Does Marxism take too much intelligence to become a mass movement?

[Sweetpotos]

I've been feeling extremely pessimistic lately and I just want to rant a little bit, I hope you will not fault me too much for this.

I've started to wonder whether or not Marxism really does just take too much intelligent thought and reflection to truly catch on as a mass movement (at least in the US).

I've been completely stunned by the effectiveness of the use of "socialism" as a derogatory term to describe something which is so utterly far removed from socialism it is mind-boggling. The American public only has the brains to think of things at the level of slogans, they will never be able, it seems to me, to understand things at the level of concepts.

All these cretinous maggots understand as "socialism" is higher taxes and the "redistribution of wealth" (how fucking hilarious is that phrase to any thinking person?). For the slightly more apt burghers, they can move onto the fringes of the abstract and identify socialism as "government ownership", which is still just as wrong. How can these people be expected to understand that "ownership" is a CLASS PHENOMENON and therefore any kind of "ownership" (just to avoid confusion, "common ownership" - what Marx describes - is the same thing as non-ownership) supports the power of the bourgeoisie and is fucking CAPITALIST!

And we might also hear these braying idiots talk about their "private property" and how under socialism their property would belong to the state. This is supposed to scare the people. Why won't anyone ever ask the obvious question? Exactly how much "property" does the working man have? NOT ONE IOTA!!!!

I recently saw Brian Moore of the Socialist Party on the Colbert Report, and had high hopes he would demolish all the lies with ease (much how Marx effortlessly tears to pieces all the "bourgeois objections to Communism") but I was disappointed I'm afraid. He didn't at all do socialism the justice it deserves.

So anyway, that's all. All this red-baiting just gets to me. But hey, with the word socialism being thrown around so much, maybe a few people might try and figure out what it actually is. I doubt it though.

[JimmyJazz]

Does Marxism take too much intelligence to become a mass movement?

No.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The very fact we have a spokesperson on television is something to be proud about. I went years without seeing any self-identified socialists, outside of Comedy Central comedy tours. Moore may be pretty weak, but he can provide us a platform to leap from. We just need to find new voices. Chomsky is nearing his end, after all.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I understand why you'd think this, because Marxism has so much explanatory power it can be used to analyse almost any phenomena, for better or worse.

But I mean, I'm not really into that. I'm not too fussed about a marxian analysis of the nuclear family, I'm all about the basics. For example, here are my scattered understandings, in no particular order.

1. Society rests on a material base. In other words, the ideas that define any social situation, like liberal democracy, do not spring from the air but are provoked by socio-economic circumstance. That's not too difficult to grasp at all, and really it's just obvious - you're unlikely to think of a TV show before television has been invented.

2. If you have property, you have power. The more property you have, the more powerful you are. Society can be divided between people who have property and are therefore powerful, and people who have none and are therefore powerless. The people who have property form the ruling class of any society, by default. Again, not too difficult to grasp, and I think most people intuitively grasp that there is a power dynamic in the world - hence the myriad of conspiracy theories claiming some supernatural elite.

3. Ruling classes don't ever give up power voluntarily, and always defend their own interests. In capitalism, the rulers are obviously the capitalists, and in order to make a profit and remain a capitalist they must exploit their workers by not giving them the full value of the work they do. So all the people that don't have property are either struggling to stay alive by being unemployed, or being ripped off by being employed.

4. We desperately need to stop this from happening as soon as possible. Since a class system always produces this exploitation in some form, the only way to stop it from happening is to get rid of classes.

And that's really enough. Wahey, you're a revolutionary marxist with about 10 minutes concentration. :)

I think once you understand these sorts of basic things the rest starts to flow really quickly.

-Alex

[bcbm]

I don't think "We can manage our own affairs and don't need any of these bastards ripping us off anymore" is a terribly complicated proposition.


maybe a few people might try and figure out what it actually is. I doubt it though.

Its been a top ten search term on Yahoo recently.

[fabiansocialist]

I've been feeling extremely pessimistic lately and I just want to rant a little bit, I hope you will not fault me too much for this.

I've started to wonder whether or not Marxism really does just take too much intelligent thought and reflection to truly catch on as a mass movement (at least in the US).

I've been completely stunned by the effectiveness of the use of "socialism" as a derogatory term to describe something which is so utterly far removed from socialism it is mind-boggling. The American public only has the brains to think of things at the level of slogans, they will never be able, it seems to me, to understand things at the level of concepts.

All these cretinous maggots understand as "socialism" is higher taxes and the "redistribution of wealth" (how fucking hilarious is that phrase to any thinking person?). For the slightly more apt burghers, they can move onto the fringes of the abstract and identify socialism as "government ownership", which is still just as wrong. How can these people be expected to understand that "ownership" is a CLASS PHENOMENON and therefore any kind of "ownership" (just to avoid confusion, "common ownership" - what Marx describes - is the same thing as non-ownership) supports the power of the bourgeoisie and is fucking CAPITALIST!

And we might also hear these braying idiots talk about their "private property" and how under socialism their property would belong to the state. This is supposed to scare the people. Why won't anyone ever ask the obvious question? Exactly how much "property" does the working man have? NOT ONE IOTA!!!!

You're getting too worked up. Yes, of course, Marxist theory is beyond the ken of most ordinary folk -- but so is general relativity and classical electrodynamics. With ordinary people, the limit is: "Four legs good, two legs bad" (the sheep in Orwell's "Animal Farm"). But this is all you need for a mass movement. You don't see a theoretical physicist getting all worked up because most people can't understand what a curvature tensor is -- why are you?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

You're getting too worked up. Yes, of course, Marxist theory is beyond the ken of most ordinary folk -- but so is general relativity and classical electrodynamics. With ordinary people, the limit is: "Four legs good, two legs bad" (the sheep in Orwell's "Animal Farm"). But this is all you need for a mass movement. You don't see a theoretical physicist getting all worked up because most people can't understand what a curvature tensor is -- why are you?


This is a highly condescending attitude; unsurprising for a fabian. You know, marxists don't think that ordinary people are stupid or pigs. We actually are those ordinary people that you sneer at. Down from the high horse yeah mate?

-Alex

[fabiansocialist]

This is a highly condescending attitude; unsurprising for a fabian. You know, marxists don't think that ordinary people are stupid or pigs. We actually are those ordinary people that you sneer at. Down from the high horse yeah mate?


C'mon, let's be honest: how many ordinary people can make their way through Vol.1 of Marx's Capital? I meet so many self-described leftists whose theoretical baggage is negligible or non-existent. How many people do you know who are comfortable with Wallerstein, Adorno, Lukacs, Harvey, Mandel, and Zizek -- to pluck a few names at random? People au fait with theory are few and far between; for the rest, oversimplified explanations and slogans have to suffice. In the USA, I meet so many self-described people of the left whose analysis does not go further -- maybe cannot go further -- than "f**k Bush." Every attempt to explain things in a more abstract manner -- in terms, say, of class, exploitation, contradictions of capitalism, recurrent crises, falling rates of profit -- falls on deaf ears, is akin to banging one's head against a brick wall. So: theory for the few, slogans for the rest.

[Tower of Bebel]

Becoming a mass mass movement has more to do with organizational questions (democracy, centralism and program) than thoughts. It also isn't necessarily a problem of working class militancy (spontaneity) that favors radical ideas, because organization is a fundamental precondition for real working class militancy.

[fabiansocialist]

Becoming a mass mass movement has more to do with organizational questions (democracy, centralism and program) than thoughts. It also isn't necessarily a problem of working class militancy (spontaneity) that favors radical ideas, because organization is a fundamental precondition for real working class militancy.

I concur. And leave theory to those who enjoy playing with it.

[Charles Xavier]

Marxism isn't a religion, we do not need to convert everyone to Marxism.

[RaiseYourVoice]

C'mon, let's be honest: how many ordinary people can make their way through Vol.1 of Marx's Capital? I meet so many self-described leftists whose theoretical baggage is negligible or non-existent. How many people do you know who are comfortable with Wallerstein, Adorno, Lukacs, Harvey, Mandel, and Zizek
I didnt read the Kapital, i cant be fucked to read any of the above (of which only adorno means anything to me). Still i am a marxist-leninist, a communist. I am member of a communist youth organisation in cadre positions. I know how to organise a demonstration, a strike, a campaign. I can write articles (not the theoretical sought i might add) for our newspaper. Lets hear what great communist achievements reading a lot of books have helped you to achieve.

(Not that i disregard theory, i read some marx, some engels, some lenin and it was very inspiring. Actually living, working and agitating keep me from reading more though)

Workers know where they stand, they know (or better feel?) which side they are on. i actually hate debating with students or people of that sort, there are some progressive ones among them but they dont actually have a clue about the world. Its hard to actually get what class war is about if you have hardly ever felt it.

[fabiansocialist]

I didnt read the Kapital, i cant be fucked to read any of the above (of which only adorno means anything to me). Still i am a marxist-leninist, a communist. I am member of a communist youth organisation in cadre positions. I know how to organise a demonstration, a strike, a campaign. I can write articles (not the theoretical sought i might add) for our newspaper. Lets hear what great communist achievements reading a lot of books have helped you to achieve.

(Not that i disregard theory, i read some marx, some engels, some lenin and it was very inspiring. Actually living, working and agitating keep me from reading more though)

Workers know where they stand, they know (or better feel?) which side they are on. i actually hate debating with students or people of that sort, there are some progressive ones among them but they dont actually have a clue about the world. Its hard to actually get what class war is about if you have hardly ever felt it.

The revolution -- if and when it occurs -- will be because of a heavy theoretical underpinning. Without that theory, you will be back to a predatory overclass within a generation. I'm reminded of when WW1 broke out and Lenin retired to Switzerland to study Hegel. Action of and by itself leads nowhere. But you do have a point that a lot of (pseudo-) intellectuals are prolix, love the sound of their voices, and make excuses for not doing anything (the time is not propitious, comrade, our time will come...).

[BIG BROTHER]

Marxism in order to mobilize the working class doesn't require all workers to be like Lenin, it requires an vanguard party ready to put the working class in power, and class antagonism.

With the eventual disappointment brought by Obama(because I'm sure he'll win) the left will have a chance.

and yea sorry for being to focused on the usa, but the guy who started the post seems to be from the usa.

[BraneMatter]

I understand why you'd think this, because Marxism has so much explanatory power it can be used to analyse almost any phenomena, for better or worse.

But I mean, I'm not really into that. I'm not too fussed about a marxian analysis of the nuclear family, I'm all about the basics. For example, here are my scattered understandings, in no particular order.

1. Society rests on a material base. In other words, the ideas that define any social situation, like liberal democracy, do not spring from the air but are provoked by socio-economic circumstance. That's not too difficult to grasp at all, and really it's just obvious - you're unlikely to think of a TV show before television has been invented.

2. If you have property, you have power. The more property you have, the more powerful you are. Society can be divided between people who have property and are therefore powerful, and people who have none and are therefore powerless. The people who have property form the ruling class of any society, by default. Again, not too difficult to grasp, and I think most people intuitively grasp that there is a power dynamic in the world - hence the myriad of conspiracy theories claiming some supernatural elite.

3. Ruling classes don't ever give up power voluntarily, and always defend their own interests. In capitalism, the rulers are obviously the capitalists, and in order to make a profit and remain a capitalist they must exploit their workers by not giving them the full value of the work they do. So all the people that don't have property are either struggling to stay alive by being unemployed, or being ripped off by being employed.

4. We desperately need to stop this from happening as soon as possible. Since a class system always produces this exploitation in some form, the only way to stop it from happening is to get rid of classes.

And that's really enough. Wahey, you're a revolutionary marxist with about 10 minutes concentration. :)

I think once you understand these sorts of basic things the rest starts to flow really quickly.

-Alex

Damn good summary!



I've started to wonder whether or not Marxism really does just take too much intelligent thought and reflection to truly catch on as a mass movement (at least in the US).



:laugh: I like your qualifier "at least in the US." You may have something there, at least as far as Sarah Palin rallies go, where the 'working class' crowd (Joe the Plumber, Ed the Banker, etc.) boos "spread the wealth," as opposed to concentrating the wealth, which I guess they like better!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Marxism in order to mobilize the working class doesn't require all workers to be like Lenin, it requires an vanguard party ready to put the working class in power, and class antagonism.

That's been tried before and doesn't work. The liberation of the working class is job for the working class and no one else.


Marxism isn't a religion, we do not need to convert everyone to Marxism.

Nobody is saying Marxism is a religion or should be treated like one, and getting people to comprehend Marxism and accept or recognise it as valid is not same as converting someone to a religion.

I comprehend and accept Newton's Laws of Motion. That doesn't make physics a religion.

What Marxism needs is an edition of Capital re-written in a modern and acessible language. For example, the Labour Theory of Value can be stated with the axiom: "No capitalist will hire a worker unless they know, consciously or otherwise, that the value of the goods and services the worker produces is greater than that of the wages paid to the worker". The actual mathematics behind that and other Marxist concepts can be left to some bright young academics.

Similarly, Marxist pamphlets need to be written in a simple but not condescending manner. Presentation is also important. Most people will recognise pictures of Marx and Lenin, but if you must include images of less well-known Marxists on your pamphlets, a mistake I've seen is to give no kind of explanation or background on them. Avoid massive blocks of text, and include pictures and diagrams. Look at the leaflets and pamphlets of corporations and large NGOs - while they are created with the intent to sell a product or promote a cause, they also have well-paid teams of advertising and public relations people behind their design and layout, even if the content of what they're selling and/or promoting is irrelevant to Marxists. A well-designed pamphlet will pique one's curiosity, typically including some kind of visual or short verbal "hook" to draw people in. Bright, optimistic and "cheerful" themes should predominate. Include a miniature FAQ or small section with critiques and objections, and answer them honestly.

Such tactics may seem disasteful to Marxists and traditional anarchists, who have good reasons for disliking corporations and certain organisations. But as long as one remains honest, I see no reason why such techniques should not be used - after all, they manage to convince people to part with their hard-earned cash, even if it goes against their objective interests. Since Marxism is (or should be) for free, that's one less hurdle for Marxists.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"Despair is typical of those who do not understand the causes of evil, see no way out, and are incapable of struggle." - Lenin

The United States, like its puppet regimes in south Korea and Taiwan, has a distinct and unmatched history of virulent anti-communism. That's why talking-heads can get away with using "socialism" like a Mister Yuck sticker here.

That doesn't mean workers don't have the same class interests here.

"We often react to party labels rather than to the actual proposals which are put before us. This was demonstrated very clearly in a study in which farmers and workers in the United States were interviewed with respect to their voting intentions, their party preferences, and their approval or disapproval of various lines of action. They were found to disapprove of Socialist and Communist parties and candidates, and yet approve of the measures proposed by these parties rather more than those proposed by their more conservative opponents. When it is a question of election, therefore, these people would have voted against the measures which they actually favoured because of their stereotyped view of Socialism." -H.J. Eysenck, Uses and Abuses of Psychology

[Random Precision]

Totally, man. Those ignorant, bought-off, lazy American workers... they don't even deserve a revolution! :rolleyes:

[fabiansocialist]

What Marxism needs is an edition of Capital re-written in a modern and acessible language. For example, the Labour Theory of Value can be stated with the axiom: "No capitalist will hire a worker unless they know, consciously or otherwise, that the value of the goods and services the worker produces is greater than that of the wages paid to the worker". The actual mathematics behind that and other Marxist concepts can be left to some bright young academics.

Similarly, Marxist pamphlets need to be written in a simple but not condescending manner. Presentation is also important. Most people will recognise pictures of Marx and Lenin, but if you must include images of less well-known Marxists on your pamphlets, a mistake I've seen is to give no kind of explanation or background on them. Avoid massive blocks of text, and include pictures and diagrams. Look at the leaflets and pamphlets of corporations and large NGOs - while they are created with the intent to sell a product or promote a cause, they also have well-paid teams of advertising and public relations people behind their design and layout, even if the content of what they're selling and/or promoting is irrelevant to Marxists. A well-designed pamphlet will pique one's curiosity, typically including some kind of visual or short verbal "hook" to draw people in. Bright, optimistic and "cheerful" themes should predominate. Include a miniature FAQ or small section with critiques and objections, and answer them honestly.

You are absolutely right (no sarcasm intended). I have about half a dozen books at home that give a simple lay introduction to Marx's ideas. These books are accessible to anyone who has the equivalent of a (good) high school education. One book I recall offhand is Jonathon Wolff's "Why Read Marx Today?" Another is Ernest Mandel's "An Introduction to Marxist Economic Theory."

Yet I still harbor reservations. 97% of the American population (for example) reads at 11th grade level or below. An awful lot of people cannot read or understand anything more complex than Reader's Digest,

[JimmyJazz]

Marxism isn't a religion, we do not need to convert everyone to Marxism.

I agree. A Marxist revolution isn't made by Marxists, it's made by the working class. (That's a simplification, but one that contains a lot of truth).

At the same time, it's absurd to say that Marxism is some complicated, theoretical system reserved for rich students with too much reading time on their hands. Marx didn't just work his ideas out in a British library, he was also a very active organizer of militant workers. If Marxism is beyond workers now, that's the fault of subsequent "Marxists" (kind of like those fabiansocialist lists), not of Marx.

[fabiansocialist]

If Marxism is beyond workers now, that's the fault of subsequent "Marxists" (kind of like those fabiansocialist lists), not of Marx.

That's a valid point. Writers like Adorno, Jameson and Althusser (and countless others) turned Marxism into an abstruse "glass bead game." This aesthetic intellectual game has nothing to do with real revolutionary action but is instead a pallid and sterile substitute for real action played by aesthetes in their ivory towers.

[Yehuda Stern]

The premise of this whole debate is so condescending that it's just plain disgusting.

[benhur]

The premise of this whole debate is so condescending that it's just plain disgusting.

I don't see how. Marxism is very complex, it's not for ordinary people. Many times, I feel I understand very little, it frustrates me.:( I lose confidence, because if I can understand so little despite studying hard, then what of others who don't have the time or the inclination?

[bcbm]

I don't see how. Marxism is very complex, it's not for ordinary people. Many times, I feel I understand very little, it frustrates me.:( I lose confidence, because if I can understand so little despite studying hard, then what of others who don't have the time or the inclination?

At its core, Marxism is very simple. You don't need to have read every random windbag with a book of theoretical Marxism to understand it, you really just need to get the basics and that isn't very "complex." And even if it were, most working people aren't completely braindead morons.


The revolution -- if and when it occurs -- will be because of a heavy theoretical underpinning.

Just like...? Revolutions generally occur because workers are organized and there is a crisis in capital that pushes them into more militant action like occupying factories and government buildings, forming councils, etc. Hell, in many of the countries where full-scale revolutions have erupted and these things have happened many people were illiterate.


Yet I still harbor reservations. 97% of the American population (for example) reads at 11th grade level or below. An awful lot of people cannot read or understand anything more complex than Reader's Digest,

I'd like a source on that statistic. Even if it were true, reading at that level doesn't mean complex ideas are beyond comprehension, it just means they need to be articulated in a different way.

[JimmyJazz]

That's a valid point. Writers like Adorno, Jameson and Althusser (and countless others) turned Marxism into an abstruse "glass bead game." This aesthetic intellectual game has nothing to do with real revolutionary action but is instead a pallid and sterile substitute for real action played by aesthetes in their ivory towers.

I don't get it...are you going back on everything you've said in the thread thus far?


I don't see how. Marxism is very complex, it's not for ordinary people. Many times, I feel I understand very little, it frustrates me.:( I lose confidence, because if I can understand so little despite studying hard, then what of others who don't have the time or the inclination?

Wait a minute though: if you're this motivated to study Marxism, then aren't you already a Marxist? Or at the very least, wouldn't you sympathize with a workers' revolution along the lines that he predicted? The question is not whether all workers can become professors for a Marxism class at a university, it's whether they becomes pissed off over capitalist exploitation of their labor power and the government that sustains it by force. So it sounds like you are already at that point.

It's a bit like you're saying that, because some people attend Princeton Seminary for doctorates in theology, Christianity can never have a wide appeal.


The premise of this whole debate is so condescending that it's just plain disgusting.

It's a bit of a strange discussion topic from a poster whose avatar is of a man who was swept to power by a mass workers' movement powered by Marxist ideas and led a millions-strong "Red Army". I would think he'd realize that the question of Marxism becoming a mass ideology is not a matter of "whether", but of "when"--since it's already happened.

[Post-Something]

I've been feeling extremely pessimistic lately and I just want to rant a little bit, I hope you will not fault me too much for this.

I've started to wonder whether or not Marxism really does just take too much intelligent thought and reflection to truly catch on as a mass movement (at least in the US).

I've been completely stunned by the effectiveness of the use of "socialism" as a derogatory term to describe something which is so utterly far removed from socialism it is mind-boggling. The American public only has the brains to think of things at the level of slogans, they will never be able, it seems to me, to understand things at the level of concepts.

All these cretinous maggots understand as "socialism" is higher taxes and the "redistribution of wealth" (how fucking hilarious is that phrase to any thinking person?). For the slightly more apt burghers, they can move onto the fringes of the abstract and identify socialism as "government ownership", which is still just as wrong. How can these people be expected to understand that "ownership" is a CLASS PHENOMENON and therefore any kind of "ownership" (just to avoid confusion, "common ownership" - what Marx describes - is the same thing as non-ownership) supports the power of the bourgeoisie and is fucking CAPITALIST!

And we might also hear these braying idiots talk about their "private property" and how under socialism their property would belong to the state. This is supposed to scare the people. Why won't anyone ever ask the obvious question? Exactly how much "property" does the working man have? NOT ONE IOTA!!!!

I recently saw Brian Moore of the Socialist Party on the Colbert Report, and had high hopes he would demolish all the lies with ease (much how Marx effortlessly tears to pieces all the "bourgeois objections to Communism") but I was disappointed I'm afraid. He didn't at all do socialism the justice it deserves.

So anyway, that's all. All this red-baiting just gets to me. But hey, with the word socialism being thrown around so much, maybe a few people might try and figure out what it actually is. I doubt it though.

The problem with your analysis is this: You are looking at humans as a constant. People change all the time. People grow all the time. Gradually the human race has progressed, and it will continue to progress. At the heart of communism is the idea of trying to create a new type of person. Everything changes, especially people. If your surroundings change, so do you. If your surroundings change drastically, so do you. The problem isn't getting them to understand it, it's changing them enough so that they do.



C'mon, let's be honest: how many ordinary people can make their way through Vol.1 of Marx's Capital? I meet so many self-described leftists whose theoretical baggage is negligible or non-existent. How many people do you know who are comfortable with Wallerstein, Adorno, Lukacs, Harvey, Mandel, and Zizek -- to pluck a few names at random? People au fait with theory are few and far between; for the rest, oversimplified explanations and slogans have to suffice. In the USA, I meet so many self-described people of the left whose analysis does not go further -- maybe cannot go further -- than "f**k Bush." Every attempt to explain things in a more abstract manner -- in terms, say, of class, exploitation, contradictions of capitalism, recurrent crises, falling rates of profit -- falls on deaf ears, is akin to banging one's head against a brick wall. So: theory for the few, slogans for the rest.


That's a valid point. Writers like Adorno, Jameson and Althusser (and countless others) turned Marxism into an abstruse "glass bead game." This aesthetic intellectual game has nothing to do with real revolutionary action but is instead a pallid and sterile substitute for real action played by aesthetes in their ivory towers.

And fabiansocialist, you can quote Hesse, be overly articulate and list as many Marxists as you want, but your basic misunderstanding still seems very idealistic. People are more than able to get through Capital, in fact, after the recent crisis, Capital became a bestseller. Have you even spoken to any workers? Most of them do have a gist of what we are about, it's just that have lost faith because we keep fucking it up. I think you have to give a bit of leeway to cultural hegemony, because you're assuming that every person in the world is able to simply ignore the signals they are given everyday and favour pure reason. That's not going to happen any time soon, and you're attitude doesn't seem very helpful. The fact that you started off one of your posts with "how many ordinary people can make their way through Vol.1 of Marx's Capital?" implies that you are above the ordinary, and a little bit arrogant I should think.



And to people who think that Marxism is somehow far too difficult for the "average person" to understand - nonsense. Marxism is one of the most basic theories out there. It relies on a few very simple premises and observations that can be shown to anybody right in front of their eyes; for example, class antagonisms:

socialist: hey, you know you're being screwed right?
"average guy": no, that's just shit.
S: oh yeah? Why does your boss employ you?
AG: To make money.
S: how does he do that?
AG: I dont know.
S: Well, say he starts off with £100, and he buys lots of wood.
AG: yeah?
S: Then he pays you to put it all together and make a chair
AG: ok.
S: and then he sells them and makes money.
AG: right.
S: so where is the money he's making coming from?
AG:...I don't know, where?
S: You. He steals your money buddy.
AG:...fuck....


Was that so hard? Marxism only becomes technical when it's applied to so many other areas of life, but there is no reason why these have to be understood fully by every single person. Maybe someday that will happen, but not now.

[ashaman1324]

ive wondered the same thing. will people be turned off of marxism simply because they dont want to take the time to learn it?
of course. its an inconvenient truth= laziness
just like people who oppose marxism because... they were raised to "hate commies" from cold war era parents and not bothering to learn about it on their own.
laziness never started a revolution.

[Sweetpotos]

It's a bit of a strange discussion topic from a poster whose avatar is of a man who was swept to power by a mass workers' movement powered by Marxist ideas and led a millions-strong "Red Army". I would think he'd realize that the question of Marxism becoming a mass ideology is not a matter of "whether", but of "when"--since it's already happened.

You are absolutely right. I feel ashamed for having posted this now, last night I was in a fit of anger - sometimes my isolation overpowers my reason and optimism.

The things preventing socialist consciousness are not low IQ's, they are the smothering conditions of life under exploitation, general inertia, and ruling-class indoctrination.

[destroyimperialism]

unfortunately yes, especially in the united states. The American people are to convinced that socialism is "EVIL" and they will never understand the concept of sharing the wealth and helping your fellow man. They will never grasp the concept that the worker's are at the base of all types of production, they are the country's heart and soul. The greedy tyrants have to much influence over the people, and by using Stalins version of communism(which was not pure communism and never will be seeing as it was a dictatorship, which directly contradicts main socialist/communist ideologies) as an example they are able to potray an image of repression and poverty..If only Trostsky would've been able to carry out his plans for Russia and the rest of the world..
However, i believe the only way to achieve it is thorugh gradually introducing more and more socialist policies into the whitehouse..I think(if he follows through with his promises), electing Obama will be a good start.

[fabiansocialist]

I don't get it...are you going back on everything you've said in the thread thus far?

A reasonable question. Some writers -- like Harvey, Foster, or Mandel -- develop Marx's ideas further, bring it up to date, elucidate difficult or ambiguous points. These are relevant to any revolutionary. Others -- like Althusser, Jameson, and Adorno -- use it as an excuse to play cerebral but sterile games. None of these three gents has ever been in a factory or would know how to operate a lathe. Or in our post-industrial economy, none of them has ever served a burger with fries and soda. They wouldn't know how to relate to real workers, and the real problems they have.

I see an animated discussion on the topic of this thread is still taking place. Part of the problem is that exploitation itself has become more abstract. We're not in the feudal age, where exploitation was easy to see and required no theoretical baggage. We're not even in industrial capitalism, where Marx's framework offered us a compass to orient ourselves by. We're in modern finance capitalism, where it's not clear how the exploitation is taking place. Of course, workers and ordinary people can see they are worse off each succeeding year -- but why? Who is benefiting? Finance capitalism's running dogs -- like Thomas Freedman -- muddy the waters with "laws" of an inevitable "globalisation" where everyone has to run faster and faster (why?) to compete more and more intensively (for whose ultimate benefit?). To reiterate, the exploitation is more abstract and more mysterious. It's not enough to say: Down with the pigs! Down with what pigs? How do they exercise their mysterious influence? What exactly is the structure of exploitation they've created?

[fabiansocialist]

And fabiansocialist, you can quote Hesse, be overly articulate and list as many Marxists as you want, but your basic misunderstanding still seems very idealistic. People are more than able to get through Capital, in fact, after the recent crisis, Capital became a bestseller.

So you claim. Any support for that claim? "Capital" became a bestseller -- better be careful with language. You mean more copies are being sold these days (though not necessarily read); but you don't mean on the New York Times bestseller list, right? It's not selling like some Jackie Collins novel, right?


Have you even spoken to any workers? Most of them do have a gist of what we are about, it's just that have lost faith because we keep fucking it up.

Who is "we?" Speak for yourself. I am a worker. All I speak to is workers. I stay away from "committees" and "party organisations" like the plague. I'm possibly better-read than many fellow-workers, but I have some idea of what they can and cannot understand. I would argue, instead, that you are the one, with your fake egalitarianism, and the distinction between workers and "us," who is really demonstrating condescension. I've seen it all before.

[fabiansocialist]

Just like...? Revolutions generally occur because workers are organized and there is a crisis in capital that pushes them into more militant action like occupying factories and government buildings, forming councils, etc. Hell, in many of the countries where full-scale revolutions have erupted and these things have happened many people were illiterate.

That is completely correct. But what happens after the revolution? How do you stop a replay of Orwell's Animal Farm?


I'd like a source on that statistic. Even if it were true, reading at that level doesn't mean complex ideas are beyond comprehension, it just means they need to be articulated in a different way.

It's in John Taylor Gatto's The Underground History of American Education, which can be read online here (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/) I regret I can't give you the page number (I'm out of town and can't consult my paper version of the book)

[bcbm]

That is completely correct. But what happens after the revolution? How do you stop a replay of Orwell's Animal Farm?


Not having a centralized bunch of authoritarian fuckers controlling everything, perhaps, and actually putting power in the hands of the workers and their councils?

[JimmyJazz]

The things preventing socialist consciousness are not low IQ's, they are the smothering conditions of life under exploitation, general inertia, and ruling-class indoctrination.

I don't even know if those are the things that do it. All I know is that false capitalist consciousness among the working class has been undone before, in other times and places, and it can be undone again here.


I think(if he follows through with his promises), electing Obama will be a good start.

If he follows through with this promises, he'll expand the war in Afghanistan and bomb inside Pakistan. So much for destroyingimperialism.

(I won't lie, I'm glad he beat that fucker McCain. But it sounds like you might think Obama is better than the average Democrat, which is utterly untrue).

[Ivhouse]

I understand why you'd think this, because Marxism has so much explanatory power it can be used to analyse almost any phenomena, for better or worse.

But I mean, I'm not really into that. I'm not too fussed about a marxian analysis of the nuclear family, I'm all about the basics. For example, here are my scattered understandings, in no particular order.

1. Society rests on a material base. In other words, the ideas that define any social situation, like liberal democracy, do not spring from the air but are provoked by socio-economic circumstance. That's not too difficult to grasp at all, and really it's just obvious - you're unlikely to think of a TV show before television has been invented.

2. If you have property, you have power. The more property you have, the more powerful you are. Society can be divided between people who have property and are therefore powerful, and people who have none and are therefore powerless. The people who have property form the ruling class of any society, by default. Again, not too difficult to grasp, and I think most people intuitively grasp that there is a power dynamic in the world - hence the myriad of conspiracy theories claiming some supernatural elite.

3. Ruling classes don't ever give up power voluntarily, and always defend their own interests. In capitalism, the rulers are obviously the capitalists, and in order to make a profit and remain a capitalist they must exploit their workers by not giving them the full value of the work they do. So all the people that don't have property are either struggling to stay alive by being unemployed, or being ripped off by being employed.

4. We desperately need to stop this from happening as soon as possible. Since a class system always produces this exploitation in some form, the only way to stop it from happening is to get rid of classes.

And that's really enough. Wahey, you're a revolutionary marxist with about 10 minutes concentration. :)

I think once you understand these sorts of basic things the rest starts to flow really quickly.

-Alex

But unlike all the other marxist countries in a capitalist country you can either elevate youself out of the position of exploitiation with and education or years of experience and last but not least you can move away and find a better life for yourslef.

[chimx]

Of course you can, but only a minority of people can do that. The essence of Marxism is historical materialism however, which states that because the majority will always be disenfranchised, the majority will inevitably seek out to better their interests. That is the crux of class struggle from a materialist perspective

[fabiansocialist]

Not having a centralized bunch of authoritarian fuckers controlling everything, perhaps, and actually putting power in the hands of the workers and their councils?

Revolutions end up getting betrayed. Ignorant people -- driven to revolutionary zeal by circumstances impossible to tolerate any further -- may destroy the old status quo. The real hurdle is to replace it with something better, and to make sure that something better doesn't gradually backslide into the old status quo of a few chiefs and many Indians. This requires vigilance. But it also requires at least some theoretical understanding among the rank-and-file so they understand the significance of what has ben changed and what the perils are and where these perils will come from. Otherwise the councils gradually breed bureaucratic chiefs; the rank-and-file's participation becomes more formal and perfunctory, and within a generation one oligarchic group of scoundrels has been replaced by another predatory gang. In this sense, and with these purposes in mind, theory is not some icing on the cake. Let's look at recent events. The dissatisfaction of many Americans -- many quite ignorant -- has been harnessed by a candidate with empty rhetoric of "hope" and "change." Yet we already know not much will change. A more theoretically-informed group of people would know what to clamor for.

[bcbm]

Revolutions end up getting betrayed.

Well no shit. But obviously if we're at the point of workers councils and have actually had a revolution, more people will "get it." Its just a matter of protecting it, and this is an old debate that isn't going be fleshed out in any more meaningful form here suffice to say that understanding all the intricacies of some theory isn't the problem.


The dissatisfaction of many Americans -- many quite ignorant -- has been harnessed by a candidate with empty rhetoric of "hope" and "change." Yet we already know not much will change. A more theoretically-informed group of people would know what to clamor for.

The demand I listed earlier in this thread as a "minimum demand" is very simple and doesn't require a high theoretical level or a lot of intelligence or whatever. It just requires class consciousness.

[Yehuda Stern]

I don't see how. Marxism is very complex, it's not for ordinary people. Many times, I feel I understand very little, it frustrates me.

To me it sounds like the reasoning is that workers are just not intelligent enough to become revolutionaries. That's not the case. The conditions under which the masses live in capitalist society don't give them the resources to become Marxists. That can only be done by the most dedicated advanced workers, whose role is to create a vanguard party leading the rest of the class. To put it in terms of intelligent is really just very condescending.


It's a bit of a strange discussion topic from a poster whose avatar is of a man who was swept to power by a mass workers' movement powered by Marxist ideas and led a millions-strong "Red Army". I would think he'd realize that the question of Marxism becoming a mass ideology is not a matter of "whether", but of "when"--since it's already happened.

I don't even get what you're trying to say here.

[Junius]

The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer. They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. - Marx.

[ashaman1324]

But unlike all the other marxist countries in a capitalist country you can either elevate youself out of the position of exploitiation with and education or years of experience and last but not least you can move away and find a better life for yourslef.
if everyone could win under capitalism and not be exploited, i would be a capitalist. seeeing as this cannot happen, im communist, where everyone can win. not just the bourgouise/ ruling class.

[Post-Something]

So you claim. Any support for that claim? "Capital" became a bestseller -- better be careful with language. You mean more copies are being sold these days (though not necessarily read); but you don't mean on the New York Times bestseller list, right? It's not selling like some Jackie Collins novel, right?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/oct/15/marx-germany-popularity-financial-crisis



Who is "we?" Speak for yourself. I am a worker. All I speak to is workers. I stay away from "committees" and "party organisations" like the plague. I'm possibly better-read than many fellow-workers, but I have some idea of what they can and cannot understand. I would argue, instead, that you are the one, with your fake egalitarianism, and the distinction between workers and "us," who is really demonstrating condescension. I've seen it all before.

By "we" I mean self identifying socialists/communists/anarchists, people who understand their class position. Also, I'm still at university so I'm not a worker yet.

[Sendo]

sorry, don't have enough time to read every post,so sorry if this is redundant:

Howard Zinn is a great example of a Marxist who talks mainstream. Hell, even as Chomsky points out, unschooled, 12-year old girls in Lowell Massachusttes factories two hundred years ago achieved class consciousness and could articulate a post-capitalist society.

The problem with Marxism and its appeal is largely the fans of Marx and his translators.
Brainy Marxists
"Material conditions shape human consciousness."
What the flying fuck does that mean?

vs.

Howard Zinn:
"It's hard to convince someone of something when his paycheck depends on him not knowing it."

I didn't connect the two at first, because it was only after of being far left for over a year that I finally understood what the original wording meant. Socialism should be pretty simple stuff. No bureaucracies, just communities working for all and reaping the benefits for all. Simple stuff. No externalities, no trade policies, no plutocracy. 1 person 1 voice 1 vote. Simple stuff. But the Russians are likely the worst offenders at being impossible to understand. I don't see the point in talking or writing if people won't understand it. It's just intellectual masturbation. If I get the chance to break it down, and the person hasn't been brainwashed with red flags like "Social1sm w0n't W0RK!!!11!!!!" I can get agreement. The hard comes in arguing urgency and armed revolution an saying our ballot system is on par with Colombia sometimes. People don't like their world being shaken up. It takes time.

[fabiansocialist]

Howard Zinn is a great example of a Marxist who talks mainstream. Hell, even as Chomsky points out, unschooled, 12-year old girls in Lowell Massachusttes factories two hundred years ago achieved class consciousness and could articulate a post-capitalist society.

The problem with Marxism and its appeal is largely the fans of Marx and his translators.
Brainy Marxists
"Material conditions shape human consciousness."
What the flying fuck does that mean?

vs.

Howard Zinn:
"It's hard to convince someone of something when his paycheck depends on him not knowing it."

You're making some good points. Zinn is, however, making a very specific statement; Marx's formulation is more general. The task of a teacher should be to illustrate what Marx is saying with concrete examples drawn from people's everyday lives. Marx is reacting to philosophers who thought that the world of ideas has an independent life of its own, which can be accessed by anyone regardless of how they live. Not so, says Marx; if you're a factory (or McDonald's) worker toiling twelve hours a day, living in some shabby, crime-ridden neighborhood, your outlook on the world is going to be determined by that. Consciousness is not some free spirit having nothing to do with the sordid real world: the two are intimately related.

As for the Zinn example: keep in mind that class relations and class exploitation were more transparent then, and worker solidarity -- often based on ethnic and family ties -- more solid. Today's alienated worker, mixing with an alienated group of workers who often remain strangers, in a mysterious world where exploitation is a bit more mysterious, and where the din of capitalist propaganda, designed to confuse and distract, is incessant, is a different world altogether. I do heartily agree, though, that Marx's ideas should be made easier to digest and understand by those who may not have the time and energy -- in today's world of super-exploitation -- to understand how they are being gang-raped.

[JimmyJazz]

Sendo: Zinn is not mainstream in the sense that he has any impact on workers. He is great for middle class people concerned about social justice. But he doesn't put forward a program for socialist revolution, and I can't see the average worker kicking back with some Zinn (or Chomsky for that matter) after a long, hard day of being exploited.

I like Zinn, but he is not about to be the basis of a revolutionary working class movement. The kind of Marxism that does that will be a laundry list of simple truths, things that can be communicated in five minutes, not things that require a fat book (like A People's History) to get them across. The fact that he puts things simply is not enough. He doesn't put things sharply, or succinctly, or in the form of a platform, which is what we need.

If the revolution depends on enough workers reading and agreeing with a book by Zinn or Chomsky, or Marx, then let me know now, because I'll stop holding out hope that it is ever going to happen. Waiting for that to happen would be similar to the Obama campaign deciding it didn't need to run ads or give speeches because, after all, people could read The Audacity of Hope if they were really interested in what he stood for.

I really think we have to work not to forget something fundamental: ideas do matter, but they also have a class character. You will never find the one argument or the one style of arguing that convinces everyone, regardless of background. What we should be looking for are the ideas, and the ways of putting ideas, that speak to the actual exploited working class. And of course, we constantly have to put things into the most succinct/soundbite format we possibly can while still retaining the core of our message.

[Annie K.]

Some writers -- like Harvey, Foster, or Mandel -- develop Marx's ideas further, bring it up to date, elucidate difficult or ambiguous points. These are relevant to any revolutionary. Others -- like Althusser, Jameson, and Adorno -- use it as an excuse to play cerebral but sterile games. None of these three gents has ever been in a factory or would know how to operate a lathe. Or in our post-industrial economy, none of them has ever served a burger with fries and soda. They wouldn't know how to relate to real workers, and the real problems they have.

Of all the names you quote, I just read marx and adorno, and maybe some articles of althusser. But i can assure you that your conception of the necessary comprehension of the revolutionnary theory is reproducing the rules of the dominant system of thoughts.
Adorno, and in a less ambitious manner althusser, was trying to eliminate marxism as an ideology. Precisely, that mean to destroy the marxism as a normative system of thought, as it was imposed by the komintern bureaucracies.
The proletariat is not revolutionnary because it is marxist, it is revolutionnary because it is exploited and conscious of it (among other contradictions). The capital and the marxist theoric works are not designed to make alienated people conscious, and using that as a revolutionnary propaganda can only develop a false consciousness of a class destiny, on which a authoritarian bureaucracy can develop and prosper.
The "cerebral games" of adorno were an uncompleted criticism of this false consciousness and its intellectual demands, as well as an attempt to replace the consciousness of the alienation at the origin of the revolutionnary theory, simply by expressing it.
They can be quite easily comprehended by any person who don't try to make an ideology of it. More clearly, it's the old "the philosophy of poverty" / "the poverty of philosophy" thing.

As LeftCommunist quoted :
The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer. They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. - Marx.