Marxism: is it logical?

[trivas7]

Is there some logical basis to Marxism? If so what is it? I say no. There is no science of history; neither is dialectical logic logic in the Aristotelian sense. As such Marxist socialism is in reality a secular messianic religion based on faith.

[Pogue]

Is there some logical basis to Marxism? If so what is it? I say no. There is no science of history; neither is dialectical logic logic in the Aristotelian sense. As such Marxist socialism is in reality a secular messianic religion based on faith.

Except we don't have faith, we're not defined as or classified as in any respect as a religion, and a secular religion seems to be pretty contradictory.

I know you have little better to do than hang around this forum, in the one small section you're permitted to post, but really whats the point in this empty shit which is going to be refuted ten times over? Do you have a girlfriend? Take her out or something, just stop posting shit here.

I'm not telling you to do anything of such, or demanding, I just reccomend you find soemthing better to do with your time. You're not going to convince anyone of your views here, especially seeing as you don't seem to clear about them yourself.

[GPDP]

I'm not a Marxist, but this is fucking stupid.

[Karzak]

Is there some logical basis to Marxism? If so what is it? I say no. There is no science of history; neither is dialectical logic logic in the Aristotelian sense. As such Marxist socialism is in reality a secular messianic religion based on faith.

Religion requires a faith in an unknowable deity residing in an unseen realm,whereas Marxism is not otherworldly ... ie .. Marxism is not a religion.

[Revolutionary Youth]

Is there some logical basis to Marxism?If so what is it? I say no.

Hell yes, Aristotle, Heraclitus, Democritus' atomism, Hegel...


There is no science of history; neither is dialectical logic logic in the Aristotelian sense.Actually, there is. I suggest you read more about Aristotle before you come up with such assumption.


As such Marxist socialism is in reality a secular messianic religion based on faith.We don't have faith, we don't have to look up to anything. Religion does, but not Marxism.

[danyboy27]

Is there some logical basis to Marxism? If so what is it? I say no. There is no science of history; neither is dialectical logic logic in the Aristotelian sense. As such Marxist socialism is in reality a secular messianic religion based on faith.

i dont fully agree but a lot of people put faith into revolution and how it will change things, without actually being able to explain in detail how it will be, its like when christian argues about rapture, they cant say when it will happen, or how, what will happen to the muslim etc.

or, has some people pointed out on the forum recently.

-opression by capitalists
-??????????????????????
-revolution
-??????????????????????
-communism

[Bud Struggle]

Is there some logical basis to Marxism? Marxism hasn't been proven right--just the opposite--50-esque "Communist" countries that "just didn't get it right," may be closer to the point. But it is a "science." :D


If so what is it? I say no. There is no science of history; neither is dialectical logic logic in the Aristotelian sense. It's a crapshoot like any other "future" is. Marxists need to get off their high house and realize ANY furture is possible.


As such Marxist socialism is in reality a secular messianic religion based on faith.

I've been preaching that since I got here--Bearded Jews with "God" complexes always have fans.

RevLeft.com (http://www.revleft.com/vb/RevLeft.com) is a fan site of one of those guys--http://www.injesus.com/ is the sight of another.

There's just a hair's breath of difference between a Christian and a Marxist--Christians being that hair's breath nicer.

[Robert]

Take her out or something, just stop posting shit here.

H-L-V-S: Please make us a nice list of all the people whom you need to stop posting here. So far, we have Trivas and TomK.

I am sure that I am not on your list. :laugh:

[trivas7]

I'm not telling you to do anything of such, or demanding, I just reccomend you find soemthing better to do with your time. You're not going to convince anyone of your views here, especially seeing as you don't seem to clear about them yourself.
So you think it's a waste of one's time to engage others in order to clarify one's own convictions, is that it? Excuse me for not believing that everyone here is crystal clear in their personal convictions.

[trivas7]

I'm not telling you to do anything of such, or demanding, I just reccomend you find soemthing better to do with your time. You're not going to convince anyone of your views here, especially seeing as you don't seem to clear about them yourself.
So you think it's a waste of one's time to engage others in order to clarify one's own convictions, is that it? Excuse me for not believing that I am the only one here not crystal clear in their personal convictions.

[Robert]

All Marxists are crystal clear in their convictions. Also doctrinaire, dogmatic, and ... dull.

[Bud Struggle]

All Marxists are crystal clear in their convictions. Also doctrinaire, dogmatic, and ... dull.


Like yesterday's newspaper--literally and figuratively.

[IcarusAngel]

Rightists cannot dismiss Marxism as easily as they think they can. History has shown that progressive theories that tend to emphasize free and non-hierarchical societies always withstand the test of time. Marxist historical analysis inevitably talks about how progress is made, which one Marxist said requires the 'slow maturation of both objective and subjective forces.'

The reason attempted Marxist societies failed is not because they are fundamentally flawed but because of the standards they require people to meet: after two millenia, human societies are barely approximating the type of equality and cooperation that Aristotle laid out. Socialist "states" tried to make too big of jump all at once and thus ended up going in the opposite direction.

With the recent failures of capitalism we might again see another jump toward either better or capitalism or a new system that transcends it.

[ckaihatsu]

Is there some logical basis to Marxism? If so what is it? I say no. There is no science of history; neither is dialectical logic logic in the Aristotelian sense. As such Marxist socialism is in reality a secular messianic religion based on faith.


Here's my contribution to this issue, from last November. A useful discussion follows this posting at the thread:



Historical materialism is * absolutely * a science, and a _hard_ one at that, despite conventional claims otherwise. Here is a reification of it:


History, Macro-Micro

http://tinyurl.com/2dafgr


Chris







--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[Revolutionary Youth]

Don't worry rightists, we may not have a Communist "country", but we do have Socialist countries!:D

[trivas7]

Here's my contribution to this issue, from last November. A useful discussion follows this posting at the thread:

I am impressed; but I must say, pismire-fomed graphics as logical arguments are beyond my ken.

[trivas7]

Rightists cannot dismiss Marxism as easily as they think they can.

Who's dismissing Marxism? David Harvey (http://davidharvey.org/), e.g., a geographer and Ardendtist, can attest to the power of Marxian analysis w/o being a revolutionary socialist.

[casper]

what is it that doesn't make sense?

[trivas7]

what is it that doesn't make sense?
This begs the question, Casper.

[trivas7]

Religion requires a faith in an unknowable deity residing in an unseen realm [...]
No; Buddhism or Jainism proves otherwise. I guess what I'm saying is that non-logical, non-falsifiable doctrines are essentially faith-based -- whatever their content -- and that Marxism fits that characterization to a tee.

Here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolution-and-after-t99875/index.html) is an example of a thread whose concerns point to its messianic qualities.

[casper]

i was wondering what specific parts you find illogical. if you break it down and give your opinions on each objection you have we all could get into a more detailed discussion. i'm not sure where to start. its such a broad subject with many different smaller subjects and connections to other philosophies, observations and positions.
if i'm overlooking where you have already done this sorry, but i didn't notice it.

what do you mean by there is no science of history? all of my social studies courses up to date employs scientific methods. also there is alot of history in science as well.

[danyboy27]

has usual:
if you are not pro-marxist, you are right winger, another fucking broad generalization for those who dont think the way you do.

may i remember you my vietnamese friend that this is beccause your country dropped many marxist dogma that your economy is running fine.

if your governement would have refused to change, your economical situation would have been similar to north korea right now.

[Revolutionary Youth]

has usual:
if you are not pro-marxist, you are right winger, another fucking broad generalization for those who dont think the way you do.

I didn't say that. :confused:
Just added some info for those-who-are-right-wingers, that's all.;)

may i remember you my vietnamese friend that this is beccause your country dropped many marxist dogma that your economy is running fine.

if your governement would have refused to change, your economical situation would have been similar to north korea right now.Ha ha, changes based on circumstances, my friend. If we are not flexible, then yes, a second North Korea is unavoidable.

[Plagueround]

Is there some logical basis to Marxism? If so what is it? I say no. There is no science of history; neither is dialectical logic logic in the Aristotelian sense. As such Marxist socialism is in reality a secular messianic religion based on faith.

I must emphasize that I'm very much still learning, so forgive me if I muddle this up a bit.

Out of the two sociological macrotheories that have emerged, Marx's works generally seems to be the one that better explains societal interactions. Later versions of conflict theory have integrated structural functionalism into the mix, but only as what I see to be an explanation of how some people tend to think the world works, and not as actual underlying causes for those interactions. Of the two, I'd say Strucutral Functionalism fails to account for much more than conflict theory or Marxism could ever be accused of, and the later theorists tend to have a bias that could put the most "blinder wearing" Marxist to shame.

While I can see how some socialists may tend to fall into the trap of treating Marxism as a religion, it cannot be dismissed on such grounds. I'd suggest you do a bit more research into sociology before coming to this conclusion. I know I've been having fun with it thus far.

[danyboy27]

Ha ha, changes based on circumstances, my friend. If we are not flexible, then yes, a second North Korea is unavoidable.

and still, many leftist will criticize your country beccause they compromised the almighty marxist principles, and will call your country a degenerated working state.

those almighty marxist principles are what dividing the left, or at least the way we idealize them, instead of looking of what happen today, adapt, change modify, we are stuck with the same dilema religion have: a bunch of moderate, a minority of fundamentalist, some other moderate etc.

-the protestants, the christians, the batists,the born again.
-trotskyst, marxist, leninist, maoist, luxembourgist, social democrat, socialist.

instead of always refering to those saints(marx,lenin,mao,trotsky) we should use our common sense.

leftism is something logical and essential to the progress of this world.
there is no need for 10000 idealized theories and principles, we do stuff, it dosnt work, we do other stuff it, work, and we do other stuff.

[ckaihatsu]

instead of always refering to those saints(marx,lenin,mao,trotsky) we should use our common sense.

leftism is something logical and essential to the progress of this world.
there is no need for 10000 idealized theories and principles, we do stuff, it dosnt work, we do other stuff it, work, and we do other stuff.


I happened to just address this topic of political ideologies on another thread:



Gentle reminder:

- Our *objective* interests correspond to our *objective* relationship to the means of mass production (which is the most broad-based, cutting-edge, and influential technology that society has ever developed).

- Our *subjective* attitude towards this fact determines our sociopolitical views.

One could be born into a wealthy family, acknowledge it, and yet decide to subjectively identify with the class struggle. Or, one could be working class and deny it and subjectively identify your politics in relation to the bullshit propaganda coming out of mainstream channels, thus making you a Green, a liberal, or a radical. If you're basically anti-capitalist but too locale-oriented then you're an anarchist.

Anyone still reading this please go and see Trotsky's "Permanent Revolution".


Chris


P.S. I did up a handy political spectrum to deal with this very issue of political ideologies. Please keep in mind that in the real world we routinely build platforms with near-like-minded people, but our own support is grounded in certain principles that grow out of our political worldview.


Ideologies & Operations

http://tinyurl.com/yqotq9

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Can we label trivas a troll yet? He makes brief, derogatory remarks without any evidence and then leaves.

[GPDP]

He's pretty much the definition of the hit n' run troll by now. They basically go in, make an inflammatory statement meant to push the right buttons, then sit back and watch the shitstorm unfold.

[benhur]

There are many things in religion that cannot be verified-heaven, hell, angels, gods etc. Marxist theories are objective, and pertain to the material world, and have nothing to do with any mystical, other-worldly stuff. So it's not a question of believing Marxism, it's a question of understanding it. Hence, there's no similarity between Marxism and religion.

[Plagueround]

Can we label trivas a troll yet? He makes brief, derogatory remarks without any evidence and then leaves.

At this point, I'm pretty much convinced he always was a troll.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Ha ha, changes based on circumstances, my friend. If we are not flexible, then yes, a second North Korea is unavoidable.

The Hoaxists will hate you for this :lol:

But seriously, how is the war against America remembered in Vietnam? Apart from all the painful memories, is it seen more as an act of national liberation or of class struggle?

And yes, I know those are inseperable and all that, but we really don't know to much about how Vietnamese view themselves over here, the only view we get is from the US troops (like every other war). Anyway, it's cool that they're planning the high speed rail between Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh city.

[ZeroNowhere]

Austrian economics is a religion, and saying that Marxism is a religion is also a religion. Also, liking puppies is a religion.


-the protestants, the christians, the batists,the born again.
-trotskyst, marxist, leninist, maoist, luxembourgist, social democrat, socialist.
-the protestants, the cat'licks, the baptists, the mor[m]ons, the anabaptist, the episcopalian, the pentecostal, the liberation theorist, the esoteric xian.
-trot, lennienist, maoist, hoxhaite, liberal, reformist, libertarian, 'libertarian', conservative, social-progressivist, social-proletocrat, anti-social proletocrat, primmo, fash, rothbardian, agrarianist, bernsteinist.
Oh noes.


may i remember you my vietnamese friend that this is beccause your country dropped many marxist dogma that your economy is running fine.

if your governement would have refused to change, your economical situation would have been similar to north korea right now.
Neither had anything to do with Marxism, so that's fairly irrelevant.

[Led Zeppelin]

Is there some logical basis to Marxism? If so what is it? I say no. There is no science of history; neither is dialectical logic logic in the Aristotelian sense. As such Marxist socialism is in reality a secular messianic religion based on faith.

You have a good point there.

Clearly history progresses due to blind chance, random events stringed together for no reason whatsoever:


Interaction undoubtedly exists between all sides of social life. But unfortunately this justifiable point of view explains very little, for the simple reason that it gives no indication as to the origin of the interacting forces. If the constitution itself presupposes the manners which it influences, then obviously it is not to the constitution that those manners owe their first appearance. The same must be said of the manners too: if they already presuppose the constitution which they influence, then it is clear that it is not they which created it. In order to get rid of this muddle we must discover the historical factor which produced both the manners of the given people and its constitution, and thereby created the very possibility of their interaction. If we discover such a factor we shall reveal the correct point of view we are seeking, and then we shall solve without difficulty the contradiction which confuses us.

[...]

There is undoubted interaction between opinions and environment. But scientific investigation cannot stop at recognising this interaction, since interaction is far from explaining social phenomena to us. In order to understand the history of mankind, i.e., in the present case the history of its opinions, on the one hand, and the history of those social relations through which it passed in its development, on the other, we must rise above the point of view of interaction, and discover, if possible, that factor which determines both the development of the social environment and the development of opinions. The problem of social science in the nineteenth century was precisely to discover that factor.

The world is governed by opinions. But then, opinions do not remain unchanged. What conditions their changes.

How does society change and develop? An atom from The Heavens enters the brain of some King or President making them decide to advance society.

That's how we got to where we are today, obviously.

Silly philosophers like Marx, thinking they could figure something out which conditioned the development of society in general lines, like for example the mode of production. How silly they were!

[Bud Struggle]

The problem here is that things--"happen" in the world and the human mind tries to put some logical reasoning behind it, some form of cosmic structure. All well and good and for the most part there has been some sort of traceable tract. Unfortunately, there are allsorts of variables in the mix also. Everything from climate to communications to the occasional "glorious leader."

The Inuit vote in Canadian Parleamentry elections not because they evolved sociologically to do that, but because another culture with those values and good communications overcame the Inuit. Communism in the Soviet Union was fashioned in a particular way because certain strong willed men decided it would look the way it looked--if actual Soviet Marxist took control--it might still be around today.

How society progresses is not an easy question to answer.

[Demogorgon]

The problem here is that things--"happen" in the world and the human mind tries to put some logical reasoning behind it, some form of cosmic structure. All well and good and for the most part there has been some sort of traceable tract. Unfortunately, there are allsorts of variables in the mix also. Everything from climate to communications to the occasional "glorious leader."

The Inuit vote in Canadian Parleamentry elections not because they evolved sociologically to do that, but because another culture with those values and good communications overcame the Inuit. Communism in the Soviet Union was fashioned in a particular way because certain strong willed men decided it would look the way it looked--if actual Soviet Marxist took control--it might still be around today.

How society progresses is not an easy question to answer.
I really do not think it is true. I doubt that the Soviet Union took the form it did because anybody planned it that way. Even Stalin probably had better hopes for it. It worked out that way because of various factors outwith even his control.

And then there is the question of why somebody like Stalin was able to get to power anyway. You get people with his kind of personality and bullying nature all over the place and put in power, they would likely behave a lot like him, but they don't get into power mercifully because the conditions are not such that such people get the chance.

An interesting question though, if you don't think that history plays by certain rules, does that mean that the outcome of the Soviet experiment was not inevitable?

[Robert]

The Hoaxists will hate you for this

Abe, is that typo ironic or accidental? Funny.

[Revolutionary Youth]

Troll much? Get a life, There has to be something better to do than troll this website.
You should back up your point dude. Making blank assumptions won't help.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Abe, is that typo ironic or accidental? Funny.

I forgot how to spell it properly ;)

[trivas7]

Silly philosophers like Marx, thinking they could figure something out which conditioned the development of society in general lines, like for example the mode of production. How silly they were!

I forget when/where but at some point Marx said his theory of historical materialism had to be accountable to the empirical evidence, tested by crucible of history. IOW, he was willing to admit he could have been wrong re the process of social change.

[Bud Struggle]

I really do not think it is true. I doubt that the Soviet Union took the form it did because anybody planned it that way. Even Stalin probably had better hopes for it. It worked out that way because of various factors outwith even his control. I didn't mean to imply that anyone planned it that way, but it almost seems that there are certain junctures in time when a lot of things come to a head--and the outcome depends on the character of the men in charge. If there was no Stalin, Trotsky would probably have headed the SU and it would have become a completely different place than it was.


And then there is the question of why somebody like Stalin was able to get to power anyway. You get people with his kind of personality and bullying nature all over the place and put in power, they would likely behave a lot like him, but they don't get into power mercifully because the conditions are not such that such people get the chance. There are indeed lots of bullies--but Stalin was also a genius at manipulating people--and inspiring people. He was a unique man. So was Trotsky.


An interesting question though, if you don't think that history plays by certain rules, does that mean that the outcome of the Soviet experiment was not inevitable? Nope--I think that if the Soviet Union took a slightly different path early on the world might be all Communist today.

But who knows?

[trivas7]

While I can see how some socialists may tend to fall into the trap of treating Marxism as a religion, it cannot be dismissed on such grounds. I'd suggest you do a bit more research into sociology before coming to this conclusion. I know I've been having fun with it thus far.
Not being a sociologist I assure you I won't be falling into any of their traps.

Curiously you're the only one to mention that Marxism is a sociological theory; I'd be interested in what you mean by this. Thanks for the response.

[Plagueround]

Not being a sociologist I assure you I won't be falling into any of their traps.

Curiously you're the only one to mention that Marxism is a sociological theory; I'd be interested in what you mean by this. Thanks for the response.

Marxism is one of two foundations for the entire field of sociology and one of only three macrotheories. The other two are Structural Functionalism and Symbolic Interaction theory (although not many think it should be included in the macrotheories...even from what I've studied I tend to agree). I was studying it quite a bit last night, I'll give you a more detailed response when I get a chance.

[ckaihatsu]

* Class * is a valid sociological category -- Marxism notes that class is *the* main divide in society, so the rest of sociology is just slacking on this point. There's *no* outstanding mystery about how society progresses -- here it is:





Following Marx, writers who identify with historical materialism usually postulate that society has moved through a number of types or modes of production. That is, the character of the production relations is determined by the character of the productive forces; these could be the simple tools and instruments of early human existence, or the more developed machinery and technology of present age. The main modes of production Marx identified generally include primitive communism or tribal society (a prehistoric stage), ancient society, feudalism and capitalism. In each of these social stages, people interact with nature and produce their living in different ways. Any surplus from that production is allotted in different ways. Ancient society was based on a ruling class of slave owners and a class of slaves; feudalism based on landowners and serfs; and capitalism based on the capitalist class and the working class. The capitalist class privately owns the means of production, distribution and exchange (e.g. factories, mines, shops and banks) while the working class live by exchanging their socialized labour with the capital class for wages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism



I've been using the globalization issue as a shortcut to talk about the need for workers revolution and the lack of progress under capitalism. Here's an except from a recent post:





Since the globalization issue has *not* been resolved, it's understandable that the *side-effects* of this bottle-necking of progress may be talked about, instead of the problem itself. In fact many political-type "service" industries -- or rackets, depending on your take -- have developed tangentially around this ultimate, outstanding societal question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1857

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893


The willing retardation of oneself through liberalism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1335426&postcount=2

[peaccenicked]

Is Marxism logical?
This is from the Economist.


MARX, KARL
Much followed, and much misunderstood, German economist (1818–83). His two best-known works were the Communist Manifesto, written in 1848 with Friedrich Engels, and Das Kapital, in four volumes published between 1867 and 1910. Most of his economic assumptions were drawn from orthodox CLASSICAL ECONOMICS, (http://www.economist.com/RESEARCH/ECONOMICS/alphabetic.cfm?term=classicaleconomics#classicalec onomics) but he used them to reach highly unorthodox conclusions. Although claimed and blamed as the inspiration of some of the most virulently anti-market governments the world has ever seen, he was not wholly against CAPITALISM (http://www.economist.com/RESEARCH/ECONOMICS/alphabetic.cfm?term=capitalism#capitalism). Indeed, he praised it for rescuing millions of people from “the idiocy of rural life”. Even so, he thought it was doomed. A shortage of DEMAND (http://www.economist.com/RESEARCH/ECONOMICS/alphabetic.cfm?term=demand#demand) would concentrate economic power and wealth in ever fewer hands, producing an ever-larger and more miserable proletariat. This would eventually rise up, creating a “dictatorship of the proletariat” and leading eventually to a “withering away” of the state. Marx thought that this version of history was inevitable. So far, history has proved him wrong, largely because capitalism has delivered a much better deal to the masses than he believed it would. 1 (http://www.economist.com/RESEARCH/ECONOMICS/alphabetic.cfm?term=moneysupply#marxkarl)

The question becomes is Marx wrong.
The "better deal" that capitalism is supposed to provide has proved that it has little future.
In the UK we have this from the Guardian.
Privately, something close to desperation is starting to develop inside government. After watching the slide in bank shares on Friday, one cabinet minister did not altogether joke when he said: "The banks are fucked, we're fucked, the country's fucked.

[JimmyJazz]

The OP doesn't really offer anything to discuss, but I'll post this, which I just discovered today. It's probably the single best synopsis of Marxism that I've ever read (in two parts--each just a few paragraphs):

"A Fair Day's Wages for a Fair Day's Work (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/05/07.htm)" and "The Wages System (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/05/21.htm)" by Engels.

Funny, because I'm not usually crazy about Engels' writing.

[Dimentio]

Is there some logical basis to Marxism? If so what is it? I say no. There is no science of history; neither is dialectical logic logic in the Aristotelian sense. As such Marxist socialism is in reality a secular messianic religion based on faith.

Marxism assumes that human beings act and react according to their economic, material class interests. As such, marxism has had a tremendous influence upon science in the 20th century, notably economics, history and sociology.

Before Marx, history was mostly about great generals and emperors, and not about how the people lived their lives in societies earlier than our own.

While Marx certainly had some weaknesses, marxism is not in one bit as badly organised, theoretically, as Austrian economics, which states that empiricism could not be a guiding factor in economics, leaving us to "praxeology".

Through praxeology, Aristotle once proved that women have fewer teeth than men! :lol:

[Revolutionary Youth]

Before Marx, history was mostly about great generals and emperors, and not about how the people lived their lives in societies earlier than our own.
Call in the poets, fast! :lol:

[Led Zeppelin]

I forget when/where but at some point Marx said his theory of historical materialism had to be accountable to the empirical evidence, tested by crucible of history. IOW, he was willing to admit he could have been wrong re the process of social change.

Obviously he could have been wrong about the process of social change going through the specific stages which he laid out (in very general lines, I might add).

Marxists, that is, Marxists who have actually read Marx, would not deny that.

Some examples:


The inability of the proletariat to take into its hands the leadership of society could actually lead under these conditions to the growth of a new exploiting class from the Bonapartist fascist bureaucracy. This would be, according to all indications, a regime of decline, signalizing the eclipse of civilization.

An analogous result might occur in the event that the proletariat of advanced capitalist countries, having conquered power, should prove incapable of holding it and surrender it, as in the USSR, to a privileged bureaucracy. Then we would be compelled to acknowledge that the reason for the bureaucratic relapse is rooted not in the backwardness of the country and not in the imperialist environment but in the congenital incapacity of the proletariat to become a ruling class. Then it would be necessary in retrospect to establish that in its fundamental traits the present USSR was the precursor of a new exploiting régime on an international scale.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/09/ussr-war.htm)


Marxism sets out from the development of technique as the fundamental spring of progress, and constructs the communist program upon the dynamic of the productive forces. If you conceive that some cosmic catastrophe is going to destroy our planet in the fairly near future, then you must, of course, reject the communist perspective along with much else. Except for this as yet problematic danger, however, there is not the slightest scientific ground for setting any limit in advance to our technical productive and cultural possibilities.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch03.htm)

[trivas7]

Is Marxism logical?

The question becomes is Marx wrong.
The "better deal" that capitalism is supposed to provide has proved that it has little future.

Capitalism can at least lay claim to having a past.


Marxism assumes that human beings act and react according to their economic, material class interests.

It's just such a reductionistic view of human behaviour that non-Marxists challenge as being illogical and unscientific.


Obviously he could have been wrong about the process of social change going through the specific stages which he laid out (in very general lines, I might add).

Marxists, that is, Marxists who have actually read Marx, would not deny that.

You make a point different than mine: that some have already made the judgment that Marx was fundamentally wrong re the theory of historical materialism (even in the left camp, e.g., political theorist Michael Albert) something a Marxist could never do.

[Led Zeppelin]

You make a point different than mine: that some have already made the judgment that Marx was fundamentally wrong re the theory of historical materialism (even in the left camp, e.g., political theorist Michael Albert) something a Marxist could never do.

I'm not sure what your point is then. You first posted something which seemed as though you were saying that historical materialism is flawed. I responded to that by pointing out how absurd that claim is, and then you replied back saying that Marx didn't consider it inevitable for social progress to go through definite stages, which is true.

So what's your point? Are you saying historical materialism is flawed? Well then reply to the first post I made.

[trivas7]

Well then reply to the first post I made.
I apologize; re-reading your first post from the pg.2: like capser, you beg the question. You assume that Marxism is logical w/o saying why or upon what grounds.

[Dosoftei]

Of course its logical because it was made in need:):)

[Dimentio]

Marxism is just taking the assumption about human beings as rational egoists who act in accordance with the maximalisation of their utilities and consumptions a step further.

When you are bashing marxism, you are bashing your own ideological foundation. Unless you want to trash Adam Smith.

Not that I agree with marxism, but marxism is a good analysis tool combined with other tools in social sciences.

[trivas7]

Marxism is just taking the assumption about human beings as rational egoists who act in accordance with the maximalisation of their utilities and consumptions a step further.

I know it's a conceit of Marxists that Marxism is a continuation of the classical liberal tradition; frankly I don't buy it. The dialectical method is a wholesale repudiation of Aristotelian logic. Class analysis eschews the primacy of the individual discovered during the Renaissance and made sovereign during the Enlightenment.

[Bud Struggle]

Marxism is just taking the assumption about human beings as rational egoists who act in accordance with the maximalisation of their utilities and consumptions a step further.


In most areas of their life human beings are as rational and predictable as cats.

[Robert]

Tom, high as will always remain my regard and esteem for you, I see no reason to insult our feline friends.

Your humble (though Great) servant,

Robert

[JimmyJazz]

In most areas of their life human beings are as rational and predictable as cats.

what the hell

[Bud Struggle]

Tom, high as will always remain my regard and esteem for you, I see no reason to insult our feline friends.

Your humble (though Great) servant,

Robert

Thank you my dear friend and Comrade,

Tom


what the hell

People can think rational thoughts--pretty easily. The problem is that most of us don't do rational things on a regular basis. Even the obvious things--save your money, get a good education, study hard, work hard to get ahead. Rational, but they don't do it. Don't take drugs? Joining the army--is that rational? Lots of people do. Belief in God--is that rational? Actually good example there: I believe in God and I think it's rational, most Commies don't and think that's rational--so we have no common rational belief in what is rational.

War is that Rational? Look at all of the HIGHLY rational Germans that followed Hitler straight into Hell a couple of years ago. Rational. :)

[JimmyJazz]

In most ways a couch is as blue and soft as a book, mirite?

[redguard2009]

Just because you don't understand it (which is alarmingly obvious) doesn't make it based on "faith". Sorry.

[Hit The North]

Marxism assumes that human beings act and react according to their economic, material class interests.



It's just such a reductionistic view of human behaviour that non-Marxists challenge as being illogical and unscientific.


It is reductionist, the way Serpent puts it. Marx doesn't argue that humans only act according to their material class interests. There is the small matter of ideology - the ruling ideas. Acting according to class interest is an achievement - an overcoming of ruling class ideas. Otherwise, we couldn't explain why the masses of workers are not daily organised in class struggle, or why they often embrace ideas which seems contrary to their class interest. In fact, in a lot of Marx's writing - particularly the political stuff - there is a sense in which even the main actors in a historical conflict are not completely conscious of the role they are playing.



Marxism is just taking the assumption about human beings as rational egoists who act in accordance with the maximalisation of their utilities and consumptions a step further.



I don't think this is true at all. The model of human behaviour, founded on Enlightenment thinking, which present humans as egoistical utilitarians, rationally calculating how to maximise their pleasures and minimise their pains - a view which is reductionist! - is not the view held by Marx or most Marxists.

Marx's view of human beings is rooted in the socialist tradition of seeing humans as creative, communal beings; not in the liberal tradition of the isolated, over-rationalised, acquisitive individual.

[casper]

humans may not always act "rational", but there are rational reasons on why they don't.:D

[danyboy27]

humans may not always act "rational", but there are rational reasons on why they don't.:D

the main reason why we dont act rationally are emotion and feelings, and those are not rationnal.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I know it's a conceit of Marxists that Marxism is a continuation of the classical liberal tradition; frankly I don't buy it. The dialectical method is a wholesale repudiation of Aristotelian logic. Class analysis eschews the primacy of the individual discovered during the Renaissance and made sovereign during the Enlightenment.

Protip: Not all Marxists accept dialectics. In fact some actively repuidate it.

[casper]

the main reason why we dont act rationally are emotion and feelings, and those are not rationnal.
those could be understood rationally. emotions have their reasons, they have their causes. your statement can serve as a rationalization of why people are hard to predict at times. Humans are complex and each one different, but they are ultimately biological machines. i know a number of inputs i can put into some people in order to get certain emotional outputs. Sometimes i even know the correlations and parts of the processes that transforms a persons emotional states based off of inputs. like if i bring up a friend of mines dad in a certain way i could easily piss her off, its because (in short) her dad is a duesch bag.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

the main reason why we dont act rationally are emotion and feelings, and those are not rationnal.

There generally rational assuming the goals of evolution,(pass on genes) and you realize evolution is hardly perfect.
Modern society is well outside humans initial status as hunter/gatherers, so human emotions more and more become a barrier instead of enabler. That's why it's important to catalog the human psyche and then focus on cleaning up our emotional systems to better fit within our new world.

Though in the end, rationality is about achieving goals, it can't really give you said goals in the first place.

[trivas7]

Protip: Not all Marxists accept dialectics. In fact some actively repuidate it.
IMHO you can't call yourself a Marxist w/o accepting the dialectic: e.g.:



Rosa,
I hope to have the time at some point to delve more deeply into the dialectic method and to look over your critique of it. I don’t think that my knowledge of the dialectical method is nearly as complete as I’d like it to be, and I’m sure that there are probably all sorts of criticisms that I have yet to consider. That being said, your comment has little if anything to do with my essay, and seems more of an advert for your website.

I also think it is dishonest for you to say that I am using the word contradiction in a new way or that dialectical contradiction is a theory of mine. The contradiction inherent in the money form is a basic tenet of Marx’s value theory and can be found in the opening chapters of Das Kapital so I see no way that you can honestly claim that you have never heard the word used in this way before. If you are a marxist, as you claim, you have no doubt read about the contradiction in the money form and are quite well aware of how this contradiction is understood. If not, you can check out my video “What the hell is money?” for an early attempt on my part to understand this problem (I hope to return to this topic in the future).


It seems that you are advocating a much more restricted and literal sense of contradiction, which is unfortunate as it robs us of any of the richness that the word takes on when used dialectically. Used in a dialectical way, contradiction in this case means that when money is used as a medium of exchange it begins to undermine its role as measure of value and vice versa. So the two roles of money form opposing pressures that conflict with each other though they are embodied in one thing. This gives rise to all sorts of monies to try to resolve this contradiction.

--kapitalism101 (http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/in-defense-of-teleology/)



(http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/in-defence-of-teleology/#comment-146)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

IMHO you can't call yourself a Marxist w/o accepting the dialectic:

Good thing your opinion is irrelevant, then.

[Dimentio]

I know it's a conceit of Marxists that Marxism is a continuation of the classical liberal tradition; frankly I don't buy it. The dialectical method is a wholesale repudiation of Aristotelian logic. Class analysis eschews the primacy of the individual discovered during the Renaissance and made sovereign during the Enlightenment.

I think dialectalism and Aristotelian logic both have great flaws in them. They are basically building their own foundation on what could be derived from the human mind. Today, we have scientific falsificationism, which - while not normative - allows a flexible and yet stable base for applying normative values on.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

IMHO you can't call yourself a Marxist w/o accepting the dialectic: e.g.:

And you're decrying us as religious adherents?

[trivas7]

And you're decrying us as religious adherents?

I'm saying that words have meanings. On what basis is a Marxist a Marxist if he doesn't acknowledge and use Marx's methodology?

[casper]

words only have the meanings we give them.
triangle of meaning:

.......word
......./ ... \
symbol - referent