How would you account for the continuing vitality of Marxist thought?

[Bastable]

I'm not sure if this belongs in theory but...

I have a major essay due soon with my given topic as "How would you account for the continuing vitality of Marxist thought?". naturally it is coming from a non communist perspective that largely considers communism to be dead.

can anyone help me with perspectives, arguments sources? thanks in advance.

[redSHARP]

communism lives on since it is able to capture the imagination, dreams, and hopes of all people around the globe. the word strikes fear and provides a future for many aorund the world. you can try looking up communist parties around the world and their history and see how and why there are still around.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Socialism's continuing existance and validity is a result of the conditions which give rise to it. Marxism is simply scientific socialism which finds it's experession and realisation within the existing material conditions, namely the existance of private property and (if I may use the word) it's antithesis in the proletariat.

[Tower of Bebel]

Of course, Lenin lived and died long ago, so one could ask why we should bother with him in our very different world. Partial answers include the fact that poverty, oppression, and exploitation; the unequal structure of wealth and power in our society and in our world; imperialism and military violence—that are all part of the capitalism which he analyzed and struggled against so forcefully—continue to afflict us.
This does not mean that Lenin is right about everything, of course—but it does suggest that his ideas may have relevance for those developing an understanding of our history and our time.
http://www.isreview.org/issues/59/feat-lenin.shtml

That's the least you could say. And if you want the best answer: I think Zeitgeist's remark was just perfect.

[BobKKKindle$]

It is also important to recognize Marx's ability to identify the underlying dynamics which drive capitalism, and so predict how capitalism would develop in the future. Of special importance is Marx's recognition that capitalism is based on a constant drive to expand, which enabled him to predict the emergence of transnational commerce and the integration of every country into a global capitalist system, as shown by this section of the Manifesto:


The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.

This aspect of Marx's analysis is clearly applicable to the modern world, as globalization is an ongoing process, and a major theme in contemporary political and economic discourse.

[Holden Caulfield]

everyday people who come to communism, (unlike say intellectual middle class sympathisers like Bobkindles^) do not do so for theory being proved right or other such matters, but because there is still clear inequality at every turn in our society and the people who can see past the niceties of their possesions will see that the only way to stop it is to stop capitalism,

after this they learn of the theory and revitalise it with a renewed dissatisfaction for the system,

this is what i did, and im sure many other working class comrades did so as well

[Hit The North]

Just to add to Bobkindles excellent response: It's also Marx's emphasis on the periodic crisis of capital which keeps his ideas relevant. You might want to reflect on the current economic crisis sweeping through the world economy.

[Bastable]

Wow thanks a heap!

Zeitgeist, would i be able to use what you said , with a little fiddling, as my focus inquiry? I think it's just perfect for my answer!

Rakunin, thanks for that link, I'll be sure to put it to good use!:)

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

"How would you account for the continuing vitality of Marxist thought?"Well, what is Marxist thought?

A materialist, scientific approach which regards class struggle as the driving force behind history.

Is materialism bankrupt?

Is a scientific approach no longer relevant?!

Because that is the basis of Marxism - scientific socialism and it will always be relevant if we want a critical approach to looking at society. Notice, it is not a doctrine, but rather a method!

Class struggle didn't end in '91, as they would hope you would believe. Indeed, past failures can be explained using Marxist analysis! The central critiques of capitalism which Marx explained still exist: wage labour, competition causing mass employment and the expansion of new markets to find cheaper labour and sell more products. Exploitation is not a moral word, but one describing an observable social relation which still exists.

And we know we are still relevant because we are denounced and slandered at every opportunity by ruling class hacks!

[Dros]

Marxism continues to be viable due to the fact that, unlike other philosophies, it takes a scientific approach. This means that it doesn't die off just because certain parts of it become outmoded as many other groups do. Dialectical materialism is the basis for scientific socialism. Unlike a cult or any other idealist group, Marxists are willing to shed ideology that has become historically irrelevant just like scientists abandon discredited theories. So, just like other kinds of science, Marxism has endured because there is still a basis for it to exist (the proletariat is still exploited and Marxism still has the answer) and because its orientation means that it doesn't become irrelevant.

[Dean]

I'm not sure if this belongs in theory but...

I have a major essay due soon with my given topic as "How would you account for the continuing vitality of Marxist thought?". naturally it is coming from a non communist perspective that largely considers communism to be dead.

can anyone help me with perspectives, arguments sources? thanks in advance.

Wherever people will fight for freedom, they will study the thinkers who promoted it.

[gla22]

Marxism is viable because capitalism has failed so people will look for alternatives.

[trivas7]

can anyone help me with perspectives, arguments sources? thanks in advance.

Michael Parenti's 'Blackshirts and Reds' offers a contemporary appraisal of the validity of Marxism. I'd also look at Howard Zinn's play 'Marx in Soho'.

Basically Parenti argues that Marx's magnum opus dissects as no other that totally contemporary reality -- Das Kapital.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Zeitgeist, would i be able to use what you said , with a little fiddling, as my focus inquiry? I think it's just perfect for my answer!

Go ahead, it would make my day! :)

[gilhyle]

The question was not about the 'viability' of Marxism it was about its 'vitality'. Except that they both begin with v the two words dont have much in common.

What vitality of Marxism ?!!!! Marxism is not quite Monthy Pythons dead parrot, but its sick as hell.....and always will be in the absence of a vital growing struggling workers movement.

Its sickly continuity within academia is the result of the parasitic reliance on it by petit bourgeois and de-class intellectuals roaming around looking for something intelligent to say while they build up pension credits. Such is the extreme weakness of the self-consciousness of the dominant class that it is unable to hegemonise its own left wing intellectuals in any vibrant way and they feed instead on the almost dead corpse of Marxism.

Marxism hasnt had a serious intellectual contribution for almost thirty years; its been in serious ill health since the 1920s and still these parasites depend on it. Why ? NOt the strength of Marxism: the weakness of capitalism

[chegitz guevara]

Validity is not the same thing as vitality. Marxist thought is valid, but it isn't very vital. By and large, Marxist thought has become pretty ossified and staid. There is some new, refreshing thought in Marxism, but its still at the margins of the movement.

[Dros]

Validity is not the same thing as vitality. Marxist thought is valid, but it isn't very vital. By and large, Marxist thought has become pretty ossified and staid.

True. But (as I tried to say in my post) there is a relationship. The continuing validity of Marxist thought has led to its continued vitality (such as it is).


There is some new, refreshing thought in Marxism, but its still at the margins of the movement.

Bob Avakian.
:D

[Die Neue Zeit]

The question was not about the 'viability' of Marxism it was about its 'vitality'. Except that they both begin with v the two words dont have much in common.

What vitality of Marxism ?!!!! Marxism is not quite Monthy Pythons dead parrot, but its sick as hell.....and always will be in the absence of a vital growing struggling workers movement.

Merger, merger, merger ;)


Its sickly continuity within academia is the result of the parasitic reliance on it by petit bourgeois and de-class intellectuals roaming around looking for something intelligent to say while they build up pension credits. Such is the extreme weakness of the self-consciousness of the dominant class that it is unable to hegemonise its own left wing intellectuals in any vibrant way and they feed instead on the almost dead corpse of Marxism.

Marxism hasnt had a serious intellectual contribution for almost thirty years; its been in serious ill health since the 1920s and still these parasites depend on it. Why? Not the strength of Marxism: the weakness of capitalism

And even weaker given the neoliberal failings and the knocking down of the TINA pillars, one at a time...


Validity is not the same thing as vitality. Marxist thought is valid, but it isn't very vital. By and large, Marxist thought has become pretty ossified and staid. There is some new, refreshing thought in Marxism, but its still at the margins of the movement.

Thanks for your compliments. ;) I have the pre-renegade founder of "Marxism" and his to-be-turned-right-side-up analytical method, which was shared by his popular-amongst-us historical disciple, to thank for. :D


Bob Avakian.
:D

Yes, him and your cherished amateur circle-ism... :rolleyes:

[More Fire for the People]

Because the underclasses still possessive transformative creative-destructive power a la their position/condition.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Validity is not the same thing as vitality.

O shit, LOL. I need to learn to open my eyes a bit more.

Well anyway my original post still stands but now to answer your original question on it's Kautsky wasn't revisionist in suggesting a leadership role for the party vitality all is needed is it's extension.

Marxism is today as valid as ever because of the continued existence of the conditions which generate such an understanding. However, today Marxism is, at least outside academic circles in the real world, almost non-existent. The reason for such can also be explained simply. Today, in the west, the standards of living are at very high levels. There has been little to rouse a mass revolutionary consciousness amongst the masses.

However, if this recent economic turbulence is to continue in the near future with the sub-prime mortgage crisis and soaring petrol prices in the west coupled with the on-going global food crisis, we may just see the mass radicalisation of the masses as a result of intensified and more acute material and social conditions.

[BobKKKindle$]

Today, in the west, the standards of living are at very high levels. There has been little to rouse a mass revolutionary consciousness amongst the masses.

The working class is beginning to look for alternatives, but many are turning to ethnic-nationalism (as shown by the recent electoral success of the BNP in the London elections) which creates divisions within the working class by blaming the immigrant population for problems such as a lack of affordable housing and violent crime. The objective conditions for the development of class consciousness exist, but unless the subjective conditions are also met through agitation and engagement with workers struggles, the working class will not develop a radical consciousness and so will not be capable of changing the way society is organized. Assuming that objective conditions alone are sufficient disregards the role of ideology, and is essentially bowing to spontaneous action.


Thanks for your compliments.

How arrogant and delusional! How can your contribution be new, given that, by your own admission, they are derived from Kautsky? What actual contributions have you made, apart from changing the terms we use to describe certain concepts? Have you actually created an organization based on these alleged contributions?

Marxism remains vital (as well as being valid) as shown by the recent contributions which have been made to Marxism and the debates which have arisen from those contributions. Unfortunately, these debates have been limited to the academic community, and so they may not be accessible or obvious to people outside academia.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The working class is beginning to look for alternatives, but many are turning to ethnic-nationalism (as shown by the recent electoral success of the BNP in the London elections)

That's why I suggested that SOME of the neo-fascist parties have working-class roots, as opposed to Trotsky's traditional emphasis on the petit-bourgeoisie.

Have you actually gone to their website and viewed their economic program? I did a LONG time back, before I joined RevLeft (just to check the validity of what Political Compass said, so this was two or three years ago), and their economic program is definitely "left-Keynesian" (but with the usual racist twist). Furthermore, not much was said there about "small business" owners.


The objective conditions for the development of class consciousness exist, but unless the subjective conditions are also met through agitation and engagement with workers struggles, the working class will not develop a radical consciousness and so will not be capable of changing the way society is organized. Assuming that objective conditions alone are sufficient disregards the role of ideology, and is essentially bowing to spontaneous action.

At least you agree with the vanguardist need to "hasten the day."


How arrogant and delusional!

If you actually noted the ;) smilie there, you'd have realized that I was joking. :rolleyes: However, I do put myself in the "margins" that Comrade chegitz guevara mentioned.


How can your contribution be new, given that, by your own admission, they are derived from Kautsky? What actual contributions have you made, apart from changing the terms we use to describe certain concepts? Have you actually created an organization based on these alleged contributions?

Kautsky (pre-renegade, obviously :glare: ), Lenin (the most learned and famous of Kautsky's disciples (http://libcom.org/library/renegade-kautsky-disciple-lenin-dauve)), Gramsci (LANGUAGE), Bordiga, Luxemburg, Engels, Marx, and Boris Kagarlitsky - in that descending order :) My redefinitions and formulations are a right-side-up variant of Kautsky's upside-down analytical approach.

As for your last question, to be more accurate, a comrade and his comrades have created that SLD organization. :)




Marxism is today as valid as ever because of the continued existence of the conditions which generate such an understanding. However, today Marxism is, at least outside academic circles in the real world, almost non-existent. The reason for such can also be explained simply. Today, in the west, the standards of living are at very high levels. There has been little to rouse a mass revolutionary consciousness amongst the masses.

However, if this recent economic turbulence is to continue in the near future with the sub-prime mortgage crisis and soaring petrol prices in the west coupled with the on-going global food crisis, we may just see the mass radicalisation of the masses as a result of intensified and more acute material and social conditions.

Why has there been no serious discussions about integrating Maslow's hierarchy of needs into Marxist theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs)? Regardless of material conditions, "safety" (job security), "esteem" (full compensation for one's labour, after common-fund deductions), and "self-actualization" (control) are important.

[BobKKKindle$]

At least you agree with the vanguardist need to "hasten the day."

I have consistently argued in favor of a vanguard (in contrast to an emphasis on spontaneous action) and have called for the creation of vanguard organizations in countries where they do not currently exist. The electoral success of ethnic nationalism affirms the need for an organization which is capable of engaging with the working class and breaking the power of false consciousness, which creates internal divisions within the proletariat and so prevents the overthrow of capitalism. This is not merely a matter of hastening revolution - in the absence of such an organization it is possible that the proletariat will never be able to develop a class consciousness due to the influence of bourgeois ideology, especially in the form of ethnic nationalism.

Why do you describe fascism as having working-class roots? Fascist organizations are working in the class only in the sense that they draw electoral support from the proletariat and identify problems which are of concern to workers - but the composition of leadership and content of political actions show that these organizations are ultimately based on the class interests of the petty-bourgeoisie.


As for your last question, to be more accurate, a comrade and his comrades have created that SLD organization

You did not describe the actual contributions that you have made - changing words cannot be described as a contribution because it is not adding anything new. As for the issue of practical organization, how large is this group, how is it different from existing vanguard organizations, and what are you as an individual doing?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have consistently argued in favor of a vanguard (in contrast to an emphasis on spontaneous action) and have called for the creation of vanguard organizations in countries where they do not currently exist.

Did you realize that my quote for "vanguardism" was NOT from Lenin in the late 1890s or early 1900s, but from Kautsky? Personal advice: next time some anti-vanguardist says that Lenin was a neo-Blanquist, point to the Kautsky quotes which I have laid out (from The Class Struggle and The Road to Power).

[Lenin's "vanguardist" thinking was inspired by Kautsky, so if Lenin was a "neo-Blanquist," so was Kautsky.]


Why do you describe fascism as having working-class roots?

In Trotsky's era, fascism had petit-bourgeois roots. MANY neo-fascist movements still have those same roots. However, parties such as the BNP are a worrisome anomaly, because THEY have eschewed those original roots and have working-class roots!


but the composition of leadership and content of political actions show that these organizations are ultimately based on the class interests of the petty-bourgeoisie

What about the BNP? What about its program? What has the BNP said regarding small businesses and what not?


You did not describe the actual contributions that you have made - changing words cannot be described as a contribution because it is not adding anything new.

Yessss, because August Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht added nothing new by dumping the "double-duth" word "communism" and creating "social democracy."


As for the issue of practical organization, how large is this group, how is it different from existing vanguard organizations, and what are you as an individual doing?

Social-Labour Democracy aims to be a multi-tendency grassroots organization centered around the succinct objective that I described above. I live far away from the group, but I engage in regular correspondence with them - and they have already read my work-in-progress.

[BobKKKindle$]

In Trotsky's era, fascism had petit-bourgeois roots. MANY neo-fascist movements still have those same roots. However, parties such as the BNP are a worrisome anomaly, because THEY have eschewed those original roots and have working-class roots!What do you mean by the "roots" of these organizations? The composition of the BNP leadership (including the party members who have been elected as local council representatives) is mainly petty-bourgeois - and the adoption of policies which are attractive to workers (such as the abolition of income tax) is simply a strategic move to gain working class electoral support. In this respect the BNP is exhibiting historical continuity with the NSDAP which also had some socialistic policies such as profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises (Point 14 of the 1920 program) and the abolition of unearned wealth (Point 11). However, when the party gained power these policies were not implemented and the state destroyed all independent workers organizations. Therefore, the fact that the BNP program gives the illusion of fighting for the interests of workers should not be taken as evidence that the party has working class "roots" or differs from other fascist organizations.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ How do you define "worker" and "petit-bourgeois," though? Per my Chapter 2, "worker"/"proletarian" encompasses manual (factories, farms, mines, warehouses, etc.), clerical (offices, banks, restaurants, stores, etc.), and professional workers (teachers, nurses, etc. - as well as most engineers, accountants, and modern intellectuals).

How can you be sure that the BNP leadership is indeed composed of small-business owners and not white-collar workers?




There is still a third category of proletarians that has gone far on the road to its complete development – the educated proletarians. Education has become a special trade under our present system. The measure of knowledge has increased greatly and grows daily. Capitalist society and the capitalist state are increasingly in need of men of knowledge and ability to conduct their business, in order to bring the forces of nature under their power […] Under this system education becomes a merchandise.

A hundred years or so ago this commodity was rare. There were few schools; study was accompanied with considerable expense. So long as small production could support him, the worker stuck to it; only special gifts of nature or favorable circumstances would cause the sons of the workers to dedicate themselves to the arts and sciences. Though there was an increasing demand for teachers, artists and other professional men, the supply was definitely limited.

Since those days the development of higher education has made immense progress. The number of institutions of learning has increased wonderfully, and in a still larger degree, the number of pupils.

[…]

The time is near when the bulk of these proletarians will be distinguished from the others only by their pretensions. Most of them still imagine that they are something better than proletarians. They fancy they belong to the bourgeoisie, just as the lackey identifies himself with the class of his master. They have ceased to be the leaders of the capitalist class and have become rather their defenders. Place-hunting takes more and more of their energies. Their first care is, not the development of their intellect, but the sale of it. The prostitution of their individuality has become their chief means of advancement.

[BobKKKindle$]

How can you be sure that the BNP leadership is indeed composed of small-business owners and not white-collar workers?

Richard Barnbrook (recently elected to the London Assembly) is a university graduate, and worked as a teacher and artist (source (http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2008/01/03/profile_richard_barnbrook_feature.shtml)) before becoming a political activist. Both of these jobs can be classified as petty-bourgeois, because the petty-bourgeoisie also includes educated professionals - the petty bourgeoisie is not limited to people who own small enterprises, as you seem to assume.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ If you actually read my Chapter 2 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/simplification-class-relations-t73419/index.html) (link), you will have noted that there I actually CHALLENGED the "traditional Marxist" definition of class (so I know what you're talking about), but still placing it within the overall context of production processes.

To me, Richard Branbrook is as proletarian as a factory worker ("exists within the wage-labour system, contributes to the development of society’s labour power and its capabilities, and has no significant-influence ownership or factual control over the means of production")... maybe except for his time as a proper artist ("Class #2" in my chapter-article, the part mentioning cops).

[punisa]

Why is Marxism so vital today although it was "invented" a hundred years ago?
First we have the obvious reasons: repression, nostalgia (ex communist countries), low life standards, inequality.

But one of the main reasons why Marxism is still alive, and always will be, is the fact that "good" people still roam this planet. Some of us still can't sleep tightly at the end of the day knowing that many people dig the garbage cans for food, or are dying of famine and diseases. This is something you either have or you don't, I doubt it can be learned. The compassion you feel for a fellow human being, regardless of its religion, skin or similar.

The personal philosophy that tells you that its this world that makes a good man bad. The idea that you care how your fellow humans will live in the year 2200, regardless that all of us we'll be long dead.
These are some "primitive" urges that drive you to explore, learn, reason and in the end strive for change. During these early days of getting finally acquainted with your political nature you bounce left and right, but in the end stumble upon Marxism.

Today it's virtually impossible to completely devote yourself to the ideology. You still must endure everyday survival techniques, struggling for a good job, feeding you family etc. The days of Commandante Gueveara charging through the jungle are long gone, but there is plenty young Marxist can still do today. Considering all the propaganda, media, advertising, individualism, alienization and such, one must first fight a revolution to reclaim himself in order to "spread the word".

This drives people back to Marx everyday, and 21st is seeing this much more then back in 90's. For example internet is surely gonna become a vital tool in the battles to come.

[professorchaos]

Good point, because human compassion is really what led me to discover Marxism. But, speaking from personal experience, I believe it can be learned, because until recently, I couldn't give a fuck about the state of the world's poor and I had a "survival-of-the-fittest" mentality. But then I started using psychedelics, which impressed upon me the idea that all is one and the interests of everyone are the same. Bit hippie-ish, I know, but as long as I'm on-point.

[punisa]

Good point, because human compassion is really what led me to discover Marxism. But, speaking from personal experience, I believe it can be learned, because until recently, I couldn't give a fuck about the state of the world's poor and I had a "survival-of-the-fittest" mentality. But then I started using psychedelics, which impressed upon me the idea that all is one and the interests of everyone are the same. Bit hippie-ish, I know, but as long as I'm on-point.

It takes time to find yourself. Some folk struggle for half of their life to decide if they're gay or not. Finding your spot inside the political spectrum can be far more difficult.
"survival-of-the-fittest" which you mention is the typical reaction to the today's society, it endorses individualism and by such you actually get involved in the survival game.

Seems like you managed to brake loose. Good for you. All I can say now is to adapt a popular quote: "you'll never walk alone".

p.s. just don't go to hard on your new hippie lifestyle :cool:

[DancingLarry]

It's only vital when people apply it objectively to the changed concrete objective conditions of the relations of production, the organization of capital and the socialization of labor as it exists today, in 2008,. not as it existed in 1848 or 1871 or 1917 or 1949. The reality today is that the industrial proletariat, which was a rising, growing, progressive force in those earlier times is increasingly spent, a class in decline as the era of industrial capitalism wanes. The dialectic of materialism has rolled on as well, through the period of the 20th century that moved away from direct confrontation between labor and capital through the synthesis of regulated capitalist markets and an acceptance of a certain degree of social-democratic economism. Now that period is at an end, a renewed thesis of capitalist dominance with impunity has emerged since the Reagan-Thatcher era, but in a new format, where the concentration of capital is not geographic and fixed in industrialism, but rather we are in the era of the apotheosis of finance capital, imperialism finally perfected by material progress, the technological development of transportation and communication that's shrunk the world to a place where instantaneous financial transactions between parties thousands of miles apart are the norm. This simply is not the same objective condition of capital that existed in Marx's day. It is however the power, and the potential vitality, of the Marxist method, of dialectical materialism, to to analyze and respond to these conditions, insofar as those who define themselves as the revolutionaries are not in fact reactionary nostalgics clinging dogmatically to party lines handed down from an era where the objective relations, organization and character of production were fundamentally different from those that prevail today.