Karl Marx and his theory of Marxism.

[The Este]

Hi there, brand new to the forum, was referred here by a friend after I asked him some questions about Karl Marx and Marxism for a Literature paper I'm writing. If anybody has some time to answer these questions I have, I'd be very greatful. Thanks to anybody who has the time in advance.

(if the following sounds greedy or rude at all, I apologize, it's a direct excerpt from the "what I want to know" part of my paper)

What I want to know about Karl Marx and his theory of Marxism is tenfold. I want to know in what way was he inspired to come up with this idea. Also, I'd like to know where he failed in this project. How could something that seemed so perfect fail? Next, I want to know if there was a possibility that the issue that caused it to fail could be corrected. And if it could, could this seemingly almost perfect idea for a society be tried again in another place?

Something more simple that I'd like to know is where was he from? Also, what was his lifestyle like? A rich, brilliant young man who just so happened to find the kindness in his heart to come up with this idea of a great society? Or was he a poor man who just so happened to come up with this brilliant idea, that someone eventually listened to after a long while of trying to spread the word? Also, when was he born and how old was he when he died?

[More Fire for the People]

Marx didn't really create a dogma that can be outlined in detail. Instead Marx invented conceptual tools for analyzing social relations. 'Marxism' is the use of these tools to understand the history capitalism, predict how it will develop, and analyze our role in its development.

I would say Marx 'failed' in his project of undestanding in two ways: in that his conception of history was too linear and in that he was, by no fault of his own, unaware of climatic influence on societies. Marx's historical materialism stated that societies develop from primtive communism into slave societies, from slave societies into feudal societies, from feudal societies into capitalist societies, and from capitalist societies into communist societies. However, for Africa, Asia, and Latin America this has not been the case. In many places aspects of both feudalism and capitalism coincide.

I do not believe that the materialist conception of history is so in fault that it cannot be salvaged. I believe that the underlying principle of historical materialism — society as a mediator of man and man and man and nature — holds true. However, we must integrate this principle with the advances in environmental science. We must also understand that societies are not universally 'capitalist' or 'feudalist' or whatever but have differences in historical trajectories.

Marx wasn't that rich and he wasn't that poor. He was a freelance journalist at first but then he mooched off his friend Engels. Engels made inherited money and a factory from his father.

Some useful links:
A biography of Karl Marx. (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1892/11/marx.htm)
An archive of Marx's works. (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/date/index.htm)
--The Paris Manuscripts (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/preface.htm)
--The Civil War in France (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/index.htm)

[Janus]

Also, I'd like to know where he failed in this project
Marx didn't fail outside of perhaps his failures in building the International. However, the reason why people believe Marx failed is that those states which based their ideology on his failed and collapsed. However, one only needs to study a bit of Marxism to realize that these states couldn't achieve communism due to not only their organization but also the material conditions that existed within them. Furthermore, while their ideologies were based on Marxism much of it didn't follow Marxist tenets such as worker's control.


How could something that seemed so perfect fail?
Once again, the governments that based their ideology on his never effectively allowed for true democratic worker's control; something that Marx considered to be the backbone of socialism and communism. Therefore, none of these states ever reached communism.


Something more simple that I'd like to know is where was he from? Also, what was his lifestyle like? A rich, brilliant young man who just so happened to find the kindness in his heart to come up with this idea of a great society? Or was he a poor man who just so happened to come up with this brilliant idea, that someone eventually listened to after a long while of trying to spread the word? Also, when was he born and how old was he when he died?
Karl Marx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx)

[Revolutionary Souljah]

Marx never "failed".

Bourgeoisie psuedo-communists (Leninists, Stalinists, etc.) failed to correctly apply Marx's ideas.

If I were you, with such little knowledge about this topic, I'd take the time to read the Communist Manifesto, or listen to it...the Marxist Internet Archive has it in MP3 format.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Something more simple that I'd like to know is where was he from?

Trier in germany.


Also, what was his lifestyle like?

He was very poor, he had to borrow money from his friend Engels all the time.

He was editors of newspapers too. And applied to be a clerk at a railway but got turned down

so, very poor basically.



A rich, brilliant young man who just so happened to find the kindness in his heart to come up with this idea of a great society? Or was he a poor man who just so happened to come up with this brilliant idea, that someone eventually listened to after a long while of trying to spread the word?

Marx basically, went to university, where he became one of a group of intellectuals know as the young hegelians. These were people who liked hegels ideas, as they were revolutionary.

But, eventually, marx thought they were wrong, and changed them so they would fit with how he saw the development of society. Because he was a revolutionary he was forced to leave germany, and live in more liberal birtian, where he could help create the communist movement.

His main work 'Capital', was actually work he was paid to do. THough it took him 15 years to do it, and died before he could finish it.

He is buried in London. His grave is cool.


What I want to know about Karl Marx and his theory of Marxism is tenfold. I want to know in what way was he inspired to come up with this idea. Also, I'd like to know where he failed in this project. How could something that seemed so perfect fail? Next, I want to know if there was a possibility that the issue that caused it to fail could be corrected. And if it could, could this seemingly almost perfect idea for a society be tried again in another place?

Well marxism will be tried out continually as long as capitalism exists. Class conflict means workers seek ways to lift them selves out of capitalism into a better economic order for them to live in. And marxism is still the best tool to understand the world around us, and how to create a successful revolution.

[RebelDog]

I would say Marx 'failed' in his project of undestanding in two ways: in that his conception of history was too linear and in that he was, by no fault of his own, unaware of climatic influence on societies.

How can the interpretation of history by anyone be anything other than linear. History by definition starts from one point and gets to another. It was what Marx thought drove history that counts. Climatic change was a part of marxism in the same way as it was part of the darwinism that came after it.


However, for Africa, Asia, and Latin America this has not been the case. In many places aspects of both feudalism and capitalism coincide.

Marx never said history was something that let us wash ourselves of our previous society. He said it was a great jump off point. Slavery was still rife in the US when he wrote the CM. Class must now be rid, for the next leap forward.

[KC]

I would say Marx 'failed' in his project of undestanding in two ways: in that his conception of history was too linear and in that he was, by no fault of his own, unaware of climatic influence on societies. Marx's historical materialism stated that societies develop from primtive communism into slave societies, from slave societies into feudal societies, from feudal societies into capitalist societies, and from capitalist societies into communist societies. However, for Africa, Asia, and Latin America this has not been the case. In many places aspects of both feudalism and capitalism coincide.

Marx never believed that his materialist conception of history was true everywhere, nor did he attempt to apply it in places where it wasn't true. He recognized a trend and analyzed it accordingly.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 11, 2007 09:36 pm
What I want to know about Karl Marx and his theory of Marxism is tenfold.
If you are going to write a paper on Marx and Marxism, you should start by realising that there is no such thing as "Karl Marx and his theory of Marxism". Marxism is a complex set of different theories, some of them developed by Marx himself, others by other thinkers, even ater his demise.


I want to know in what way was he inspired to come up with this idea.

But what idea?


Also, I'd like to know where he failed in this project.

Who told you that he failed? Marx's are still the best theories on how capitalist societies evolved and on how they work.


How could something that seemed so perfect fail?

There is nothing "perfect" about Marxism.


Next, I want to know if there was a possibility that the issue that caused it to fail could be corrected.

?


And if it could, could this seemingly almost perfect idea for a society be tried again in another place?

Marxism is not an idea for a society, be it perfect or not.

Luís Henrique

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by The Dissenter+January 12, 2007 10:13 pm--> (The Dissenter @ January 12, 2007 10:13 pm) How can the interpretation of history by anyone be anything other than linear. History by definition starts from one point and gets to another. It was what Marx thought drove history that counts. Climatic change was a part of marxism in the same way as it was part of the darwinism that came after it. [/b]
(1) When I said 'linear' I meant Euro-linear meaning that Marx's, or rather orthodox Marxism's, interpretation of historical materialism implies a development of productive forces that transitions according to the development of Europe.

(2) Historical materialism, of course, has the potential to take in and utilize all advances in science. However, that's not always true of historical materialists. I would say John Bellamy Foster, James O'Connor, Paul Burkett, Fred Magdoff, et. al. have made great strides in moving away from the purely anthropomorphic versions of historical materialism.


"The Dissentor"
Marx never said history was something that let us wash ourselves of our previous society. He said it was a great jump off point. Slavery was still rife in the US when he wrote the CM. Class must now be rid, for the next leap forward.
Indeed, I think this point must be taken further. I think we should start conceiving history as a series of combined trajectories. For instance, in Africa we can see the coincidence of tribalism, pre-colonial communalism, and capitalism. These factors contribute to the actual situation in Africa. Much like how both gravity and velocity affect the path of projectile.

[ComradeRed]

(1) When I said 'linear' I meant Euro-linear meaning that Marx's, or rather orthodox Marxism's, interpretation of historical materialism implies a development of productive forces that transitions according to the development of Europe. You probably mean Eurocentric as Euro-linear makes no sense at all.

And that's why Africa is going straight to communism right? :rolleyes:


Indeed, I think this point must be taken further. I think we should start conceiving history as a series of combined trajectories. For instance, in Africa we can see the coincidence of tribalism, pre-colonial communalism, and capitalism. These factors contribute to the actual situation in Africa. Much like how both gravity and velocity affect the path of projectile. This sounds like idealism to me <_<

[More Fire for the People]

&#39;Eurocentric&#39;, in my opinion, would imply that Europe is the centre of development. &#39;Euro-linear&#39; implies that all societies develop according to the path of the Europeans with or without European influence.


And that&#39;s why Africa is going straight to communism right?
No, but the transition between what Africa is now and communism is not necessarily Euro-American style capitalism, or even capitalism at all.


This sounds like idealism to me.
How?

[ComradeRed]

No, but the transition between what Africa is now and communism is not necessarily [through?] Euro-American style capitalism, or even capitalism at all. You seriously expect me to believe communism can exist without a pre-existing industrialized society?


How? Following your trajectory theory, you would have situated a dual vector space which would posit the time-evolution of the superstructure in a (possibly infinite dimensional) phase space.

That&#39;s platonic.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 06:30 pm
You seriously expect me to believe communism can exist without a pre-existing industrialized society?

Depends. It certainly cannot exist based upon peasant [individual] ownership but socialism is not &#39;technocratic&#39;. It doesn&#39;t depend on post-scarcity economics nor does it depend on urban, service-sector capitalism. If it were possible to plan and produce enough commodities in an agrarian environment, then communism does not depend on industrialism. Marx believed communism was possible before the advent of Taylorism, Fordism, and computers. However, I&#39;m skeptical about agrarian socialist projects and I think a worker-oriented, non-capitalist development of productive forces is possible in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.


Following your trajectory theory, you would have situated a dual vector space which would posit the time-evolution of the superstructure in a (possibly infinite dimensional) phase space.

That&#39;s platonic.
Techno-babble. You are looking too deeply into my use of the word &#39;trajectory&#39; and analogy to a projectile&#39;s path. I was simply stating that different relations to the means of production can exist within one society and these differences affect the overall nature of the soceity.

[ComradeRed]

Marx believed communism was possible before the advent of Taylorism, Fordism, and computers. The only times where I&#39;ve seen Marx say communism is "right around the corner" are in propaganda pieces (e.g. the manifesto).

I don&#39;t seem to recall Marx saying anywhere that you can simply skip the capitalist mode of production to get to communism. Trotsky said that, and to a degree I suspect that Maoists would agree.

But I think that for technologically advanced equality, there is kind of a prerequisite of the society being technologically advanced. Or you can avoid that and go with primitivism.


Techno-babble. Ignorance is no refutation.


You are looking too deeply into my use of the word &#39;trajectory&#39; and analogy to a projectile&#39;s path. I was simply stating that different relations to the means of production can exist within one society and these differences affect the overall nature of the soceity. Yeah, I know what you mean, and I drew mathematically logical conclusions and *gasp* they&#39;re platonic&#33;

Perhaps algebraic geometry could do it better (sans Platonism)?

[Hit The North]

Hop:


&#39;Eurocentric&#39;, in my opinion, would imply that Europe is the centre of development. &#39;Euro-linear&#39; implies that all societies develop according to the path of the Europeans with or without European influence.


Whatever you want to call it, I think Marx makes it clear that his analysis of history in Europe should not be forced to fit other chains of development on other continents. He makes some tentative claims about Asiatic modes of production, for instance, and how they differ from Western European feudal forms.

However, he also makes it clear in the Communist Manifesto and elsewhere that the epoch of capitalism has definite consequences for a global development. Once capitalism consolidates itself in Europe it forces nations everywhere to comply, to adapt. In that sense, the epoch of capital represents a break in former patterns of historical development.

It&#39;s in the context of capital&#39;s globalizing tendency that Trotsky argued for a leap from Tsarism to a workers state. At the same time, it would be necessary for such a workers state to carry out the historical task of developing the economic forces in order to make communism possible.

[mikelepore]

by other thinkers, even ater his demise

I don&#39;t think it&#39;s a good idea to use any writer&#39;s name followed by "ism" when referring to ideas added by others. To me, Marxism means what Marx wrote. If some writer Smith added something, I would call it Smithism.

However, I would advise the original question poster to realize that Marx&#39;s ideas developed through time. The 65-year-old Marx disagreed with the 30-year-old Marx on some issues.

[mikelepore]

I want to know in what way was he inspired to come up with this idea.

Much of it has to do with humanity attaining the age of science. Science can be applied to anything that has regularities or patterns. We speak of the laws of chemistry, etc. -- well, what are the laws of human history? The 1800s were the age in which anthropologists realized that history moves in certain quantum leaps (the bronze age, invention of writing, etc.) Marx postuated that development of the tools that we use to interact with nature (production) is a basic driving force for the development of ideas (the ideological superstructure rests upon a material base). As for the economic model, it&#39;s not enough to observe that the wealthy class receives great incomes for sitting idle, while the workers produce ambitiously and for that they receive poverty -- what is the actual mechanism that makes this so, by determining the levels of prices, wages, and profits? Marx wrote about the Law of Value. Then there is a struggle over the division of labor&#39;s product into two portions, the paid portion (wages) and the unpaid portion (profits). The political state is thought to be a protector of society&#39;s general interests, but the state also came into being about the same time that slavery was invented -- each state tends to be the "executive committee" of a ruling class.

[mikelepore]

When Marx was college age, almost all academic people in Germany were followers of Hegel of some kind - relatively right Hegelians or left Hegelians. Hegel realized that human history goes through some kinds of convulsions and swings to opposite extremes, but Hegel thought that history was the mind of God coming to realize itself. Marx and his friends didn&#39;t at first discuss socialism at all; instead they discussed their opposition to religion and their opposition to monarchy. An acquaintance named Moses Hess was apparently the first person to discuss socialism with Marx, and to try to persuade him of the need for it, but Hess was a Zionist, and Marx didn&#39;t find Hess&#39;s explanation to be coherent. Then Marx made a study of how money rules all of society, and people are alienated or estranged from their own creation. He described the environment of material tools and products something like Frankenstein&#39;s monster moving against its creator. (See his Paris manuscripts of 1844.) At this point he was only about a year away from declaring himself to be a socialist.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 01:02 am
Marx postuated that development of the tools that we use to interact with nature (production) is a basic driving force for the development of ideas (the ideological superstructure rests upon a material base).
No, that is a misinterpretation of Marx. To him, the basic driving force in society is class struggle, not technology.

Luís Henrique

[mikelepore]

The class struggle explains what happens at specific moments, inlcuding the pivotal moments when the proponents of a new system are sometimes able, and at other times unable, to push out the obsolete systems, like the early capitalists dismantling feudalism.

Changes in the various categories of ideas across long periods are associated with changes in technology. Philosophy, art, morality, laws, religion, family relationships, etc. have discernable patterns among hunting and gathering societies, different patterns among agricultural societies, and others in industrial societies.

[shadowed by the secret police]

The boys of Capital, they also chortle in their martinis about the death of socialism. The word has been banned from polite conversation. And they hope that no one will notice that every socialist experiment of any significance in the twentieth century -- without exception -- has either been crushed, overthrown, or invaded, or corrupted, perverted, subverted, or destabilized, or otherwise had life made impossible for it, by the United States. Not one socialist government or movement -- from the Russian Revolution to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, from Communist China to the FMLN in Salvador -- not one was permitted to rise or fall solely on its own merits; not one was left secure enough to drop its guard against the all-powerful enemy abroad and freely and fully relax control at home.
It&#39;s as if the Wright brothers&#39; first experiments with flying machines all failed because the automobile interests sabotaged each test flight. And then the good and god-fearing folk of the world looked upon this, took notice of the consequences, nodded their collective heads wisely, and intoned solemnly: Man shall never fly.

Read the introduction to Killing Hope by William Blum

Killing Hope by William Blum

www.killinghope.org

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 01:02 am

I want to know in what way was he inspired to come up with this idea.


He came up with the idea, strangely, by turning the ideas of Hegel upside-down. And staangely you can still do it - there are lots of texts by Hegel where you can replace the idealist categories he uses with materialist categories and (roughly) get ideas Marx would have agreed with.

Its not really fair to Moses Hess to describe him as just a Zionist. He was mostly loyal to Marx&#39;s ideas for much of his life (notwithstanding his Zionism) and before Marx had developed an interesting explanation of Communism as coming from the uneven and combined development of different European countries.