Things that Marxism is Not

[synthesis]

I've been wanting to write something like this for awhile now, but this thread really prompted me to get moving. I feel like there are certain things that need to be clarified and concentrated into one specific place so as to clear up some common misconceptions about Marxism.

Without further ado:

1. Marxism is not asceticism. Being a Marxist does not require you to live in a dingy apartment, wear the same clothes every day, and forgo the pleasures of modern life. You're not a hypocrite if you live as well as you can while still being a Marxist, as long as you're not a boss. Plenty of people live in quasi-monastic conditions only because they don't have any other choice, and those are the conditions that Marxists seek to alleviate.
2. Marxism is not puritanism. Being a Marxist does not require you to give up things that some Maoists, for example, might call "bourgeois decadence." You can be a Marxist and still fuck as many people as you want, do as many drugs as you want, and dance every night if you want to, as long as you don't lose sight of class politics. (The fucking must be consensual, of course.) These things are only called "bourgeois decadence" because they are typically things that only the bourgeois can afford to do. Decadence should be equally available to everyone.
3. Marxism is not moralism. Being a Marxist does not mean that you oppose capitalism and exploitation and imperialism on the basis of their immorality. Morality is subjective and arbitrary and often irrational; class politics are not. Opposing these things on the basis of their immorality almost always results in a shift towards reformism as the moralist comes to believe that capitalism and exploitation and imperialism are acceptable as long as they meet his or her moral standards. He or she may even come to believe that they are the "lesser evil" when compared to the apparent immorality of revolutionary war.
4. Marxism is not altruism. Being a Marxist does not require you to abandon the concept of self-interest, so long as you keep that self-interest in the framework of class politics. Socialism is in the self-interest of every worker on the planet.
5. Marxism is not idealism. Of course, one of the core tenets of Marxism is the rejection of philosophical idealism in favor of materialism. But being a Marxist also does not require you to maintain idealism in the colloquial sense of the word, an antonym of cynicism - indeed, blind optimism and utopianism have worn many a Marxist to the bone when they are confronted with the reality of class politics. A "communist paradise" should never be the foremost objective of a Marxist; you must always concern yourself first with the necessity of establishing working class power by means of forcibly overthrowing the bourgeois state.
6. Marxism is not workerism. Being a Marxist does not require you to glorify an idealized conception of "working class culture" at the expense of genuine class politics. A Marxist should never mistake opportunism for pragmatism. Workerism, when taken to its logical conclusion, is the ultimate negation of Marxism, as it leads the Marxist to infer that workers with any form of false consciousness are beyond reproach.
7. Marxism is not culturalism. Being a Marxist does not require you to balance cultural considerations with class politics. Divorcing a culture from its material conditions, the mark of a culturalist or reactionary anthropologist, is one of the most prevalent forms of bourgeois idealism that has taken root in the modern leftist movement. The ramifications of culturalism are very similar to those of workerism; again, it consistently takes the form of apologia for false consciousness on the basis of culture. Culturalism is arguably worse than workerism, because workerism at least has some roots in historical materialism; also, there is almost always a very thin line between culturalism and outright apologia for nationalism.
8. Marxism is not Carlyleanism. Being a Marxist does not require you to lionize or demonize prominent figures from the annals of Marxist history, to divorce their theories from their actions, and to place responsibility for entire eras of political history on the backs of specific individuals without regard for context, conditions, and, ultimately, historical materialism. (Thomas Carlyle is the historian responsible for the "Great Man theory of history.")
9. Marxism is not determinism. Being a Marxist does not require you to operate under the fatalistic pretense that communism is a historical inevitability by virtue of faith alone. The pragmatic Marxist focuses on promoting the interests of the working class in the present, not content to shrug off any activity in class politics solely because the dictatorship of the proletariat and its transition into communism was prophesied by a wise man long ago. Indeed, determinism and defeatism - as used in philosophy, not as used by Lenin to mean something completely different - are two sides of the same coin, as they are both ultimately contingent on whether your mood is optimistic or pessimistic. If the faith is shaken, if the glass is half-empty, class consciousness is often the first fatality.
10. Marxism is not (blind) anti-theism. Being a Marxist does not require you to condemn each and every expression of religion, spirituality and superstition as reactionary. It is, of course, necessary to oppose reactionary expressions of religion, but to view these expressions as independent of their context in class society is an extreme rejection of historical materialism in favor of bourgeois idealism. Without class analysis, anti-theism is as useless to a Marxist as any equally radical expression of theism. Everyone knows of Marx's assertion that "[religion] is the opiate of the people," but very rarely is it acknowledged that, in its proper context, this passage was entirely sympathetic to religion; the sentences immediately preceding that statement clarify that religion is also "the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions," and that "religious suffering is [both] the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering." Reactionary expressions of religion must be challenged, but if you wish to abolish religion entirely, you must first abolish the conditions that enable it, for better or worse, to pervade the lives of almost everyone alive today.

That's all for now. As an addendum, I tried to list these in an ascending order reflecting the level of familiarity with Marxism with which each point seeks to engage. (That is, the first few are oriented towards people who may not be particularly familiar with Marxism at all, while the points at the end are directed towards people with at least a cogent understanding of Marxist theory.)

Of course, clarifications, additions, questions and rebuttals are more than welcome. This was written to function as a sticky-style post/thread here in the Learning forum, so hopefully it will prove to be a useful resource even if it does not get pinned up top. I tried to think of a good ending to this post, but I'm tired as shit right now; I'm sure I'll think of something when it's no longer relevant. So: Excelsior!

[Flying Purple People Eater]

[*]Marxism is not culturalism. Being a Marxist does not require you to balance cultural considerations with class politics. Divorcing a culture from its material conditions, the mark of a culturalist or reactionary anthropologist, is one of the most prevalent forms of bourgeois idealism that has taken root in the modern leftist movement. The ramifications of culturalism are very similar to those of workerism; again, it consistently takes the form of apologia for false consciousness on the basis of culture. Culturalism is arguably worse than workerism, because workerism at least has some roots in historical materialism; also, there is almost always a very thin line between culturalism and outright apologia for nationalism.[*]
!

You put into words wisdom incarnate.

To think how many liberal apologists and pomos I could've used this on. I mean there are so many fuckers in liberal (and maoist) academia who defend shit like religious fundamentalism, sexism, homophobia, racial segregation, etc. under the pretense of cultural relativity its' not funny.

[Left Turn]

Marxism is not infalibilism -- Karl Marx was a great thinker who made great contributions to our understanding of how the world works, but he was not infaliable; and he wouldn't expect those who use his analytical method to be infalliable either. As such, Marxists do not need to subscribe to a series of 'correct' positions on issues that have little or no relevance to the day to day struggles of the working class. There is no one strand of Marxism that can be held up againt all others as the one true heir to the legacy of Marx and Engels. And the works of Marx and Engels cannot be parsed to uncover essential 'truths' and determine what positions Marx would take on various historical and contemporary issues.

Marxism is not vanguardism -- Marxists do not need to belong to a vanguardist organisation of the most class-conscious layer of the working class in order to engage in class struggle on behalf of the working class. Indeed, those whose primary political activity consists of recruiting fellow workers to their respective vanguardist organisation have in fact withdrawn from class struggle into sectarianism. The class struggle needs to be waged at the level of consciousness of the large mass of workers, not at a significantly higher level of consciousness that most workers do not understand.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Unending stream of wisdom

....Are you Jesus? I think you might be Jesus.


No, seriously though. I don't think I can add a single thing to it. This is pure brilliance. If I had something like this to just show people, we might convert alot more. So many people think that socialists/communists are supposed to be these monastic catamites that flog ourselves before busts of Marx. FUCK THAT. Marx loved life and enjoyed every part of it that he could, along with his family...he even skipped rent so that he could dote on his wife and daughters. He loved drink. He loved music. He loved LIFE.

......Fuck it, you ARE Jesus. I will die for you.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think 1-4 ought to be subject to some problematization. For one, the criteria "not a boss" is pretty vague. Do professors, professionals, and bureacurats - the various well-heeled (in historical terms, fantastically wealthy) strata of the petty-bourgeoisie and labour aristocracy really have "self-interest" in class war?
Further, are the utterly unsustainable and destructive lifestyles of these strata really things that "should be equally available to everyone"? What would that entail, practically speaking? How much of it implies, necessarily, a service sector? Will there be a post-capitalist service sector on the scale necessary to provide everyone with the conveniences now afforded to the so-called "middle class" of the imperial centre? Will private automobiles, suburban townhouses, and Kobe beef burgers really be possible? All hail the red dawn where the workers of the Congo are expected to accelerate the poisoning of their landbase so that the workers of the world might enjoy iPhones?
Your list is notably lacking, "Marxism is not a fairy-tale with a happy ending." Marx talks about an end to alienated labour, and "to each according to his need" - not "heinous wealth for one and all."
Anyone who expects as much will, I suspect, abandon the hardships of class war relatively early on. Many on this board no doubt included.

[synthesis]

Thanks to Jam and Brandon for the kind words.

Marxism is not vanguardism -- Marxists do not need to belong to a vanguardist organisation of the most class-conscious layer of the working class in order to engage in class struggle on behalf of the working class. Indeed, those whose primary political activity consists of recruiting fellow workers to their respective vanguardist organisation have in fact withdrawn from class struggle into sectarianism. The class struggle needs to be waged at the level of consciousness of the large mass of workers, not at a significantly higher level of consciousness that most workers do not understand.

I respect your contribution, but I just want to clarify that I tried to avoid stuff that had at the very least a solid theoretical foundation in the Marxist tradition, regardless of whether I agreed with it or not. The list is really more about the bourgeois ideological baggage that people bring with them when they learn about Marxism, which they don't necessarily shed as they progress. It's not intended to be a sectarian piece.

[Omsk]

Yeah man, sorry, but isn't this all old stuff?

[synthesis]

I hate doing line-by-line responses, but I don't see any other way to respond here.

I think 1-4 ought to be subject to some problematization. For one, the criteria "not a boss" is pretty vague. Do professors, professionals, and bureacurats - the various well-heeled (in historical terms, fantastically wealthy) strata of the petty-bourgeoisie and labour aristocracy really have "self-interest" in class war?

I think the list makes it pretty clear that this stuff is in reference to the working class.

Further, are the utterly unsustainable and destructive lifestyles of these strata really things that "should be equally available to everyone"? What would that entail, practically speaking? How much of it implies, necessarily, a service sector? Will there be a post-capitalist service sector on the scale necessary to provide everyone with the conveniences now afforded to the so-called "middle class" of the imperial centre? Will private automobiles, suburban townhouses, and Kobe beef burgers really be possible? All hail the red dawn where the workers of the Congo are expected to accelerate the poisoning of their landbase so that the workers of the world might enjoy iPhones?

These are all valid concerns, but this is sort of a beginner's text for Marxism. It's hard to accommodate everyone's pet issues that are tangential to classical Marxism. And when I say "decadence should be equally available to everyone," it would be hard to fulfill that if it didn't apply to everyone, workers in the Congo (and everywhere else in the world) included.

Your list is notably lacking, "Marxism is not a fairy-tale with a happy ending." Marx talks about an end to alienated labour, and "to each according to his need" - not "heinous wealth for one and all."
Anyone who expects as much will, I suspect, abandon the hardships of class war relatively early on. Many on this board no doubt included.

Isn't this pretty much exactly what #5 says? I mean, how is it different?

[synthesis]

Yeah man, sorry, but isn't this all old stuff?

Can you explain this further? I mean, of course no idea is original; I just thought it might be helpful to have this stuff all in once place.

+ YouTube Video

[Omsk]

Well, i saw some parties which had such statements in their propaganda and party-building material, and historically, these points were presented by various Marxists. Of course, it is an interesting debating subject and it's good it's piled up in a single thread. Usually, the points are separated, and you can find things about the last point (Marxism is not blind anti-theism) in things like the collected tomes from the congress of the Bulgarian Communist Party and you can find paragraphs about the fact that Marxism is not about puritanism in the collected work of Lenin.

This is basically a good idea, i never said it wasn't.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Isn't this pretty much exactly what #5 says? I mean, how is it different?

I appreciate your response. I guess I just feel like #5 doesn't do quite enough to problematize the first four things.
It's like, "Marxism is not asceticism" . . . but revolution isn't going to be materially comfortable. "Marxism is puritanism" - but bourgeois decadence premised on appalling super exploitation isn't (just) something Maoists made up out of thin air. "Marxism isn't moralism" but the lifestyles of yuppie scum are objectively premised on horrendous violence, which ought to stir disgust in any honest person. "Marxism is not altruism" but you've got to take a pretty long view of "self interest" when you have a choice between focusing on your MA or getting your arm broken by cops. And let's face it - pretending that you don't have to make those choices is idealism. If you're a Marxist in the sense of embarking on a communist project, and not "a Marxist" for your graduate thesis, you're going to have to give up some creature comforts unless you're doing it wrong. To have one's cake and eat it is idealism.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Yes and apparently every generation has to relearn it -- and burn their hair shirts. (Keep your flog if you swing that way.)

Yeah man, sorry, but isn't this all old stuff?

[synthesis]

I appreciate your response. I guess I just feel like #5 doesn't do quite enough to problematize the first four things.
It's like, "Marxism is not asceticism" . . . but revolution isn't going to be materially comfortable. "Marxism is puritanism" - but bourgeois decadence premised on appalling super exploitation isn't (just) something Maoists made up out of thin air. "Marxism isn't moralism" but the lifestyles of yuppie scum are objectively premised on horrendous violence, which ought to stir disgust in any honest person. "Marxism is not altruism" but you've got to take a pretty long view of "self interest" when you have a choice between focusing on your MA or getting your arm broken by cops. And let's face it - pretending that you don't have to make those choices is idealism. If you're a Marxist in the sense of embarking on a communist project, and not "a Marxist" for your graduate thesis, you're going to have to give up some creature comforts unless you're doing it wrong. To have one's cake and eat it is idealism.

So, basically, lifestylism? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, not trying to take a cheap shot because of your title, it just seems like that's your biggest objection to those points, that the list doesn't demand that Marxists lead a "Marxist" lifestyle. And on a similar note, which I think addresses the rest of your points, this list wasn't written specifically for college students or people who are able to attend college, nor was it written for the affluent. It is, again, only intended to challenge preconceptions that are prevalent among people learning about Marxism.

I do have a major problem with one part of your post, though:

"Marxism is not altruism" but you've got to take a pretty long view of "self interest" when you have a choice between focusing on your MA or getting your arm broken by cops.

If you're just a Marxist out of the goodness of your heart, you're missing the point of Marxism in general.

[Teacher]

Great post. Amen to the comments about culturalism.

[synthesis]

Well, i saw some parties which had such statements in their propaganda and party-building material, and historically, these points were presented by various Marxists. Of course, it is an interesting debating subject and it's good it's piled up in a single thread. Usually, the points are separated, and you can find things about the last point (Marxism is not blind anti-theism) in things like the collected tomes from the congress of the Bulgarian Communist Party and you can find paragraphs about the fact that Marxism is not about puritanism in the collected work of Lenin.

This is basically a good idea, i never said it wasn't.

Thanks for clarifying. At first I thought you were implying that the list was unnecessary, which might have bruised my ego a little. 1

I think this is a serious question, though, not just a rebuttal: how many people are going to read the collected tomes from the Congress of the Bulgarian Communist Party in their lifetime? Or even a majority of the other party-oriented texts you mentioned? More to the point, I don't think it's such a bad thing if people are coming here to learn about these ideas rather than slogging through the Marxist canon, or at least supplementing their studies with contemporary commentary, or to sort out the parts of those texts that are relevant to them now.

Furthermore, it also seemed like it would be useful if these points could not only be collected in one place, but also be rewritten to be more accessible to people with varying degrees of knowledge and experience with Marxism.

(This is the Learning forum, after all.)

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So, basically, lifestylism? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, not trying to take a cheap shot because of your title, it just seems like that's your biggest objection to those points, that the list doesn't demand that Marxists lead a "Marxist" lifestyle. And on a similar note, which I think addresses the rest of your points, this list wasn't written specifically for college students or people who are able to attend college, nor was it written for the affluent. It is, again, only intended to challenge preconceptions that are prevalent among people learning about Marxism.

It's not "lifestyle" - it's walking the walk.
In terms of popular misconceptions (and popular misconceptions that largely grow out of contemporary first world practice of "Marxism"), "Marxism is not a pastime for intellectuals" is notably absent. It needs to be emphasized that being a "Marxist" is not a matter of a particular theoretical outlook, but a matter of engaging, on the ground, with real struggle.

I do have a major problem with one part of your post, though:

[quote from my previous post]

If you're just a Marxist out of the goodness of your heart, you're missing the point of Marxism in general.

I agree, but, similarly, your usage of "self-interest" (I'd argue that Marxism implies a problematization of the "self", but, whatever, that's getting into some wanky shit) is equally out-of-touch. The "collective self-interest" of workers - class interest - is not only different, but often at odds with the self-interest of individual workers. Pretending otherwise is a recipe for cadre that split when shit gets rough. This alternative isn't moralism - it's a long view, a strategic view.

That said, and I mean this as an aside only, Marxism does have an ethical dimension, but this can be differentiated, sharply I think, from either a moralism or altruism. This is particularly apparent in "Young Marx" and Marx's writings on alienation. While Marx's economic/"scientific" understandings are certainly valid irregardless of this ethical dimension, when faced with the question of "Socialism or barbarism?" a particular ethical stance, vis- alienation, gemeinwesen, is implied by answering the former.

[Rurkel]

I'd agree that Marxism has an ethical dimension. Rephrasing the point to "Marxism isn't sorely an ethical movement (and that's what differentiates it from other leftist-utopian approaches)" would be better.

[synthesis]

God damn it, I have to do another line-by-line response now

It's not "lifestyle" - it's walking the walk.

It most certainly is a lifestyle. It's not that lifestylism is a bad thing, but it's not necessary to be a Marxist. There is nothing in Marx's works, to my knowledge, that would suggest that asceticism, puritanism, or really any particular way that someone lives their day-to-day life is relevant to his agenda. Again, this is outside of the realm of class politics, you seem to ignore this when I say it.

Now, if you're saying that Marx was missing something at the time, that's fine too - but that's not the point of this thread. You seem to conflate your criticism of Marx with your criticism of the list, which makes it difficult to respond, since veridicality is the primary focus here.

In terms of popular misconceptions (and popular misconceptions that largely grow out of contemporary first world practice of "Marxism"), "Marxism is not a pastime for intellectuals" is notably absent. It needs to be emphasized that being a "Marxist" is not a matter of a particular theoretical outlook, but a matter of engaging, on the ground, with real struggle.

Again, the list is primarily aimed at addressing the ideological baggage from bourgeois class society that people often bring into their understanding of Marxism. How would you phrase this assessment if you were adding an entry to the list?

I personally wouldn't add it, because Marxism is a pastime for intellectuals, whether we like it or not, regardless of the usefulness of academic Marxism (or lack thereof) to the working class. And not all praxes are created equal: "An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory, but a ton of action without an ounce of theory is worth nothing at all."

I agree, but, similarly, your usage of "self-interest"... is equally out-of-touch. The "collective self-interest" of workers - class interest - is not only different, but often at odds with the self-interest of individual workers.

I don't know why you assume that part wasn't talking about collective self-interest. I thought it was pretty obvious it wasn't referring to individual self-interest at the expense of class consciousness.

[synthesis]

I'd agree that Marxism has an ethical dimension. Rephrasing the point to "Marxism isn't sorely an ethical movement (and that's what differentiates it from other leftist-utopian approaches)" would be better.

My personal distinction between ethics and morals, at least in their colloquial usage, is that ethics are a system that people create internally through innate emotional reactions, while morals are systems that are created socially and by society. (This is why you have Republican Senators condemning homosexuality as immoral and then getting caught having anonymous sex with men in an airport bathroom or whatever. Because of the distinction I defined earlier, I'd argue that in his own mind, Larry Craig genuinely believed that homosexuality was immoral but not unethical.)

Bourgeois moralism is a system of morality defined by bourgeois values. It is impossible to have any sort of genuinely Marxist moralism because we do not live in a communist society. There is no system of morality that is useful to Marxism or usable by Marxism, which is why Marxists should never argue that prostitution, drug use, abortion or any form of consensual yet "deviant" sex should be condemned - those are common Maoist positions, because as they are strongly on the right-wing of Marxism (if not simply bourgeois nationalists) they are the least divorced from the cultural values, which dictate morality, of the society in which they live.

Yet anarcho-communists and Trotskyists are not exempt either; they sometimes argue from moralistic standpoints as well, although generally from the other side of the spectrum; anarchists often combine genuine class analysis with moralistic, abstracted condemnations of the state and other social constructions, while Trots condemn Marxism-Leninists because of their support for what Trots perceive to be immoral abuses of power in the past. These are liberal morals: better than conservative morals, but still aspects of bourgeois moralism.

Of course, plenty of anarcho-communists, Trotskyists and Maoists also argue from well-defined historical-materialist standpoints as well. But none of them can rely on anything other than historical materialism for their arguments, in part because they then become susceptible to the slippery slope that is the moralism of capitalist society.

[Skyhilist]

Threads like this always make me feel bad because I don't know or remember a lot of the words and end up having to look them up.

Anyways, after looking some things up, I would say that I agree with most of this, though not all, despite not being a Marxist.

Some considerations that I didn't personally 100% agree with:

#3: I think everything involving the humanities really involves some type of moral argument. For example, when a Marxist argues against capitalism, he/she generally cites reasons why it is immoral (although usually not using that word), like for example when saying it causes alienation and atomization. When you get down to it, concepts like "alienation is bad" boil down to your own morals, whether your a Marxist or not. So I think Marxism does, at some level involve morality, although the way to address moral issues are laid out logically.

#4: I'm pretty sure that's it's actually been determined that altruism is really just a complex type of self interest. Sometimes you might incorporate the "what goes around comes around" attitude when doing something nice for someone, even if no reward for your actions looms on the immediate horizon. Other times, helping other people might just make you feel really good. Seeing as we generally enjoy feeling really good, this might also explain the self interest behind altruism and why the two aren't necessarily different.

#6: This sort of just seems like a clever way to call groups like autonomists who support workerism "not true Marxists". Generally these people (I'm not one myself currently) might respond that workers, being class conscious and more logical by the time of a true revolution, would be capable of coming up with systems on their own to regulate the negative behavior in other workers, given that it's not so fun to work with, say, slackers when it means you have to do more work.

#9: Isn't Marxism supposed to follow a scientific method though? If so, then modern Marxism should in fact incorporate determinism. Science has already shown that there is no such thing as true "conscious action", because all decisions that we think we've made consciously were actually made before we were even consciously aware of them by our subconscious, which we have no control over. In this sense, determinism is science and therefore something that should be a part of Marxism if it should fall in line with science and the scientific method.

Please note that most of these aren't saying "I think you're completely wrong on this aspect." These are just some considerations that I thought might be worth making. I thought it was a pretty good list overall, and you certainly have a wider ranging vocabulary than I do.