Dogmatism in the radical left

[R_P_A_S]

What do you guys think make Marxism dogmatic?

maybe the name its self? "MARXISM?
or just when you add the whole MARXIST-LENIST-MOAIST-TROSKYST-CHEIST-YO MAMAIST!
:P

Dialectics?
the whole predicament that capitalism is doom to fail and be replaced by a better system???

it's the dogmatic elements that plague Marxism that has made me stop identifying my self as a "marxist"

[Rawthentic]

What do you guys think make Marxism dogmatic?
Dogmatic people.


it's the dogmatic elements that plague Marxism that has made me stop identifying my self as a "marxist"

Then unfortunately, falsehoods have taken you to that level.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 29, 2007 02:17 am

What do you guys think make Marxism dogmatic?
Dogmatic people.


it's the dogmatic elements that plague Marxism that has made me stop identifying my self as a "marxist"

Then unfortunately, falsehoods have taken you to that level.
there's no rule, law or requirement for one to be a Marxist in order to be..lets say a supporter of a revolution, socialism and to advocate class consciousness

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 02:21 am

there's no rule, law or requirement for one to be a Marxist in order to be..lets say a supporter of a revolution, socialism and to advocate class consciousness
Didn't Marx pass a law about that among all those "laws of History?"

[Rawthentic]

Marx wasn't a lawmaker. I think you are a troll.

[rouchambeau]

Marxism seems a little too structuralist, and I think that makes it easier for people to create dogma out of it.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 02:12 am
What do you guys think make Marxism dogmatic?
Lack of contact with real class struggle.

Luís Henrique

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+June 29, 2007 03:25 am--> (Luís Henrique @ June 29, 2007 03:25 am)
[email protected] 29, 2007 02:12 am
What do you guys think make Marxism dogmatic?
Lack of contact with real class struggle.

Luís Henrique [/b]
DAMN RIGHT MY FRIEND!!!!

I told this to Rosa a few months back. in the midst of her anti-dialectic debates with all the other PRO DIALECTICS... I asked if they honestly think the daily oppressed working class are going to give a flying fuck about dialectics and anti-dialects. or following the specific agenda of Engels, Mao, Lenin or even Marx. to achieve a revolution.

[Ander]

Something that really annoys me about debates on this forum is the tendency for some people to look past arguing with their heads and instead opting to simply quote some long dead theorist or philosopher. It seems almost as if the words of Marx, Engels, Lenin, or other prominent communist theorist are thought to be enough to halt any opposing arguments in their tracks.

While it is clear that many of these people have had profound influences on the ideologies we follow, to evoke them as some kind of final word is ridiculous and bordering on dogmatic. The Communist Manifesto itself was written over 150 years ago; things have changed dramatically since then!

We radical leftists claim that religion is the opiate of the masses but the frightening thing is that some of us follow certain political beliefs to the point where it begins to resemble religion quite closely.

This is one factor contributing to why I don't like to label myself as any kind of "ist."

[Rawthentic]

I would agree with you there Jello. While I think there is nothing wrong with quoting Marx and Engels to make your points stronger, many things have changed since then.

I call myself a Marxist, because I understand it is not a dogma but a developing revolutionary theory as material conditions come to be. I think ways to fight such dogmatism is as Luis Henrique said in a thread very similar to this, and that is to connect ourselves in the real world class struggle. Our political positions need to follow the ebb and flow of the class struggle to avoid being simple slogans and such.

[Die Neue Zeit]

1) Read my political profile. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67589&view=findpost&p=1292332734)

2) I personally think that a mix-mash of the best revolutionary ideas is best. As brilliant as Lenin was in his development of the vanguard party, ICC made a very good argument de-bunking his "consciousness" polemic as his justification for that party.

On the most important structural features of today's world, Lenin and his followers had a cursory glance at monopoly capitalism, even while correctly linking it with imperialism. Nobody until Kalecki bothered to link the former with capital accumulation and crisis, and even that had to be expounded upon further by Sweezy and Baran in Monopoly Capital, and then there's today's phenomenon of "globalization" (not exactly of Lenin's type, but it has much greater potential to regress to such than to "progress" to Kautsky's ultra-imperialism):

Ultra-imperialism revisited (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6446/Ultra-imp.html)

3) As odious as Stalin and many of his "provincial" ideas were and are, he rightfully pointed out the tendency of the class struggle to aggravate further post-revolution than its pre-revolution levels (already aggravated).

[Rawthentic]

I really like you Hammer, but for some reason all your posts (I'm exaggerating) seem to contain information about this or that type of capitalism as well as Lenin. I like the theories you bring up, but whatever, it's cool, thought I could point that out.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 28, 2007 09:36 pm
I really like you Hammer, but for some reason all your posts (I'm exaggerating) seem to contain information about this or that type of capitalism as well as Lenin. I like the theories you bring up, but whatever, it's cool, thought I could point that out.
^^^ It is my custom member title, though. :D ;)

And the only reason he (no names here :D ;) ) comes to mind, for good and for ill (his pragmatism on display re. Finland), is that most other revolutionary theorists are too obscure (save for Luxemburg).

[And no, I do NOT resort to the slogans that you mentioned above.]

As for "this or that type of capitalism," Marx didn't exactly talk much about socialist revolution and socialism per se as he did about structural capitalist dynamics.

[Even some bourgeois websites have key nuggets about structural capitalist dynamics that too many sectarianists ignore in favour of repeated cliches disguised as "analysis."]

[cenv]

I agree with what you have to say, Jello.

I also think it has to do with viewing ideologies as totally defined, separate, and monolithic. For instance, someone may decide that since they are a "Marxist," they are necessarily opposed to anarchists, so they shouldn't consider what anarchists have to say. When people start identifying completely with a single ideology, they tend to feel that they need to adopt a certain set of positions associated with that ideology and that they can't question any aspects of that ideology. They also tend to get too caught up with the semantics used by their ideology, ultimately confusing semantics differences with theoretical incompatibilities between ideologies.

For these reasons, I describe myself as an "anarcho-syndicalist, a Marxist, and a situationist" despite the fact that these "ideologies" are traditionally considered contradictory.

Basically, we just need to think for ourselves, to be open minded, and to see ideologies not as totally separate, irreconcilable, and static schools of thought but as theories with some good aspects, bad aspects, and historically irrelevant aspects. We also need to realize that everything has a historical context.

[cenv]

Dogmatic people.

That's like replying to the question "What makes capitalism bad?" with the answer "Bad people." That answer is simpleminded and -- at the risk of sounding dogmatic ;) -- un-Marxist. (Coincidentally, it's also the way we are encouraged to view the problems in today's society. "Oh no, global warming doesn't represent a problem with the free market! It's just that stupid George Bush guy and those greedy oil people!")

I don't think Marxism is inherently dogmatic though.

But it's impossible to deny the fact that it has a tendency to be interpreted dogmatically. I think one reason is that Marx's world-view is so large, complex, and interconnected that it's kind of hard to change one part of it without messing up the way everything fits together.

It could also be because Marxism has such a long history at this point. People get the idea that Marxism is very set and defined because of this long and undeniably complicated history.

There's also the possibility that because of the proletarian/bourgeois dichotomy, Marxists get the false idea that anything that contradicts traditional Marxist thought is automatically "bourgeois."

Finally, there's the whole claim that Marxism as it is constitutes a "scientific" approach to economics/politics/sociology. This might make some people think that alternative ways of looking at things are inherently "unscientific."

I don't really have any specific examples. These are just some possible reasons I came up with.

[Rawthentic]

That's like replying to the question "What makes capitalism bad?" with the answer "Bad people."
Not quite. Capitalism is an inherently exploitative system, Marxism is not inherently dogmatic, people make it like that.

[which doctor]

Marxists tend to make Marxism dogmatic. They believe that what Marx wrote and predicted is infallible and everything he said must be carried out today exactly as he wrote it so many years ago. Marx is like any ideology and needs to be changed for the changing times. Marx made mistakes, just like I do and just like you do. You have to carefully analyze everything he said and then decide whether or not it is relevant today and whether it needs to be changed or not, or maybe even totally disregarded.

The same Marxists Marx exclaimed (and I paraphrase) "If that is Marxism, I am not a Marxist."

[temp918273]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 04:00 am
Something that really annoys me about debates on this forum is the tendency for some people to look past arguing with their heads and instead opting to simply quote some long dead theorist or philosopher. It seems almost as if the words of Marx, Engels, Lenin, or other prominent communist theorist are thought to be enough to halt any opposing arguments in their tracks.

While it is clear that many of these people have had profound influences on the ideologies we follow, to evoke them as some kind of final word is ridiculous and bordering on dogmatic. The Communist Manifesto itself was written over 150 years ago; things have changed dramatically since then!

We radical leftists claim that religion is the opiate of the masses but the frightening thing is that some of us follow certain political beliefs to the point where it begins to resemble religion quite closely.

This is one factor contributing to why I don't like to label myself as any kind of "ist."
Whether or not a quoted theorist is dead is a completely moot point in the context of a theoretical debate. Sure things have changed since Marx's day, things have changed dramatically in the last 20 years, but quoting revolutionary theorists in a debate about revolutionary theory is perfectly acceptable and not religious...

However you do bring up a very good point. Dogmatism and character-worship is still around(especially in maoist groups) and ought to be discouraged.

[Rawthentic]

Yes, FoB, thanks. That's what I meant when I said that dogmatic people made Marxism dogmatic.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 02:12 am
What do you guys think make Marxism dogmatic?

University degrees...

[Janus]

Merged.


What do you guys think make Marxism dogmatic?
I don't think that Marxism in and of itself should be considered dogmatic as it is certainly something that Marx himself did not want. However, like many ideas, it has been taken and abused to a degree by later movements and thus miscontrued into being a dogmatic theory at times.

[Eleftherios]

Dogmatism, almost by definition, is idealist and anti-materialist, hence un-Marxist.
Marxism is a philosophy that is meant to be applied to and adapted to the real world.
Those who transform Marxism into a lifeless dogma are treating it like a religion and not like some tool used to understand society, as it is meant to be.

[R_P_A_S]

this is a very healthy discussion. just thought i should bring it back up again. =)

[RGacky3]

Thats a problem I see as well, just the idea of calling your self a Marxist (or any ist following a persons name) puts me off, many arguments are about what so-and-so really ment, what his point was, or many arguments are made based on what a person said, just the idea that words like Materialistic, Dialectic, Vanguard (Which I know is not marxist), dictatorship of the proletariat, and so on and so forth, are now permanent words in the radical lefts vocabulary, and words that must be considered and argued over, smack of Dogmatism, when people talk about what the Dictatorship of the PRoletariat really is, I think, who cares what it really is, who cares what he really ment, why just deal with concepts and principles, and how to create a just Society.

[Rawthentic]

Thats a problem I see as well, just the idea of calling your self a Marxist (or any ist following a persons name) puts me off, many arguments are about what so-and-so really ment, what his point was, or many arguments are made based on what a person said, just the idea that words like Materialistic, Dialectic, Vanguard (Which I know is not marxist), dictatorship of the proletariat, and so on and so forth, are now permanent words in the radical lefts vocabulary, and words that must be considered and argued over, smack of Dogmatism, when people talk about what the Dictatorship of the PRoletariat really is, I think, who cares what it really is, who cares what he really ment, why just deal with concepts and principles, and how to create a just Society
There is nothing wrong with calling yourself Marxist, it doesnt mean we follow Marx, but that we use and agree with this scientific analysis of capitalism. And "vanguard" is a Marxist word, you just dont know what Marx meant, or what Lenin did for that matter.

Its silly to talk about changing words to combat dogmatism.

[Dimentio]

Do you know about the Rebel Movement?

It was a radical maoist sect which existed 1968-1969 in Sweden. It was originally a breakaway group from Clarté (a maoist newspaper). They claimed that Clarté had been hijacked by people with bourgeoisie thinking, and advocated a communist revolution within Clarté (on that, they used Mao's Little Red book applied on the conflict between themselves and Clarté). They were purged from Clarté nevertheless, and started an own movement.

The first thing they did was to denounce all other Swedish communist parties as revisionists, since the Little Red stated that the working class is manifested by the communist party of China. Hence, the only communist party in the world was the Chinese communist party, and according to the rebels, nothing else than sections of the Chinese communist party were acceptable.

All rebels had to cut their hair short and wear suits to better melt into the working class. They had to give away all their personal property, and live in collectives (nothing more than apartments), where they slept in sleeping bags on the floor and had nothing except a portrait of chairman Mao.

Under the may day demonstrations of 1969, they were marching in a separate group, attacking Brezhnev and the Soviet leaders. Later on, one of the rebels said to his cell that he was thinking bourgeoisie thoughts, and asked them if they could execute him. They symbolically executed him, and when the police, who had seen the scene, saw it, they rushed there. What they found was three guys sitting in the grass singing Chinese songs and trying to convert the policemen.

The rebel movement later on disappeared into oblivion. Their leader later became one of the prominent scientologists (and owner of an ice-cream company) in Spain.

Biography of the leader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Sarri%C3%B3n)

[Black Cross]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 19, 2007 04:25 am
Its silly to talk about changing words to combat dogmatism.
If anything, that will just get you caught up on semantics, which can lead to more dogmatism.

[Dimentio]

Mao said that marxism is an anti-dogmatic living struggle to release the proletariat! It stands written in page 38 of the "Quotations of Mao Tse-Tung"! Therefore, we must denounce all people who call us dogmatics!