which element of marxism is it?

[Denise]

Hello! over the holidays some professor had assigned my class to formulate a paper which addresses the following questions:

1. what it means to be a Marxist
2. the issue of whether or not there is an element of Karl Marx's philosophy which limits the person from achieving a full sense of being Marxist.

i guess i'll start with giving my opinion ---
on the former, it wouldn't be enough to say that a person is marxist merely because he or she takes to belief the theories formulated by the man.

though i have read the manifesto, german ideology and das kapital, my background on marxism is in need of improvement. your answers to these inquiries would be much appreciated!

[Marsella]

Well, firstly welcome to revleft. :redstar2000:

There are a tonne of threads answering these questions already:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=6430&hl=marxism

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=28945&hl=marxism

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35342&hl=marxism

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43427&hl=marxism

Summed up quite well here:


One must concede that much of 20th century Marxism, especially that "Marxism" produced within the Leninist paradigm, was little more than the repetition of formulas or, worse, the invention of "Marxist-sounding" rhetoric to justify immediate political purposes that had nothing to do with Marxism at all.

It does not have to be that way, however, and even in the last century there was useful work done; work that remains underpublicized and often unknown. Perhaps over the next few decades, some of this will be recovered and put on line.

In the meantime, you, an aspiring young revolutionary, want to "think like Marx". What do you do?

1. You begin with materialism, of course. Whether you are looking at global society for the next century or something as "insignificant" as neighborhood development (in your neighborhood), you base your examination on the fact that material reality has material causes...and no others. When told that "Jesus rose from the dead", you conclude at once that his corpse was removed and disposed of by living humans, and you proceed to the question of who would benefit if it were widely thought that this poor country preacher had actually accomplished the impossible.

2. Marxist materialism is historical. That is, it is best applied in real situations with real and discoverable qualities. It is certainly possible to make some sweeping generalizations across broad historical epochs using Marxist tools, but they are best applied in specific situations, with as much detail as can be discovered.

3. Marxist historical materialism is based primarily on classes...the observable fact that different groups of humans in any society have different relationships to the means of production in that society and, consequently, to each other. It was further asserted by Marx and Engels that struggle between classes was something that took place constantly in every class society, often hidden behind the scenes, sometimes erupting openly and dramatically. A careful Marxist does not accept the superficial appearance of "class peace" but rather looks harder for the particular forms of class struggle that are taking place at that moment out of public view.

4. To Marx and Engels, change was the "constant" in human societies. Humans constantly innovate their "means of production" and there can be no such thing as a changeless human society. Despotisms can be remarkably stable, lasting for a thousand years or more, but even they crumble away eventually, to be replaced by more dynamic forms of class society. The casual assumption that "things will go on as before" is regarded as "least probable" and ultimately impossible by a Marxist.

5. Marxists assume that humans operate primarily from the motive of perceived material interest; they are indeed "selfish" by nature. Co-operation is practical only when it is in the perceived self-interest of the participants to do so...and only when material conditions make that possible.

6. Marxists take quite seriously the quip by Marx himself: "the ruling ideas of an epoch are the ideas of its ruling classes". Marxists do not take "ideas" at "face value" or as "interesting abstractions" but rather see them as reflections of class realities. Thus, Marxists are "critical" and "sceptical"--not in the sense necessarily of always being "negative", but in the sense of "looking deeper" into every question, probing for the underlying realities beneath "accepted" or "fashionable" "wisdom".

7. The "tools of Marxism" can be a "guide to action", to direct and informed participation in the class struggle...but they don't have to be. There are academic Marxists who write books (some of which are quite interesting) for other academics...and there's nothing "wrong" per se in that use. It's just a very "weak" use of a powerful tool; like installing a state-of-the-art personal computer to balance your checkbook and keep track of your grocery list.

8. And at the same time, the tools of Marxism are most powerful precisely in the "realm of ideas"--they can be used to directly challenge and defeat the entire "bourgeois paradigm" that rules our era. The bourgeoisie tell us from our first breath that "this is all there is and all there is ever going to be; adapt, submit, or die". The tools of Marxism allow us to say, truthfully, "No, things are going to be very different...and here's why."

So when you hear me say (as I often do), that the real task of communists is to furnish the working class with the "tools of Marxism" that they might emancipate themselves from wage slavery (instead of "us" "leading" them out of bondage)...this is what I'm talking about. Link (http://rs2k.revleft.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082947254&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

1. See above.

2. Well...following dialectic thought, if I am a Marxist, I should turn into my negation (a fascist?!) :wacko: . But no, not really. Marx's philosophy was one of historical materialism. That allows us to accept or reject whatever Marx asserted. No one is beneath scrutiny. The only thing which would prevent a person from being a Marxist in the full sense would be be a sheep of Marx, rather than a Marxist. Confusing I know, but you get the point. ;)


though i have read the manifesto, german ideology and das kapital, my background on marxism is in need of improvement. your answers to these inquiries would be much appreciated!

If you've read those you should have an adequate understanding. Oh and if a thread isn't answered for a while, don't create a new one. It just takes time for people to respond. Be patient. :)

[Guest1]

Well, let's start with the only successful revolution led by a Marxist party, 1917 in Russia.

All the issues in Marxism were born out there. Martov and the Mensheviks betrayed the working class and conceived of Marxism as a simple "opposition" within a bourgeois society.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks led a revolutionary Marxist party, actively intervening, calling on the Soviets to take power. The majority of the elected delegates in the Soviets, the workers' councils across the country, were Menshevik and SR. The Bolshevik slogan of "Factories to the workers, land to the peasants, all power to the Soviets!" became an embarrassment to non-revolutionary leftists, much like our Martov, who preferred "theoretical" revolutions to the real thing.

They lost their majority in the Soviets, and the Soviets took power while they complained that workers should go home and give the bourgeoisie their chance to rule through parliament, instead of electing a government through delegates from every factory and farm in the country.

Being a Marxist means being practically committed to the revolutionary overthrow of Capitalism and the establishment of workers' control and a democratically planned economy. It means intervening in every battle against capitalism and reaction that the working class enters into, no matter how partial or theoretically imperfect, and pointing out that the only way to win is through a working class revolution.

Building a revolutionary workers' party and revolutionary trade unions by agitating within the unions and the parties they control (where workers' are), is essential for anyone who isn't jut a "theoretical Marxist". This means fighting for higher minimum wages, against privatizations, for free universities and healthcare, for the nationalization of viable factories being closed for budget cuts, etc...

Hope that helps more than anti-Marxist, anti-revolutionary Menshevism.


4. To Marx and Engels, change was the "constant" in human societies. Humans constantly innovate their "means of production" and there can be no such thing as a changeless human society. Despotisms can be remarkably stable, lasting for a thousand years or more, but even they crumble away eventually, to be replaced by more dynamic forms of class society. The casual assumption that "things will go on as before" is regarded as "least probable" and ultimately impossible by a Marxist.
This is known as Dialectical Materialism, Marx considered it essential to Marxism, and so do serious Marxists. In terms of the negation of the negation... those "ultra-lefts" who dismiss it tend to be the same that dismiss every revolutionary movement in the world, from Venezuela to Mexico, because it doesn't fit their litmus test.

Maybe not quite becoming Fascist, but certainly not a leftist in any sense of the word that means anything.

[Denise]

martov & Che Y Marijuana:
thanks for the links and perspectives. for the greeting also. yes, patience is indeed a virtue, just felt like the thread didn't belong on the other category. havent gotten to deleting it...

[rouchambeau]

Well, what is your opinion on the second prompt?

[Denise]

rouchembau,

been going through some material. there are those who say that an obsolete fragment would be the TRANSITIONAL WORKERS STATE. DIALECTICS should be discredited, and that THE LABOR THEORY OF VALUE has developed weaknesses. but to counter this argument is another statement posing that Marxism is founded on historical materialism which enables the philosophy to easily adapt to change...

i guess what im in for is a debate.

[Raúl Duke]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 07:19 am
Hello! over the holidays some professor had assigned my class to formulate a paper which addresses the following questions:

1. what it means to be a Marxist
2. the issue of whether or not there is an element of Karl Marx's philosophy which limits the person from achieving a full sense of being Marxist.

i guess i'll start with giving my opinion ---
on the former, it wouldn't be enough to say that a person is marxist merely because he or she takes to belief the theories formulated by the man.

though i have read the manifesto, german ideology and das kapital, my background on marxism is in need of improvement. your answers to these inquiries would be much appreciated!
Well, Hello. Welcome :)

Good Luck on your project. See, there seems to be many different "versions" of Marxism in this board; this makes the job difficult.

Some include dialectics, other reject it as psycho-babble (see Rosa Lichtenstein's "anti-dialectics" in Philosophy. Also, martov's link to a website called RS2K Papers has topics about anti-dialectics, among some in-depth stuff about Marxism.). Some contend that you need a vanguard party, others reject this (on historical grounds, usually including the "socialists transitional state"). Some say you need socialism or a socialist transitional hyper-state, while others say you can skip socialism (in modern "advanced capitalist" countries; because the working class there is more modern than during Marx's time) or instead go through a "paris-commune" small socialist state.

Somethings that are common in most of these versions is:

Historical Materialism ("hitherto all history is history of class struggle" or something along those lines. This appears in the manifesto. The Marxist thesis views that the overthrow of capitalism is "inevitable" because a) other class societies were replaced {whats different is that in Marxist theory it will be abolished, at least in communism.} b)Capitalism, like other class societies, creates its own "seeds of destruction")

Materialism (as in the philosophical position; more accurately "physicalism." This leads to rejection of idealism and other similar "idealist" things like religion, supernatural, etc.)

Communism "as a goal" (Marxists aim for communism, not socialism. Although Marx mention something about "things beyond communism" {robots doing all the work?}).

Some people include dialectics and a "socialist stage." Some Marxists lack skepticism and/or pragmatism (objectiveness?).

Other than just Marxists, there are these ideologies that have a different take/focus on Marxist theory:
There are Marxist-Leninists (of many stripes), Left Communists (Council, Situationists, Autonomists, etc), and other assorted Libertarian Marxists.

[rouchambeau]

i guess what im in for is a debate.
That's good, but I cannot really debate any points with you if you don't put forward a position.

[Denise]

i'll rephrase then..

though a debate would be interesting, it wouldn't be with me (at the moment). my knowledge of marxism is adequate, but not good enough for such an activity.

which perspective would you support and why? is it the first: reject dialectics, find the transitional workers state obsolete and see the labor theory of value as having developed weaknesses? or is it the second: marxism can adapt to change, therefore there is no such thing as an element that is obsolete or in need of being discredited?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Can you tell me what kind of weaknesses the Labor theory of Value has, because i only know it at a basic level, but am interested in what the supposed weaknesses are.

[Denise]

b_c_s --

hello :) i'm still trying to get to the bottom of this myself. same goes for the discrediting of the dialectics, which for others doesn't quite add up, considering the fact that dialectics is a basic of marxism..

[mikelepore]

I don't think that's true,


that dialectics is a basic of marxism

I don't see in Marx any actual use of a dialectical method. He mentioned it very briefly about three or four times in his forty year writing career

Engels made a big deal out of it, and he waited until Marx was dead before doing so, as though he wanted to avoid hearing Marx respond, "What the hell do you think you're doing now, Fred?"

Marx makes very minimal references, such as this, in the 1873 afterword to _Capital_:

"My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of 'the Idea,' he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of 'the Idea.' With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought."

Okay, so ideas are reflections of the real world in the brain, unlike Hegel's belief that the existence of the world springs out of God's mind. That is hardly a use of dialectics as an applied method, or a use of any other method. It's just philosophical materialism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CYM:


This is known as Dialectical Materialism, Marx considered it essential to Marxism, and so do serious Marxists. In terms of the negation of the negation... those "ultra-lefts" who dismiss it tend to be the same that dismiss every revolutionary movement in the world, from Venezuela to Mexico, because it doesn't fit their litmus test.

Too bad then (for you) that Marx waved goodbye to all this mystical rubbish by the time he wrote Das Kapital.

[kromando33]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 31, 2007 08:23 pm
CYM:


This is known as Dialectical Materialism, Marx considered it essential to Marxism, and so do serious Marxists. In terms of the negation of the negation... those "ultra-lefts" who dismiss it tend to be the same that dismiss every revolutionary movement in the world, from Venezuela to Mexico, because it doesn't fit their litmus test.

Too bad then (for you) that Marx waved goodbye to all this mystical rubbish by the time he wrote Das Kapital.

What I want to know is when you foolish idealists are going to stop treating socialism like Ivory Tower and start actually trying to build it and help the movement, but I guess you'd all rather sit in your tiny fringe factions and whinge and whine constantly about 'authoritarians' while sipping you're chardonnay, hypocrisy. But I guess then if in the end even when you die if you accomplish nothing for building socialism, at least you can feel secure in you're Hegelianism and having you're egotisical idealism unchallenged by Marxist analysis and fact.

Sad really.

[Red October]

Do you feel more revolutionary when you make random ass accusations with no basis in fact? I wish I knew what that felt like, but I'm just too danr busy sipping my chardonnay whining about those goddamn marxist "facts".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Kromando33:


What I want to know is when you foolish idealists are going to stop treating socialism like Ivory Tower and start actually trying to build it and help the movement, but I guess you'd all rather sit in your tiny fringe factions and whinge and whine constantly about 'authoritarians' while sipping you're chardonnay, hypocrisy. But I guess then if in the end even when you die if you accomplish nothing for building socialism, at least you can feel secure in you're Hegelianism and having you're egotisical idealism unchallenged by Marxist analysis and fact.

I am a working class Marxist, trade union rep (unpaid); so you can stick your substitutionist prejudices where the dialectic don't shine.

Anyway, you are just another mystic who is miffed at the fact that you cannot respond to my systematic demolition of this loopy 'theory' of yours.

Over the last two years, we have seen several dozen other dialectical mystics make the same blustering noises, and little else; you are just the latest, but probably the most ignorant. :o

[I am an anti-Hegelian too. So, that shows how much you know.]


Sad really.

At least you are right about yourself...