Is Our Ideology Dead? [Archive]

Hate Is Art

28th June 2006, 01:55

I have recently come to the decision that the leftist ideology espoused by Marx, Lenin, Mao, Trot et al is quite clearly past it's sell by date, it is essentially the dodgy cheese in the refridgerator. One can only scrape the surface mould off for a definite ammount of time before one see's the green fungus beneath.

It has, I believe, essentialy enstaticised itself, it exists in an untouched vortex suceededing only in failing to update itself, to prove it's relevance to a modern, and importantly post ideological society.

Since the fall of the CCCP we have seen the fall of the Leninist model of Socialism, China has all but symbolically become a capitalist state, and Cuba exists in it's relative vortex untouched by the real world, desperate for a bit of meaning in a society that has all but consigned it to the twee and 'oh my how interesting' bin of history. What we need is a new philosophy, not an updated Marxism, but one which is combatant to the rises since the beginning industrial revolution.

If we cannot do this then I do believe that our movement is all but doomed.

So what alternative is there?

ps. sorry if this seems a bit pointless, but it has been my reason for abandoning this board for the past few months. call it 'disillusionment' but I just really wanted to open up a discussion on the philosophical future of Marxism really.

28th June 2006, 02:07

You have to wait until economic, political and social conditions are right.

Hate Is Art

28th June 2006, 02:09

And you expect me to sit around for ever waiting for these conditions to arrive? It's a bit of a cop of doing anything on both of our parts don't you think?

28th June 2006, 02:10

Not at all. In the mean time you organize and help bring those conditions to fruition.

RedAnarchist

28th June 2006, 02:11

Think about the revolutionaries of 25, 50, 100 years ago - do you think they saw a communist society (a real one) anytime soon? I doubt it, but they still carried on.

The Feral Underclass

28th June 2006, 02:13

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 27 2006, 11:56 PM
I have recently come to the decision that the leftist ideology espoused by Marx, Lenin, Mao, Trot et al is quite clearly past it's sell by date

it is essentially the dodgy cheese in the refridgerator. One can only scrape the surface mould off for a definite ammount of time before one see's the green fungus beneath.
Perhaps to some extent, but you can’t do away with Marx's critique of capitalism and historical materialism by making cheese analogies.

Marx's class and historical analysis are still relevant today. Unless you have an argument as to why they aren't?

It has, I believe, essentialy enstaticised itself, it exists in an untouched vortex suceededing only in failing to update itself, to prove it's relevance to a modern, and importantly post ideological society.

Perhaps post-left anarchism is your bag then.

I would say that class struggle is as relevant today as it was when Marx was alive. There is of course still a working class that exists.

The anarchist movement has been saying for decades that the presentation of class struggle has been old and outdated and with the emergence of this new Trostkyist reformism we are seeing a return to parliamentarianism. The worse possible thing!

It is necessary for the anarchist movement to continue propagating the idea of direct action and creating new ways of resistance that directly challenge capitalism and the state. Voting and selling papers has never been a way of creating revolutionary change.

What we need is a new philosophy, not an updated Marxism, but one which is combatant to the rises since the beginning industrial revolution.

But Marxism is still relevant. Class struggle still exists, it's how these struggle is presented and fought which are the issues here.

If we cannot do this then I do believe that our movement is all but doomed.

Doomed to what exactly? While capitalism and the state still exists, so will a "movement" to oppose it.

So what alternative is there?

Confrontational class struggle anarchism!

The Feral Underclass

28th June 2006, 02:15

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 28 2006, 12:10 AM
And you expect me to sit around for ever waiting for these conditions to arrive? It's a bit of a cop of doing anything on both of our parts don't you think?
Of course not. You should contribute to the struggle and live your life the way you want to.

You life shouldn't be consumed by struggle against capitalism, its not healthy If you believe in capitalisms destruction then you should do what is necessary but at the same time live your life.

which doctor

28th June 2006, 02:20

Originally posted by KC
You have to wait until economic, political and social conditions are right.
That seems to be something a lot of leftists(myself included) seem to say. We have been waiting for quite a long time. Can we really expect these "conditions" to ever be right?

Think about the revolutionaries of 25, 50, 100 years ago - do you think they saw a communist society (a real one) anytime soon? I doubt it, but they still carried on.
I actually think they did see one soon. That was why they were fighting.

So what alternative is there?
Have fun!

Hate Is Art

28th June 2006, 02:24

Marx's class and historical analysis are still relevant today. Unless you have an argument as to why they aren't?

Unfortunateley I don't, I will say I haven't got a coherent answer to all of this, but I am essentially working it out as I go along so try and bear with me please.

Are they though? It what sense? I mean to me I've always seen his analysis as self perputating jargon, spine tingling catch phrases and ideal for the time they were written, but I don't understand how they can be so easily transposed onto a modern society. Especially after developments never happened the way he saw them.

I do essentially agree with parts of his class analysis though, class conflict and consciousness (I really should learn how to spell that word) but we are clearly in an all time low of this. Everybody (talking from a UK perspective as it is the only one I have experience off) thinks they are middle class, how do we combat this?

Perhaps post-left anarchism

Situationism? It is what I've been reading into recently and it has partly inspired this.

The anarchist movement has been saying for decades that the presentation of class struggle has been old and outdated and with the emergence of this new Trostkyist reformism we are seeing a return to parliamentarianism. The worse possible thing!

It is necessary for the anarchist movement to continue propagating the idea of direct action and creating new ways of resistance that directly challenge capitalism and the state. Voting and selling papers has never been a way of creating revolutionary change.

Agreed totally, in fact 'voting and selling papers' is entireley what turned me off Trotskism in the first place.

Doomed to what exactly?

The historical scrapheap.

The Feral Underclass

28th June 2006, 02:32

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 28 2006, 12:25 AM
Marx's class and historical analysis are still relevant today. Unless you have an argument as to why they aren't?

Unfortunateley I don't, I will say I haven't got a coherent answer to all of this, but I am essentially working it out as I go along so try and bear with me please.
So you're down with the possibility that you're wrong?

Are they though? It what sense? I mean to me I've always seen his analysis as self perputating jargon, spine tingling catch phrases and ideal for the time they were written, but I don't understand how they can be so easily transposed onto a modern society. Especially after developments never happened the way he saw them.

Well, capitalism still exploits a working class and creates alientaiton and history still developed based on economic developoment...

I do essentially agree with parts of his class analysis though, class conflict and consciousness (I really should learn how to spell that word) but we are clearly in an all time low of this. Everybody (talking from a UK perspective as it is the only one I have experience off) thinks they are middle class, how do we combat this?

You have to establish why people think that first of all?

Perhaps post-left anarchism

Situationism? It is what I've been reading into recently and it has partly inspired this.

I suppose that post-left anarchism has adopted situationism on the sly, but "situationism" is actually a class struggle idea.

Hate Is Art

28th June 2006, 02:41

So you're down with the possibility that you're wrong?

Of course, I would be an idiot not to be.

Well, capitalism still exploits a working class and creates alientaiton and history still developed based on economic developoment...

By has the method of exploitation changed? Which is what I mean, a rise in consumerism in a different way, or lack of belief that people are getting screwed (I'm talking allmost exclusiveley about the West here) or are even willing to be screwed. Has Marxism been adapted to this?

What I essentially feel is Marxism has proved it's redundance through it's lack of ability to adapt to the changes in the 90's early 00's. The capitilists have adapted and I feel we haven't.

You have to establish why people think that first of all?

That they are middle class? Hegemony? Manufacture of Consent? I don't understand it. I am not omnipotent.

Avtomatov

28th June 2006, 02:45

Im writing a manifesto for a new ideology. It has public ownership of the meens of production, abolishment of inheritance, free and equal chance at a education, free and equal healthcare. All those things are communist. But it also uses alot of techniques used in capitalism. I beleive it will allow for equality of opportunity, and economic growth.

I have a few ideas for a name: Darwinian Socialism, or Functionalism. Its hard to find a good name for an Ideology.

The Feral Underclass

28th June 2006, 02:47

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 28 2006, 12:42 AM
Well, capitalism still exploits a working class and creates alientaiton and history still developed based on economic developoment...

By has the method of exploitation changed?
No.

Which is what I mean, a rise in consumerism in a different way, or lack of belief that people are getting screwed (I'm talking allmost exclusiveley about the West here) or are even willing to be screwed. Has Marxism been adapted to this?

It was adapted by Guy Debord to include analysis on consumerist society. But consumerism isn't exploitation it's a form of alienation that is prevelant throughout all western society.

You have to establish why people think that first of all?

That they are middle class? Hegemony? Manufacture of Consent? I don't understand it. I am not omnipotent.

Well, understanding why people are middle class is going to help you establish how to approach the subject that they aren't.

People think they're middle class because they can own more things but that's not what makes you middle class. Just because they can own more things does not mean that there bosses are using them to make a profit, and it is this specifically which differentiates working class from middle class.

Hate Is Art

28th June 2006, 03:05

Well, understanding why people are middle class is going to help you establish how to approach the subject that they aren't.

People think they're middle class because they can own more things but that's not what makes you middle class. Just because they can own more things does not mean that there bosses are using them to make a profit, and it is this specifically which differentiates working class from middle class.

How would you define middle class? In terms of a Marxist Analysis I mean.

I have always termed it as there is simply exploited and exploiters in terms of class relationship. Middle class seemed such an abstract principle. A state of mind more then anything else. Everyone I know is 'middle class'. It's disgusting.

How do you go about convincing people they aren't middle class? The traditional numbers of working class have become severeley diminished since the 80's due the fall in traditional working class occupations.

How has the left come to terms with this? Exept for the oh so loveley 3rd way.

This is what I mean by 'exploitation has changed'

Avtomatov

28th June 2006, 03:19

Its not about Middle Class or Upper Class or Lower Class. People from all three class are a part of the Working class. IMO, Work is honourable. Not working is shameful. Owners dont work. The owners need to be eliminated.

A problem today is that alot more people are getting into owning things. They own little shares and make small investments. That makes them owners, and idiologically opposed to us, even though they may make most of their money doing work and being waged. But a lot more people, given the business they engage in, are opposed to eliminating private ownership. Alot of the middle class engages in this small-scale ownership of the meens of production.

Hit The North

28th June 2006, 03:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 12:46 AM
Im writing a manifesto for a new ideology. It has public ownership of the meens of production, abolishment of inheritance, free and equal chance at a education, free and equal healthcare. All those things are communist. But it also uses alot of techniques used in capitalism. I beleive it will allow for equality of opportunity, and economic growth.

I have a few ideas for a name: Darwinian Socialism, or Functionalism. Its hard to find a good name for an Ideology.
Darwinian socialism? You might be interested in googling the name of Enrico Ferri.

Functionalism? :o CLICK HERE (http://web.grinnell.edu/courses/soc/s00/soc111-01/IntroTheories/Functionalism.html). You really don't want to go down that road. LOL.

I think the name you're looking for is Social Democracy which satisfies all your criteria.

It's hard to come up with an ideology which hasn't already been done. ;)

Digital Nirvana,

Don't be discouraged. Things are moving our way. Neo-liberal capitalism is about to fall on it's fat arse, but in the mean time it's busy creating millions more disgruntled workers world-wide. Our day will come!

Avtomatov

28th June 2006, 04:04

That functionalism is not an economic ideaology

28th June 2006, 06:16

That seems to be something a lot of leftists(myself included) seem to say. We have been waiting for quite a long time. Can we really expect these "conditions" to ever be right?

Well, that statement wasn't meant to be taken as able to stand on its own. We have to wait for the revolution to come, yes, but in the mean time we have to organize, to propagandize, to spread the movement and to help develop this revolutionary consciousness so that when these conditions come we are prepared.

The idea that "the revolution will come regardless of what we do" that people such as redstar and Gent espouse is utter crap, is completely utopian and completely anti-proletarian. Material conditions are not independent of our actions.

I actually think they did see one soon. That was why they were fighting.

In fact, many of them came close. If it weren't for massive reforms such as the New Deal, for example, capitalism would have crumbled decades ago. Of course, the New Deal is just stalling the inevitable fall of capitalism.

SonofRage

28th June 2006, 06:45

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 27 2006, 06:56 PM

So what alternative is there?

Bring the Ruckus (http://www.agitatorindex.org/)

:)

BobKKKindle$

28th June 2006, 07:13

I do not think it is fair to say that Revolutionary leftism has stagnated and rests entirely upon the ideas of the Orthodox Marxists; Lenin and Marx. Throughout the twentieth century, a wide range of new concepts have been born, especially in the sphere of Marxist Humanism, whereby the Left has moved away from purely economic marxism (the concepts of surplus labour value etc) and has placed greater emphasis upon the Psycological impacts of Capitalism (such as Marcuse's treatise upon Commodity Fetishism in ODM) and the methods of control employed in post industrial society in Gramsci's works. Several posts seem to have picked up on this.

The original post questioned the existance of Class Struggle in Modern post Industrial Society. For me, Class Struggle Still exists, but it has ascended to an international, rather than a national level, whereby the Workers in MEDCs have been somewhat emancipated at the expense of those in poorer countries. Thus Imperialism has become, for me, the most important Concept in leftism today. For this reason, for revolutionaries in MEDCs, it is necessary to focus upon Consumerism and the latent psycological effects of Capitalism, simply because Imperialism has made Orthodox Marxism (especially the so-called contradictions of Capitalism) utterly redundant. So - Yes, The essential Marxist message remains - but we must adapt to a changed global reality.

EusebioScrib

28th June 2006, 07:24

TAT basically got it all right.

The movement today is anti-state Marxism (specifically Autonomism, which is very tied into Situationism and post-left anarchism) and Anarchism. Anything that is decentralized, autonomous, and self-impowering. Leninism and all it's crooneys have all been proven wrong and are only going down hill. There is no need to worry about them anymore. They'll be pretty much gone once their generation dies.

Avtomatov

28th June 2006, 08:08

I said it before youre utopian. Anarchism will never come about. And dont be so rude. I dont think Leninism will die. I take some inspiration from lenin and stalin and im young. I think your just a typical anarchist.

EusebioScrib

28th June 2006, 09:55

I said it before youre utopian.

Yea, I remember. Although you never explained how. If I recall you were proven entirely wrong

Anarchism will never come about.

Err...you mean classless and stateless society? Well then why are you on this forum?

And dont be so rude.

Rude? I don't recall being rude to anyone in this thread.

I take some inspiration from lenin and stalin and im young.

That's a shame for you (especially if you live in the US! Being young in the US is a drag these days), but why are you telling me? I don't see how age or your inspirations play in this.

I think your just a typical anarchist.

If by anarchist you mean anti-state, anti-capitalist, and pro-working class: then that's me! Although I prefer Autonomist-Marxist or H+ Autonomist-Marxist.

Really, name calling won't get you anywhere. It just makes you look like a jackass. As long as it's anti-state, anti-capitaist and pro-working class it's my ally...oh also pro-human...

Hegemonicretribution

28th June 2006, 14:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 05:09 AM
I said it before youre utopian. Anarchism will never come about.

Anarchsm and Marxism are very similar, and most anarchists seek a communist existance, the means of achieving this differ in different cases. So to claim that anarchism is impossible is to negate the possibility of communism also.

And dont be so rude.
They were no ruder than you were. You are both entitled to your oppinion, but you have focussed your comments on a member and not solely on their ideas.

I dont think Leninism will die.
Stating a disagreement is enough, but it does nothing to discredit opposing ideas unless reasons for teh oppinion other than personal belief are established.

I take some inspiration from lenin and stalin and im young. I think your just a typical anarchist.
That is your choice, but what do you mean by "typical anarchist?" Keep your sectarianism to yourself please. EusebioScrib as well, there is no need to inflame/derail topics when there are other topics you can carry this on in.

Functionalism is not an economic theory as such, but it is a conservative theory that by its nature perpetuates the continuation of class exploitation. We can't upset societies order or functionality, so (aside from a small amount of criminality to prevent stagnation) we must all put up and shut up. It sucks as it is currently understood. I assume you wish to create a new conception of it, personally I would choose another label, because functionalism makes people instantly think of conservativism.

Avtomatov

28th June 2006, 21:13

yah what i meant when i said he was rude, i found it rude that hes waiting for all the leninists to die out. Whats so bad about leninism.

And i told you my age and that i agree with lenin on some things, because you implied that all leninists are old.

Pickle-party

28th June 2006, 21:39

of course it's dead!

Doesn't mean we can't revive it.

Alright guys, just please look at the statistics, the majority of people are basicly giving into capitalism and it's lies.

Communism is dead. Anarchism lives through empty minded teenagers who say they are an anarchist to piss off their parents. THE MAJORITY OF THEM, at least. Not that you guys are empty headed teens, I am just saying this because if you take a walk downtown you will see a whole bunch of mohawked 13 year olds smoking pot with a big red A smacked on their ass, ask them what capitalism is and they will look at you blankly. I have met really few dedicated, organized anarchists.

Communism lives throught the few people who have faith and will not let the system win. And in reality, this is an extreamly small bit of the population. I kjnow that in the victoria YCL, most of the members joined and say "Call me when I can use a gun when the revolution happens".

So yes. everything is dead and burried. But the soil is fresh, friends, we can redig our precious ideology and revive it! REVIVE I SAY! So guys, bring out the heart transplants, let's get this sunava***** out of the ground.

PS: And kick the empty headed teenagers out of Anarchism and the gun-tooters out of Communism! They are both to presious for that!

PPS: There was no offence ment in this thread, none at all, sorry if you guys took it personally.

which doctor

28th June 2006, 21:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 01:14 PM
Whats so bad about leninism.

It's only failed everytime anyone has tried to put it into practice.

RebelDog

28th June 2006, 22:05

Our ideology is not dead. I believe the key to all past and present failures are down to the fact that these movements were essentially isolated and not part of a world revolution to end capitalism. Revolutionaries of the past have not wasted their time, they have laid the foundations for the next generation to carry on the struggle. One generation will one day successfully destroy capitalism. Capitalism hasn't changed and I don't believe marxism need change either. It may need tweeking here but the core philosophy remains right and true and stunningly visionary.

I think when the conditions are right then it will be clear to the generation at the time that this is it, its now. If all socialist ideas were suddenly wiped out on this planet and no-one could know marxism then it would not be long before people started talking about organising at work, fighting oppression and talking of an alternative along the same lines as marxism. This ideology is one that exists throughout the entire universe and on other planets other life-forms will also have the struggle for egalitarian society just like us. Communism is evolutionary and an inevitable epoch for surviving intelligent spiecies to fight for. We call it marxism because Marx put it to paper here on earth, on other planets it will be called something else. The core beliefs are the same, after the decay of capitalism comes communism, like night follows day.

Global capitalism is doomed like all systems and all things inevitably are. Without a market a modern society would develop communism anyway. I think the greatest question that our movement has is 'when will the time come?. I don't know the answer to that, nobody does. But I do know it will come and whilst I envy those involved I fight myself to stick my small knife in to the belly of capitalism.

Hegemonicretribution

28th June 2006, 22:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 06:14 PM
And i told you my age and that i agree with lenin on some things, because you implied that all leninists are old.
Sorry I don't understand this comment? :blink:

Avtomatov

28th June 2006, 22:45

Im talking about EusebioScrib.

Hit The North

29th June 2006, 02:24

This ideology is one that exists throughout the entire universe and on other planets other life-forms will also have the struggle for egalitarian society just like us. Communism is evolutionary and an inevitable epoch for surviving intelligent spiecies to fight for. We call it marxism because Marx put it to paper here on earth, on other planets it will be called something else.

Wow, man! What're you smoking and where can I get some from? ;)

I'm sure there's some joke involving Uranus here, but I just can't put my finger on it.

But I get your point. Marx also highlighted that the movement wasn't created by intellectuals and ideologies, but by the fundamental relations of exploitation and oppression inherent to capitalism. The workers are compelled to resist.

EusebioScrib

29th June 2006, 06:30

yah what i meant when i said he was rude, i found it rude that hes waiting for all the leninists to die out. Whats so bad about leninism.

It's not a "rude" comment. I'm not trying to insult you. I'm saying what's what.

of course it's dead!

Doesn't mean we can't revive it.

No, it's certainly not dead. We're only in a dormat period. This usually happens after we are defeated. Give it some time...we are already seeing that it is starting to pick up momentum in recent years.

Communism is dead. Anarchism lives through empty minded teenagers who say they are an anarchist to piss off their parents. THE MAJORITY OF THEM, at least. Not that you guys are empty headed teens, I am just saying this because if you take a walk downtown you will see a whole bunch of mohawked 13 year olds smoking pot with a big red A smacked on their ass, ask them what capitalism is and they will look at you blankly. I have met really few dedicated, organized anarchists.

Congradualtions! You give into the media! :P

I dunno where you live, but you obviously have no contact with the anarchist movement, if you did, you'd realize that "punk ass teens" (that bullshit neo-puritan stereo-type you gave) aren't in any way shape or form connected to it, and there are maybe 1 of them for every 20 anarchists.

Communism lives throught the few people who have faith and will not let the system win. And in reality, this is an extreamly small bit of the population. I kjnow that in the victoria YCL, most of the members joined and say "Call me when I can use a gun when the revolution happens".

Extremely small bit? Please. Vast amounts of people have no faith in the system. I assume you don't live in an urban area. The point is that everyone feels powerless to do so, not because they have faith in it.

PS: And kick the empty headed teenagers out of Anarchism and the gun-tooters out of Communism! They are both to presious for that!

Yup, anti-youth all the way! Oh and fuck guns too...we don't like those :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Jesus Christ!

29th June 2006, 06:39

Originally posted by SonofRage+Jun 28 2006, 03:46 AM--> (SonofRage @ Jun 28 2006, 03:46 AM)
Digital [email protected] 27 2006, 06:56 PM

So what alternative is there?

Bring the Ruckus (http://www.agitatorindex.org/)

:) [/b]
Against the white race

That's cute.

Raj Radical

29th June 2006, 12:00

As mentioned above, the ruling class and capitalism has evolved and grown over time, so must our struggle.

As 20th century history shows us what vanguard leninism and the state does to socialism and as the modern imperialist state becomes more and more a tool and guardian of multinational corporate neoliberalism before and especially since the reagan administration, anarchism looks to becomes more and more nessecary.

Herman

29th June 2006, 14:32

Free Floating Radical

30th June 2006, 06:22

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 28 2006, 01:56 AM
I have recently come to the decision that the leftist ideology espoused by Marx, Lenin, Mao, Trot et al is quite clearly past it's sell by date, it is essentially the dodgy cheese in the refridgerator. One can only scrape the surface mould off for a definite ammount of time before one see's the green fungus beneath.

I don't think that Marxist Socialism ever was tenable.

By force of Marx's personality he became the most famous of Leftist thinkers, but I think that Gustav Landauer's thinking was from the very beginning far, far more profound and his vision of how Anarchy is brought about far more realistic.

Marx reified, nay glorified, the State. That is a major flaw and has provided the basis of untold suffering.

Landauer was eclipsed by Marx, with whom he vehemently disagreed. Then, of course, he didn't live for very long.

I am in the process of finding translators of Landauer's work among communes in Germany. Only a small fraction of his work is available in English.

I'm in contact with a man here in Israel who is an expert on Landauer. They were born in the same town and his brother actually knew him. He has translated some of his work into Hebrew and published some work on Landauer and related thinkers.

But it is essential that the bulk of his work be translated into English in order to reach the world audience.

I believe that the concept of Socialism that Landauer offers is far more profoundly satisfying than that of Marx.

Janus

30th June 2006, 09:14

Marx reified, nay glorified, the State.
Not really. However, one can find quotes in which Marx supported decentralization and some where he supported centralization but I know of none where he actually glorified the state.

Hate Is Art

12th July 2006, 18:12

-Economists have already stated that the oil will run out soon.
-Their prediction is that, in 2020, a big recession will start.
-It will be at its worst in 2050, when a huge depression will hit the world.

Cor blimey, just 44 more years to go then eh?? I'll be 62 when the revolution comes, and being a white, male in England I have a life expectancy of about 67, so I get five years of my perfet classless society before I peg it.

And I thought all this communist postering was in vain??

This is the attitude I'm talking, Marx has shown us the revolution, but also taken away the need for us to do anything about it? It is contradictory. We need to work for the revolution, but whats the point when it is inevitable?

RebelDog

12th July 2006, 18:40

Capitalism will use alternatives for oil. I don't think that is a big problem for it really. In my opinion the downfall of capitalism will be increasingly regressive wealth concentration, leaving many without the means to consume and thus, vast overproduction.

This is the attitude I'm talking, Marx has shown us the revolution, but also taken away the need for us to do anything about it? It is contradictory. We need to work for the revolution, but whats the point when it is inevitable?

But I think what Marx was trying to say was that whilst communism was inevitable through the evolution of the human species, an essential component of that evolution is the continuing struggle of humans to achieve communism and a characteristic thereof. Evolution is the driving force and humans are the vehicles.

Hit The North

12th July 2006, 19:14

Originally posted by The [email protected] 12 2006, 04:41 PM

This is the attitude I'm talking, Marx has shown us the revolution, but also taken away the need for us to do anything about it? It is contradictory. We need to work for the revolution, but whats the point when it is inevitable?

But I think what Marx was trying to say was that whilst communism was inevitable through the evolution of the human species, an essential component of that evolution is the continuing struggle of humans to achieve communism and a characteristic thereof. Evolution is the driving force and humans are the vehicles.
Marx didn't say that Communism is inevitable. In his description of class struggle within modes of production he also allows for the "common ruin of the contending classes." (MCP)

Although consciousness is linked to material circumstances, material circumstances alone cannot create a revolution. This can only be achieved through the conscious action of the proletariat.

YKTMX

12th July 2006, 19:47

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 27 2006, 10:56 PM
I have recently come to the decision that the leftist ideology espoused by Marx, Lenin, Mao, Trot et al is quite clearly past it's sell by date, it is essentially the dodgy cheese in the refridgerator. One can only scrape the surface mould off for a definite ammount of time before one see's the green fungus beneath.

It has, I believe, essentialy enstaticised itself, it exists in an untouched vortex suceededing only in failing to update itself, to prove it's relevance to a modern, and importantly post ideological society.

Since the fall of the CCCP we have seen the fall of the Leninist model of Socialism, China has all but symbolically become a capitalist state, and Cuba exists in it's relative vortex untouched by the real world, desperate for a bit of meaning in a society that has all but consigned it to the twee and 'oh my how interesting' bin of history. What we need is a new philosophy, not an updated Marxism, but one which is combatant to the rises since the beginning industrial revolution.

If we cannot do this then I do believe that our movement is all but doomed.

So what alternative is there?

ps. sorry if this seems a bit pointless, but it has been my reason for abandoning this board for the past few months. call it 'disillusionment' but I just really wanted to open up a discussion on the philosophical future of Marxism really.
Here's an idea:

fuck off then.

Hate Is Art

12th July 2006, 21:30

Oh productive stuff there.

YKTMX

12th July 2006, 22:59

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 12 2006, 06:31 PM
Oh productive stuff there.
Well, I'm sorry that my tolerance for petty bourgeois vacillation and moralistic "ponderings" is thin - very fucking thin.

Marx's insights are true regardless of the numbers of people who call themselves "Marxists". Just as nationalism and fascism are, and will always be, crocks of shit, regardless of how "popular" they may be at a moment in time.

You've offered no coherent reason why Marxism is "outdated" beyond sub-textbook Cold Warisms that are as cliched as they are banal. The fact is that right across the world, for MILLIONS of people, class struggle, socialism and revolution are current and real day to day issues. Just because they don't enter your pointless bubble in Middle England doesn't mean they don't impact people's lives. So, once again, either keep your debased, middle class, laboured "thoughts" to yourself, or fuck off to OI with the rest of the wankers.

Cheers.