I believe I have presented the problem as a critique of the theory itself, hence I am speaking of Marxism as a political ideology.

[Lamanov]

The best way to understand these questions and to get closer to the answers is to admit: "Marxism" as a universal category doesn't exist! The history of capitalism (in any form) is a history of the working class movement, and thus, the history of "Marxism" (and anarchism). Once you start from this premise it all might seem clearer.

So the first thing to be questioned is our understanding of Marx himself, his relations with 'Marxism' and 'Marxists', the history of 'Marxism' and the development of revolutionary theory. If we seriously lack knowledge in Marx's theory then it's not the theory itself which should be questioned first, but our relation to it and our individual (or collective) standpoint.

In example, here are questions for which "we" all assume to have answers - but as it turns out quite often - "we" don't: What is the essence of Marx's materialism? What is his real relation to Hegel? What is really "dialectical materialism" and has it anything to do with Marx? Can we really speak of 'Marxism' as something universal? Was Marx really a 'determinist'? What are these "definite relations ... independent from our will"? What is human? What's "historical materialism"? ...etc...

It would be very much against Marx's revolutionary project of conscious history to take his formulations and put them together into a "political ideology", separated from the actuality and revolutionary practice. If we really see Marx's theoretical project as a "political ideology" with "economic premises" and "scientific constructions" then we would be better off without such "Marxism".


Originally posted by Chrysalis+--> (Chrysalis)1. We cannot deny Marx's presupposition that the nature of the individuals lies within their material subsistence.
2. We cannot deny his postulate that conflicts (contradictions) are inherent in human interactions and interests.

Without these two, Marxism falls apart. They're like hinges that make the door turn.[/b]

1: There is a big chance at misunderstanding this concept. It by itself sounds very rigid and mechanist. It comes off out of its essential context. But if you really want to understand Marx's materialist revolutionary method and his distinction from any "determinist" outlook (including later constructed "dialectical materialism") with no post mortem projections, I advise you to study his Theses on Feuerbach and start from there. This concept of human-nature-consciousness relations is a bit more complicated then one sentence can express.
2: What exactly do you mean by 'contradictions'? Better yet, give us a quote you have in mind.


Originally posted by [email protected]
1. A violent revolution is necessary to achieve a classless society.
2. Reforms cannot bring us a classless society.

If you take up a historical and actual analysis of capitalist society and political system you can get yourself a scientific answer which can only contradict your doubts.


* * * *


This is a real question which should be asked: What the fuck is "Marxism"?

* * * *


redstar2000
To speak of the underlying "laws of history" is to, at least, strongly imply a deterministic outlook.
[...]
To my ears, that sounds "deterministic"...and it doesn't bother me one bit!

I've never seen a work in which Marx speaks of universal "laws of history", because the essence of his historical thought is an understanding of - not "laws" - but the struggles which shape the society as a part of a far larger active subject.

Marx says that "mode of material life conditions [bedingt] the social, political and inellectual life process in general" [Preface] - it does not determine [bestimmt] it as an external force imposed on society, and not produced as a historical objectivity through totality of human practice [praxis].

There is no "determinism" in Marx's understanding of history and class struggles. "Historical laws" do not exist in definite as "natural laws" do. There are only forces (such as history) which men/women produce themselves, but those same forces return through inhuman relations to condition their real producers. "Determinism" which supposeadly exists to Marx falls down when his thoughts are understood in their real negatory context.

Imposing "laws" is what he was against. "Dialectical materialism" is precisely an imposed abstract bullshit which counters his understanding of both materialism and idealism, and their transcendence in the form of activity, in the form of practice.

There is no determined human activity: only conditioned (by objective conditions, by counsciousness, by correlation ...). When we set to transform objective moment in history which conditions us in return, our project - the totality of practical transformation from actual to possible - is not a predetermined result nor a determined pseudo-acitivity.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by DJ-TC
It would be very much against Marx's revolutionary project of conscious history to take his formulations and put them together into a "political ideology", separated from the actuality and revolutionary practice.

Well, what was he doing during those lengthy hours at the British Museum library taking exhaustive notes and trying to tie together a coherent explanation buttressed by enormous evidence of why capitalism is not "immortal"?

Would he have been "true to himself" only if he'd been "in the streets" at those times?

Does the development of revolutionary theory "count" as "revolutionary practice"?

If you don't think so, fine.

I think it does. :)


This is a real question which should be asked: What the fuck is "Marxism"?

In my opinion, it's historical materialism...a "tool box" that anyone can use to both understand social reality and change it.

If your inference is that we should scrap the word "Marxism", I'd have no problem with that.


I've never seen a work in which Marx speaks of universal "laws of history"...

I think it was Engels who actually used the phrase "laws of history" but I don't recall the specific location. Neither used the word "universal"...that's a post-mortem extension of historical materialism.

But a logical one. Why shouldn't there be "epochs of production" that every society must pass through on the "road to communism"?

Based on what we've learned up to now, modern humans are a single species...so there's no self-evident reason why the societies they invent should not pass through the same stages...barring extremely unfavorable environmental conditions.


Marx says that "mode of material life conditions [bedingt] the social, political and intellectual life process in general" [Preface] - it does not determine [bestimmt] it as an external force imposed on society, and not produced as a historical objectivity through totality of human practice [praxis].

Of course I am not fluent in German nor do I have access to the original German manuscript.

If you are more comfortable with "conditions" than "determines"...I can live with that.

I expect, "when the dust clears", that "determines" will be "close enough" as makes no perceptible difference.

I confess myself bewildered by the "anti-determinist" spirit...as if determinism on a historical scale somehow "robs us" of our own individual "free" choices.

Historical materialism predicts that at such time as capitalism can no longer function that most people will "choose" communism.

It will be the obvious rational "choice".

What individuals do or don't do now will have a tiny -- in fact, too small to measure -- effect on that ultimate outcome...either accelerating it or slowing down its arrival.

But it's not a "big cosmic deal" either way. The small number of people now who want communism will take such steps as they hope will accelerate the process. If those steps are successful, that may, in turn, speed things up a little more.

All well and good.

But if all living communists and pro-communists died instantly and all of the writings of Marx and Engels were burned, the ideas would be re-invented and new communists would inevitably emerge.

That's "determinism".

And it seems like a "good thing" to me. :)


There is no determined human activity: only conditioned (by objective conditions, by consciousness, by correlation ...). When we set to transform [an] objective moment in history which conditions us in return, our project - the totality of practical transformation from actual to possible - is not a predetermined result nor a determined pseudo-activity.

Why should a certain course of action that has a "determined outcome" be considered a "pseudo-activity"?

It's just as "active" as anything else, isn't it?

Building a house is a "determined" activity...a certain sequence of purposeful actions results in a house, right?

And we do that because living in a house is "better" than living outdoors in the weather, right?

And the reason we think it's "better" is because we humans are not equipped with fur or feathers to live comfortably outdoors in bad weather, right?

So why would the conflux of all these determinants be considered "pseudo-activity"?

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

[Chrysalis]

Originally posted by DJ-TC+--> (DJ-TC)"Marxism" as a universal category doesn't exist! The history of capitalism (in any form) is a history of the working class movement, and thus, the history of "Marxism" (and anarchism). Once you start from this premise it all might seem clearer.[/b]
I am puzzled by this statement. No one is saying Marxism is a category. No one is misunderstanding that history, either. Please define category, I may have missed your point.


So the first thing to be questioned is our understanding of Marx himself, his relations with 'Marxism' and 'Marxists', the history of 'Marxism' and the development of revolutionary theory. If we seriously lack knowledge in Marx's theory then it's not the theory itself which should be questioned first, but our relation to it and our individual (or collective) standpoint.
No one is denying Marx's background as being relevant to the study of his theory. But the claims that Marx makes in his theory should be susceptible of todays' critique. Just like any philosophical theory. And this is the point now why we even have discussions of the theory itself, so we could figure out whether it even applies to our present condition, or if we can even envisage a future where Marxism will be true. The question: Can we relate to it at all? is what I'm trying to achieve, I suppose.

Now, if you are looking for a well-planned, well thought-out thread of discussion, I'm afraid I'm not that adept just yet. But bringing a discussion to a level of casual analysis and comments, hearing what others think and responding to ideas being brought up, this to me is a very productive method. We do what we can. We use what we have. Then we'll get there. So, we're not there yet, as far as understanding the theory.


In example, here are questions for which "we" all assume to have answers - but as it turns out quite often - "we" don't: What is the essence of Marx's materialism? What is his real relation to Hegel? What is really "dialectical materialism" and has it anything to do with Marx? Can we really speak of 'Marxism' as something universal? Was Marx really a 'determinist'? What are these "definite relations ... independent from our will"? What is human? What's "historical materialism"? ...etc...
Yes, we do assume. To even start "talking about anything", we have to assume some things to be certain. The questions you posed are very pertinent to any critique of any philosophy, I agree. And we should be able to say what we understand about Marx claims. This is the point of analysis. If Marx makes claim A+B+C, we should be able to make judgments as to what that amounts to, whether or not Marx agrees with our analysis. This is the risk that any theorist or philosopher takes when he or she makes claims. The whole is more than the sum of its parts.



It would be very much against Marx's revolutionary project of conscious history to take his formulations and put them together into a "political ideology", separated from the actuality and revolutionary practice. If we really see Marx's theoretical project as a "political ideology" with "economic premises" and "scientific constructions" then we would be better off without such "Marxism".
Again, whether Marx calls it a political ideology or something else is beyond the point of analysis. A theory is a claim or series of claims. Marxism is not an exception. It shouldn't make Marxism "special" just because I believe its claims. Just the same, it should be subjected to some critique. We should be able to have a discourse and determine whether the theory is adequate or sufficient to explain actual phenomena. I don't think it goes against practice to talk about the theory---in fact, this is the point of language: If we really do believe (and assuming we understand) the claims that Marxism makes, this belief should manifest in our actions. But how do we start, but by talking about it.


What exactly do you mean by 'contradictions'? Better yet, give us a quote you have in mind.
Here is one of those references to the "contradictions", from the Materialist Concept of History:


Marx
This “alienation” (to use a term which will be comprehensible to the philosophers) can, of course, only be abolished given two practical premises. For it to become an “intolerable” power, i.e. a power against which men make a revolution, it must necessarily have rendered the great mass of humanity “propertyless,” and produced, at the same time, the contradiction of an existing world of wealth and culture, both of which conditions presuppose a great increase in productive power, a high degree of its development.
The quote above posits two existents that are "at odds", at least, intuitively. Intuitively, an increase in wealth should result in the greater ownership. But, in fact, an inverse relationship results. What we want is direct proportionality, not inverse relationship.


If you take up a historical and actual analysis of capitalist society and political system you can get yourself a scientific answer which can only contradict your doubts.
And here's now is another claim that everybody seems to have settled with: A claim to a scientific conclusion. Don't you think this needs to be challenged as well? For what method can bring us "scientificity" (pardon the usage)? Can we take it to the lab and have it tested many times over and get the same result each time? There is still something to be said about a socio-political theory that claims a "scientific result".



I've never seen a work in which Marx speaks of universal "laws of history", because the essence of his historical thought is an understanding of - not "laws" - but the struggles which shape the society as a part of a far larger active subject.
Again, a theory cannot avoid having implicit assumptions or implications. That is the point of analysis: to uncover hidden or unstated implications, assumptions, and presupposittins beyond what a theorist admits when he or she make claims or judgements. Marx or others does not have to explicitly say this, but his positing and postulating could and would result in other things that may or may not help his cause. Otherwise, every theory has equal validity, equal truth, equal claim to knowledge, etc. And where do you think this will lead us?

[Hopes_Guevara]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 01:56 AM
What, I think, can be debated:

1. A violent revolution is necessary to achieve a classless society.

This is quoted from "The Principles of Communism" by Engels

16. Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?

It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.

But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.

Therefore, Marxism doesn't oppose non-violent methods if all of material conditions allow us to do that. But in fact, this has rarely happened. So, in general a violent revolution is indispensable to abolish capitalist state.

[Lamanov]

[Edit: grammar]

Red, we can say it's not a pseudo-activity because we do it, and because it is conditioned by actuality which we made.

Our life and living itself is not reducible to a mere measurable movement which takes us with it. IE, it's "better" living indoors, but that does not determine will I build a house (or not). It's up to me entirely if it will actually happen. You may argue that it's "logical" and "makes sense", but I may be a tree loving nutcase who wants to live in the woods. If there were other female nuts like me we would find a cave, make babies and feed them with sheep milk, but since there aren't, I am conditioned to integrate myself into the modern community in order to satisfy my sexual needs. Nothing is determined to the point where it can escape human practice, even if it's alienated. Example may be simplistic but it shows you what I mean.

If we would take up classical determinism then our understanding of how things work would be like this: humans - mere transmitters of choices already made by the movement of matter. An "interpenetration of opposites" :lol: ;) .

Marx did not see it that way, I don't, and neither do you, obviously. It's safe to say that you're not really a 'determinist'.


Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)Does the development of revolutionary theory "count" as "revolutionary practice"?[/b]

Of course it does! That's the whole point!

But contrary to the revolutionary project of Theses on Feuerbach which only considers a two-way communication of theorie and praxis - ideology is something very different.

Revolutionary theory cannot be reduced to an ideology, because ideology (as I accept to understand it) is a cluster of [pseudo-]theoretical formulations which often refuse to be practical, and reject their "rewriting" by practical confirmation. Ideology remains one-sided and communicates only in one way: control of practical expression.

Is "Marxism-Leninism" a "revolutionary theory" valid for revolutionary practice which aims to destroy capitalism and alienation, in any way, shape or form? I don't think so, and I know you will agree.

Ideologies like "M-L" are clusters of brainwashing dogma where revolutionary theory is mute and practice is dead.

Do you understand the distinction I'm making here?


Originally posted by [email protected]
But a logical one. Why shouldn't there be "epochs of production" that every society must pass through on the "road to communism"?

There were "epochs of production" and we're in the "last one" which has an "antagonistic form". But "we" still have to "make it history".


redstar2000
...as if determinism on a historical scale somehow "robs us" of our own individual "free" choices.

Well, that's something that a neo-Kantian would say. We call it an "individual perspective" in "civil society".

Our perspective should be quite different: a perspective of "socialized humanity" (communism) which existence is not "determined" as "inevitable", but conditioned by the fact that we're totally alienated and dehumanized within capitalism, and that we want to rid us of this inhuman shell. We still have to "make it" through revolutionary practice though.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by DJ-TC
Our life and living itself is not reducible to a mere measurable movement which takes us with it....humans - mere transmitters of choices already made by the movement of matter....It's safe to say that you're not really a 'determinist'.

Well, I "feel like one"...for what that's worth. :lol:

Materialism and Free Will (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083725890&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)


Do you understand the distinction I'm making here?

Sure. Ideology, in Marx's view, was "a bad thing" -- a once living but now fossilized pattern of thought -- although modern usage of the word is somewhat different.

When people speak of a "Marxist ideology" now, I think they usually simply mean some coherent interpretation of the Marxist paradigm...an interpretation which may or may not still be "interesting", "fruitful", "useful", etc.


We still have to "make it" through revolutionary practice though.

To be sure...but the "determinist interpretation" says that we will not be able to keep from doing exactly that. We have no "choice" (on a broad historical scale) but to do that.

As I say, I don't really understand why that "bothers people" so much...but it does seem to irritate some folks to the point where they just reject any Marxist ideas.

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

[Chrysalis]

Originally posted by Hopes_Guevara+Mar 7 2006, 10:44 AM--> (Hopes_Guevara @ Mar 7 2006, 10:44 AM)Therefore, Marxism doesn't oppose non-violent methods if all of material conditions allow us to do that. But in fact, this has rarely happened. So, in general a violent revolution is indispensable to abolish capitalist state.[/b]
Yes, very much so. I think it is very reasonable to assume that the capitalist society that we have now, founded on self-interest, cannot itself harness its own drive for greater accumulation of wealth. So, the effect is that it grows to the point of its own detriment. Then, revolution follows naturally. Thanks for the quote, btw.

Incidentally, one would think that the capitalists would be best advised to actually read Marx's works to warn themselves. Oh, wait, they do!! Hence, the capitalist rationale.


redstar
When people speak of a "Marxist ideology" now, I think they usually simply mean some coherent interpretation of the Marxist paradigm...
Yes, a very useful tool, indeed, when one wants a comparative analysis, especially.

[red_che]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 01:28 AM
Theory-building always requires assuming some things to be true. In our critique of a theory, however, we find that some assumptions must be abandoned because new evidence or explanation refuting these assumptions stands very strongly. The problem is, it isn't always clear what assumptions must be abondoned and what must be held firmly so that the theory still stands and still be intelligible. I think this is the problem with understanding Marxism.

These, I believe, are what we cannot deny and still say "Marxism":

1. We cannot deny Marx's presupposition that the nature of the individuals lies within their material subsistence.
2. We cannot deny his postulate that conflicts (contradictions) are inherent in human interactions and interests.

Without these two, Marxism falls apart. They're like hinges that make the door turn.

What, I think, can be debated:

1. A violent revolution is necessary to achieve a classless society.
2. Reforms cannot bring us a classless society.


Any thoughts?
Historically, there have never been social changes without violent/radical revolutions. History has been a history of class struggle, and that all societies devloped from slavery to capitalism through violent revolutions.

So, it goes to say that capitalism cannot be replaced by communism without a violent revolution, that is the overthrow of the capitalists by the working class. The bourgeoisie won't simply be outpowered by a mere call for reforms, that is calling for their conscience to give up exploiting the working class and give what is due them.

Most importantly, the root cause of class society is private ownership of the instruments of production and exchange. And that the property owners (the capitalists) won't simply give up such property. This kind of relationship must be abolished, and that it cannot be abolished by simply passing a law enacted by Congress eliminating all forms of private ownership of the means of production. The proletariat must first seize political power in order to do that. The proletariat, however, cannot seize political power by merely electing one of its representative to become President of the State. The proletariat must engage into revolutionary confrontations with the bourgeoisie, defeat it's reactionary army and then the proletariat must establish their own state to thwart away bourgeois counter-revolutionary efforts to regain power.

And then, when all kinds of capitalist relationship and thinking is removed and been annihilated, the communist society can be established. When all forms of private property of the means of production is abolished, then all the conditions for a class society is also abolished. And then can classless society be established.

[xprol]

new bloke.

Hellow Comrades,
A Leninist trying this out for the first time. Any advice or information would be welcome and well used in the struggle.

Only the development of revolutionary theory is is going to unite. Unity without correct revolutionary theory is not possible as you know. Revolutionary theory is not dogma or academic posturing. It is looking, studying, arguing and explaining the world as it is. That's all for now.

[black magick hustla]

The will to power of a few individuals have had more impact in the bases of society than anything else. Whole economies have been set back by the words of a few individuals.

Some people are just not complete "products of their time", and this people are the ones that generally twist the course of history.


There has been many spontaneous revolutions with no clear leaders. If anything. the destruction of hierarchical relations is going need this kind of upsurges. When there is contempt for constraints and a desire for love, people start do some very revolutionary things. ;)

[Chrysalis]

Originally posted by red che+--> (red che)Most importantly, the root cause of class society is private ownership of the instruments of production and exchange. And that the property owners (the capitalists) won't simply give up such property. [/b]
Yes, this is a classic power struggle and this reality needs to be recognized. Ownership, especially the kind that capitalism exhibits, is the epitome of power. And this power is the kind that cannot be negotiated: it can only be taken by force.

There is, I think, this belief (at least to a certain degree) that modernity, progress, and advancement in all aspects of society must necessarily reduce or even abolish the need for force (violence, military or otherwise), to be replaced by negotiation, reason, and compromise. But, nothing could be further from the truth.



A couple of interesting comments:

Originally posted by [email protected]
Only the development of revolutionary theory is is going to unite. Unity without correct revolutionary theory is not possible as you know. Revolutionary theory is not dogma or academic posturing. It is looking, studying, arguing and explaining the world as it is. That's all for now.


Marmot
The will to power of a few individuals have had more impact in the bases of society than anything else. Whole economies have been set back by the words of a few individuals.
These views do not have to be at odds with each other. Marxism is both observational and theoretical endevour with a goal in mind: to predict accurately, at least, the development of societies. But, exactly, what is the use of prediction? To make Marxism a working theory. Inquiries will continue, changes will be made, and corresponding actions will be taken.



A few words on Marx's use of the contradiction:

One of the ways in which Marx laid down his premises, to make his argument for the existence of social classes and therefore the disparity inherent in this kind of social arrangement, is the use of the concept "contradiction". But, Marx does not formally define this word. Instead, he uses ostensive definition to say what he means. When a word is defined ostensively, we use presentations of examples such as objects, something concrete, along with other words in our statement to say what we mean. In other words, we point to "three apples on the table" when we tell a child what "three" means. Colors are defined ostensively: we show objects painted red or blue, for example.

Marx explains or presents "Contradiction" by giving empirical pieces of evidence of its occurence, at least in human interactions. And this is his point---to further commit to empirically verifiable, observable, hence factual account of historical and social description. To define formally a term or concept is to make abstractions from either what's observable, or what's common sensically known, or what could be intuitively or rationally grasped. So, there is what we call a referent to which we can point to match the word.

So, why use ostensive? Not everything can be defined formally and be made sensible, meaningful, or even intelligible. I think, to Marx, the meaning of a social phenomenon can only be grasped if we are shown its reality; if we are presented with a concrete natural human interaction, than if Marx simply becomes an armchair philosopher. And this is keeping with the goal of Marxism.

[rouchambeau]

The idea that workers will revolt in times of economic recession is pretty much dead. With modern fiscal and monetary policy economic cycles are becoming less severe and are happening less often.

I don't think much violence is necessary, but reforms will do nothing so long as they are enacted by the bourgeoisie.