The Marxist Alternative - Why a Class-less society?

[Totalitarian]

I'm studying Marxism at the moment at Uni; Marx's theory seems to be mostly a critique of capitalism but he doesn't really offer an alternative by explaining what socialism should be like.

So does anyone have any well thought out ideas about what the Marxist utopia would be like and how to get there? Do most of you think that a strong government is required to enforce Marxism?

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I did a thread in THEORY about this before.

I'm studying Sociology for A Level and the Marxist theory is very very deterministic and, I'm sure this will get much criticism, very simplistic.

'Everything is capitalisms fault and the economy is the most dominant thing in society....'

Don't think so. As wise as Mr. Marx was, he is forgetting other fundamental aspects of society. Problems go much deeper than the economy.

Like you said, it does appear to just be a critique of capitalism, culminating in the prediction that capitalism will fall.

This is why I think the theories of neo-Marxists and other early Marxists are more valuable. Pareto, Mosca, Gramsci, David Coates, Ian Budge...... I believe their adaptations of Marxism are a lot "better", if that word can be used for a social theory.

I'm sure you will have come across those names if you are now studying at University level.

[Sandanista]

Thats the great thing about Marxism, it seems very difficult, yet it is so simple, even tho many ppl have great difficulty in understanding what it means

[Totalitarian]

It would help if Marx's writing style wasn't so boring.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from Sandanista on 7:30 pm on June 4, 2003
Thats the great thing about Marxism, it seems very difficult, yet it is so simple, even tho many ppl have great difficulty in understanding what it means


I don't think the great thing about Marxism is that it is so simple. Incase you haven't noticed, the structure of society is not a simple thing, so for a theory on it to be simple is a bad thing.

[synthesis]

Totalitarian, I think the reason for the disparity between Marx's descriptions of the faults of the world and his description of a better society is because he didn't believe socialism ought to happen, it was because he believed socialism would happen.

Marx believed that the working class rebellion, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the withering away of the state was an inevitability - i.e. something that did not need to be actively sought after. If you're reading Marx, you probably know why he thought this would happen.

Our job, as Marxists, is merely to speed this development along.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Totalitarian...

Agreed but that was the style of the day....That ultra-mind numbing existentialist style...For fuck's sake it's better that heroin when you want to sleep.

[Sandanista]

Marxism is simple, the structure of society is basic, and the way the bourgeoisie implements itself on the proles is veryy obvious to those who understand marxism.

That said, all that marx wrote didnt happen, but it will, my duty as a marxist is to try and speed it up as the led zep fan duly pointed out.

[Totalitarian]

Several points about Marxism:

1. There are no clear cut distinctions between the "proletarian" and "bourgeoisie"

2. Class consciousness is only one aspect of consciousness. What about other factors like gender, race or religion?

3. A class-less society cannot be imposed by a ruling communist class (as was the case in Soviet russia, china etc.)

4. The "superstructure", which underlies many aspects of Marxist thought, is a vague and mystical concept

5. "From each according to his ability, to each according to need" tends to work reasonably well in families and kinship groups, but is very hard to apply to a country, especially one that is multi-tribal


If any Marxists want to address these points, it would be appreciated.

[Sandanista]

Exactly, mao and stalin took marx out of context, thus creating state capitalist superpowers

[Som]

1. There are no clear cut distinctions between the "proletarian" and "bourgeoisie"

Sure there are, the burgoisue own and the proletarians produce. The burgiouse have, and the proletarians don't.
Modern western society gives a sort of blurred impression of this, with the middle class and the like, but the basic divisions still exist.

2. Class consciousness is only one aspect of consciousness. What about other factors like gender, race or religion?

Well, class consciousness is more productive. We're seeking equality, womans movements, minority movements, and so on had to realize they were being subjected before they could fight for equality, this isn't much different.

3. A class-less society cannot be imposed by a ruling communist class (as was the case in Soviet russia, china etc.)

Agreed. Marxists shouldn't be seeking a new ruling class.

5. "From each according to his ability, to each according to need" tends to work reasonably well in families and kinship groups, but is very hard to apply to a country, especially one that is multi-tribal

This principle is never meant to be applied to a 'country' its meant to be applied to a communist society. For a society to be really classless, that implies stateless, and monetaryless.

Marxists generally don't get into details of how a communist society would actually function, beyond in principles, though non marxist communists do, usually having the small commune as the principle unit of society, and building up from there. So essentially the most basic interactions really aren't much different than family and tribal groups.

I'm not sure what you mean by 4, and while we're at it, im not really much of a marxist.

[synthesis]

A class-less society cannot be imposed by a ruling communist class (as was the case in Soviet russia, china etc.)

This is true, in a sense. The "ruling communist class" is a direct result of Leninism, that is, if you're referring to the "State", the one-party apparatus. It is something to be avoided.

Under genuine Marxism, the ruling communist class is the entire proletariat (i.e. the minority) as it existed before the revolution. This is socialism - the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Anonymous]

Folks:

To take you off thread and a much more deeper question:

"Marxists generally don't get into details of how a communist society would actually function"

With all respect I can manage in this media, but your really just guessing. Communist really don't know how to run a government.

In other threads I try to make the distinction between the intellectual excercise and real world application. Theory and theory incremently progressed based on previous experience.

The US Constitution/government draws from the British experience back to Saxon law. In 1776 it was a bold experiment, but it was also bourne from previous experience. The government that was founded stood upon previous ideas that were the best and that worked.

Marxist government? I have read Das Kapital. Sorry but I did not get out of it what I expected, quite frankly it went in one ear and out the other. I expected to see a frame work of how a government would be laid out. It did not do that. It was an observation and condemnation of capitalism. Not a lesson plan on how to run a state.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

On kelvins last paragraph...

I found exactly the same. Whilst being quite an interesting read, it was just a big critique of capitalism, as the opening post states.

Like I said earlier, neo-Marxists offer a structure. Marx didn't. Paid bloody £13 for that book too.

[Som]

With all respect I can manage in this media, but your really just guessing. Communist really don't know how to run a government.

In other threads I try to make the distinction between the intellectual excercise and real world application. Theory and theory incremently progressed based on previous experience.

I hope you realize you quoted me out of context.

no suprise though, its a sort of simplism that runs through these things.

They don't get into how a communist government would be run, because theres no such thing as a 'communist' government.

It seems to be a common tactic to ignore the distinction of a government of a socialist country, and communism.

Theres no inherent socialist government system, theoretically, almost the same exact system of the U.S. government could be used.
The concept of 'Marxist government' is almost meaningless.

(Edited by Som at 11:13 pm on June 8, 2003)

[Vinny Rafarino]

Quote: from kelvin9 on 9:01 pm on June 8, 2003
Folks:

To take you off thread and a much more deeper question:

"Marxists generally don't get into details of how a communist society would actually function"

With all respect I can manage in this media, but your really just guessing. Communist really don't know how to run a government.

In other threads I try to make the distinction between the intellectual excercise and real world application. Theory and theory incremently progressed based on previous experience.

The US Constitution/government draws from the British experience back to Saxon law. In 1776 it was a bold experiment, but it was also bourne from previous experience. The government that was founded stood upon previous ideas that were the best and that worked.

Marxist government? I have read Das Kapital. Sorry but I did not get out of it what I expected, quite frankly it went in one ear and out the other. I expected to see a frame work of how a government would be laid out. It did not do that. It was an observation and condemnation of capitalism. Not a lesson plan on how to run a state.


So Kelvin90210 what exactly gives you the impression that communists do not know how to run a government? Simply because it's not a capitalist government? That notion is simply preposterous, what you should have said was communists will not run a government the way you feel one should be run.
At least you would have saved yourself from the embarrassment of being caught in an outright lie. Kelvin90210 please spend less time ejoying the fruits of other people's labour and more time thinking. This way at least your posts will seem to have an inkling of credibility rather than continue to be the pure babble that they are now.

[peaccenicked]

Communists know as much as anyone else about running governments- the point is we want to end government as it has been known and start self government as it has not been widely known. The process is called revolution and it needs to have an internationalist dimension.
Slavery in all it forms can be ended, that is not utopian but a necessity for genuine freedom to exist.
Freedom shoud never be reduced to freedom of expression that is the only limited freedom that liberal
capitalism allows. Freedom from wage slavery which in structure creates unemployment, which the bourgeois state hides and brings forth a system of blame and self blame, that brings violence and suffering into many lives, a system which perpetuallly down sizes resources for social need. This is where and when real freedom is needed :that is a million miles away from the American/neoliberal dream.



(Edited by peaccenicked at 12:08 pm on June 9, 2003)

[Totalitarian]

Totalitarian: There are no clear cut distinctions between the "proletarian" and "bourgeoisie"
Som: Sure there are, the burgoisue own and the proletarians produce. The burgiouse have, and the proletarians don't.
Modern western society gives a sort of blurred impression of this, with the middle class and the like, but the basic divisions still exist. [/b]

Sure, there is a general stratification of society based on power and wealth. But it is becoming more blurred, for example in some companies the workers own shares. Would that make them both bourgeoisie and proletarian?



Totalitarian: Class consciousness is only one aspect of consciousness. What about other factors like gender, race or religion?

Som:Well, class consciousness is more productive. We're seeking equality, womans movements, minority movements, and so on had to realize they were being subjected before they could fight for equality, this isn't much different.

People will always differ as to what sort of group allegiance (if any) they have. Some will choose a global, socio-economic identity such as "proletarian". Others may choose to identify as a member of a race or ethnicity. For some people religion, culture or nationality is most important. There are many variables to identity.

As for class conciousness being the most productive, this may be true in some cases. Groups of people who prefer to produce in a certain way will increase their efficiency and productivity if they band together, pooling ideas and resources.


Totalitarian:"From each according to his ability, to each according to need" tends to work reasonably well in families and kinship groups, but is very hard to apply to a country, especially one that is multi-tribal

Som: This principle is never meant to be applied to a 'country' its meant to be applied to a communist society. For a society to be really classless, that implies stateless, and monetaryless.

So are you an advocate of a decentralised, anarchistic society with a barter-based economy?

[b]Som:Marxists generally don't get into details of how a communist society would actually function, beyond in principles, though non marxist communists do, usually having the small commune as the principle unit of society, and building up from there. So essentially the most basic interactions really aren't much different than family and tribal groups.[/quote]

It's often said that the jewish kibbutzim are examples of how socialist communes might operate. I would envisage like-minded people congregating in communes which may then form confederations across tribal or ethnic boundaries.

[Anonymous]

2. Class consciousness is only one aspect of consciousness. What about other factors like gender, race or religion?

And that's why they seek to destroy these things. Gender with feminism, race with multiculturalism, and religion with forced atheism.

[Totalitarian]

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 3:56 am on June 15, 2003
2. Class consciousness is only one aspect of consciousness. What about other factors like gender, race or religion?

And that's why they seek to destroy these things. Gender with feminism, race with multiculturalism, and religion with forced atheism.

I'm not so sure if Marxist beliefs are really "atheism".

There is certainly a morality involved; certain ways of thinking are perceived to be "evil", such as racism and sexism.

[Som]

Sure, there is a general stratification of society based on power and wealth. But it is becoming more blurred, for example in some companies the workers own shares. Would that make them both bourgeoisie and proletarian?

Not necesarily, while in title I guess it would, but in the practical application of it, it still gives them no actual say in whats going on. I'd assume it really only gives them the lip service of any sort of power, in the same way that western democracies do that.

While there would be some cases where its very uncertain, still the middle management worker wouldn't be the same as the CEO, and the middle class soccermom with 100 shares for retirement isn't the same as one of the board of directors.

Others may choose to identify as a member of a race or ethnicity. For some people religion, culture or nationality is most important. There are many variables to identity.

and plenty of people will not see these as contradicting, though i might. People like Ho Chi Minh and Castro for example were both nationalists and communists. 'Liberation theology' has appealed to class and religion together, so on.

These things do happen, its not the best case scenario, but sometimes it'll do.

The concept of class conciousness can almost be less an identity, but just a realization of being oppressed.

So are you an advocate of a decentralised, anarchistic society with a barter-based economy?

Vaguely, but not a barter based economy. Communism is thought of as a gift economy. What needs to be produced will be made by democratic consumer and worker councils, and local descision making.

I don't expect it to be anytime soon that this could be implimented for all parts of the economy, though in say an anarchist society, i'd expect communist descision making to be used in basic things like food and other necesities.

though the anarchists are really the only ones with clear views of stateless societies at all, the Marxists tend to think that its fairly pointless to make anything resembling a plan for it, as they seek to create a state for just that purpose.