Ask a Marxist

[InChrist]

This is what Marx believed, but I don't share that view. I don't think communism (a classless, stateless society) is practically feasible, as I said earlier in this thread.

Okay, thank you for clarifying.

 

[vulcanlogician]

@Debater Slayer

1. Do you think revolution is necessary to install a Marxist system? If so, does that revolution need to be violent?
2. What are your thoughts/opinions about Lenin's "vanguardism"?
3. How necessary are human rights (ie. free speech, press, religion) to the success of Marxism? What role do basic human rights have in Marxist society?
4. What are your thoughts on anarchism or libertarian socialism?
5. What about democracy and Marxism? Does one interfere with the other?

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you think Barack Obama was a socialist?

No.
Nor a Kenyen.
Not even black (he's a mulatto).

Because a LOT of his opponents called him one.

A lot of people say a lot of things...including liberals.

As DS points out, the idea of socialism predates Marx. Marx spent a great deal of time criticizing forms of socialism that he viewed as inferior to his own vision of it. The term Marxism is even foggier since Marx had a plethora of ideas and not every "Marxist" accepts all of Marx's ideas wholesale. I particularly like Marx's thinking about wage-exploitation and alienation. ("Early Marx" as some would say.) I reject many of his later notions about authoritarianism and I also reject the idea that the working class can seize the means of production through revolutionary violence. So am I a Marxist or not? I don't think the dictionary is gonna help us sort that out. The dictionary tries to give us a one or two sentence definition of a word that most people agree on. It can't help us sort out the stickier issues about what socialism essentially is.

The ancient Greeks had a policy of ignoring the dictionary. When two or more people enter into a debate, the Greek idea was to work out definitions beforehand, and those definitions would be used during the debating process. I think that's WAY better than making ourselves beholden to the dictionary. (And, yes, the post-dictionary era started way back in 399 BC, so I think we just have to deal with it at this point.)

But (in fairness) we shouldn't make the word "socialism" a moving target, and just change the definition when it suits our purposes. That's worse than letting the dictionary decide.

A definition of socialism that I would propose is a system where citizens' basic needs (food, healthcare, non-poverty) are taken care of by public ownership. There is room for capitalism in such a system.

Let's call "communism" a system whereby the workers own the means of production. What I see as the most ideal system lies somewhere in the middle of all three of these things (capitalism, socialism, communism). I don't know if the dictionary considers me a Marxist or not, but I think "Marxist" gets the job done in explaining my basic political values. But, like Obama, it is up to each person to categorize what I am for themselves.



I agree with you there. But that's a problem with democracy... not capitalism or socialism. Democracy is an incredibly flawed system... but I tend to agree with Winston Churchill who said: “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.”

Hey, yer preach'n to the choir.
Because I favor regulation in capitalism, & social
services fueled by property taxes, I'm a "socialist".
Socialists are "Marxists". So I'm one of those too.
But Marxists are also capitalists.
Defintion Of Capitalism

To clarify all my new & old labels, I favor a
system wherein the individual has the right
to free economic association, eg, starting
& running a business.

 

[Debater Slayer]

@Debater Slayer

1. Do you think revolution is necessary to install a Marxist system? If so, does that revolution need to be violent?
2. What are your thoughts/opinions about Lenin's "vanguardism"?
3. How necessary are human rights (ie. free speech, press, religion) to the success of Marxism? What role do basic human rights have in Marxist society?
4. What are your thoughts on anarchism or libertarian socialism?
5. What about democracy and Marxism? Does one interfere with the other?

I can only speak for my own views, since "Marxism" is a huge umbrella.

1) No and no. Sometimes revolution can be necessary, but not always.

2) An overly theoretical concept divorced from practical application. There's no guarantee whatsoever that a "working-class dictatorship" would be humane, desirable, or conducive to better presevation of human rights. Lenin's actions and his ruthless "end justifies the means" approach showed that idealistic visions and grand narratives can lead to disastrous results when pursued with zeal.

3) In my view, human rights are a fundamental aspect of any respectable society. However, I place less importance on free speech than on other basic rights. For example, I support hate speech laws, and I think censorship is sometimes necessary. Free speech is a means to an end (the latter being prosperity and well-being), not an end by itself.

4) I regard anarchism and stateless ideology in general as too unrealistic. Societies can't be relied on to organize life and respect each other without the presence of a mediating authority.

5) No. In fact, I regard any undemocratic Marxist system as a pathway to tyranny and large-scale abuse.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Hey, yer preach'n to the choir.
Because I favor regulation in capitalism, & social
services fueled by property taxes, I'm a "socialist".
Socialists are "Marxists". So I'm one of those too.
But Marxists are also capitalists.
Defintion Of Capitalism

I never tried to pigeonhole you or anybody else on the matter. You probably agree with Marx on a few things. After all, he thought all child labor should be abolished. I bet you agree with that. But that doesn't make you a Marxist.

If you want a good definition of capitalism, how about "A system where the free market decides how the vast majority of goods are distributed." If you oppose child labor or support social security, you could still qualify as a capitalist under that definition (ie. not a socialist or Marxist). So long as the free market was the prime determining factor in the distribution of wealth. Would you consider yourself a capitalist if my definition of it were the "correct" one? Why or why not?

 

[icehorse]

Scandinavia doesn't have as many people as, say, India or China, where the Nordic model could be unsustainable in the longer term if it could even be realistically implemented to begin with. My vision would focus on more sustainability and reduction of poverty.

That depends on the context and on whether a need arises for government intervention. For example, if I could, I would impose far higher taxes, stricter labor laws, and higher minimum wages in the US. On the other hand, I would loosen up a lot of China's policies.

I suspect that on a policy level, we'd largely agree. That said, it seems odd to label your position as "marxist". It sounds more like democratic socialism to me. But as is frequently the case, definitions and semantics often muddy and cloud conversations.

One thing I would say though is that if you really want things to change you have to mold your definitions to something that folks can bite off in small chunks. Jumping to "Marxism" as a label, even if it's an accurate one, would be off-putting to most.

 

[Revoltingest]

I never tried to pigeonhole you or anybody else on the matter. You probably agree with Marx on a few things. After all, he thought all child labor should be abolished. I bet you agree with that. But that doesn't make you a Marxist.

As I recently said, I favor child labor.
I worked as a kid.
But I also favor regulation, eg, time limits, safety.

If you want a good definition of capitalism, how about "A system where the free market decides how the vast majority of goods are distributed." If you oppose child labor or support social security, you could still qualify as a capitalist under that definition (ie. not a socialist or Marxist). So long as the free market was the prime determining factor in the distribution of wealth. Would you consider yourself a capitalist if my definition of it were the "correct" one? Why or why not?

In this post dictionary age, I'm whatever I want to be.
Yesterday a capitalist. Today socialist & Marxist.
Tomorrow I might be a cheese.
As for my definition of "capitalist"....
Defintion Of Capitalism

 

[vulcanlogician]

2) An overly theoretical concept divorced from practical application. There's no guarantee whatsoever that a "working-class dictatorship" would be humane, desirable, or conducive to better presevation of human rights. Lenin's actions and his ruthless "end justifies the means" approach showed that idealistic visions and grand narratives can lead to disastrous results when pursued with zeal.

I think vanguardism and the dictatorship of the proletariat are the two worst ideas to ever come out of Marxism. I think if those two ideas were excluded, it's possible that the communist regimes we've seen might not have failed. I mean, I could be wrong there. Those regimes had countless flaws. But the idea of the workers being represented by non-workers birthed a whole series of disasters. It divorces the whole concept or need for class consciousness among the working class.

3) In my view, human rights are a fundamental aspect of any respectable society. However, I place less importance on free speech than on other basic rights. For example, I support hate speech laws, and I think censorship is sometimes necessary. Free speech is a means to an end (the latter being prosperity and well-being), not an end by itself.

I support the intent behind hate speech laws. But I worry that giving a regime the ability to censor problematic speech would (nearly always) lead to abuse. I don't really think that hate speech is the primary method of racism's advancement and maintenance.

There is more racism and racial hatred in 1% of the criminal justice system than there is in all the writings of the KKK ever produced. Let's not kid ourselves. Regulating speech accomplishes so very little in the fight against racism, it's almost not worth pursuing at all. I think prohibition of speech (even hate speech) is more about white corporate types patting themselves on the back than it is about fighting racism at all.

I regard anarchism and stateless ideology in general as too unrealistic. Societies can't be relied on to organize life and respect each other without the presence of a mediating authority.

Sure, stateless societies are extremely idealistic, but I'm not concerned with their viability so much. I think anarchists produce good criticisms of authoritarian leftism (as well as authoritarian right-ism).

Mikhail Bakunin basically predicted that an empty dictatorship would result from the implementation of Marx's programme. He basically predicted the aftermath of Bolshevism. Marx even read Bakunin's criticisms and basically balked at them.

Marx had a slew of replies at the ready. "Capitalism already enacts such injustices," Marx replied to Bakunin. But in the end, who cares? Baukunin hit the nail on the head. A bureaucratic elite replaced the capitalist elite, and no headway was made toward a more just system. That was Bakunin's criticism. And, given how Bolshevism borne out, maybe more attention should have been paid to Bakunin's objections.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Multiple prominent Marxist theorists were conspicuously anti-religious, including Lenin and Trotsky. Marx himself saw religion as a "sigh of the oppressed" and a tool of control. Lenin also carried out purges against the clergy.

I strongly oppose state atheism, myself, and I believe that the state should be secular and guarantee freedom of religion. State atheism is, in my opinion, the mirror image of theocracy, albeit with an anti-religious flavor.

Supposedly the "opiate of the masses" and "sigh of the oppressed" quotes were not really an insult. Economic realities prevent the religious from finding true happiness in this life, but this is OK because they will find true happiness in the next life. He noted that people are in distress and religion provides solace, just as people who have been physically injured receive relief from opiate-based drugs. It doesn't sound so hateful when you realize what he meant.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Tomorrow I might be a cheese.

I'm sorry that the status of your being cheese is so up in the air. It must be difficult. It makes me appreciate the fact that I know I'm not cheese. I wasn't even aware that people struggled with that before reading your post.

As for my definition of "capitalist"....
Defintion Of Capitalism

I can't reply to the capitalist only thread, man. So if you wanna talk about it here, present your definition here.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm sorry that the status of your being cheese is so up in the air. It must be difficult. It makes me appreciate the fact that I know I'm not cheese. I wasn't even aware that people struggled with that before reading your post.

No struggle.
Changing a definition is easier than changing socks.

I can't reply to the capitalist only thread, man. So if you wanna talk about it here, present your definition here.

Oh, I have a solution.
Soviet socialism is called "state capitalism".
Checking RF's definition of "capitalism"...
Definitions for the restricted political areas.
....it includes "state capitalism". which is socialism, Soviet style.
So capitalism is socialism, & socialists are allowed to post in the
restricted capitalist forum....if they identify as a "state capitalist".
I won't be trying to post in the Socialist Only forum though.
I think that would spill blood (mine).

 

[vulcanlogician]

No struggle.
Changing a definition is easier than changing socks.

Well, I personally think that definitions should be agreed upon at the outset of a debate, but then adhered to for the entirety of the debate. So slippery or unclear definitions fail automatically.

But I don't think the dictionary is able to capture the nuances involved in every word it defines. Does that seem unreasonable? Should I submit more to the dictionary, Revoltingest? Should people in general submit to the dictionary more? How much more respect to dictionary definitions ought I personally give?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, I personally think that definitions should be agreed upon at the outset of a debate, but then adhered to for the entirety of the debate. So, I oppose slippery or unclear definitions fail automatically.

We can't agree on definitions. We also can't
agree on methods of evaluating economic
systems....should it be what a system aspires
to?....what a system behaves like in the real
world?...by the worst a system has been?...
by the best a system has been?
No agreement.

But I don't think the dictionary is able to capture the nuances involved in every word it defines. Does that seem unreasonable? Should I submit more to the dictionary, Revoltingest? Should people in general submit to the dictionary more? How much more respect to dictionary definitions ought I personally give?

Nuances are one thing. But personal
definitions that fly in the face of a definition
are quite another.

 

[vulcanlogician]

But personal
definitions that fly in the face of a definition
are quite another.

I agree. I don't endorse personal definitions.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Supposedly the "opiate of the masses" and "sigh of the oppressed" quotes were not really an insult. Economic realities prevent the religious from finding true happiness in this life, but this is OK because they will find true happiness in the next life. He noted that people are in distress and religion provides solace, just as people who have been physically injured receive relief from opiate-based drugs. It doesn't sound so hateful when you realize what he meant.

He didn't seem to intend his comments to be insulting, but I still find his views on religion one-dimensional and simplistic. Religion has a lot of psychological aspects that extend well beyond oppression or solace.

 

[Debater Slayer]

We can't agree on definitions. We also can't
agree on methods of evaluating economic
systems....should it be what a system aspires
to?....what a system behaves like in the real
world?...by the worst a system has been?...
by the best a system has been?
No agreement.

Nuances are one thing. But personal
definitions that fly in the face of a definition
are quite another.

Just as an example of why calling oneself a Marxist doesn't have to entail support for one system: 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

So you may find people who support any given variant of Marxist thought within sociology without necessarily being communists or even believing that society must be transformed through revolution (for example).

An earlier question was about why Marxism shouldn't be considered anachronistic like eugenics or Malthusianism. I answered that but will also add that Marxism has been developed and added to since, and a lot of its theory remains a part of a prominent analytical approach in sociology for a reason.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just as an example of why calling oneself a Marxist doesn't have to entail support for one system: 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

So you may find people who support any given variant of Marxist thought within sociology without necessarily being communists or even believing that society must be transformed through revolution (for example).

An earlier question was about why Marxism shouldn't be considered anachronistic like eugenics or Malthusianism. I answered that but will also add that Marxism has been developed and added to since, and a lot of its theory remains a part of a prominent analytical approach in sociology for a reason.

Aye, as I'm coming to realize, "Marxism" is so
broad a term as to include socialism, which in
turn includes capitalism.
We're both Marxists...you're just more "marx",
& I'm more "ist".

 

[Debater Slayer]

Aye, as I'm coming to realize, "Marxism" is so
broad a term as to include socialism, which in
turn includes capitalism.
We're both Marxists...you're just more "marx",
& I'm more "ist".

I don't think dismissive comments that reject nuance help much here.

A lot of modern socialism has influences from Marxism to varying extents. It's not a secret or vague thing. It's also not a secret that there's a vast diversity of views among different socialist approaches.

The modern socialist movement had its origin largely in the working class movement of the late-19th century. In this period, the term "socialism" was first used in connection with European social critics who condemned capitalism and private property. For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism implied the abolition of money, markets, capital, and labor as a commodity.

It is difficult to make generalizations about the diverse array of doctrines and movements that have been referred to as "socialist," for the various adherents of contemporary socialist movements do not agree on a common doctrine or program. As a result, the movement has split into different and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between moderate socialists and communists.

Socialism

Also:

How, precisely, socialist concepts like social ownership and planning should be realized in practice is a matter of dispute among socialists. One major split concerns the proper role of markets in a socialist economy. Some socialists argue that extensive reliance on markets is perfectly compatible with core socialist values. Others disagree, arguing that to be a socialist is (among other things) to reject the ‘anarchy of the market’ in favor of a planned economy. But what form of planning should socialists advocate? This is a second major area of dispute, with some socialists endorsing central planning and others proposing a radically decentralized, participatory alternative.

Socialism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Certainly nothing that a brief dictionary definition can sum up.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think dismissive comments that reject nuance help much here.

Not dismissive.
Humorous delivery of serious commentary.
Nothing else to add.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Not dismissive.
Humorous delivery of serious commentary.
Nothing else to add.

FWIW, Revoltingest, I don't think that you are anything other than a capitalist. I mean, I'm a bit of a capitalist too. We're kindred spirits in that regard. I think capitalism is great, and we should keep it around. The only point where we start to disagree is that capitalism should be the ruling force of the economy.

You are annoyed when people play with definitions in a way that makes their arguments look good. We are more so kindred spirits here, I think. That annoys me too. But the way around that isn't to make the dictionary the boss of defining things. The way to solve that is to go ahead and agree on "fabricated" definitions at the outset of the debate. When the debate is done, you throw those definitions away. But during the debate, you insist that all parties accept the definitions that they agreed to at the outset.

I don't think this is a good way to form official definitions of things. But it's a great way to have discourse with others that doesn't get hung up on definitions right out of the gate.