Why do people stop being Marxists?

[al8]

Since I am fond of marxism and see it as such a grate thing I often wonder why on earth anyone would abondon it. I've thought about it and I supsect it is simply because the people who gave up on marxism had become marxists for the wrong reasons to begin with. For example because of either overestimateing the subjective factors or underestimating the objective factors. Like expecting revolution around the corner when it is not and then becoming disillusioned.

This is my preliminary thought on the matter. I would like to hear other comrades thoughts on this as well if they have any.

[rouchambeau]

The only possible way to know such a thing is to find an ex-marxist or something written by an ex-marxist on the matter.

[Incendiarism]

obviously it is the material conditions.

[F9]

i abandoned Marxism and became an Anarchist.Why?Because i see the Anarchy "way" to be the "best" the equal,and the only way to true Communism.

Fuserg9:star:

[OI OI OI]

i abandoned Marxism and became an Anarchist.Why?Because i see the Anarchy "way" to be the "best" the equal,and the only way to true Communism.

I don't think you were a solid marxist to begin with.
If youwere you would have read state and revolution by Lenin which smashes all the arguments of the anarchists to the point tha they are laughable:lol:


And that is the main reason why people abandon marxism.
Because they are not solid enough in the Marxist ideas, because theydid not learn the correct ideas to begin with(Stalinists etc)and when they find out they quit marxism all toghether or simply because as Marx said Conciousness depends on material conditions so these people become "rich" enough to forget about all this "crap"

[thejambo1]

i abandoned marxism because i grew up!!

[chegitz guevara]

I don't think you were a solid marxist to begin with.
If youwere you would have read state and revolution by Lenin which smashes all the arguments of the anarchists to the point tha they are laughable:lol:

And that is the main reason why people abandon marxism.
Because they are not solid enough in the Marxist ideas, because theydid not learn the correct ideas to begin with(Stalinists etc)and when they find out they quit marxism all toghether or simply because as Marx said Conciousness depends on material conditions so these people become "rich" enough to forget about all this "crap"

This is a thoroughly idealist and dogmatic explanation for a phenomenon with a material basis. Let's keep in mind that some of the foremost Trotskyist leaders, people who could knock all of our heads around theoretically, eventually came to oppose Marxism, folks like Burnham and Schactman. Clearly, an adequate understanding of Marxism is completely insufficient reason to explain why those comrades turned.

I'd say there are two main reasons for people turning aside from Marxism: the failure of the revolution to occur and the conduct of other Marxists. I doubt I have to explain either of those reasons.

[nuisance]

If youwere you would have read state and revolution by Lenin which smashes all the arguments of the anarchists to the point tha they are laughable:lol:
Oh this is gold!
Espcially as Lenin constantly misrepresented anarchism, showing a complete lack of understanding, and that at the time many Marxists called Lenins' 'State and Revolution' anarchist!

[Winter]

i abandoned marxism because i grew up!!

This quote shows that just because one grows older does not mean one grows more mature. :rolleyes:

[F9]

I don't think you were a solid marxist to begin with.
If you were you would have read state and revolution by Lenin which smashes all the arguments of the anarchists to the point tha they are laughable:lol:


And that is the main reason why people abandon marxism.
Because they are not solid enough in the Marxist ideas, because they did not learn the correct ideas to begin with(Stalinists etc)and when they find out they quit marxism all toghether or simply because as Marx said Conciousness depends on material conditions so these people become "rich" enough to forget about all this "crap"

Thats false my dear OIx3.Did you knew me?
Sorry but your post is laughable.:D;)I was aware on Marxism when i "changed" to Anarchism.What Lenin written has no matter,The idea is idea,and i completely stand for it because in my mind is the only good and the best way to do it.The free stateless society,the equal.You can find plenty of people where they true Marxists and changed eventually to Anarchism.The most of Anarchists i have met thats the case,and believe me we know what Marxism is.Moreover it really not plays a huge matter to know all of it and be an "expert" on Marxism,if you know the basics from both Anarchism and Marxism you can choice in your mind who you think is better?Im i mistaken?I dont thinks so!;)

Fuserg9:star:

[Lamanov]

I don't think you were a solid marxist to begin with. If youwere you would have read state and revolution by Lenin which smashes all the arguments of the anarchists to the point tha they are laughable

State and Revolution was my first political book, and it led me to libertarian communism.

Lenin's critique of anarchists is funny, because he used some posthumously published quotes of Marx who was arguing against people who were against "organized violence against the bourgeoisie", which Marx calls "a state". It's obviously a semantic argument (concerning the strategy), since class struggle anarchists are not against organized defense of the revolution, as well as joining the efforts of the whole class in building new relations and institutions - on the contrary.

This Lenin's "polemics with anarchism" in State and Revolution is not made because of anarchism per se, but in order to advance and use that critique against social-democracy.

Talking about State and Revolution for reasons of "critique of anarchism" today is senseless (it was even then).

Do your homework.

[GPDP]

Ask LSD.

[OI OI OI]

I'd say there are two main reasons for people turning aside from Marxism: the failure of the revolution to occur and the conduct of other Marxists. I doubt I have to explain either of those reasons.

but the first one is because of the lack of theoretical understanding of how society and conciousness works. This lack of theoretical understanding causes confusion and disilutionment. You just proved my point.

And as about the behaviour of other Marxists that is ridiculus.

Sure I don't like many people in my sect but thats a ridiculus thing to quit marxism over.
You don't engage into politics to make friends...


Moreover it really not plays a huge matter to know all of it and be an "expert" on Marxism,if you know the basics from both Anarchism and Marxism you can choice in your mind who you think is better?Im i mistaken?I dont thinks so!http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/wink.gif

Ha!
If you know the basics you can make a choice? I don't think so.
You need to study each ideology thoroughly in order to make a choice because that is the only way to see its flaws!



This Lenin's "polemics with anarchism" in State and Revolution is not made because of anarchism per se, but in order to advance and use that critique against social-democracy.


Yes but it demolishes anarchism and not just in a semantic way.
Anarchism was not his problem and it is not any Marxist's problem because anarchism is too insignificant.
That's why anarchists spend so much time slandering Marx Lenin and Trotsky because we are significant to you, but you are not significant to us!

[F9]

Ha!
If you know the basics you can make a choice? I don't think so.
You need to study each ideology thoroughly in order to make a choice because that is the only way to see its flaws!

Thats not true.Do you want an indeep study on facism to understand that is a shit?You understand from the first thing it says,better people etc etc.
So it is alike if you decide between Anarchism and Marxism.You have on one hand the freedom of the people with no state above or vanguard party,or something between those two(Anarchism)and on the other hand you have Marxism where you have to wait through socialism to accomplish Communism(only) and during this "transitional stage" the state is "alive",and the equality wasnt accomplished (yet).You see only from those "basics" someone could decide the part he wants.The one is unfair the other is utopian etc etc possible thinkings that a mnd can mind from those basics.




Yes but it demolishes anarchism and not just in a semantic way.
Anarchism was not his problem and it is not any Marxist's problem because anarchism is too insignificant.
That's why anarchists spend so much time slandering Marx Lenin and Trotsky because we are significant to you, but you are not significant to us!

I havent read that book,to be true,but i am certainly that he couldnt "demolished" Anarchism.Anarchism is alive and here and maybe for you isnt significant but dont take it on the other way starting making propaganda.
Believe me you are not significant to me,you can die!:lol::p

Fuserg9:star:

[Lamanov]

Yes but it demolishes anarchism and not just in a semantic way.

No, it doesn't. I just said so. Anyone can see for themselves.


Anarchism was not his problem and it is not any Marxist's problem because anarchism is too insignificant.

Anarchism was not insignificant in Russia, even though there were not much anarchists. Lenin felt it was needed to dedicate a whole section of the fucking book to anarchism. Bolsheviks started several newspapers in order to battle libertarian tendencies withing the working class.

Let's not even mention places like Spain and Italy.


That's why anarchists spend so much time slandering Marx Lenin and Trotsky because we are significant to you, but you are not significant to us!

You're an idiot. You're the ones - Trots - who were always insignificant.

[FreeFocus]

As chegitz pointed out, part of it has to do with the behavior of other Marxists and the failure of this seizure of the state to occur. For others, I think when they actually think it through, look at the historical manifestations of "Marxism," and what became of so-called "worker's states," they'll realize that a "vanguard" seizing power is a sure way to get your ass beaten anyway, this time by a stick called the "people's stick," to allude to Bakunin.

[#FF0000]

For others, I think when they actually think it through, look at the historical manifestations of "Marxism," and what became of so-called "worker's states," they'll realize that a "vanguard" seizing power is a sure way to get your ass beaten anyway, this time by a stick called the "people's stick," to allude to Bakunin.

Exactly this. As far as theory goes, there are parts of Marxism I really, really like. At the very least it is fantastically interesting to me. However, this "State" business never appealed to me. The state is supposed to wither away over time? Why? It grants the people in the State such great privilege, so why would the bureaucrats give it up? Do they want to go back to factory work that badly? :confused:

Not to mention, of course, the psychological affect that authoritarian social relations have on people. I'm a firm believer of "if you treat people like idiots, they will act like idiots", and I believe that a centralized state will just lead to those without power and authority becoming subservient and used to the status quo, disempowered, which hardly makes them revolutionary at all. It seems like an entirely counter productive way of doing things, to curb the workers' development as people like that.

[Red October]

Some people who are active for a long time "burn out" because they're discouraged over progress being so slow or because the people around them turn them off it. I've seen a lot of people get disillusioned because of the way 'comrades' were behaving and fucking things up. There's a lot of bullshit in the movement and a lot of folks just get tired of dealing with that junk. Others give up on leftism because they never become active in the first place and shrug it all off as "just a nice idea". The best way to avoid this is to always keep up with theory and the basics (of course), but you've got to stay engaged too. If it's all just an abstract idea from the 1900's to you, you will probably drop it. Always think about new ideas, strategies, etc.

[Philosophical Materialist]

There are some ex-Marxists in the neoconservative movement. Marxian economics gives a very good account of how capitalism works, and if someone wanted to sell out and do the RW's work, then they have a good idea of how to do capitalism. It is unfortunate that some comrades do sell out.

Others perhaps drift away from socialism to "make peace with the system" to try and get some scraps from existing wage labour and hope they can climb the wage ladder. Material conditions, cultural and family pressure can force comrades into abandoning socialism.

Bourgeois propaganda is always present in spreading mistruths about socialism so to discredit it. Some comrades are affected by this and so drift towards social democracy and left-liberalism. Unfortunately they will always be let down by these theoretical systems as they do not mean to abolish capitalism in favour of socialism.

The nature of organisations which follow Marxist philosophy can also do more harm than good. Sectarianism because of personality clashes and disagreement over relatively small theoretical points can be a self-destructive force for the left. Having patchworks of small socialist and workers parties give undue credibility to the claim of social democrats that leftists must work within the main centre-left bourgeois party to achieve anything because 'the alternative is even more right-wing government.' Supporting centrist worker parties with such weakness only emboldens neoliberals to carry out further anti-worker reforms. If leftists choose any strategic alliance with a centre-left worker or liberal party then it must come from an organised and unified position.

The top-down approach and anti-democratic nature in some leftist parties can also further alienate workers who have come to the left because they realise that reformism doesn't help. Taking them for granted can merely drive away organic support amongst the working class, and for Marxism to be ejected by the individual due to poor theoretical practice by the particular party.

Good theoretic practice by any Marxist party is paramount. As a result it must be extremely democratic, allow for healthy internal debate, be elected from bottom-up, and must act with unity.

I haven't given an account of say why a Marxist may become an anarchist, left-communist or an utopian socialist. There is always a great amount of fluidity between revolutionary socialist traditions within and outside of Marxism. I used to consider myself an anarcho-socialist at one point before I considered Marxism the best theoretical developments for the emancipation of all human beings. Though I do respect these comrades and their contribution of working class consciousness. Sniping between comrades is unnecessary and counterproductive.

[Dean]

I used to be a marxist. I abandoned it for a more fluid, direct ideology. I still agree with most of the basics, but I don't Consider some of the standards, like a proletocracy, to be inalienable to revolutionary theory.

[OI OI OI]

Anarchism was not insignificant in Russia, even though there were not much anarchists.


This Lenin's "polemics with anarchism" in State and Revolution is not made because of anarchism per se, but in order to advance and use that critique against social-democracy.


Lenin felt it was needed to dedicate a whole section of the fucking book to anarchism.

Me too I write contradictory posts...


Anyways I highly reccomend the state and revolution for the anarchists that too want to understand how marxism is superior.

Also the State bussiness to answer Rorschach does not mean that the state is composed by bureaucrats or that it is a state as the USSR had.
The state in the USSR became that because of the material conditions.
Either that or it would have been crushed in the beggining precisely because of the material conditions(isolation, backwardness) .
That does not mean that the material conditions are always the same and also that does not mean that we should not advance the demands of workers democracy.

Also as Engels said"If everyone is a bureaucrat , then no one is a bureaucrat" . That will be the socialist state.




You're an idiot.

No, you are!



OP=Fuserg9
Thats not true.Do you want an indeep study on facism to understand that is a shit?You understand from the first thing it says,better people etc etc.
So it is alike if you decide between Anarchism and Marxism.You have on one hand the freedom of the people with no state above or vanguard party,or something between those two(Anarchism)and on the other hand you have Marxism where you have to wait through socialism to accomplish Communism(only) and during this "transitional stage" the state is "alive",and the equality wasnt accomplished (yet).You see only from those "basics" someone could decide the part he wants.The one is unfair the other is utopian etc etc possible thinkings that a mnd can mind from those basics.

You dont take into account the basics of the material conditions that made the USSR degenerate so you don't even know the basics.
So how can you chose between Marxism and Anarchism if you do not know what Marxism is and if you have all these idealist notions of freedom and human rights? How can a reactionary and counter-revolutionary fascist or capitalist have human rights after the revolution?

how can we have equality when the conditions for it are not there?
How can we have a stateless society and communism when the economic basis is not there for it?
How you ever given a minutes thought to that or you have everything worked out in your fantasy and then come on revleft and post it?

[F9]

You dont take into account the basics of the material conditions that made the USSR degenerate so you don't even know the basics.
So how can you chose between Marxism and Anarchism if you do not know what Marxism is and if you have all these idealist notions of freedom and human rights? How can a reactionary and counter-revolutionary fascist or capitalist have human rights after the revolution?

how can we have equality when the conditions for it are not there?
How can we have a stateless society and communism when the economic basis is not there for it?
How you ever given a minutes thought to that or you have everything worked out in your fantasy and then come on revleft and post it?

what are you trying to prove?that i dont know anthing about Marxism?We start a good talk and you jump on become an asshole with stupid stands and trying to prove NOTHING.I really consider you a serious poster but you sound like a moron now.What are you a dictator?Of course and capitalists,reactionaries and whatever the fuck they where have human rights,you becoming a racist by not giving them the chance to finally join a commune and contribute,and if you think that they all should be executed you becoming facist.
You dont know SHIT about Anarchism and Anarchocommunism so you go think a minute before come here and post shit.
When you stop being an asshole answer seriously on the matter

Fuserg9:star:

[Ultra-Violence]

I use to be a fucking bleedong red Commie manno joke MARX OR DIE! and all that good stuff. then i met some anarchist and it was all down hill from thier:lol:

but yeah even tho i i have fused my ideologys it doesnt mean i have diregarded him i still qoute him alot and defend him all the time but is just that hes not the only one with the plan u know thier are lots of ideas and to just stick to one IMO is boring and dumb u miss out on alot especialy in my case I had no fukcing clue what anarchist were other than "BAD" when i actualy sat down and read thier stuff it was like an eye opener

on other things i think the reason people in america that is stop being a radical for the simple reason that IT SUX BALL! i mean every marxist i have met and talked with in RL are like fucking 60 year old commies who are in the CPUSA!? come on now and the anrachist movement here is a fucking joke u got fucking white middle class kids running around lighting shit on fire and waaaaaaaaaaaay to into animal Liberation and that nonsesne it especialy sucks balls if your a radical person of color cause then u really got no one ur on your own so theres lots of reasons i would say

[FreeFocus]

Animal liberation is hardly "nonsense."

[BobKKKindle$]

Animal liberation is hardly "nonsense."

Yes it is, why do humans have a moral obligation to protect animals? Animals are incapable of understanding or expressing abstract concepts such as "freedom" (or what it means to be denied freedom) and so there is no legitimate reason to extend legal protection to animals when doing so would undermine the interests of our own species.

[FreeFocus]

Yes it is, why do humans have a moral obligation to protect animals? Animals are incapable of understanding or expressing abstract concepts such as "freedom" (or what it means to be denied freedom) and so there is no legitimate reason to extend legal protection to animals when doing so would undermine the interests of our own species.

Who said legal protection? I don't even support the state. While some animals, like ants, are incapable of "understanding" freedom, all animals have a natural urge to be free: to move about, to reproduce, to eat. If you put a mammal in a cage, you're telling me they wouldn't attempt to find a way out? The urge to escape the confines of the cage tell me otherwise. Additionally, a mentally handicapped human may not be able to understand the concept of "freedom," but it would be absolutely pathetic to try to deny them their rights on that premise.

Furthermore, animal subjugation and the subjugation of nature in general are closely tied to oppression among humans. Take sexism, for example, and feminist hypotheses about how equating nature with women paved the way for both to be dominated, to be tamed. Also take chattel slavery, under which the racist justification was that non-whites were sub-human or animals. If humans treated animals with dignity and respect, how could they justify oppressing other people using the logic that they're "less than human?" I think Murray Bookchin explains things like this wonderfully.

I think you fail to realize, as much as you criticize the bourgeoisie, you take on their chauvinism and seek to create hierarchical, abusive relationships with other living organisms. If you want to liberate other humans, there's no reason why cruelty towards animals is necessary, much less the type of animal abuse that exists within a capitalist framework where animals are conceived, imprisoned and "raised" on a massive scale only for profit and viewed merely as tools to further business interests. Not a situation I seek to replicate in a better world.

[BobKKKindle$]

Furthermore, animal subjugation and the subjugation of nature in general are closely tied to oppression among humans.This is simply wrong, there is no reason to assume that the "subjugation" of animals is responsible for, or in any way linked to, the broader oppression of humans groups. The oppression of women and other subordinate social groups is a result of the material needs of the ruling class (for example, racism is used to create divisions within the proletariat and so prevent workers from understanding that they all have interests in common and would all benefit from the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, even though they may not speak the same language or have the same colour of skin, and sexism is used to maintain the nuclear family which provides a source of labour power for the borugeoisie) and would persist even in the absence of animal "subjugation". Consider the fact that societies where animals (or certain types of animals) are accorded spiritual status and thus given special legal protection also exhibit the kinds of oppressive social structures which communists want to abolish - for example, the pervasive caste system in India.


there's no reason why cruelty towards animals is necessaryThe basic concept of "necessity" is inherently subjective. For someone who is suffering from a painful disease and is in desperate need of a cure, the use of animals as test subjects for the development of new medicines would certainly be "necessary" even though you may think that animals should not be subject to "degrading" treatment. The fact remains that humans have always used animals to serve our own ends, whether as a means of transportation, or as a source of nutrients, and so putting an end to the "oppression" of animals would necessarily have a negative impact on the interests of the human species, which is something I am deeply opposed to, as a communist.


...where animals are conceived, imprisoned and "raised" on a massive scale only for profit...I don't have any problem with this, because the exploitation of other species is a feature of behaviour throughout the animal world, and is not limited to humans. I hope that these practices (such as factory farming) will continue to be used and implemented on a large scale, in a communist society.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Since I am fond of marxism and see it as such a grate thing I often wonder why on earth anyone would abondon it. I've thought about it and I supsect it is simply because the people who gave up on marxism had become marxists for the wrong reasons to begin with. For example because of either overestimateing the subjective factors or underestimating the objective factors. Like expecting revolution around the corner when it is not and then becoming disillusioned.

This is my preliminary thought on the matter. I would like to hear other comrades thoughts on this as well if they have any.

The long and short of it. First, the short: sectarianism and broad economism (such as in the SWP/IST, the IMT, and even the CWI). The long:



Not long ago, politically correct “anti-capitalist” spontaneity arose in response to the “globalization” phenomenon. During that time, the various circle-sects forming the traditional “anti-capitalist” left jumped onto the bandwagon with mere oppositional slogans. Since the fading opposition, at least some, if not many, of the former “anti-globalization” protesters have actually become “entrepreneurs” and corporate managers. What went wrong?

These days, the regrouping national labour movements are moving ahead of the circle-sects, linking up with one another without circle-sect participation. What is wrong here?

Simply put, the various circle-sects have, long ago, allowed the discredited economism to strike back with a vengeance, thereby making us look dishonest, all the while adhering to an extended set of “principles.” Our organizations have forgotten our common historic purpose.

To quote a most politically incorrect revolutionary, who in turn quoted a shunned theoretician who was in fact his most influential theoretical mentor (by far), our preferably common organization is “not confined to simple service to the working-class movement: it represents ‘the combination of socialism and the working-class movement’ (to use Karl Kautsky’s definition which repeats the basic ideas of the Communist Manifesto); the task […] is to bring definite socialist ideals to the spontaneous working-class movement, to connect this movement with socialist convictions that should attain the level of contemporary science […]”

A second task for our preferably common organization is, to quote another work from the same period, “to represent the interests of the movement as a whole […] and to safeguard its political and ideological independence.” Without this combination, “the [spontaneous] working-class movement becomes petty and inevitably becomes bourgeois. In waging only the economic struggle, the working class loses its political independence; it becomes the tail of other parties and betrays the great principle: ‘The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves.’ In every country there has been a period in which the working-class movement existed apart from socialism, each going its own way; and in every country this isolation has weakened both socialism and the working-class movement. Only the fusion of socialism with the working-class movement has in all countries created a durable basis for both.”



REFERENCES:

Our Immediate Task by Vladimir Lenin [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1899/articles/arg3oit.htm]

The Urgent Tasks of Our Movement by Vladimir Lenin [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1900/nov/tasks.htm]

[FreeFocus]

This is simply wrong, there is no reason to assume that the "subjugation" of animals is responsible for, or in any way linked to, the broader oppression of humans groups. The oppression of women and other subordinate social groups is a result of the material needs of the ruling class (for example, racism is used to create divisions within the proletariat and so prevent workers from understanding that they all have interests in common and would all benefit from the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, even though they may not speak the same language or have the same colour of skin, and sexism is used to maintain the nuclear family which provides a source of labour power for the borugeoisie) and would persist even in the absence of animal "subjugation". Consider the fact that societies where animals (or certain types of animals) are accorded spiritual status and thus given special legal protection also exhibit the kinds of oppressive social structures which communists want to abolish - for example, the pervasive caste system in India.

Misogyny and patriarchy predate capitalism, first off. While these oppressive relationships may persist in the absence of animal subjugation, they would not have as much ideological leverage and support. Being able to dehumanize oppressed groups by placing them on par with animals has played a big role in genocides and imperialism. Now, in light of that, you have two options: fight to have everyone considered equal, or fight to attack the very heart of their ideological support. If animals were not considered "lesser" and "inferior," it would be impossible to deny another person their rights while trying to justify it. Thus, the entire paradigm is morphed.

Now you're getting into human institutions, religion and the state, when talking about spiritually-esteemed animals with legal protection. It's kind of instructive that you use examples of religiously esteemed animals, which are basically revered as gods, therefore implying the presence of a strong religion. That's an example of hierarchy. These societies also exhibit other oppressive characteristics. Not a surprise, nor a coincidence.



The basic concept of "necessity" is inherently subjective. For someone who is suffering from a painful disease and is in desperate need of a cure, the use of animals as test subjects for the development of new medicines would certainly be "necessary" even though you may think that animals should not be subject to "degrading" treatment. The fact remains that humans have always used animals to serve our own ends, whether as a means of transportation, or as a source of nutrients, and so putting an end to the "oppression" of animals would necessarily have a negative impact on the interests of the human species, which is something I am deeply opposed to, as a communist.It depends on what these treatments entail. I'm not an absolutist on this issue. If many people desperately need treatment, and animal testing is the only viable way to research a cure, and all other avenues have been exhausted, fine. Monkeys being put in positions like these, what for? How does this benefit humans?

Link to animal abuse picture (http://www.animaloutreach-ks.org/1067455125_4.jpg)

Link to animal abuse picture (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2076/2620607105_e7116eba5d_o.jpg)

EDIT: Thanks Led Zep for linking to pictures.


I don't have any problem with this, because the exploitation of other species is a feature of behaviour throughout the animal world, and is not limited to humans. I hope that these practices (such as factory farming) will continue to be used and implemented on a large scale, in a communist society.No other species artificially sets up units called "slaughterhouses" in which billions of animals are slaughtered yearly. So no, there's really no comparison in terms of scale or nature. I absolutely oppose factory farming (simply raising animals for slaughter) and would fight its implementation in any world in which I reside. I would not, however, have a problem with community farms that raise animals, care for animals, use their milk and other useful things they may produce, and then, at the end of their lives or before, depending on community need, kill the animal. I also have no problem with individuals hunting or fishing.

Keep in mind too, Bobkindles, other folks, capitalists, imperialists, have taken on your mindset, poaching in Africa and slaughtering American bison in the Plains. Get off the domination obsession.

[thejambo1]

This quote shows that just because one grows older does not mean one grows more mature. :rolleyes:
cant argue with that one!!:)

[Bilan]

I don't think you were a solid marxist to begin with.
If youwere you would have read state and revolution by Lenin which smashes all the arguments of the anarchists to the point tha they are laughable:lol:


Really? You've read enough anarchist essays and books, and understand their positions that well that you can make that statement?
Or are you just another loud mouth Marxist ponce who reads critiques, and basis's position off of them without understanding what exactly they're critiquing?

I think your post makes it so clear that it's the latter. State and Revolution was possibly one of the worst books I've ever read on Marxism (and anarchism, for that matter). It was second only to Stalin's "Marxism vs Anarchism" essay, which is utterly hilarious.

But if you would like to debate it, please, bring forward your argument, and you can watch it crumble like Rome. :lol:



And that is the main reason why people abandon marxism.
Because they are not solid enough in the Marxist ideas, because theydid not learn the correct ideas to begin with(Stalinists etc)and when they find out they quit marxism all toghether or simply because as Marx said Conciousness depends on material conditions so these people become "rich" enough to forget about all this "crap"Really? I know plenty of working class folk, particularly ones much older than you and I, who were Marxists and Communists in their youth, but have abandoned it in favour of social-democracy, whilst still desiring socialism.
Why is that? Because they didn't wipe their ass with The German Ideology? Blow their nose with Das Kapital?
Or is it because people lose faith due to material conditions, and factors which will determine the ability of the working class to succeed in its over throwal of the capitalist class? Such as the strength of the right wing (see America and Australia for two Western examples), the destruction and disabling of Trade Union powers and internal democracy (see Australia, where Trade Union numbers are at an all time low [17%]), the splitting up of communist parties - do I need to give you an example? - due to sectarianism, bigotry and stupidity, the decline in syndicalst union numbers and activities (Which, on the flipside, has changed and are now increasing in alot of places)?

Your analysis is unmaterialist and arrogant. Period.


Anyways I highly reccomend the state and revolution for the anarchists that too want to understand how marxism is superior.

Read it. You're wrong. I highly reccomend Maurice Brintons Socialism Reaffirmed and The Bolsheviks and Workers Control to see why you're full of shit.



The state in the USSR became that because of the material conditions.

Cop out. The USSR became "The way it was" because of its organizational structure. The fact that you're to much of a stubborn loyalist to Lenin wont change that fact.
The fact that any attempts to federate the factory committees, which were solid organizations of workers control of industry, was forbidden by the party, and that Factory Committees were forced to Commit Suicide within the trade union structures, and later, the Trade Unions were to be totally subordinate to the party, dictated the nature the "state" was going to take.
A process can now be discerned, of which the rest of this pamphlet will seek to unravel the unfolding. It is a process which leads, within a short period of 4 years, from the tremendous upsurge of the Factory Committee movement (a movement which both implicitly and explicitly sought to alter the relations of production) to the establishment of unquestioned domination by a monolithic and bureaucratic agency (the Party) over all aspects of economic and political life. This agency not being based on production, its rule could only epitomise the continued limitation of the authority of the workers in the productive process. This necessarily implied the perpetuation of hierarchical relations within production itself, and therefore the perpetuation of class society.

'nuff said.


Either that or it would have been crushed in the beggining precisely because of the material conditions(isolation, backwardness) .
That does not mean that the material conditions are always the same and also that does not mean that we should not advance the demands of workers democracy.

Lenin and Trotsky saw a very different image to that one, my boy.



Publication of Trotsky's classic 'Terrorism and Communism (just before the Second Congress of the Communist International). This work gives Trotsky's views on the 'socialist' organisation of labour in their most finished, lucid and unambiguous form. "The organisation of labour is in its essence the organisation of the new society: every historical form of society is in its foundation a form of organisation of labour". (36) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1920#36)
"The creation of a socialist society means the organisation of the workers on new foundations, their adaptation to those foundations and their labour re-education, with the one unchanging end of the increase in the productivity of labour". (37) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1920#37) "Wages, in the form of both money and goods, must be brought into the closest possible touch with the productivity of individual labour. Under capitalism the system of piecework and of grading, the application of the Taylor system, etc., have as their object to increase the exploitation of the workers by the squeezing out of surplus value. Under socialist production, piecework, bonuses, etc., have as their problem to increase the volume of the social product . . . those workers who do more for the general interest than others receive the right to a greater quantity of the social product than the lazy, the careless and the disorganisers". (38) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1920#38) "The very principle of compulsory labour is for the Communist quite unquestionable .. . the only solution to economic difficulties that is correct from the point of view both of principle and of practice is to treat the population of the whole country as the reservoir of the necessary labour power - an almost inexhaustible reservoir - and to introduce strict order into the work of its registration, mobilisation and utilisation". (39) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1920#39) "The introduction of compulsory labour service is unthinkable without the application, to a greater or lesser degree, of the methods of militarisation of labour". (40) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1920#40) "The unions should discipline the workers and teach them to place the interests of production above their own needs and demands". "The young Workers' State requires trade unions not for a struggle for better conditions of labour - that is the task of the social and state organisations as a whole - but to organise the working class for the ends of production". (41) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1920#41)

"It would be a most crying error to confuse the question as to the supremacy of the proletariat with the question of boards of workers at the head of factories. The dictatorship of the proletariat is expressed in the abolition of private property in the means of production, in the supremacy over the whole soviet mechanism of the collective will of the workers (a euphemism for the Party - M.B.) and not at all in the form in which individual economic enterprises are administered". (42) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1920#42)

"I consider that if the civil war had not plundered our economic organs of all that was strongest, most independent. most endowed with initiative, we should undoubtedly have entered the path of one-man management in the sphere of economic administration much sooner and much less painfully". (43) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1920#43)

Of course, compulsory labour is by all means, democratic. But lets be more specific!


At the Congress Trotsky rounded on the Workers' Opposition. "They have come out with dangerous slogans. They have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the Party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy !

My bold. Source. (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1921)

You are wrong on every single level.



Also as Engels said"If everyone is a bureaucrat , then no one is a bureaucrat" . That will be the socialist state.

Maybe you should brush up on what socialism actually is.

[Niccolò Rossi]

OI honestly I have no idea how you can write such self contradictory rubbish.

First of all let us look at the following:


the main reason why people abandon marxism [...] Because they are not solid enough in the Marxist ideas, because theydid not learn the correct ideas to begin with(Stalinists etc)and when they find out they quit marxism all toghether


as Marx said Conciousness depends on material conditions so these people become "rich" enough to forget about all this "crap"

So what your telling me is that consciousness depends on what you read and how solid your understanding of "Marxist Ideas" is. Yet at the same time it is the material conditions which determine consciousness. Is this not a blatant self-contradiction. If not please, explain why.

Secondly you're are still suggesting that Marx "said" that "Consciousness depends on material conditions" (albeit not in quotation marks as before but this time bolded), despite that fact that in the thread "Revolution in Various Countries" you failed to provide one single shred of evidence that backs up this assertion.

Finally, as CG already noted your suggestion that the abandonment of Marxism can be put down to simply not having a correct grasp of "Marxist ideas" is stupidly idealistic.

[Lamanov]

Me too I write contradictory posts...

If you understood the situation then and there, you wouldn't think it's contradictory.


Anyways I highly reccomend the state and revolution for the anarchists that too want to understand how marxism is superior.

I highly recommend the same book for all the people to see how Marxism is not superior to anarchism, nor the contrary is the fact, and how Lenin is recuperating quotes by Marx and Engels, in order to push out a cohesive argument.

For anyone who wants to know what aspects are actually superior over the other, I suggest much more, and, in advance, thinking with your own brain.


No, you are!

No, you are. You're only repeating same old track; it's driven so far I can predict what you're going to say to each thing I could state.


So how can you chose between Marxism and Anarchism if you do not know what Marxism is and if you have all these idealist notions of freedom and human rights?

I came to know both, so I took both: I only threw out malignant parts of both, like Lenin.


How can a reactionary and counter-revolutionary fascist or capitalist have human rights after the revolution?

They can't have political rights. Everyone who brakes human rights, can also be denied those. This is no rocket science. What are you trying to say? "We need a state for that." No, we don't, we need workers' councils and workers' militias.

[Led Zeppelin]

A lot of people stop being Marxists because they were never one to begin with. See, all they did when they called themselves "Marxists", "socialists", "anarchists" or "communists" was to, say, post on an internet forum or listen to rrrrrevolutionary music in order to hang around the "leftist scene".

There are a lot of those around, even on this forum there are several of those, some are even in high-ranking positions on the forum due to this very fact (they consider being active on this forum as "doing their part" for the movement). In reality these people will inevitably wind up on the other side of the barricades when the time comes to actually do something.

All their illusions and romantic ideas about revolution will be shattered, and they will be left with nothing but their RATM albums for comfort.

Do you want an example of a real Marxist member? How about Severian, the best member this forum has ever had. There are of course many more.

[SEKT]

I would say that if someone is not Marxist first we have to say what to be a Marxist is.

As Lukacs argued an orthodox is someone who is orthodoxism resides in the method not in the beliefs of Marx as a bible.

What distinguishes Marxism is its always critical thought, if this is the case then many of the people who argue them as anarchist or even the same ones who argue to be marxist are MARXIST in a real way, the problem is not if I am from a determined sect (Because I think I have the revelation as a religious belief); marxism that Marx and Engels and many others conceived is a continuos seek for liberty, practice and criticism of reality. This is the basis of Marxism, maybe some of the methods used as dialectics or the mecanicism of some comrades differ and we can have discussions about them (which is good because as I argued this is not a religious sect). So if the seek of liberty, non opression and irrationality is the thing we want I really don't think there are a huge difference among us, but what we can really have to do is to act, because this knowledge is nothing if we keep arguing but not doing anything. I would finally end with a quote of Marx about what a Marxist is:


The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth — i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.
Marx´s 2nd Thesis on Feuerbach :thumbup:

[Lamanov]

I'm a Libertarian Marxist, but I'm also an anarcho-syndicalist, organizationally. I'm annoyed by people who think that you can't be a Marxist unless you agree with uncle Lenin.

But I do agree with assertion that people stop being Marxists and/or anarchists because they were such only by word, usually on screen. And it's also because they usually lack any deeper grasp of revolutionary theory. People who call themselves "anarchists" but think "classes don't exist" either leave their child play or fucking learn something.

[Hyacinth]

I'm a Libertarian Marxist, but I'm also an anarcho-syndicalist, organizationally. I'm annoyed by people who think that you can't be a Marxist unless you agree with uncle Lenin.
Thank you, that needed to be said. When did Leninism become Marxism, and any deviation therefrom a heresy? (I ask that rhetorically)

As for the OP; part of the issue might also be dissolution with the revolutionary movement. We are living in reactionary times, and it is difficult for some to see the proverbial light beyond the horizon; they see the reaction that is happening, gains being lost, and no progress being made, and from this conclude that progress toward revolution is impossible. I suspect that this is in large part the motivation for many former-revolutionaries becoming reformists.

[Davie zepeda]

The movement has been based on party party But not even once have they actually mention a actually strategie this is an issues most young people want a programme that will show result's and even lenin worked with the opposition to bring down the ruling class we must do the same we must devolpe a programme to fight are condition just like lenin,stalinand trosky won there battle's we must win are's and have a plan that show result's.

[Ultra-Violence]

Animal Liberation Is Nothing but Fucking Nonsense i i dont want to HJ this persons thread but ill try to amke it short and sweet. Animal Liberation is nothing but fucking bougie white upper middle class kids with nothing better to do than fucking send bombs in the mail to vivisectors thats what it is it has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANARCHISM OR FREEDOM! for that matter not only that i find it fucking insulting when in amerikkka theres fucking 2 millions people in jail (most who are people of color and poor whites) Locked up and u got stupid asses like ALF and ElF doing meaningless shit that not only hurts our cuase BUT ITS FUCKING INSULTING(emphasis) seriously i mean come on now grow up! People Come first theirs fucking people dying every day from hunger and and war and Human slavery and all that sick shit and all animal liberationst can worry about is a fucking mink coatand animal testing!?

now Lets try to stay on topic!

[Oswy]

Not everyone who comes into contact with Marxism does so under the same material circumstances, and nor do they necessarily interpret it in the same way or study it to the same depth. At one extreme is the phenomenon whereby people adopt the slogans and imagery of Marxism without really being very interested in its explanatory powers (or potential shortcomings for that matter); such people are easily engaged by other ideological movements, should they have sufficient, if superficial, powers of attraction.

One serious problem within Marxism is sectarianism and absolutism; processes whereby individuals and groups make (sometime religious-like) claims to be the bearers of the 'real' Marxism and where bitter argument can take place over relatively slight issues of interpretation or priority. Personally I think what we do agree on is far more important than what we don't, and we shouldn't let the disagreements make the central strength of Marxist ideas seem like everything is a matter of disagreement, that's just self-defeating.

[Djehuti]

Since I am fond of marxism and see it as such a grate thing I often wonder why on earth anyone would abondon it.

I do not think that you can ever cease to be a Marxist. I do not think that you can accept half-truths, lies, rationalizations, ideology, when you have once learnt to use your reason. For Marxism is scientific. To abjure it, we must therefore reject not only its answers, we must reject its questions and the very way of putting them. This would be tantamount to rising and declaring that earth is flat and that all we need to know about it is found in the Holy Writ. This would be possible only as a mental suicide, after which a zombie existence only would remain to one, as one of the undead.

Those who make this recantation, believing it, can therefore never have been Marxists. A thinking human being cannot change himself into an idiot. Self-idiotization is certainly possible, but it must be started early. Pathological idiocy also exists, but as a problem in neurology, not in social science. Those erstwhile 'Marxists' and 'communists' which are now milling about in a panic, slinging mud at their own past - and thus incidentally at themselves - in their eagerness to find new owners with new collars and leashes, those people may have paid the dues of a party, or learnt some ready-made cathechism by rote. They have never lived Marxism, understood Marxism - which is basically the same thing. And if they have cause to feel shame, which may sometimes well be the case, then neither Karl Marx nor their honest comrades have given them cause to do so.

[Djehuti]

State and Revolution was my first political book, and it led me to libertarian communism.


State and Revolution is by far most anti-state of all Lenins works. I don't think that traditional marxist-leninists have read it very carefully.

[Djehuti]

There are some ex-Marxists in the neoconservative movement. Marxian economics gives a very good account of how capitalism works, and if someone wanted to sell out and do the RW's work, then they have a good idea of how to do capitalism. It is unfortunate that some comrades do sell out.

The corporate bourgeoisie often read marxist theory more and better than we do, a lot of marxist thinking has been put into modern management theory for example, and thus they are using marxist insights against us workers. Ironic really.

[Djehuti]

Anarchism was not insignificant in Russia, even though there were not much anarchists.

Those who were (pejoratively) called "anarchist" in western Europe were often called "nihilists" in Russia. There were plenty of nihilists in Russia, they were quite strong among peasants and in the Socialist-Revolutionary Party.


Animal liberation is hardly "nonsense."

Still, to quote Gilles Dauvé, the exploitation of McDonald's employees has more historical relevance than that of the cows. Not because humans would suffer more, or the suffering of cows would matter less. But because only humans can put an end to McDonald's.

[Lamanov]

Those who were (pejoratively) called "anarchist" in western Europe were often called "nihilists" in Russia. There were plenty of nihilists in Russia, they were quite strong among peasants and in the Socialist-Revolutionary Party.

I'm not talking about nihilists (who were basically liberals), SRs or narodniks. I'm not even talking about SR Marximallists, people very close to class struggle anarchism - their member, Anatoli Lamanov, was the first president of Kronstadt Soviet and an active participant in the rebellion of 1921.

There was a considerable number of anarchists in revolutionary Russia. People around papers Golos Truda, Burevestnik and Anarkhia. Then there was organisation of Nabat in Ukraine, then there were workers' organisations that adhered to anarcho-syndicalism: Central Council of Factory Committees in Petrograd was strongly influenced by it (it had its own paper Novy Put), like Bakers Union in Moscow and workers in food processing industry as well.

[GPDP]

I do not think that you can ever cease to be a Marxist. I do not think that you can accept half-truths, lies, rationalizations, ideology, when you have once learnt to use your reason. For Marxism is scientific. To abjure it, we must therefore reject not only its answers, we must reject its questions and the very way of putting them. This would be tantamount to rising and declaring that earth is flat and that all we need to know about it is found in the Holy Writ. This would be possible only as a mental suicide, after which a zombie existence only would remain to one, as one of the undead.

Those who make this recantation, believing it, can therefore never have been Marxists. A thinking human being cannot change himself into an idiot. Self-idiotization is certainly possible, but it must be started early. Pathological idiocy also exists, but as a problem in neurology, not in social science. Those erstwhile 'Marxists' and 'communists' which are now milling about in a panic, slinging mud at their own past - and thus incidentally at themselves - in their eagerness to find new owners with new collars and leashes, those people may have paid the dues of a party, or learnt some ready-made cathechism by rote. They have never lived Marxism, understood Marxism - which is basically the same thing. And if they have cause to feel shame, which may sometimes well be the case, then neither Karl Marx nor their honest comrades have given them cause to do so.


Would this apply to someone like LSD, then? Remember, this was a guy who possessed tremendous knowledge of Marxism, and was so active that he was made administrator. And yet he renounced it all, and now calls himself a "recovering communist", as if communism is some mental disease that needs to be shed away.

Let's forget about whether he thinks we can reach communism. What happens to all the conclusions that he once drew about our present system, now that he is a reformist? Does he ditch them, and call them nonsense? Or is he simply discouraged in the potential of communism, while still liking the idea?

From what I've seen, his beef is that we offer too simplistic an answer, that the world is far too complex for us to simply say "oh, if we overthrow capitalism, then everything will be swell", that we no longer live in the 19th century, when revolution would've been desirable. Of course, I do not agree with those positions, but nevertheless, it is slightly disencouraging to hear these words from one such as him.

[INDK]

I think a common reason abandonment of most Leftist ideologies is thoughts that the cause is going nowhere, is pointless, a waste of time, a dream. LSD, for example, abandoned his thoughts though still in agreement with the basic ideology and possessing a wealth of knowledge on it. He had said in his open letter that he realized the 'abject pointlessness of it all'.

[TheFern]

People abandon leftism for two main reasons I'd imagine...

1) Disillusionment and giving up on the dream. They may start to think it's more important to get ahead in their Capitalist Society than to work towards the goal of Communism.

2) Being misled by Capitalist/Fascist propaganda. Coming to believe that communism is "wrong" or "foolhardy."

Some people may also go out a 3rd way, by being bought out by the oppressor, but I suspect that number is extremely low.

[Floyce White]

Over the years, I criticized and abandoned "Marx-ism" as I criticized and abandoned "leader-ism" in general. I criticize myself for having promoted it through youthful ignorance.

"Marxism" isn't communism. Communism existed before Marx was ever born, exists now, and will exist long after Marx is forgotten.

[black magick hustla]

I think some of you people are too high on their horses. Not all people abandoning marxism/class struggle anarchism did it because they didn't "understand it". That is just so arrogant and pompous.

I do think LSD didn't understand shit. His arguments were shit and the whole redstarite marxism is shit and a lot of people following it are doomed to abandon it. However not all people are like that.

[Ken]

personally i dont go to rallies and protests anymore because the idea of communism in australia is just complete lol.

[Ultra-Violence]

^^^^^
I always loved to read LSD's post they were GOOD post,I think his down fall was that even tho he knew a hole lot of theory but when it came down to "pratcice" per say becuase he states his down fall was with a meeting of a bunch of trots if im not mistaking and he probably saw how silly and immature the far left is ( nothing against trots) and dropped his ideas

bu hey who are we to judge who not to say some of you in the nay future may decide to one day drop "revolutionary polititcs?

[gilhyle]

I love this article as it expresses the considered, principled opinion of a man who broke with Marxism in a carefull, reflective, responsible way:

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/heijen/1948/03/balancesheet.html

IT seems to me people break with Marxism for so many reasons it is hard to count them. LSD has made a key point, the apparent hopelessness. The best Marxists are not mad idealists who continue in defiiance of impracticality. On the contrary one is not a real Marxist if one does not believe earnestly in the 'art of the possible' rather than the saving grace of purity. So the very best Marxists find powerlessness deeply frustrating like the best catholic priests find celibacy a torture.

My sympathy goes out to LSD, because the recognition of necessity is a kind of freedom which leaves each of us a lesser person as we bow to it, but must be endured.

At another level, maybe the only thing Stalin ever said (besides saying that Trotsky made October 1917 possible :cool: ) that I agreed with was saying that revolutionaries should not have families. Truth is having children makes it very hard to be a marxist. The distinction here between theory and practice is irrelevant; I mean by that that you are not a Marxist if you do not work actively for political power for the working class. It is not correct that you can be a Marxist in theory but not in practice. Of course you can share Marxist ideas....but you are not a Marxist unless you subordinate your family to the cause. And that is seriously difficult, when the cause seems pointless and the family is seriously in need.

Someone like Sydney Hook is worth a look - a man who was a very articulate Marxist theoretician (with a pragmatist/deweyian bent) who turned into a raving republican, with hardly a signiificant change in theoretical perspective ( I exaggerate a bit).

Bottom line - every Marxist in a capitalist society is under seige, surrounded by armies of interests and emotions pulling him or her back into compliance with capitalist norms. Again and again, our personal wall are breached. Mines explode under our gates and open up entrances for influences of the dominant ideology or quietism. We exist almost as anomalies, as candle flames blowing in a wind swept space.,,,,and we are snuffed out in every passing breeze and bizarrely some of us remain alight.

The point is not why people cease to be Marxists, the point is how people continue to be Marxists....it is an amazing testament to the fundamental character of the flaws in this society that there are still even a small minority who adhere to a different future at the zenith of the imperialist epoch.

[Chicano Shamrock]

I don't think you were a solid marxist to begin with.
If youwere you would have read state and revolution by Lenin which smashes all the arguments of the anarchists to the point tha they are laughable:lol:


And that is the main reason why people abandon marxism.
Because they are not solid enough in the Marxist ideas, because theydid not learn the correct ideas to begin with(Stalinists etc)and when they find out they quit marxism all toghether or simply because as Marx said Conciousness depends on material conditions so these people become "rich" enough to forget about all this "crap"

What the hell is a solid masxist? A marxist that is so filled with theory that they stop questioning themselves? That's at least what I get out of it.

I think the reason why people stop becoming marxists is that they finally take a good look at themselves and their ideas. In my opinion you must always doubt your ideology and ask yourself if this or that other ideology is more practical. If you don't do this you are close minded and foolish.

I myself once thought I was a Communist. I agree with the end product and the economic system but eventually I really asked myself why it hasn't worked even though there have been many atempts at Marx's theory. Well that's what it is right? Theory... if it doesn't work after multiple expirements it is not a valid theory.

People realize that a state will not just wither away into a non-state while someone is in charge. If you don't understand that sentence you are a good little dogma filled Marxist. Good job you did it:) I'll race you to the forced labor camp!

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

probably mindless factionalism, thats abit annoying all this potential wasted on arguing who's name should precede our -ism

[al8]

I thank people for their input. There seem to be way more factors driving people away from a marxist or communist stance than I thought of on my own.

[Vanguard1917]

Consider the fact that societies where animals (or certain types of animals) are accorded spiritual status and thus given special legal protection also exhibit the kinds of oppressive social structures which communists want to abolish - for example, the pervasive caste system in India.

Yeah, Marx pointed out how this was the product of social conditions which "subjugated man to external circumstances instead of elevating man to be the sovereign of circumstances", and gave way to "a brutalizing worship of nature, exhibiting its degradation in the fact that man, the sovereign of nature, fell down on his knees in adoration of Hanuman, the monkey, and Sabbala, the cow".

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I would like to reformulate the status of Marxism to address this question. Rather than viewing Marxism as a concrete set of theoretical ideas, one should view Marxism as a world view. In this case certain features, such as anti-capitalism in the form of a a critique of exploitation (a la capital), a view of classes (manifesto), or just a view of conflicting non-rational (emerging from material condition) ideologies constitute Marxism. This renders questions like, "Was Stalin/Lenin/Mao a Marxist", "can anarchists be Marxists?", and "How can we REALLY have Marxism?" meaningless. We should understand it as a world view. It's perfectly coherent for an anarchist to claim that they are "more Marxist then Marx", even if I disagree with it.

That being said, a world view is lost when an event calls its foundations into crisis or it only existed as a theoretical position within a different world view. As for what calls Marxism into crisis, that must vary from individual to individual. However, many "ex-Marxist" still hold to the world view that capitalism oppressive and should be overcome, they just don't know how. More often, a person with a capitalist world view in an attempt to be independent or unique adopts the theoretical position of Marxism. Then it's easy to just come and go.

[the_me_collective]

I used to be in a Trotskyist group, nothing genioes about Lenin, in fact I would say he had the same view of the working class elitist had. He argued that they where jet to ignorant to manage their own affairs and their for where in need of an enlightened revolutionary vanguard. Lenin was never about the working class, his image is a sham, his thoughts simplistic.

I like Marxist 'scientific' approach and he had allot of great theories who are as relevant today as they where in his time. But calling myself a Marxist, never! There are many other great thinkers out there, why limitate myself?