Ask a Marxist

[Debater Slayer]

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.

I don't see this discussion having any definitions that people "played around with," though. This assumes that the definitions that are perceived to look good here are necessarily incorrect per some standard, which may not even exist except in a very narrow scope and in one dictionary definition.

I think adopting some elements of capitalism is the most realistic option for now, and this is a position I have previously reiterated multiple times. Public ownership can't be shoved down the economy's throat through force or authoritarianism, and private ownership is just a necessary element of any prosperous economy. Where I disagree with the idea of narrowly defining socialism is in the insistence that I'm using a "wrong definition" if I don't think public ownership of the means of production is achievable now. That argument pigeonholes the positions of many socialists into a very flawed and overly idealistic model.

There are more variants of socialism than I could study in a year even if I tried. Some are influenced by Marxism (including ones that are direct offshoots thereof, which is why I said that a lot of socialism is a subset of Marxism), some by capitalism, some by movements that long predated Marx, and some by all of those. One definition just won't cut it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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.

I'm considering not using the label unless people ask about my views, yes. There are usually so many assumptions and preconceived notions attached to it from the get-go that some will assume to know what a self-identified Marxist believes before the conversation has even started.

My usage of the label is more about the analytical and sociological aspects of Marxism than the pipe dream of communism. Conflict theory is highly useful and relevant, as are many aspects of Marx's analysis of capitalism. This doesn't mean that I think communism is achievable or that I believe Marx wasn't wrong about many things (especially his strict economic determinism and the possibility of communism).

In terms of current policy, social democracy is probably the closest to my position. I think any social democratic economy should implement gradual changes to try to move toward pure socialism, but I don't claim certainty as to whether this would achieve the latter in practice. I believe in measuring the effects of any policies as they are implemented instead of proceeding with prior plans regardless of how they pan out in the real world. Marxism-Leninism would be an example of insisting on applying prior theory no matter how unfeasible it turned out to be, and history shows how destructive that kind of intransigence and rigidity can be.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Yes, I am a capitalist. That’s my home.
But I’ve learned here that I’m also a socialist because I favor business regulation and social services. And since socialism is Marxism, I’m one of those too.
They’re all mostly the same, one just picks the preferred label, which is about joining a clique and its restricted forum.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yes, I am a capitalist. That’s my home.
But I’ve learned here that I’m also a socialist because I favor business regulation and social services. And since socialism is Marxism, I’m one of those too.
They’re all mostly the same, one just picks the preferred label, which is about joining a clique and its restricted forum.

Misrepresentation of others' positions doesn't add anything to the conversation.

 

[Revoltingest]

Misrepresentation of others' positions doesn't add anything to the conversation.

I agree.
Yet it’s my burden to endure it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I agree.
Yet it’s my burden to endure it.

How did I misrepresent your position here? You've been rejecting any and all explanations of my views that I've given here based on one dictionary definition you cite every time.

 

[Revoltingest]

How did I misrepresent your position here? You've been rejecting any and all explanations of my views that I've given here based on one dictionary definition you cite every time.

I spoke generally, as I assumed you did.
Some disagreement doesn’t mean rejecting all your views. We’ve even agreed on some things.
But I’m allowed argumentum ad absurdum.

 

[JIMMY12345]

(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.

How come a Marxist is on a religious forum?

 

[Debater Slayer]

How come a Marxist is on a religious forum?

Why would that be an issue? I'm not anti-religious, but either way, I'm interested in religion and its effects on society, culture, and law. I'm also interested in its psychological and historical aspects.

 

[icehorse]

My usage of the label is more about the analytical and sociological aspects of Marxism than the pipe dream of communism. Conflict theory is highly useful and relevant, as are many aspects of Marx's analysis of capitalism.

Could you add a little detail to these ideas?

In terms of current policy, social democracy is probably the closest to my position. I think any social democratic economy should implement gradual changes to try to move toward pure socialism, but I don't claim certainty as to whether this would achieve the latter in practice. I believe in measuring the effects of any policies as they are implemented instead of proceeding with prior plans regardless of how they pan out in the real world. Marxism-Leninism would be an example of insisting on applying prior theory no matter how unfeasible it turned out to be, and history shows how destructive that kind of intransigence and rigidity can be.

This reminds me of a book that I'd recommend called "Who Owns the Future" by Jaron Lanier. He tackles some aspects of economic models that I don't see come up very often, e.g. big tech, and digital rights and such. He also has a general take on economic systems that seems consistent with what you just said. To paraphrase, Lanier says: "Economic systems are man-made machines. And like ALL man-made machines, they need periodic tinkering, tweaking, and adjusting".

I think this is a powerful perspective, because it strikes me that in so many discussions / debates about economic systems, there is a tacit agreement that you wind the system up, set it off on its path, and see what happens. Which of course you'd never do in practice.

Finally, there's an idea I like, not sure if it would be compatible with what you're thinking:

The idea would be that on the first year's tax form, there would be a list of maybe 20 or 30 things the government is currently spending money on: SS, medicare, defense, infrastructure...

Each taxpayer would get to allocate how 5% of their tax dollars would be distributed amongst these categories. Next year, same thing, but 10% would be reallocated. Next year, 15%, and so on. So after a generation, our tax dollars would be going to the things taxpayers wanted.

 

[ajay0]

Some countries have a mixed economic model combining the features of capitalism and socialism.

The capitalist aspects enables those with entrepreneurial talent and skills to rise up and develop their economic potential, build competitive companies and industries which provide jobs to the population and revenue to the government.

The socialist aspects enables the empowerment of the underprivileged (who may be lacking access to basic facilities such as schools, colleges, hospitals and others in normal circumstances) and that would bring about the actualisation of their human potential , and serve as a springboard for greater self-development later on.

While capitalism enables those privileged with wealth and ability to rise higher , socialism enables the underprivileged to gain the basic amenities of proper food and clothing, housing, education and healthcare which enables them to join the ranks of the privileged in a generation or two, and thereby enter the capitalist class later on.

I know of poverty-stricken people who had benefited from socialism and later became capitalists as well.

A purely capitalist model have the danger of creating a new aristocratic class of wealthy plutocrats who may subvert democracy by subtle means for their own advancement, and even prevent the livelihoods or advancement of other small businessmen through their sheer efficiency and scale of operations.

A purely socialist model however prevents those who had gained competence and ability to develop themselves further through entrepreneurship, and ensures they remain dependent on the systems welfare.

I think proper government policies, oversight and regulations can enable the proper functioning of the capitalist-socialist model leading to empowerment of all sections of people.

These are my thoughts on socialism which I believe must be balanced with capitalism.

Hoping to know your thoughts in this regard !

 

[Revoltingest]

How come a Marxist is on a religious forum?

To argue with us capitalists.
Spluh!

 

[vulcanlogician]

Some countries have a mixed economic model combining the features of capitalism and socialism.

The capitalist aspects enables those with entrepreneurial talent and skills to rise up and develop their economic potential, build competitive companies and industries which provide jobs to the population and revenue to the government.

The socialist aspects enables the empowerment of the underprivileged

I know your post was directed at OP, but I really like it. Capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive systems. The sticky bit, I think, is in recognizing where exactly to put the balance.

I live in the US which hardly anyone (outside the GOP) calls socialist. I don't think we ARE socialist.

But at the same time (especially in certain states) there are a vast array of social programs aimed at helping (as you call it) the "underprivileged." The difference between the US and, say, European quasi-socialist nations is: who falls under the category of "underprivileged."

To be truly socialist, I think the entire working class (or the vast majority of it) must benefit from social initiatives.

In the US, we have something more akin to "welfare capitalism." Welfare capitalism sees to the needs of those at the very bottom of the working class and those who are in situations where they simply have no income. While it's desirable to help people of this economic status, I don't think helping this slice of the population (and only this slice) counts as true socialism.

When I say "socialism" I mean a robust system of economic cooperation that elevates the living conditions of the entire working class. That's not to say you agree or disagree with any of that. I'm just pointing out that who falls into the category of "underprivileged" matters. I think that the working class in addition to those below the poverty line qualify. The middle and upper classes do not. The working definition of "underprivileged" that many Americans use is "those around or below the poverty line."

 

[vulcanlogician]

I don't see this discussion having any definitions that people "played around with," though. This assumes that the definitions that are perceived to look good here are necessarily incorrect per some standard, which may not even exist except in a very narrow scope and in one dictionary definition.

I didn't mean to imply that "playing around with definitions" was occuring in THIS conversation. I was merely conceding to Revoltingest that it DOES indeed happen, so his wanting to stick to a more solid definition is justified. Revoltingest's concern, as far as I can tell, is moving goal posts via definitions. One way to move goalposts is to add ad hoc definitions of terms. It's how the "no true Scotsman" fallacy works. When someone presents a rational concern, I try to do everything I can to meet them halfway to work it out. I disagree with Revoltingest that we are being slippery with definitions in this particular thread (if that is indeed his position... he seems to be satirizing a bit) ... but at the same time, the other party using vague definitions IS a genuine and rational concern to have. We've all seen it a million times. Hopefully you can see the diplomacy present in my reply to Revoltingest.

It's not my claim that any one definition is correct or incorrect. I think the opposite is true. No definition is the "official" definition. I think we agree 100% here. (If not, let me know.)

But since it's the case that no definition is "official," then we must provide a working definition before we debate when it is unclear exactly what we mean when using a word. Otherwise, we may as well not use words because every word is meaningless.

There are more variants of socialism than I could study in a year even if I tried. Some are influenced by Marxism (including ones that are direct offshoots thereof, which is why I said that a lot of socialism is a subset of Marxism), some by capitalism, some by movements that long predated Marx, and some by all of those. One definition just won't cut it.

Absolutely. But my point is, when we use the word "socialism" in a debate, we have to mean something by the word. Otherwise, we're being vague. Same goes for "capitalism," "morality," "piety" or any other word. All of those words I just listed are in the same boat as "socialism." A broad array of theories and interpretations can be associated with each. That's why I prefer "agreed upon definitions" when someone starts to complain about ambiguity or insist we go by the dictionary.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I guess my question has to do with the concept of production itself, which I think might, itself, be the sort of core problematic concept in the human experience. As a marxist, what is it you're looking to produce? Do you think it should be measured? Do you think precision techniques should be applied to it? Does the economy always need to grow? It's stuff like that which concerns me, and it's why, maybe, I am skeptical of the economic plans coming from both the left and the right.

 

[YmirGF]

I remember when I read a couple of biographies about Marx, many years ago, and after a while I was struck at what an unlikable person, Marx, the man, was. In dialogue, he often came across as an intellectual bully attacking any he disagreed with, which was almost everyone. The thing that I was a little shocked by is that Marx never held down a job and was bankrolled (largely) by Engels. The man who was telling the world how it should be run could not feed his family and for some reason we listen to this man.

OK. If I am wrong, set me straight. Have I read really bad biographies or what?

Exit question: Is it true that he really did NOT like bathing?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I remember when I read a couple of biographies about Marx, many years ago, and after a while I was struck at what an unlikable person, Marx, the man, was. In dialogue, he often came across as an intellectual bully attacking any he disagreed with, which was almost everyone. The thing that I was a little shocked by is that Marx never held down a job and was bankrolled (largely) by Engels. The man who was telling the world how it should be run could not feed his family and for some reason we listen to this man.

OK. If I am wrong, set me straight. Have I read really bad biographies or what?

I'm far less interested in the details of Marx's personal life and personality traits than I am in his ideas and work. I don't see him as some role model or prophet; he was just an author with many enduringly great ideas and many subpar or terrible ones.

He did work as a journalist for some time, although I also don't find his own career or lack thereof to be relevant to assessment of his philosophy. To dismiss or accept someone's ideas and arguments solely based on their character and personal life would be an ad hominem (or tu quoque, depending on context) fallacy.

The same goes for the ferocity and lack of diplomacy with which he approched some ideological opponents: agreeing with many of his ideas doesn't mean one has to share his method of dialogue either. If we pursue that logic to its conclusion, I think it is arguable that many mainstream interpretations among specific sects and denominations within major world religions also include "intellectual bullying and attacking of any who disagree." I can think of very few things fitting that description more than threatening another person with Hell or eternal suffering for disagreeing, for example, but this is still a separate issue from the merit of a philosophy or religious idea rather than its presentation by a subset of supporters.

Exit question: Is it true that he really did NOT like bathing?

I've read accounts saying so, although I haven't cared to try to verify or deny them via cross-checking against different sources. Like other facets of Marx's personal life, his hygiene habits aren't of interest to me and have no bearing on his work.

 

[Revoltingest]

I remember when I read a couple of biographies about Marx, many years ago, and after a while I was struck at what an unlikable person, Marx, the man, was. In dialogue, he often came across as an intellectual bully attacking any he disagreed with, which was almost everyone. The thing that I was a little shocked by is that Marx never held down a job and was bankrolled (largely) by Engels. The man who was telling the world how it should be run could not feed his family and for some reason we listen to this man.

OK. If I am wrong, set me straight. Have I read really bad biographies or what?

Exit question: Is it true that he really did NOT like bathing?

A prime example of one who's never played
the game making the rules for those who do.
Like the Pope making the rules for sex.
Tis a recipe for failure.

 

[Debater Slayer]

A prime example of one who's never played
the game making the rules for those who do.
Like the Pope making the rules for sex.
Tis a recipe for failure.

The exact same logic could apply to staunch capitalists who have never experienced poverty but try to tell poor people how to "lift [themselves] up by the bootstraps," but it would also be just as fallacious due to its focus on the character of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself.

 

[YmirGF]

I'm far less interested in the details of Marx's personal life and personality traits than I am in his ideas and work. I don't see him as some role model or prophet; he was just an author with many enduringly great ideas and many subpar or terrible ones.

He did work as a journalist for some time, although I also don't find his own career or lack thereof to be relevant to assessment of his philosophy. To dismiss or accept someone's ideas and arguments solely based on their character and personal life would be an ad hominem (or tu quoque, depending on context) fallacy.

The same goes for the ferocity and lack of diplomacy with which he approched some ideological opponents: agreeing with many of his ideas doesn't mean one has to share his method of dialogue either. If we pursue that logic to its conclusion, I think it is arguable that many mainstream interpretations among specific sects and denominations within major world religions also include "intellectual bullying and attacking of any who disagree." I can think of very few things fitting that description more than threats of Hell or eternal suffering for disagreeing, for example, but this is still a separate issue from the merit of a philosophy or religious idea rather than its presentation by a subset of supporters.



I've read accounts saying so, although I haven't cared to try to verify or deny them via cross-checking against different sources. Like other facets of Marx's personal life, his hygiene habits aren't of interest to me and have no bearing on his work.

Thanks, as usual, @Debater Slayer

I understand you are not thrilled with my characterizations of Marx, but at least you have verified that my reading of him, as a person, is not off base. Thanks.