Marxism - Does it need to be developed?

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I think that people following Marxism today are too stcuk on the exact ideals from Marx. In today's modern world, Marxism is too simplistic. Too deterministic. Is the economy really dominant? Should we assume that? Marx's theory, great as it is, is outdated.

[man in the red suit]

I agree with you all the way. As society progresses, it innovates itself and becomes more complex. Today's society is much too complex for Marxist tactics as Marxism offers no innovation or flexibility to a society that is constantly changing. I think we should revise Marxism if not develop new principles all together.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Exactly. The reason most leftists are just ignored by those at the top is because they still claim to follow Marx's ideals. Quite clearly, true Marxism cannot exist in a modern society like Britain. It is impossible. To be quite honest, I think a market economy is essential.

[redstar2000]

"To be quite honest, I think a market economy is essential."

Such honesty is always admirable; why is it not reflected in your user name? Shouldn't you call yourself "capitalismo o muerte"?

That Marxism is "outdated" or "obsolete" is something that was being said before the grass even had a chance to grow on Marx's grave. We've been <groan> hearing it ever since.

What we don't hear is why. That "today's society" is more complex than that of Marx's day is true enough...so what? Does that mean that only capitalists are "smart enough" to run things?

"Marxism offers no innovation or flexibility to a society that is constantly changing." Where does this astounding "insight" come from...out of someone's ass?

Note to Moderators: If I were in your shoes, I'd move this thread to Opposing Ideologies.

:cool:

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I am a follower of TRUE socialism. Not politically defined socialism. Too may socialist parties are anti-everything instead of being pro-themselves. This is what I meant.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 3:22 am on Feb. 2, 2003Where does this astounding "insight" come from...out of someone's ass?






this insight comes from a book entitled Soviet Maxism by Herbert Marcusse, a university professor and former soviet citizen. I agree with this insight very much as well. so no, it did not come from somebody's ass. I have not seen many things emerge from arses other than feces. If you find some insight which comes from an arse, please inform me as I would be interested to hear about it.

marxism in fact offers no flexibility. it rely's on strict principles such as the abolition of inheritance and such which are hard to apply to society with new innovations and technological enhancement. It is harder to enforce as well. Unless you have some outstanding insight yourself which can help me to understand the superiority of Marxism. well.....do you?

(Edited by man in the red suit at 3:43 am on Feb. 2, 2003)


(Edited by man in the red suit at 3:44 am on Feb. 2, 2003)

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

redstar, I'd love to know where you get you're wise sack of knowledge from. man in a red suit clearly knows his stuff and I am studying Sociology and have been for the last 5 years. The only explanation for your firm sticking by true Marxism is that you are Marx

[redstar2000]

"The only explanation of your firm sticking by true Marxism is that you are Marx."

Right, I'm really Marx, I faked my own death because I'm truly immortal. Now why don't you take this pill, lie down and have a nice rest? You don't want to have to go to the quiet room, do you?

mitrs, the abolition of the "right" of inheritance is a simple, straightforward, uncomplicated measure that's easily enforcible. What gives you the idea that it would be otherwise?

Herbert Marcuse's 1958 work, Soviet Marxism, is exactly what its title says it is...an acount of one version of Marxism by one particular Marxist...and one who's not thought of all that highly by many other Marxists. It's thought by many that he, and all the members of the "Frankfurt School" were too influenced by Marx's Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 at the expense of Marx's more mature works.

Which, mitrs, you should read before you make silly statements about the abolition of the "right" of inheritance not being "practical" in a "complex society".

:cool:

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

OH MY GOD!!
Please explain how it is practical??? Please! Tell us how it can be imposed. I would love to hear.

Personally, I would love it to happen. But come on! It cannot be done.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 4:27 am on Feb. 2, 2003
"The only explanation of your firm sticking by true Marxism is that you are Marx."

Right, I'm really Marx, I faked my own death because I'm truly immortal. Now why don't you take this pill, lie down and have a nice rest? You don't want to have to go to the quiet room, do you?

mitrs, the abolition of the "right" of inheritance is a simple, straightforward, uncomplicated measure that's easily enforcible. What gives you the idea that it would be otherwise?

Herbert Marcuse's 1958 work, Soviet Marxism, is exactly what its title says it is...an acount of one version of Marxism by one particular Marxist...and one who's not thought of all that highly by many other Marxists. It's thought by many that he, and all the members of the "Frankfurt School" were too influenced by Marx's Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 at the expense of Marx's more mature works.

Which, mitrs, you should read before you make silly statements about the abolition of the "right" of inheritance not being "practical" in a "complex society".

:cool:


abolition of inheritence was not the example I was looking for. It simply came to me off the top of my head. for not coming up with a better one your gratefulness.

yes inheritance is practical. forget it. There are other instances in which marxism vs. modern society comes into play. Not all of us can come up with the best examples of points we are trying to substantiate.

and just because herbert marcusse wrote a book on soviet marxism explains soviet marxism does not mean that he cannot also explore marxism in general. The section I read did not associate with russia at all.

and if soviet marxism is an account of ONE version of marxism then how many others are there? how many others do there need to be? are they all useless? and if not would you care to tell me how?

[Just Joe]

i agree with socialismo and man in red suit. hardline Marxists usually forget what they actually go into the movement for. they get so obsessed by dogma and Marxs' every word, they forget socialism is meant to be about a better life for everyone. Communism is a proven economic and political failure in the USSR and Eastern Europe. the former Communist states actually went AGAINST socialist principles like equality and political and civil rights. thats why i am against Communism, it goes so far left, it turns out to be right.

[Umoja]

Marx should be taken, as they saw in Swahili, "Chumvi Mtembezi" with a pinch of salt.

[redstar2000]

"There are other instances in which marxism vs. modern society comes into play."

Such as?

There have been many attempts to develop Marxist theory...even a brief list would take the rest of this page. Please consult http://www.marxists.org for a reading list.

"Communism is a proven economic and political failure..." and I hope you enjoy your new job at the Wall Street Journal. Now why don't you get your pro-capitalist ass back into Opposing Ideologies where you belong?

:angry:

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

It's not pro-capitalism. It's pro-realism. The fact of the matter is that some capitalist principles need to be touched upon in a new Marxism adapted to modern society. True Marxism CANNOT exist today

[Spartaco]

i agree with socialismo o muerte and man in the red suit as well. Marx's thought has to be adapted to the situations that were created over the years and in different parts of the world, such as right now the fact that we're facing a global capitalism.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:55 pm on Feb. 2, 2003
"There are other instances in which marxism vs. modern society comes into play."

Such as?

There have been many attempts to develop Marxist theory...even a brief list would take the rest of this page. Please consult http://www.marxists.org for a reading list.

"Communism is a proven economic and political failure..." and I hope you enjoy your new job at the Wall Street Journal. Now why don't you get your pro-capitalist ass back into Opposing Ideologies where you belong?

:angry:


I already told you that it is hard to come up with an example off the top of my head. If I were engaged in a personal conversation with you then I might be able to come up with one.


"There have been many attempts to develop Marxist theory...even a brief list would take the rest of this page. Please consult http://www.marxists.org for a reading list."

exactly. that is the point. They are attempts. In order for you to have logical proof this Marxism is succesful, they have to be able to work. If I try make an attempt to fly but fail, this doesn't mean that I am able to fly


Just because most of the people here realise that communism is a failure does not mean that they are supportive of capitalism. there is a little economic system right in between the two which I like to call socialism. the sonner you realize the failure of communism, the sonner you will realize that socialism is the superior system. You must realize that most of us would be the first to support communism if it worked but the sad truth is that it does not work. i know you are probably young and like drawing red stars and hammer and sickles on the wall but you have to face the facts that it is a an economic failure and it draws power to oppressive bureacratic oligarchies or dictators. this dictatorship of the proletariat is always trying to run in the name of the people and serve in their interest but in actuality they are more disillusioned and distant from their people than imaginable. Socialism is the most practical way to ensure "equal liability of all to labour" the sooner you realize this, the better off we will all be.

(Edited by man in the red suit at 6:54 pm on Feb. 2, 2003)


(Edited by man in the red suit at 6:57 pm on Feb. 2, 2003)

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

And that is the end of the story!

[MJM]

Marxism is too simplistic, LOL!
Marxism should be developed I agree, you however wish to through it into the dustbin of the past. Telling us all you follow the "true" socialist way. What exactly is this way?
Free health care, education, etc.
It's been done, then it had to be "reformed" because the market still crashes and the bosses still want their money.
As long as the workers are enslaved the gains will be lost again at the next big bust.

So how do you propose to avoid this?
Since you are the carrier of the "True" socialism.

[MJM]

MITRS:
You are proposing to have socialism under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

firstly, i said i was a believer in true socialism. Secondly, i dont want to throw Marxism into the dustbin. Much of Marx's theory can be used today. And I do believe it is too simplistic. Assuming domincance of the economy over everything? Reforming the economy isnt the only way of irradicating inequalities.

[MJM]

So you don't think economics controls most peoples lives?
You don't think it's the driving force of most coutries forunes, good or bad?

Where does/is it not?

What is your theory of true socialism?

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

EQUALITY! and JUSTICE! These are the fundamentals. There are obviouslym any more things to it. These things cannot be achieved by the economy alone

[Blibblob]

Damn redstar, what happend? Youd think by know that youd understand that communism cant happen, yet.

They all need to be redone, the US' constitution and their government would be PERFECT, if it was redone, to suit the times. They are all outdated, marxism the most, it required an "industrialized nation", im thinking we are a little beyond what he thought was "industrialized", which would be steel mills...

Marx was a genius, he organized all of the socialist ideas, for his time. Now all we need is somebody of an equal or greater genius to rewrite it.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

You are exactly right. I don't think we can find a new Marx though! His ideas just need to be adapted to modern times.

[Blibblob]

most people say im right, if im in my right mind at the time...

but quite often im not, and those seem to put me in a bad state, no one listens to me.

[Just Joe]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:55 pm on Feb. 2, 2003
"Communism is a proven economic and political failure..." and I hope you enjoy your new job at the Wall Street Journal. Now why don't you get your pro-capitalist ass back into Opposing Ideologies where you belong?

sorry mate, but the top of this site says 'internationalist site for che admirers'. it doesn't say you must be a communist. there are many socialists like myself who are anti-communists. whys that then? because communsim goes AGAINST working class principles! yep, thats right, Communsim tells you that youre all part of a machine; that you cannot work for the bettering of yourself. it is a known fact that strikes are/were outlawed in Communist countries and wages were non-negotiable and set by a ruling class. THAT is what happened in the every nation that has EVER tried to implement Communism. nevermind this shite about working class liberation, the economy that came from Communism was one step above serfdom!





(Edited by Just Joe at 12:40 am on Feb. 3, 2003)

[redstar2000]

So, Just Joe, you claim your presence here is justified by being "an admirer of Che" and yet you're openly anti-communist.

Che, of course, was a communist.

Maybe you "admire" his fashion style... :cheesy:

That 20th Century communism had some rather drastic shortcomings is a truism; that it also had many positive accomplishments is also a truism. The difference is in the tone, Just Joe, of what I just said and what you said in your post.

Clearly, you don't think that under capitalism you are "one step above serfdom"...even though, in fact, that is where you are, unless you happen to be independently wealthy, of course.

Perhaps when you speak of the "right to better yourself", you have in mind that little ditty...

The working class can kiss my ass;
I've got the foreman's job at last.

Because, except under very unusual circumstances, that is just about as far as you're going to get. And whether you actually do get that promotion or not, you are still part of the machine, the capitalist machine.

It was probably not a good idea to outlaw strikes completely in the old communist countries...but the question of how wages should be set in a planned economy is a complicated one. A few months ago there was an extensive thread on the subject in the Politics Forum...called, I believe, a Four-Level Communism.

But that's probably of little interest to you, Just Joe. I can only guess at what you and other "socialist anti-communists" (whatever that means) have in mind for future generations...it seems to me that whenever this topic comes up, you guys end up endorsing some kind of "soft capitalism" (Sweden) as the "best" than can be hoped for.

Fair enough, I suppose...but it still seems to me that proponents of "soft capitalism" should not be using the word socialism to describe their ideas and should be confined to the Opposing Ideologies Forum.

:cool:

[Just Joe]

Che, of course, was a communist.

Maybe you "admire" his fashion style...

clearly, Che Guevara is not just remembered as a Communist. he was a revolutionary. he stood against imperialism and that is something i admire.

i justify my presence here as a Republican, as a Socialist and as an admirer of Che Guevaras lifetime battle with imperialism and colonialism.


That 20th Century communism had some rather drastic shortcomings is a truism; that it also had many positive accomplishments is also a truism.

right. but look at the living standards of the Capitalist west compared to the Communist east. you see where i'm coming from?


Clearly, you don't think that under capitalism you are "one step above serfdom"...even though, in fact, that is where you are,

i know what youre saying, but there is still the option in capitalism that you can work for yourself. you don't HAVE to be a wage slave whereas in Communsim, you do.


unless you happen to be independently wealthy, of course.

i live a fairly good working class life. that could be an oxy moron to a Communist like yourself, but i live in a working class estate but i'd say i have one of the best standard of living in the estate.


Perhaps when you speak of the "right to better yourself", you have in mind that little ditty...

The working class can kiss my ass;
I've got the foreman's job at last.

no that ain't me. i think you are born with class. you never truly leave your class no matter what. if you consider yourself working class, you are until you die, even if you become a successful doctor or lawyer. i think thats what Marx meant by 'class thought'.


Because, except under very unusual circumstances, that is just about as far as you're going to get. And whether you actually do get that promotion or not, you are still part of the machine, the capitalist machine.

thats not as far as i could go. anyone can start there own business or look for a change of career.


It was probably not a good idea to outlaw strikes completely in the old communist countries...but the question of how wages should be set in a planned economy is a complicated one. A few months ago there was an extensive thread on the subject in the Politics Forum...called, I believe, a Four-Level Communism.

i'll check that out.


But that's probably of little interest to you, Just Joe. I can only guess at what you and other "socialist anti-communists" (whatever that means)

it means you are a Socialist who does not agree with Communism. it is only Marxists who believe Communsim naturally follows Socialism.


have in mind for future generations...it seems to me that whenever this topic comes up, you guys end up endorsing some kind of "soft capitalism" (Sweden) as the "best" than can be hoped for.

go to the link in my profile for Sinn Fein and look at there economic manifesto. it is exactly what i agree with.


Fair enough, I suppose...but it still seems to me that proponents of "soft capitalism" should not be using the word socialism to describe their ideas and should be confined to the Opposing Ideologies Forum.

:cool:

it all depends how you define Socialism. you, as a Marxist, only think it is what Marx layed out in Kapital. but there are other types of Socialism.






(Edited by Just Joe at 1:47 am on Feb. 3, 2003)


(Edited by Just Joe at 1:48 am on Feb. 3, 2003)

[redstar2000]

JustJoe, I read Building an Ireland of Equals--I assume this is the "economic manifesto" that you refer to in your post--it's what the Sinn Fein search engine gave me when I asked for "economic manifesto".

It is a very "nice" program...that does not even mention the word socialism.

There is nothing in it that suggests anything more than a "softer" version of Irish capitalism. There is certainly no suggestion of the kinds of revolutionary changes in Irish public institutions that would allow the working class to exercise real political and economic control.

It doesn't even call for the decriminalization of "illegal" drugs or the legalization of abortion...two elementary reforms that even many pro-capitalists support.

I was surprised to learn that inequality of incomes in Ireland is so bad that it's second only to the U.S.A.---I would have thought England would have that dubious honor.

I respect the dedication of Sinn Fein to the reunification of Ireland...but they are not, judging from their statement, in any sense a socialist organization. If this statement is "exactly" what you agree with, then you are not a socialist.

Yes, you are "free" under capitalism to "start your own business"...and in the era of "downsizing", many do that whether they want to or not. "Independent Contractor" or "Consultant" may sound more dignified than intinerant laborer or part-time occasional worker...but in most cases, they all mean the same thing...people who can't find a decent, unionized job. Real businesses, even small ones, require capital...and the "freedom" to start one doesn't mean squat unless you've got plenty of money already.

Which part of the capitalist "west" would you like to compare with the communist "east", as far as standards-of-living go? What is the homeless population of Havana compared to Dublin? How does the health of the average Cuban child compare to that of the average Irish child? Educational opportunities? The Cubans are better off than the Irish. I could continue...but you get the drift.

If Marx thought that you could "never" leave your class (I doubt that he thought that), then I would disagree. I think working class kids who "move up" into middle-class professions gradually lose any sense of identity with their class origins...though it certainly varies with the individual and some manage to remain "pro-working class" inspite of their new social role. On the other hand, many so-called "professions" have been and are being "proletarianized"...wages and working conditions becoming very much like those that ordinary workers already face. The lower levels of teaching are a good example of that.

Yes, there are "other kinds" of socialists besides communists (or Marxists)...but they are still socialists. Swedish-style social democracy is not socialism...of any kind.

:cool:

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

You cannot criticise JustJoe for what he said!

First of all, his point about communism going against principles is true. Like I've said in another thread, just flipping the coin so a different group exploits is just crap.

Second, of course we can admire Che and be anti-communist. After Gandhi, Che is my hero. And that is only because Gandhi liberated my people...At the time, just under a billion people were liberated thanks to Gandhi's efforts. But Che is an idol not just for people who share his beliefs. (Or people who follow his beliefs because they think that will be good in "the spirit of El Che")

[Just Joe]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 4:17 pm on Feb. 3, 2003
JustJoe, I read Building an Ireland of Equals--I assume this is the "economic manifesto" that you refer to in your post--it's what the Sinn Fein search engine gave me when I asked for "economic manifesto".

thats the one.


It is a very "nice" program...that does not even mention the word socialism.

i would consider progressive taxes on big business, a call for more nationalisation and the repealing of anti-union laws as socialist. i know it does mention socialism (only once on the site-i checked) but Britains Labour Party calls itself Socialist, but obviously they are not. as i said in another thread, the IRA's message last year was that they will not lay down there arms until Ireland is a unified, democratic, socialist republic. Sinn Fein is the political IRA so Sinn Fein is Socialist.


There is nothing in it that suggests anything more than a "softer" version of Irish capitalism. There is certainly no suggestion of the kinds of revolutionary changes in Irish public institutions that would allow the working class to exercise real political and economic control.

what about the community and worker co-operative shareholder businesses the manifesto mentions? core goals of Sinn Fein are equality and democracy in all areas of life. including the economy.


It doesn't even call for the decriminalization of "illegal" drugs or the legalization of abortion...two elementary reforms that even many pro-capitalists support.

Catholic Church still has a lot of power in Ireland. too much pro-choice would be a turn off for many. having said that i'm not even sure pro-choice is necessarily 'socialist', is it?


I was surprised to learn that inequality of incomes in Ireland is so bad that it's second only to the U.S.A.---I would have thought England would have that dubious honor.

a lot of it can still be linked to British imperialism. the current 'boom' will be like most economic booms and not last. but then again, Sinn Fein is not in power and until it is, i don't really feel the need for me to defend the Irish economy.


I respect the dedication of Sinn Fein to the reunification of Ireland...but they are not, judging from their statement, in any sense a socialist organization. If this statement is "exactly" what you agree with, then you are not a socialist.

did you read it all? Sinn Fein is a lot more Socialist than many parties with Socialist in there name. to say the Irish Labour Party or the SDLP are Socialist is a joke. compared to those 'socialist' parties, Sinn Fein are hardline Marxists.


Yes, you are "free" under capitalism to "start your own business"...and in the era of "downsizing", many do that whether they want to or not. "Independent Contractor" or "Consultant" may sound more dignified than intinerant laborer or part-time occasional worker...but in most cases, they all mean the same thing...people who can't find a decent, unionized job. Real businesses, even small ones, require capital...and the "freedom" to start one doesn't mean squat unless you've got plenty of money already.

i don't really want to get into a me=capitalism, you=communism debate. i, like many, see BOTH economic systems as failures and i see both systems as unable to provide equality and prosperity. i just think capitalism is probobly better than communsim (based on the 20th century that is).


Which part of the capitalist "west" would you like to compare with the communist "east", as far as standards-of-living go?

pretty much anywhere. workers were treated better even in the USA, than they were in Poland, where the 'Communist' government was actually brought down by workers! not to mention how workers made up a large number of those fleeing across the Berlin Wall.


What is the homeless population of Havana compared to Dublin? How does the health of the average Cuban child compare to that of the average Irish child? Educational opportunities? The Cubans are better off than the Irish. I could continue...but you get the drift.

personally, i don't consider Cuba a 'Communist' nation. they actually have a lot of ideas i agree with and i think if it wasn't for US restrictions, they would be maybe the highest standard of living in South America. but to answer what you said, i would prefer an economy that offers the prosperity of America, with the security and equality of Cuba.


If Marx thought that you could "never" leave your class

no i think that. Marx though that Class thought exists. i think that if you consider yourself working class, you never really change no matter what.


Yes, there are "other kinds" of socialists besides communists (or Marxists)...but they are still socialists. Swedish-style social democracy is not socialism...of any kind.

there is more equality in Sweden and Norway than there is in China.


[/quote]

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

You are right. I donot think Cuba is Communist. Castro follows dictionary defined Socialism, not poilitically defined Socialism

[Umoja]

Norway and Sweden have the highest living standards in the world, but to everyone's dislike they are on the cusp of "Real Capitalism" and "Real Socialism". Of course, if it works it's rather silly to be dogmatic.

[redstar2000]

JustJoe, this is starting to get into semantics and even metaphysics...a frustrating experience for me, if not for you.

You say that you don't consider Cuba a communist country...but, JustJoe, the Cubans do! Whose opinion counts, theirs or yours?

No, JustJoe, progressive taxation, limited nationalization, and repeal of anti-union laws are not socialism, they are reforms intended to give capitalism a more "humane" form...as in Umoja's examples of Sweden and Norway, where 90% plus of the wealth is still in private hands.

And if that is what you want, fine, but it's not socialism.

The same is true of any limited scheme to set up worker-owned businesses. It may be "nice", it's not socialism.

Since I don't imagine the IRA (any faction) is likely to have a website, I can't comment on what any of them might mean by the word "socialism". But if they have nothing more to offer than Sinn Fein, then clearly they are not.

Do you understand what the word actually means, JustJoe? It means the end of the economic and political power of the capitalist class. Not just a few small changes or reforms, the end.

Yes, I agree with you, there are unfortunately many parties that contain the name "socialist" or even "communist" but that have practical programs to the right of Sinn Fein. It's usually because in the (distant) past, they actually were socialist or communist...the names are just the last remnant of a historical tradition that they've long since repudiated.

But that really doesn't apply to your argument...that there are "fake" "socialists" does not give Sinn Fein or anyone the license to use the world "socialist" to describe a program to reform capitalism.

You say that you "just believe that capitalism is better than communism"..."based on the 20th century, that is."

I repeat, fair enough. You have a right to believe whatever you wish. But you can't call whatever you wish to believe socialism.

:cool:

[Ian]

Oh crap, never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups...

[Just Joe]

give me youre definition of socialism, redstar2000. be it Marxist or non-Marxist.

[redstar2000]

JustJoe, I just did.

To repeat: Socialism means the END of the economic and political power of the capitalist class.

Exactly what takes its place can be argued...anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists, communists, non-Marxist socialists--all have variable answers or at least suggestions. But all agree that capitalism must go!

:cool:

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from MJM on 8:40 pm on Feb. 2, 2003
MITRS:
You are proposing to have socialism under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.


and what, might I ask, gives you this impression? have I stated yet that I propose socialism under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie?

[MJM]

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying here:
(I thought you said the not this)

this dictatorship of the proletariat is always trying to run in the name of the people and serve in their interest but in actuality they are more disillusioned and distant from their people than imaginable. Socialism is the most practical way to ensure "equal liability of all to labour" the sooner you realize this, the better off we will all be.