Marxism compared to religion, Marx as a prophet

[scarletghoul]

Let us compare marxism and religion. There seem to be some similarities with them. They both contain dogma and good principles and ideas that have been twisted through history and used for bad purposes of oppression. Marx was similar to a prophet, with his visionary and highly original ideas.

As many Marxists are militant atheists I expect not all of you will welcome this discussion. But then there are followers of most religions who hate them to be compared to other religions

Not saying it is a religion btw, just thought it would be a cool discussion to have

gtg foods ready, but there are some other points I was gonna make

[KurtFF8]

This is a typical poorly thought out anti-Marxist argument.

Marxism is a method of economic (and to some degree, especially in earlier works) and philosophical analysis. Marx was not a prophet , he made predictions not prophesies.

Nostradamus said "X Y and X will happen" Where Marx's predictions were based on his analysis and what (using that analysis) he thought would happen. Major difference.

Every political economist/political pundit (not that Marx was a pundit of course) has some prediction of what will happen in the future, I don't know why Marx is singled out so much.

There are indeed people who follow his every word dogmatically, but that doesn't mean that Marxism is dogmatic.

[GPDP]

Just about every ideology can be made to look into a religion.

Take capitalism as a religion, for instance. The god of capitalism is the free market. Its bible is The Wealth of Nations. Its prophet is Adam Smith. Its priests are economists and other assorted theorists and ideologues such as Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and Ayn Rand. It even has commandments establishing the sanctity of property and contracts. Its Satan varies depending on the sect, but it's usually the government, the state, or even democracy itself.

See how easy it is?

[JimmyJazz]

Nope. Marxism is consequentialist. All religions are deontological.

Also, Marxism is easy to define: it's a theory predicting, and advocating, the self-emancipation of the working class from systematic economic exploitation. It's grounded in the assertion that profit is that portion of the value of the labor performed that the capitalist keeps from his laborers. Nothing mystical about that, and nothing requiring a pope or a priest or a university professor to explain it to you.


gtg foods ready, but there are some other points I was gonna make

Glad you are so committed to a serious discussion.

[red eck]

There are sadly too many parallels between Marxism and Religion, all which can be taken care of if new Marxists abandon the orthodoxy of Dialectics and avoid replacing it with some other philosophising.

For me, Marxism does have some irrefutable gems. Karl Marx drew in from the latest thinking and knowledge of his time including Smith, Ricardo, Locke and others (and unfortunately Hegel). He then made hay with the British 19th Century factory inspector reports and tore apart the ideology of the of the ruling class (which despite his efforts, prevails today) . That was back when Darwin was all the rage. Sadly to me it seems, most people calling themselves Marxists are stuck in this 19th Century epoch of understanding. I have observed that all Marxists are extremely conservative like all religious followers in that they reject anything new. Marxists will attack: those who refute Dialectics; anyone who refutes Marx's original yet flawed attempts at economic/historical theories like the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall or the transition from Feudalism to Marxism; critics of Lenin/Marx/Mao/Stalin/Trotsky or any of the grey-beards - even if such criticisms are made by other Marxists. Marxists are so conservative that they will attack anyone who deviates from the doctrine. This is what really disappoints in my opinion - that Marxists who have actually made breakthroughs but have their work rejected by other Marxists on the grounds it contradicts Lenin, Engels or Marx himself and not rejected on the grounds of reasoning. And Dialectics is the key here: inadequate theories have 'contradiction' stuck somewhere in them. Theologians love the Hegelian contradiction as it can mean whatever they want, as long as it gives the appearance of an answer good enough for their gormless audience.

So in my opinion, Marxism certainly does operate like a religion, with all the sects and all, but it does have some real gems that just need a little know-how to reveal them.

[ZeroNowhere]

Marx was not a profit
:laugh:


those who refute Dialectics;
Est-ce que je ne suis pas une Marxiste?


anyone who refutes Marx's original yet flawed attempts at economic/historical theories like the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall or the transition from Feudalism to Marxism
...

transition from Feudalism to Marxism
What.
Also, people don't refute the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. They can refute some kind of law of the rate of profit falling, but the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is a valid observation.


critics of Lenin/Marx/Mao/Stalin/Trotsky or any of the grey-beards - even if such criticisms are made by other Marxists.
I won't attack those who criticize De Leonism, though the people that adhere to the beliefs of the above certainly are not treating Marx as a prophet. Well, unless you count 'treating Marx as a prophet' to mean 'giving occasional lipservice to Marx while also bashing anarchists', as seems to be the trend with the xian-militant-right these days when it comes to Jesus ('Huh, you softies. What happened, afraid of killing people for money? Also, Hail Jesus!').


Marxists are so conservative that they will attack anyone who deviates from the doctrine.
Yes, I've killed many anarcho-syndicalists in my days.


This is what really disappoints in my opinion - that Marxists who have actually made breakthroughs but have their work rejected by other Marxists on the grounds it contradicts Lenin, Engels or Marx himself and not rejected on the grounds of reasoning.
Well, certainly, I don't reject ideologies just because Marx didn't believe in them. Groucho Marx was Marx too, after all.

[red eck]

Also, people don't refute the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. They can refute some kind of law of the rate of profit falling, but the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is a valid observation.


Indeed, I should clarify that I was referring to Marx's explanation of the tendency of falling profits -the increase of the ratio of constant capital to variable capital- being flawed. I was not denying the downward rate of profit.



Marxists are so conservative that they will attack anyone who deviates from the doctrine. Yes, I've killed many anarcho-syndicalists in my days.

I did not mean Marxists physically attacked the unfaithful. Marxists assume they are correct, and when they review or criticise another's views or opinions, it's always a 'failing to grasp the contradictions inherent in the system' type argument, which is of course meaningless. I've come across this on essays including critiques on: Eric Hobsbawm; Joan Robinson and the Keynesian economists; Robert Brenner; and virtually everyone else with anything worthwhile to say.

People who criticise by holding everything up to the mystical rule of 'contradictions' without having to produce any sort of research are frauds. I used used to grimace every time I'd read one of Chris Harman's essays on economics published in the SWP's journal 'International Socialism', his essays would consist of graphs he copied and pasted from whatever webpage - all of his data was 2nd hand information and none came from his own reaseach. All he does is reject all new ideas on the grounds it 'failed to grasp the contradictions inherent in the system' and goes on to prescribe the only solution: working class mobilisation via the vangurd of the working class, which is funnliy enough, the SWP.

Now, how is that different from any other cult? They are only interested in reeling in members and getting them to set up bank standing orders. Your money is better going to Oxfam if you ask me.

[ZeroNowhere]

I did not mean Marxists physically attacked the unfaithful. Marxists assume they are correct, and when they review or criticise another's views or opinions, it's always a 'failing to grasp the contradictions inherent in the system' type argument
Don't generalize us. I don't think I've ever accused anybody of failing to grasp the contradictions of the negation of the interpenetrating sausages. Yet.

[red eck]

Don't generalize us. I don't think I've ever accused anybody of failing to grasp the contradictions of the negation of the interpenetrating sausages. Yet.

Well, that is the danger. Is the term Marxist now discredited? Far too many if not all articles written by Marxists deploy this kind of thinking. If the term is discredited, then it's only a matter of PR to call us something else, like Materialists or something.

[red eck]

Behold, the latest post on economics from a UK Marxist webpage: - [webpage]//liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2008/11/30/how-to-do-economics/


Criticise a theory
Of course there is no basic agreement even about the fundamentals of how the world economy works. Mainstream economic theory (also called ‘academic’ or ‘bourgeois’ economics) takes capitalism as a given and seeks to explain ‘how it works’. Its not good on why its history is littered with crisis. Even within this framework there is plenty of dispute – primarily between followers of Keynes and the monetarists. A more critical approach is taken by the Marxist tradition which seeks to place capitalism within a much broader context of humanity’s historical development and emphasises the conflicts and contradictions within the capitalist system. Within the Marxist tradition there are numerous variants and disputes. And in recent years there has been a mushrooming of economic analysis that considers economic processes from an ecological point of view – examining the relationship between human activity and the eco system.


Here we go again, and just like I said before, then comes the trademark 'failing to grasp the contradictions inherent in the system' type statement:



'A more critical approach is taken by the Marxist tradition which seeks to place capitalism within a much broader context of humanity’s historical development and emphasises the conflicts and contradictions within the capitalist system.'


How is the Marxist approach 'more critical'? There is not even a coherent Marxist approach as conceded by the author in that very post, but nonetheless it is still deemed 'more critical'.


I'm now waiting for Permanent Revolution's very own crackpot economist BillJ to turn up and start talking shite.

[KurtFF8]

Hah good catch on that typo, ZeroNowhere. I think I've actually done that before in talking about this same topic.