3 ms·

It's risky to make broad claims regarding Marxism (both for you and the parent), it's kind of a catch-all term these days, especially when "marxist" has been tu

by simias 8y ago

It's risky to make broad claims regarding Marxism (both for you and the parent), it's kind of a catch-all term these days, especially when "marxist" has been turned into an insult in large parts of the English speaking world and in particular in the USA. After all, even Karl Marx said he wasn't a Marxist. I think it's more interesting to consider the ideas and concepts themselves rather that coming up with a rather meaningless and probably misleading label.

nabla9 8y ago
> concepts themselves rather that coming up with a rather meaningless and probably misleading label. Most of communism, anarchism and Marxism is fighting over the possession of language and labels. Different factions were named after different people who fought over the correct form of communism and had periodical ideological purges. I have been reading about communism and anarcho-communistm recently. Daniel Guérin s book Anarchism: From Theory to Practice, 1970 (originally L'anarchisme. De la doctrine à l'action, Paris, Gallimard, 1965). It's a classic.
vidarh 8y ago
But in this case there are clear actual statements by Marx. E.g. from The German Ideology: > And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced The point being that, contrary to what people tend to think, Marx saw people as generally driven by self-interest, rather than altruism, and if a group seeking to improve their lives organise, take control of government, but the country is so poor that redistribution just makes everyone poor, there is no reason to assume that some people will not start trying to take advantage of power and cause a return to class struggle. The foundation of Marxism is the idea that capitalism will bring the productive forces of society to previously never before seen heights, where redistribution eventually becomes viable - this is why you e.g. find Marx and Engels spending the first chapter of the Communist Manifesto largely praising capitalism into the skies. This theme from The German Ideology is one he returned to time and time again, such as e.g. when warning in prefaces to the Communist Manifesto that Russia could only successfully go through a socialist revolution if a revolution was to happen in the most well developed countries in Europe around the same time, to compensate for the underdevelopment of Russia itself. Whether or not he was right, this is one of the most central distinctions between Marxism and Leninism.

by simias 8y ago

nabla9 8y ago

> concepts themselves rather that coming up with a rather meaningless and probably misleading label. Most of communism, anarchism and Marxism is fighting over the possession of language and labels. Different factions were named after different people who fought over the correct form of communism and had periodical ideological purges. I have been reading about communism and anarcho-communistm recently. Daniel Guérin s book Anarchism: From Theory to Practice, 1970 (originally L'anarchisme. De la doctrine à l'action, Paris, Gallimard, 1965). It's a classic.

vidarh 8y ago

But in this case there are clear actual statements by Marx. E.g. from The German Ideology: > And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced The point being that, contrary to what people tend to think, Marx saw people as generally driven by self-interest, rather than altruism, and if a group seeking to improve their lives organise, take control of government, but the country is so poor that redistribution just makes everyone poor, there is no reason to assume that some people will not start trying to take advantage of power and cause a return to class struggle. The foundation of Marxism is the idea that capitalism will bring the productive forces of society to previously never before seen heights, where redistribution eventually becomes viable - this is why you e.g. find Marx and Engels spending the first chapter of the Communist Manifesto largely praising capitalism into the skies. This theme from The German Ideology is one he returned to time and time again, such as e.g. when warning in prefaces to the Communist Manifesto that Russia could only successfully go through a socialist revolution if a revolution was to happen in the most well developed countries in Europe around the same time, to compensate for the underdevelopment of Russia itself. Whether or not he was right, this is one of the most central distinctions between Marxism and Leninism.