Ask a Marxist

[Debater Slayer]

I'm not clear on what that means.
Let's divide up "private ownership" into 2 types
relevant to socialism vs communism...
Owning the means of production

What would those include? Delineating them is necessary for answering the question.

private property
(eg, homes, cars).

Definitely in favor of keeping that. Humans will never stop desiring to own amenities, comforts, and luxuries. Instead of denying or trying to artificially and forcibly change human nature (which often leads to tyranny), we can instead accommodate it and minimize the negative consequences thereof.

 

[Revoltingest]

What would those include? Delineating them is necessary for answering the question.

Examples of things produced by "the means of production"...
Cars, trucks, computers, saws, homes, parking lots, stores,
nuts, bolts, screws, engines, planes, sinks, accounting
services, washing machines, guns, crops, haggis, solar
panels, paint, lumber, clocks, chairs, bullets, frying pans,
radios, toys, lamps, TV shows, books, etc.

Definitely in favor of keeping that. Humans will never stop desiring to own amenities, comforts, and luxuries. Instead of denying or trying to artificially and forcibly change human nature (which often leads to tyranny), we can instead accommodate it and minimize the negative consequences thereof.

Does this mean that Marxism is about replacing
capitalism with socialism, but not going all the
way to communism?
I'd thought that socialism was just the stage that
preceded communism.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

What would you ask Karl Marx if you could ask him one question?

 

[Nakosis]

Our perception and experience of material conditions still shape our views, actions, and interactions with others, which is what I understand to be the crux of dialectical materialism. Our perception doesn't have to be a perfect reflection of reality in order to have this influence.

Ok, but not the only influence. How does dialectical materialism deal with these 'non-objective' influences?

 

[Viker]

What do you think of Groucho Marx?

Once again. Beat to it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

As in private ownership altogether? No. Private ownership has its place, but it shouldn't dictate social norms, laws, and politics nearly as much as it currently does. The power of wealth to influence these domains would be greatly reduced and ideally eliminated. The latter is a perfect scenario that I don't think would be plausible, though, so reduction of influence is a more realistic goal.

This is probably more easily attained through limitations on political contributions, along with state funding of some political activities as a "cost of doing democratic business."

 

[Debater Slayer]

Examples of things produced by "the means of production"...
Cars, trucks, computers, saws, homes, parking lots, stores,
nuts, bolts, screws, engines, planes, sinks, accounting
services, washing machines, guns, crops, haggis, solar
panels, paint, lumber, clocks, chairs, bullets, frying pans,
radios, toys, lamps, TV shows, books, etc.

I wouldn't include all of these in "means of production," because most of them are not basic needs for survival. Instead, I would strictly regulate private businesses manufacturing most of them and only adopt public ownership for the means of production of things like food, medicine, and clothes.

But if the state proportionally rewarded innovation in all of those areas and encouraged it, I could see a case for transferring the means of production of all of them to public ownership.

Does this mean that Marxism is about replacing
capitalism with socialism, but not going all the
way to communism?
I'd thought that socialism was just the stage that
preceded communism.

This is a point of contention among some Marxists. Not all of us believe that communism is a possible or even desirable stage after socialism. I'm within the group who believe that Marx's vision of such was too idealistic and impossible to reconcile with human nature.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Ok, but not the only influence. How does dialectical materialism deal with these 'non-objective' influences?

Any flaws in our perception of reality would be accounted for by our biology and psychology, which are both material conditions that people don't control. They're merely a part of nature.

 

[Debater Slayer]

What would you ask Karl Marx if you could ask him one question?

If he lived today, I would ask him what he thought of his utopian vision of communism given what we know today about human psychology.

If I traveled back in time to ask him a question, I would ask him what he believed would happen if not what he envisioned (i.e., a classless, stateless society).

 

[Twilight Hue]

(Credit goes to @JustGeorge for the idea. Thanks!)

I have seen some overgeneralizations about Marxists or implications that all of us support the USSR, China, North Korea, or any other self-proclaimed socialist or communist state. This thread is to allow more room for questions and hopefully a clearer exchange of perspectives.

Some background to start with:

• I believe socialism is best arrived at gradually and incrementally rather than through widespread violence and repression like what Lenin, Stalin, and Mao exercised. Human nature and society are simply not amenable to such abrupt, forced transformation.

• As an extension of the above, I regard a hybrid economic model, even if mostly capitalistic, as a necessary stage toward the implementation of a fully socialist system. I wouldn't support such a system unconditionally but only as a temporary and realistic compromise.

• The aspect of Marxism that I most deeply agree with is dialectical materialism, because I see it as an overarching philosophical principle rather than a strictly economic one. It can be summarized thus:

Dialectical materialism | Definition & Facts

• It was not until last year that I took a serious interest in Marxism, so I have yet to read much of the work of some prominent Marxist theorists such as Engels, Trotsky, and Lenin. I believe this is worth noting in this thread.

With that out of the way, feel free to ask me anything about my views and I'll do my best to answer it.

Legit question.

Why do Marxist countries end up so totalitarian and if disagree, is there a Marxist country today that serves as a successful model?

 

[Shaul]

Marxism isn't regarded with much importance by most economists according to this link: Criticism of Marxism - Wikipedia
Why shouldn't Marxism and dialect materialism be seen as anachronisms that should be abandoned similar to Malthusian theory or eugenics?

 

[Revoltingest]

I wouldn't include all of these in "means of production," because most of them are not basic needs for survival. Instead, I would strictly regulate private businesses manufacturing most of them and only adopt public ownership for the means of production of things like food, medicine, and clothes.

But if the state proportionally rewarded innovation in all of those areas and encouraged it, I could see a case for transferring the means of production of all of them to public ownership.



This is a point of contention among some Marxists. Not all of us believe that communism is a possible or even desirable stage after socialism. I'm within the group who believe that Marx's vision of such was too idealistic and impossible to reconcile with human nature.

Are you even a Marxist if you don't want his final stage?
It would seem that "socialist" is the more accurate label.

 

[Revoltingest]

Marxism isn't regarded with much importance by most economists according to this link: Criticism of Marxism - Wikipedia
Why shouldn't Marxism and dialect materialism be seen as anachronisms that should be abandoned similar to Malthusian theory or eugenics?

Aye, many things were once believed,
but have been shown less than useful.
(Being charitable there.)
Theocrats are another group advocating
societal controls that work poorly.

 

[vulcanlogician]

The aspect of Marxism that I most deeply agree with is dialectical materialism, because I see it as an overarching philosophical principle rather than a strictly economic one. It can be summarized thus:

I think dialectical materialism is quite an appealing theory. In principle, I think it's completely true.

But I do offer some pushback against Marx's (extreme) thinking on the implications of dialectical materialism. I think he becomes a bit too abstract. For instance, Marx thinks that ideas of individual freedom arise due to the economic environment. He thinks similar things about greed and exploitation.

So, according to Marx, the reason we value "individual freedom" the way we do is because our ideas are a product of our capitalist environment. I think Marx is correct to some extent, here. Our ideas about what individual freedom means is shaped by the social structure in which we find ourselves. But I also think something more properly basic is going on as well. Our desire to be free is also something that can be traced all the way to our biological organism.

Marx seems to think that greed and the desire to exploit other humans springs solely from social conditions. And by organizing society in a certain way, it is inferred that Marx thinks that greed and exploitation will disappear. I'm not quite so optimistic. Like our ideas of human freedom, I think societal conditions shape our desire to exploit, but... at the same time... our inclination to exploit arises independently of social constructs... at least to some degree.

But (as I said at the outset) dialectical materialism is a compelling idea for a number of reasons. Think about how a dialectical materialist would fight crime. Rather than rounding up criminals and putting them in jail, a dialectical materialist would observe the social conditions in which crime arises (namely, impoverished urban centers). To reduce crime, the dialectical materialist would organize those communities in such a way that resembled communities with less crime. Such would be a novel and effective approach to dealing with crime, IMO.

But the problem comes when we reduce crime to those specific social conditions and claim that no person would commit a criminal act were it not for those specific environmental cues. That's not quite true either. Social AND biological factors come to bear on explaining human behavior. If I were to criticize Marx's ideas concerning dialectical materialism, I would say that he puts too much emphasis on social conditions to explain our ideas. Even without X social conditions, people will commit crime and exploit each other. These are innate biological tendencies we have... social conditions merely exacerbate the problem.

Marx didn't exist in a vacuum. I think dialectical materialism is a good counterpoint to traditional "liberal" values about the origin of human ideas. Liberalism assumes all individual agents act of their own accord, thinking independently of social structures. This is obviously false. But so is the extreme form of dialectical materialism argued by Marx. The truth is somewhere in the middle, I think.

 

[InChrist]

(Credit goes to @JustGeorge for the idea. Thanks!)

I have seen some overgeneralizations about Marxists or implications that all of us support the USSR, China, North Korea, or any other self-proclaimed socialist or communist state. This thread is to allow more room for questions and hopefully a clearer exchange of perspectives.

Some background to start with:

• I believe socialism is best arrived at gradually and incrementally rather than through widespread violence and repression like what Lenin, Stalin, and Mao exercised. Human nature and society are simply not amenable to such abrupt, forced transformation.

• As an extension of the above, I regard a hybrid economic model, even if mostly capitalistic, as a necessary stage toward the implementation of a fully socialist system. I wouldn't support such a system unconditionally but only as a temporary and realistic compromise.

• The aspect of Marxism that I most deeply agree with is dialectical materialism, because I see it as an overarching philosophical principle rather than a strictly economic one. It can be summarized thus:

Dialectical materialism | Definition & Facts

• It was not until last year that I took a serious interest in Marxism, so I have yet to read much of the work of some prominent Marxist theorists such as Engels, Trotsky, and Lenin. I believe this is worth noting in this thread.

With that out of the way, feel free to ask me anything about my views and I'll do my best to answer it.

From my understanding Marxism is a philosophy and Communism is the ideal state achieved when Marxism is lived out, is that correct according to your perspective?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Are you even a Marxist if you don't want his final stage?
It would seem that "socialist" is the more accurate label.

Socialists are a subset of Marxists. The latter label doesn't necessarily mean entirely sharing Marx's worldview.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Definitely in favor of keeping that. Humans will never stop desiring to own amenities, comforts, and luxuries. Instead of denying or trying to artificially and forcibly change human nature (which often leads to tyranny), we can instead accommodate it and minimize the negative consequences thereof.

Marx makes it clear that communism doesn't abolish personal property like family homes, cars etc.

He uses the example of a small family farm and says that there is no need to abolish that kind of private property. And then, in a prophetic moment, Marx points out that capitalism is already in the process of abolishing the small family farm. Anyone who looks at the current state of "agribusiness" would have to agree with Marx here: capitalism has all but abolished the small family farm.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Legit question.

Why do Marxist countries end up so totalitarian and if disagree, is there a Marxist country today that serves as a successful model?

The only examples of officially Marxist states have been totalitarian primarily because they have been based on an iron-clad, one-party system whose ideology is rooted in Marxism-Leninism or an offshoot thereof.

People like Lenin and Mao also tried to forcibly transform society and thought they could overcome human nature. Such an unrealistic vision is bound to fail, especially when the means of pursuing "perfection" are extremely violent and repressive.

 

[Revoltingest]

Socialists are a subset of Marxists. The latter label doesn't necessarily mean entirely sharing Marx's worldview.

If I understand correctly....
Socialism is a stage of marxism, not really a sub-set.
Analogy...
Incision is a stage in appendectomy, not a sub-set.
Without the subsequent of removing the appendix,
it's not an appendectomy.


I realize that this is wallowing in minutae.
Feel free to ignore this post.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Marxism isn't regarded with much importance by most economists according to this link: Criticism of Marxism - Wikipedia
Why shouldn't Marxism and dialect materialism be seen as anachronisms that should be abandoned similar to Malthusian theory or eugenics?

There are two separate questions here: the first is about Marxism as an economic theory. The second is about it as a social theory.

1) As an economic theory, it indeed has a lot of outdated elements, and even leaders who tried to implement Marxism into a state system modified it (e.g., Lenin and Mao). There's also the fact that the global economic system is very much still capitalist, so I suspect this might generate less interest for most economists to focus on Marxian economics or its more recent variants.

2) As a social theory, Marxism, especially dialectical materialism, is far from irrelevant (although a lot of it is, again, outdated). For instance, there are more self-identified Marxists among American college professors than there are conservatives:

Self-Identifying Marxist Professors Outnumber Conservatives as College Professors - Accuracy In Academia

Marx's work is also still widely assigned in educational settings, albeit more as a social theory than an economic one:

Karl Marx’s classic receives a count of 3,189 and a score of 99.7. It doesn’t actually show up under economics texts, either, as it is generally taught along with philosophy texts such as “The Social Contract,” by Jean-Jacques Rousseau; “Leviathan,” by Thomas Hobbes; and “On Liberty,” by John Stuart Mill. “’The Communist Manifesto’” is widely taught as a work of social theory,” rather than as an economics text, Karaganis said. He added that when Marx is taught in economics classes, professors generally assign “Capital” (or “Das Kapital”), which received a count of 1,447 and a score of 94.6.

Karl Marx is the most assigned economist in U.S. college classes

Furthermore, Marx's writings have directly led to conflict theory, which remains a highly relevant and leading theory in sociology:

An Introduction to Sociological Theories and Concepts

Popular Theories of Sociology

It would surprise me if his work, as originally written, were considered widely relevant by experts today. He published his work almost 200 years ago, and economics as well as sociology is not nearly as empirical a field of study as, say, physics or chemistry. Even pioneering work from 200 years ago in the latter two is usually considered outdated today. This is even more so for a more abstract field like economics.

So, to answer your question on why his work shouldn't be abandoned similar to Malthusian theory or eugenics: because, despite the outdated parts, his work has some deeply valuable insights that remain relevant today, and because it's not limited to economics. His theories have also played an integral part in influencing governments in much of Europe, Asia, and Latin America. If anything, understanding his theories at least allows one to understand a considerable amount about an influence on the trajectory of the global status quo from the 20th century up to our current time.

I don't believe in idealizing any ideology or treating its founders as prophetic. Instead, I prefer to take what works and discard or modify the rest as our current knowledge and circumstances necessitate.