Marxist theory

[EchoesofMourning]

Read your webpage.

So Marx acknowledged that his system can never work?

[Figleaf]

Any idiot knows there's more to Marx than the Manifesto. But the Manifesto does contain substanial distillations of his scholarship.

Why not just tell us idiots the answer to this highly important riddle?

You started this whole thread with "As we all know" which is utterly ridiculous. Can you also give one good reason why anybody should give a hoot about Marxist scholarship?

I'm just entertaining myself and broadening the scope of discussion here. As we all know, dialectical materialism remains an important contribution in the history of economic thought.

[Figleaf]

1. You are being needlessly insulting here.

I just sometimes feel the need to meet condescention with its like.

Your views on Marx are interesting, but I will point out that the Wikipedia article is quite clear that the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat appeared in Marx's original thought and was discussed by Engels as part of it. Accordingly, you were profoundly mistaken to attempt to ascribe the notion to Lenin and should, perhaps, be less overconfident in your theoretical assertions.

For example, please show me where in Marx's substantive works the argument is made that revolution is the normative form of changes in the dominant mode of production.

Why would you like me to show you that?

Marx's theory holds that evolution is the core mechanism of changes in the dominant mode of production over time.

No, I'm sorry but that's wrong. Marx held that changes come through the thesis and antithesis process of diaclectic materialism whereby each stage of production is met with a specific challenge that sweeps it aside until finally communism emerges. This is not an evolutionary process.

Marx's theory also holds that communism is inevitable. Yet the Manifesto holds that active revolution is the only way to make communist society. This is illogical and a contradiction.

Perhaps. I'm not sure they are directly contradictory concepts. But in any even, you overlook that Marx viewed the revolution itself as inevitable.

[jbg]

Can you also give one good reason why anybody should give a hoot about Marxist scholarship?

Marxist scholarship = oxymoron (link to source of definition):

================================================

One entry found.

oxymoron

Main Entry: ox·y·mo·ron

Pronunciation: \ˌäk-sē-ˈmȯr-ˌän\

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural -mo·ra \-ˈmȯr-ə\

Etymology: Late Greek oxymōron, from neuter of oxymōros pointedly foolish, from Greek oxys sharp, keen + mōros foolish

Date: 1657

: a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel kindness); broadly : something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements

[EchoesofMourning]

Can you also give one good reason why anybody should give a hoot about Marxist scholarship?

Marxist scholarship = oxymoron (link to source of definition):

Is there a reason for the outright antagonism that is present in this post?

[jbg]

Can you also give one good reason why anybody should give a hoot about Marxist scholarship?

Marxist scholarship = oxymoron (link to source of definition):

Is there a reason for the outright antagonism that is present in this post?

My point is there is no such thing as "Marxist scholarship".

[Figleaf]

My point is there is no such thing as "Marxist scholarship".

That rather depends on your definitions, doesn't it?

[Charles Anthony]

Before this thread turns into a scroller coaster ride through extraneous whitespace, I am stepping in on a point of order:

Condense your quotations. It is not necessary to repeat an entire post in a quotation.

Check out these threads:

NEW RULE! - Trim Your Posts, Please take the time to remove the bulk of the post your quoting

Trim Your Posts and Quotes, Don't just hit "Reply"

Using the [ Quote ] Feature:, Avoid using more too many quotes!

You guys should go back, edit and tidy up the formatting in your posts.

[PolyNewbie]

Bob Avekian is one of the most elequent speakers I have ever listened to and he has some very clear ideas about all of this.

Bob Avekian MP3's

I'm sure anyone who is interested in this topic would enjoy his MP3's.

I've listened to them once and will listen to them again but I am a paleo conservative. I like the constitution and I like the freedom of creation that comes with operating your own business. I think Bobs ideal society would kill creativity.

[EchoesofMourning]

My point is there is no such thing as "Marxist scholarship".

How do you justify this?

[jbg]

My point is there is no such thing as "Marxist scholarship".

How do you justify this?

Have you ever read any of their unabashed garbage? They start off with a not bad recitation of the progression from feudal rural societies to competitive capitalist societies, and jump to the total nonsequiter that even though it's a major improvement over the "idiocy of rural life" it must implode. The they leap to another nonsequiter, which is that a stateless paradise will evolve from the ensuing chaos.

It sounds profound, but withstands no level of analysis. The tragic results of each Marxist society bears out its nonsensical nature.

[marcinmoka]

Read your webpage.

So Marx acknowledged that his system can never work?

One would of hoped.

I assume the difference was they thought the red square was only one possible.

[EchoesofMourning]

Have you ever read any of their unabashed garbage? They start off with a not bad recitation of the progression from feudal rural societies to competitive capitalist societies, and jump to the total nonsequiter that even though it's a major improvement over the "idiocy of rural life" it must implode. The they leap to another nonsequiter, which is that a stateless paradise will evolve from the ensuing chaos.

It sounds profound, but withstands no level of analysis. The tragic results of each Marxist society bears out its nonsensical nature.

First off, I'd like to see some of these 'nonsequiter' parts of Marxist theory that you're talking about - can you provide some backup?

Secondly, I think any social movement that carries as much impact as Marxism has carried deserves to be examined through the figurative microscope of society many times over.

I happenned to agree that Communism cannot work, but that is no reason to dash it from the minds of humanity.

[Mad_Michael]

Your views on Marx are interesting, but I will point out that the Wikipedia article is quite clear that the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat appeared in Marx's original thought and was discussed by Engels as part of it. Accordingly, you were profoundly mistaken to attempt to ascribe the notion to Lenin and should, perhaps, be less overconfident in your theoretical assertions.

The term in question is used only by Marx in some letter of a relatively late date. I've read and studied all of Marx's important works in an academic environment. I have not read every letter he may have written, or much of his other non-scholarly work.

I objected to that statement on the basis of Marx's theory of history. There is no place in Marx's theory of history for any kind of vanguard or dictatorship of the proletariat - indeed, that is counterproductive and contradicts the theory of history (if something is a historical inevitability, why does it need specific acts by specific individuals? That is contradictory - if something is a historical inevitability, it will come to be regardless of anything anyone does anyway).

As noted previously, it is Lenin who is most famous for the explication of the idea or process of a dictatorship of the proletariat and the role of a vanguard party. Establishing that Marx may have used the phrase (at least once) in some letter does not the change general dynamic of this.

For example, please show me where in Marx's substantive works the argument is made that revolution is the normative form of changes in the dominant mode of production.

Why would you like me to show you that?

Because, there is no substantive argument or evidence given upon that particular and important concept. That is why I wanted you to state it - and you did.

The historical record (as Marx lays it out) is entirely evolutionary in process. However, the theoretical basis for assuming the all-powerful and all-necessary revolution is nothing more than the pure philosophic theory of dialectic - which you stated rather well:

Marx held that changes come through the thesis and antithesis process of diaclectic materialism whereby each stage of production is met with a specific challenge that sweeps it aside until finally communism emerges.

Indeed. Marx may have believed this, but to me, this is pie-in-the-sky pronouncement that does not have anything substantive to support it - only Marx's emphatic enunciation of it. It is metaphorical or allegorical at best. Marx's own historical theory does not provide substantial material support for this interpretation.

Suffice it to say that I read Marx's work with a critical eye. I don't accept ideological pronouncements - I accept only substantiated arguments. Material dialectic is like the holy eucharist - one takes it on faith, or not at all.

Marx's theory holds that evolution is the core mechanism of changes in the dominant mode of production over time.

No, I'm sorry but that's wrong. Marx held that changes come through the thesis and antithesis process of diaclectic materialism whereby each stage of production is met with a specific challenge that sweeps it aside until finally communism emerges. This is not an evolutionary process.

Sorry, my phrasing was a bit loose and therefore very misleading. Marx certainly doesn't make the point I was suggesting that he did.

What I should have said there was that Marx's historical theory, when viewed dispassionately by a non-Marxist, without recourse to ideological arguments for support, essentially describes an evolutionary process in the dominant mode of production.

It is only when one applies Marx's dialectic that all of a sudden it becomes revolutionary, because that's what the theory states that it is. Only the dialectic can make that deduction.

Marx's theory also holds that communism is inevitable. Yet the Manifesto holds that active revolution is the only way to make communist society. This is illogical and a contradiction.

Perhaps. I'm not sure they are directly contradictory concepts. But in any even, you overlook that Marx viewed the revolution itself as inevitable.

Marx appears to me to be rather poor at accepting his own core theory. His core theory work is excellent stuff, very well supported and substantiated. Then he takes that and applies a whole lot of mystical dialectical mumbo-jumbo to get the theory to support what he wants it to support (a revolutionary proletariat - or some kind of socialism).

I need hardly add that asserting that an action that is supposedly dependent upon the material actions of a specific class of people - will occur according to historical necessity is absurd.

As noted previously, if you toss aside the dialectic mumbo jumbo that is supported only by 'faith', then we are left with Marx's historical theory that is inherently evolutionary in character.

When Marx's feet are planted on the ground, his scholarly works are excellent. As soon as Marx starts getting all mystical, that's when the theory goes out the window and starts looking like the Manifesto and Marx's fervent dream/wish/want/desire of the 'workers of the world' to 'unite' to overthrow Marx's own oppressors (his all too numerous bill collectors).

As far as I'm concerned, the only way to make any sense of Marx's work is to separate the man (and his emotions) away from the theory he discovered. The theory is larger and more interesting than the use to which Marx puts it. Indeed, Marx's own dreams/desires seem to be the biggest stumbling block to any rational assessment of Marx's theory. Up against the dialectic, it is like arguing the existence of God with some true believer. Nothing anyone says is going to make a difference.

[stignasty]

There is probably more than you ever want to read on http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/cw/index.htm

Some of the letters are actually pretty funny in the way they get all pissy with each other when they disagree about something. It's almost like you could imagine them posting on a web forum.

[Figleaf]

Your views on Marx are interesting, but I will point out that the Wikipedia article is quite clear that the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat appeared in Marx's original thought and was discussed by Engels as part of it. Accordingly, you were profoundly mistaken to attempt to ascribe the notion to Lenin and should, perhaps, be less overconfident in your theoretical assertions.

The term in question is used only by Marx in some letter of a relatively late date.

Yet apparently Engels knew of it.

There is no place in Marx's theory of history for any kind of ... dictatorship of the proletariat

And yet, apparently, Marx thought there was.

(if something is a historical inevitability, why does it need specific acts by specific individuals? That is contradictory - if something is a historical inevitability, it will come to be regardless of anything anyone does anyway).

I tried to point out earlier that it is not a contradiction. It is inevitable that SOMEONE will do these things. Inevitable doesn't mean there is no human participation, it simply means that the humans involved will certainly do it.

As touched on previously, it is Lenin who is most famous for the explication of the idea or process of a dictatorship of the proletariat and the role of a vanguard party. Establishing that Marx may have used the phrase (at least once) in some letter does not the change general dynamic of this.

Except it is established that Marx viewed it as very important to his predictive model of the formation of the future society. I still think you are confusing yourself by mixing the Vanguard concept with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat concept.

Marx held that changes come through the thesis and antithesis process of diaclectic materialism whereby each stage of production is met with a specific challenge that sweeps it aside until finally communism emerges.

Indeed. Marx may have believed this, but to me, this is pie-in-the-sky pronouncement that does not have anything substantive to support it - only Marx's emphatic enunciation of it.

Yeah, well, we ARE talking about Marx here.

Marx appears to me to be rather poor at accepting his own core theory. His core theory work is excellent stuff, very well supported and substantiated. Then he takes that and applies a whole lot of mystical dialectical mumbo-jumbo to get the theory to support what he wants it to support (a revolutionary proletariat - or some kind of socialism).

I like to say that he was an excellent observational economist, but a disastrous political theoretician.

I need hardly add that asserting that an action that is supposedly dependent upon the material actions of a specific class of people - will occur according to historical necessity is absurd.

True. I think it's fair to observe that history has proven it wrong.

[Mad_Michael]

There is no place in Marx's theory of history for any kind of ... dictatorship of the proletariat

And yet, apparently, Marx thought there was.

And as I've pointed out, this thought of Marx contradicts his theory of history.

A dictatorship of the proletariat contradicts the principle that under communism, the state withers away.

A dictatorship is the very definition of a state.

So, according to Marx, under communism, we will have a dictatorship of the proletariat while the state will wither away.

That is absurd.

(if something is a historical inevitability, why does it need specific acts by specific individuals? That is contradictory - if something is a historical inevitability, it will come to be regardless of anything anyone does anyway).

I tried to point out earlier that it is not a contradiction. It is inevitable that SOMEONE will do these things. Inevitable doesn't mean there is no human participation, it simply means that the humans involved will certainly do it.

No. To state that it is "inevitable" means not that someone will do those things - but that they will absolutely be successful doing it - one cannot fail - it will be.

Except it is established that Marx viewed it as very important to his predictive model of the formation of the future society. I still think you are confusing yourself by mixing the Vanguard concept with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat concept.

No. The vanguard is merely the group of people tasked with establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat. The concept is highly related. The vanguard is supposedly necessary for the same reason the dictatorship is needed.

And they are absurd for the same reasons. The communist revolution is inevitable, unstopable and entirely dependent upon capital to create the means for the transition. But apparently, the theory still requires that a bunch of activists have to do the deed and run the show like tyrants.

If you need a bunch of activists to create the revolution and you need a bunch of dictators to rule the revolution, then the revolution is not inevitable or natural. It is entirely politically manufactured. That is why I call this 'dictatorship' business absurd. It flatly contradicts Marx's general theory which is sound.

I need hardly add that asserting that an action that is supposedly dependent upon the material actions of a specific class of people - will occur according to historical necessity is absurd.

True. I think it's fair to observe that history has proven it wrong.

History has 'proven' nothing of the sort, and that wasn't my point at all.

My point was to mock the absurdity of something being 'inevitable' or some 'immutable law of history' being dependent entirely upon the successful actions of some radical activists. That is absurd.

As for the historical necessity of the change in the mode of production, that is occuring even as we speak here. No political revolution is necessary to bring this about. And as it should be according to Marx's theory, this process is most advanced in the USA where it ought to be.

No vanguard or proletarian dictators anywhere in sight.

Indeed, the one place on the planet that had a vanguard and a proletarian dictatorship is totally out of the loop here. Russia's economy is as comparatively backwards now as it was in 1917.

[Figleaf]

There is no place in Marx's theory of history for any kind of ... dictatorship of the proletariat

And yet, apparently, Marx thought there was.

And as I've pointed out, this thought of Marx contradicts his theory of history.

A dictatorship of the proletariat contradicts the principle that under communism, the state withers away.

According to Marx as I understand it, the dictatorship of the proletariat precedes the withering of the state.

(if something is a historical inevitability, why does it need specific acts by specific individuals? That is contradictory - if something is a historical inevitability, it will come to be regardless of anything anyone does anyway).

I tried to point out earlier that it is not a contradiction. It is inevitable that SOMEONE will do these things. Inevitable doesn't mean there is no human participation, it simply means that the humans involved will certainly do it.

No. To state that it is "inevitable" means not that someone will do those things - but that they will absolutely be successful doing it - one cannot fail - it will be.

You're going tangential. You're criticism initially challenged a percieved contraction between Marx positing on the one hand human agency and on the other hand inevitability. I tell you that there is no contradiction: inevitability does not preclude human agency.

Except it is established that Marx viewed it as very important to his predictive model of the formation of the future society. I still think you are confusing yourself by mixing the Vanguard concept with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat concept.

No. The vanguard is merely the group of people tasked with establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat. The concept is highly related.

Related they may be, but they are not the same concept. One was part of Marx's predictions from the historical dialectic, the other, apparently, is Lenin's prescription for carrying it out.

I need hardly add that asserting that an action that is supposedly dependent upon the material actions of a specific class of people - will occur according to historical necessity is absurd.

True. I think it's fair to observe that history has proven it wrong.

History has 'proven' nothing of the sort, and that wasn't my point at all.

That is MY point in reaction to your point. I'm surprised you disagree that history has proven an absurdity wrong, but anyway, it has.

My point was to mock the absurdity of something being 'inevitable' or some 'immutable law of history' being dependent entirely upon the successful actions of some radical activists. That is absurd.

Indeed. History has proven it wrong.

[Mad_Michael]

Indeed. History has proven it wrong.

History isn't over yet. Ergo, history hasn't proven this.

I don't see any grounds to continue this discussion. We obviously disagree.

[Figleaf]

Indeed. History has proven it wrong.

History isn't over yet. Ergo, history hasn't proven this.

Some history has happened. Within that portion of history is a demonstration that it was wrong.

[Mad_Michael]

Some history has happened. Within that portion of history is a demonstration that it was wrong.

Good gosh. History cannot 'prove a negative'. That is absurd.

Christians have predicted the eventual '2nd coming of Christ'. It hasn't happened yet, therefore the Christians have been proven totally wrong. (this is an example of your reasoning here).

Like I said, this discussion is going no where.

[Figleaf]

Some history has happened. Within that portion of history is a demonstration that it was wrong.

Good gosh. History cannot 'prove a negative'.

That's not a problem in this case.

Like I said, this discussion is going no where.

Were you hoping I would take you to Paris?

[Mad_Michael]

Were you hoping I would take you to Paris?

With this post, you have managed to leave me with a negative impression of you personally.

Up until this point, I respect reasoned debate.

But I loath ridicule.

[Figleaf]

Were you hoping I would take you to Paris?

With this post, you have managed to leave me with a negative impression of you personally.

Really? I didn't respond the first time you said how pointless the discussion was, but since you were at pains to raise it again, I was assuming you were looking for SOME kind of response. Next time, just tell me whatever magic words it is you want me to recite.

Seriously though, dude, you gotta learn to roll with the reparte.

[jbg]

Were you hoping I would take you to Paris?

With this post, you have managed to leave me with a negative impression of you personally. Up until this point, I respect reasoned debate. But I loath ridicule.

What else would you expect from a leftist who'd force Israel to be swamped with millions of "returning" terrorists (we are on the "Moral and Religious Issues" topic so this is on point).