Is Marxism dead?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Is Marxism dead?

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Also, on the other hand:

The Communist Manifesto posted:

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

TheIneff posted:

Has anyone else read Main Currents of Marxism? In it Kolakowski makes the contention that the keystone factor of a Communist mode of production in Marx's eyes would be the abolition of the division of labor, not private property. He points out that private property, in Marx's view, is only a consequence of the former rather than the proximate cause of the proletariat's immiseration and that most Marxists and Anti-Marxists have gotten this wrong throughout the various movements.

This is a classic example of someone just playing academic games by trying to seem original by a slight change of emphasis. To say that the physical system of social relations creates the ideology of social relations (e.g. bourgeois concept of private property) is such basic Marxism that only a real idiot didn't get that on day 1 of reading Marx.

If you want to find someone who really hates the division of labour, ask Adam Smith.

Disinterested fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Jan 13, 2015

# ¿ Jan 13, 2015 23:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 19:48

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

I think the arguments are subtly misstated, but I might have to summon up a bit of :effort:

to put it right without being glib.

# ¿ Jan 14, 2015 01:23

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

TheIneff posted:

Do it please, I'm a dumb person who's easily misled!

Well the obvious first point to make which is immediately connected to the argument you've quoted is:

Estranged Labour posted:

True, it is as a result of the movement of private property that we have obtained the concept of alienated labor (of alienated life) in political economy. But on analysis of this concept it becomes clear that though private property appears to be the reason, the cause of alienated labor, it is rather its consequence, just as the gods are originally not the cause but the effect of man�s intellectual confusion. Later this relationship becomes reciprocal.

Only at the culmination of the development of private property does this, its secret, appear again, namely, that on the one hand it is the product of alienated labor, and that on the other it is the means by which labor alienates itself, the realization of this alienation.

...

Wages are a direct consequence of estranged labor, and estranged labor is the direct cause of private property. The downfall of the one must therefore involve the downfall of the other.

Which is already a slightly more refined argument than Kolakowski's, even if it's not contradictory. To talk about how there is no abolition of private property is pointless. The point he is making is that if you, like Proudhon, become obsessed with this feature in isolation, you will make a mistake, because private property is a realization of alienation, and they are mutually supporting one another. The abolition of the one necessitates the abolition of the other, though alienation is causative.

But that's 'private property' by Marx's definition, obviously.

Disinterested fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Jan 14, 2015

# ¿ Jan 14, 2015 01:34

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

asdf32 posted:

Aside: Adam Smith is just as [ir]relevant as Marx.

That is to say, not irrelevant at all.

# ¿ Jan 14, 2015 09:30

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

asdf32 posted:

Also literally no one invokes Adam Smith to defend capitalism or pretends that citing him would be a way to do that.

Meet your new friends. That think tank has been extremely influential in British conservative policy and uses Adam Smith directly in its free market rhetoric all the time. This rhetorical battle has also been transacted at the academic level, amongst historians of political ideas, some of whom have tried to recuperate Smith a more altruistic figure (largely unsuccessfully).

So, this invocation actually happens all the time - just maybe not in your experience.

Marx is also not just a figure in economics. Marx is probably the most indispensible figure in the modern social sciences. He is a direct touching point still for a lot of people, not merely a historical figure whose work has been built upon by others.

Disinterested fucked around with this message at 15:15 on Jan 14, 2015

# ¿ Jan 14, 2015 15:13

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Fados posted:

Freud is still quoted in psychoanalytical theory contexts;

Also this. Like, just because it's not just Freud anymore, doesn't mean 'lol nobody in modern psychoanalysis is a Freudian anymore'. Obviously no one historical person has ever written the entirely definitive text on a subject to last for all times.

# ¿ Jan 14, 2015 15:16

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

asdf32 posted:

Ok clarification: anyone who invokes Adam Smith in a non-historical appeal to authority is an idiot who should be laughed out of the room.

That has nothing to do with the question of relevance, as there could be a lot of these idiots (hint: there are).

# ¿ Jan 14, 2015 19:28

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

asdf32 posted:

What about the asiatic mode of production. Has history provided any additional insights there?

Assuming this is intended as a joke.

It's pretty discredited, but then again Marx wasn't working with a lot of information. His understanding of Western medieval history was pretty bad too - inescapably so given how bad the standard of professional history was at that time comparatively.

# ¿ Jan 18, 2015 23:10

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Mandy Thompson posted:

Yeah, I'm thinking of socialism as something that evolved from Marxism rather than actual Marxism. So in a way Marxism is dead but in another way it has evolved.

Socialism preceded Marxism, Marx is just the most important thinker in socialism. Think here in particular of Proudhon, Saint-Simon and Owen. In many ways Marx lost a lot of the arguments in western European political socialism, which became a democratic party-political movement; Marx's real legacy is in theory.

The idea that Marx or Marxists didn't care about history or data can be flatly refuted by the slightest reference to any classic Marxist text. The question is more around interpretation.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2015 14:52

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Majorian posted:

Eh, it's more an objection to the base/superstructure dichotomy and especially the Orthodox Marxist belief that economics/class struggle is the only causal driving force throughout all of human history. I've never found that worldview to be terribly convincing.

AKA Vulgar Marxism.

# ¿ Jan 26, 2015 12:04

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

BrandorKP posted:

All the modern ideologies want to be scientific while simultaneously denying that any of the other modern ideologies are.

No doubt related to the rise of the technocratic expert in our discourse.

# ¿ Jan 26, 2015 17:52

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

asdf32 posted:

This thread keeps dying. Maybe the title should be changed to "Marxism appreciation station. (We miss you!)"?

It's because the premise is dumb. Every time it's revived, it's revived by some smug rear end in a top hat who is super sure Marxism is 'irrelevant' because [dumb reasons] [soviet union] [maoism] [20th century economics].

# ¿ Feb 5, 2015 09:50

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

TheImmigrant posted:

Or [any of the the other experiments in Marxism].

It'll be Different this time, I promise.

Hey look, I predicted right!

# ¿ Feb 5, 2015 18:32

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Marxism is a pretty big ism. It doesn't undermine the relevance of Marxism at all to demonstrate totally that the 'Marxist program of government' (note: this doesn't exist) doesn't work, since Marx wrote about a lot of things and offered an imperishable analysis of a lot of phenomena. There would still be a space for Marxist history, Marxist theory, Marxist critique of religion; more generally speaking, there is obviously space for materialism.

It's important to remember that Marx wasn't primarily interested in expounding on a preferred and ideal system of government or social relations. He is not a programmatic political philosopher in the style of Aristotle or Hobbes or whoever, at least not to the same degree. We are primarily talking about, when we talk about Soviet or Chinese economics, ideologies that are distant and often contradictory offshoots from the tree. They owe a few core concepts to Marx but in many cases run in totally opposite directions.

Or in other words, watch this video from about 1:50 (and then watch the whole series if you know nothing about Marxism, you ignorant wretches).

Short version:

quote:

There are at least five ideas of Marxism:
1. The empirical/historical study of Karl Marx's work and theories as expounded by him, in his lifetime. This is Marx taken historically - his views change and move over time, and sometimes his views are unclear or have contradictory or unintended implications.
2. Take Marx not as a historical figure, but try to turn Marx's views as a coherent doctrine, as if you were trying to create an official or religious view of Marx's views. Trying to turn Marx's views into a coherent structure, though, involves us making value judgements about which of his views are most relevant/rational etc.
3. Marx as a 'conceptual revolutionary' - someone who initiates a tradition of thinking about the world in a specific kind of way.
4. Marxism as a hodge-podge of different thinkers without a central identity - Lenin, Adorno, Trotsky, Gramsci
5. Marxism not as theoretical propositions, but as as an applied philosophy - such as the reality of the DDR or the USSR and other states that present themselves as Marxist, including their law as well as their practised form of government.

To say Marxism is irrelevant or disproven or whatever, you have to do better than just looking at 4 and 5. This is a good hint for now about why yelling 'you're making no true scotsman arguments!' is particularly and obviously retarded.

Plus, ironically, even if Marxism was irrelevant in all other ways, a good understanding of it would still now be necessary to understand how and why the former communist states failed. Accounts that leave this out are always incomplete.

Disinterested fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Feb 6, 2015

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 15:13

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

asdf32 posted:

You may want to argue about isolation, I'd like to point out that central economies have never thrived at high levels of economic development or modern levels complexity. Meanwhile capitalist standouts like Korea (Japan too) have flown through that transition to attain first world standards of living.

There is loads of central control and government interference in the Japanese economy, even if it's far from communist. Even moreso during the boom years. It was just very backroom and informal, or reliant on traditional adherence to authority.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 22:07

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

asdf32 posted:

Every real life capitalist state has massive government involvement in the economy typically ranging from 25-50% of the economy.

Not just size in relation to the economy, I'm talking about inference with management of the financial sector and large corporations etc. that is unheard of at that level in a Western economy. As well as much greater ability and willingness on the part of the government to encourage certain behaviour (e.g. saving) amongst the citizenry because of cultural difference.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 22:18

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

V. Illych L. posted:

The institutions of terror were still a Thing. For a society of rats to emerge, you need social structures in place that make ratting people out such a viable proposition. Such structures indicate a very unhealthy society at a much more fundamental level than simply "there were bad people at the top doing bad things", IMO.

If this is correct, it sounds a lot like how the Nazi party operated - kick the lower rungs up into a frenzy, pick the worst idea of the lot, rinse, repeat.

It helps to legitimate your tyranny if you make the people you tyrannise complicit, as well. If 1/3 of you are paid government informants, where is your 'it was nothing to do with me, I was just being brutally oppressed' coming from?

# ¿ Feb 9, 2015 12:59

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

The only really important questions in relation to this are:

Was the death of so many people necessary for the industrialisation? (no)

and

To what extent are the deaths of these people the responsibility of Karl Marx's theory (a little, but not much).

# ¿ Feb 10, 2015 22:24

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

HorseLord posted:

Question:

How many do you believe died?

When?

Where?

I don't think I want to play unless you explain the relevance of your questions.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2015 00:54

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

You can ignore the people Stalin's regime killed just through neglect and tunnel in only on the ones it killed through active and known policy initiatives (Kulak liquidation, Purges, targeted Ukranian famine) and still make my case, so I'm not especially worried about the John Birch stuff (which I didn't know about specifically, but you can sort of tell that's what Americans are thinking when they talk about the USSR).

If it's about killing people with neglect then Communism is still probably the overall leader but it's not very far in the lead over colonialism or Tsarism in the picohitlers stakes.

SedanChair posted:

"what? Russia's not ready for communism."

Yeah. I don't think Marx gets totally off the hook, but say 80-90% of the way.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2015 01:03

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

HorseLord posted:

There was no targeted Ukranian famine. That season's famine happened across multiple republics and hit Kazakhstan worse.

Hahaha.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2015 01:07

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

SedanChair posted:

Yeah I think British policy in India deserves an honorable mention, and any difference in scale is due to circumstance rather than intent.

It was a bit less orchestrated and the authorities eventually worked out that letting everyone starve was not A-OK, but tens of millions of people is a rather unimpressive learning curve.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2015 01:09

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

HorseLord posted:

There literally wasn't. There's never been so much as a single scrap of paper turned up showing that they deliberately caused a famine in Ukraine.

Given that there's literally no evidence at all, I'm inclined to think that the famine in Ukraine was part of the famine that happened in the other republics that are literally right next to it.

Either that, or Stalin had the personal good fortune of A) having a real famine break out in the USSR just as he wanted to give Ukraine one for no reason, and B) the ability to co-ordinate the entire government of Ukraine with psychic powers, so as to not accidentally write anything incriminating down.

HorseLord posted:

Yet you mention anything positive about the USSR and you're immediately labeled a cultist worshipping stalin at his skull throne.

Ironically, yes.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2015 01:26

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Your own example is quite a good one, since Temple represents exactly the kind of lovely with the possibility of being slightly less lovely British colonial policy we know and love. It wasn't always the maximum level of awful, but disaster was never too far away. It only took one hard-hearted administrator, viceroy, minister or prime-minister to decide a trifling sum of money was too much for a large number of people to die; some people were outraged, others thought it was a form of social darwinism. I don't like the wiki citation, since it doesn't make it clear if the words were his or the author's.

All of this is especially funny since Khrushchev's careerism too played a major role in the severity of the Ukranian famine.

The Malthusian point is questionable. Mathus was not in vogue any more by the time a lot of these people are doing their thing, though his ideas have some cache. It's by no means a belief system held by everyone in colonial government.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2015 01:39

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Ardennes posted:

if you wan to get into the history. The argument made is that the 1931 famine was targeted based on class/occupation not ethnicity, but it wasn't targeted against simply ethnic Ukrainians but Ukrainian, Russian and Kazakh peasants. There is wide evidence that the Soviets were shipping grain to Ukrainian cities during the period which included ethnic Ukrainians. It is also why it is a complicated issue as far as nationalism/national memory.

Even if you go down this line, there is still the issue that because Ukraine was a breadbasket, it had more kulaks to liquidate and therefore was always going to take a disproportionate hit from that policy - which you allude to. Which is not to say the nationalist argument becomes irrelevant, since it can become a good cover or bolstering argument for the collectivisation process. Add in Khruschehv wanting to look good by providing a firm grip in a troublesome place...

# ¿ Feb 11, 2015 01:59

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

HorseLord posted:

He was a pretty great leader, if anyone wants to revere him they can go ahead I suppose.

I just feel like I want to keep these gems for posterity.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2015 02:09

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Great [at killing people].

HorseLord posted:

Listen, kid, I've some advice:

If you want to try and shame somebody for the things they say, try quoting something they've said they'd find shameful.

It's not really for your benefit. Is there a more sound indication that someone is dysfunctional than when they reach for the 'kid' so fast?

# ¿ Feb 11, 2015 02:14

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Ardennes posted:

As for Khrushchev wanting to look good, yes, but more or less he followed the policy that cities would be prioritized over urban areas which was following the party line.

He also really loving hated Ukranian kulaks and nationalists. I don't really have to show that it was ethnically or nationalistically motivated to make my case though.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2015 02:14

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

HorseLord posted:

So first you dodge important questions about the topic of discussion, and now you pose insults as questions. I think you're really rude and talking to you isn't going to be useful for anyone.

Given enough rope, some people hang themselves.

The same kind of people who wake up and think: Stalin - a good hill to die on.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2015 02:20

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Aeolius posted:

Mostly good

I think there are some problems here.

For example, you could have teased out the differences of the authors cited:

quote:

Academics like Mark Tauger, Robert Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft � not communists by any stretch, and generally critical of Stalin-era policies � have assembled a significant corpus of research on the causes of the early 30's famine.

Those three authors palpably do not agree about a lot of aspects of the famine, including aspects of intentionality. Wheatcroft and Tauger are in fact at one another's throats about the question of how intentional it was (Tauger is regarded as being at the furthermost end of the spectrum in asserting that the Ukranian famine was only as bad as the Irish potato blight, which is not saying an awful lot.)

I think in attacking the idea of a 'smoking gun hypothesis' you are really working at a straw man, at least in the context of this thread (or indeed the more critical literature, including Conquest's earlier work).

I think all that has to be demonstrated is only a combination of some of the below:

1. Collectivisation hurt Ukraine to a greater degree than most other locales
2. The resulting shortages were predictable or even known beforehand
3. The effects of the shortages (by whatever cause) were disproportionately bad in Ukraine
4. The effects of the shortage were preventable to some degree

Already that's 4 that more or less none of the scholars you have cited disagree with, and then you can add, Re: Stalin:

4. It is sufficient to be merely the symbolic figurehead of this policy or merely negligent in relation to it to be complicit in it, if you had the authority to prevent it, knowledge of it, or were aware in advance of the strong likelihood of the outcomes.
5. There is strong reason to suspect that if Stalin was merely callous or reckless in relation to the outcomes of his policies, instead of willing them, his callousness may have been encouraged by a demonstrable dislike for Ukrainians in general and kulaks and self-proclaimed Ukranian nationalists in particular.

I think there's a lot more you could say by way of how the famine was exacerbated or in how it fit a wider pattern of Stalinist particularly strong ill-treatment of Ukraine, but I think the first 4 points are more or less sufficient to argue that some kind of enforced and man-made scarcity occurred in Ukraine that effected Ukrainians disproportionately. The very best thing one can say about it is that the deaths were a predictable and accepted by-product, but not the principal intention of, the policy of industrialisation and collectivisation as practiced under Stalin.

I also paraphrase my Russianist friend's brief contribution to the topic, he himself not having an account:

quote:

1. Did Ukrainians suffer disproportionately as a result of Stalinist policies?

Yes

2. Why?

Three theories as to why

1. Stalin ordered ethnic cleansing to crush the native nationalist / anti-communist movement

2. Ukraine was always going to suffer disproportionately as a result of collectivisation as it was a major agricultural centre of the USSR and therefore had more to lose

3. Khrushchev's careerism

The answer, in short terms, is a mixture of the three. Ukraine had more rich farmers or 'kulaks' as it had more fertile land than most parts of the east - like all farmers, the Ukrainians resisted collectivisation. Ukrainian nationalists invoked dissident emblems to give voice to their opposition to the policies - my view is that the peasants didn't really care about nationalism, they just didn't want to be collectivised. Anyway, the soviet authorities were happy to regard it as a national problem, since that fitted in well ideologically.

Khrushchev was leader of the Ukrainian socialist republic during the period known as 'holodomor' to the nationalists - he himself was a Ukrainian. He probably was especially brutal even by the standards of the times, partly because he would have personally despised the nationalists and kulaks as a product of his Ukrainian communist identity, but mainly to show he was able to maintain order in a troublesome region.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2015 12:02

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

tonberrytoby posted:

If those famines were caused intentionally that is a point in favor of Marxism.
To be more exact it is a strong indication that the famines were not a result of collectivist/socialist/marxist policies, but a result of the dictatorial policies of Stalinism.

In general I do argue that most of the problems and excesses of the sovjet countries are a result of the dictatorial government and the lack of rule of the law.
Comparing the Sovjet countries with similarly dictatorial capitalist countries also generally supports this point.

Not entirely, since Stalinism and its antecedents do have an ideological underpinning that stems from Marx.

corn in the bible posted:

I think we need to be honest with ourselves: the reason marxism has not worked in the past is simply that non-workers continue to exist within the new "Communist" states -- a true marxism revolution would involve the sudden and mandatory transition to subsistence farming as that is the only way to avoid a need for administrators (also known, of course, as class traitors to any real Marxist) and guarantee food for all those who are willing to work for it. All those who refuse this model are, however unknowingly, tools of capitalism.

You are basically describing early stage Maoism (on an uncharitable description of Maoism) and not Marxism as espoused by Karl Marx, who was not at all interested in subsistence farming. Just go read the preamble to the Communist Manifesto. Marx is not romantic about the pastoral in the way you seem to imagine:

quote:

The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his �natural superiors�, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous �cash payment�. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom � Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man�s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians� intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.

Disinterested fucked around with this message at 12:52 on Feb 11, 2015

# ¿ Feb 11, 2015 12:47

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Ardennes posted:

It does but it is also justifiable to say at that point it really did morph into its own weird thing, and if anything, even from the branching of Marxist-Leninism, shot off into the distance.

It is more or less the reason why discussing Marxism more or less solely through Stalin doesn't work, even it is a easy rhetorical technique that is constantly used including this thread. Stalinism (if you can believe it) is primarily Stalin's responsibility including the crap that came out of it and he didn't matter how many statues of Lenin he made or Karl Marx streets there when he was around.

Yes, quite. I make this point earlier in the thread. I think you have to admit that in some respects Stalinism owes a debt to Marx, but it is primarily its own creation made in similar terms. The sort of people who blame Stalin on Marx would blame Hitler on Nietzsche.

tonberrytoby posted:

Stalinism is mainly a combination of Marxism and Dictatorship, yes.

Stalinism and its Marxist-Leninist antecedent is more ideologically and historically sophisticated than that. Some of what goes wrong in Stalinism goes wrong in the theory of Stalinism and Marxist-Leninism (most often cited is the belief that communism can come from an agrarian society). These are also not just economic theories.

[quote]

tonberrytoby posted:

My point is that as the crimes of the regime are common problems of dictatorships

The type of dictatorship you get, and its eccentric behaviour, tends to relate to the ideology underpinning it. Fascism and Communism are alike in some fundamental qualities but also very different.

Disinterested fucked around with this message at 13:08 on Feb 11, 2015

# ¿ Feb 11, 2015 13:01

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

As someone better equipped to make this argument than me can point out, arguments about genocide (that aren't incredibly apparent, like the holocaust) almost uniformly end up in a mess, in large part because almost nobody has a good grip on both the relevant international legal concepts and history simultaneously. Intent, to make the most obvious point, does not have the same meaning at law as it does in common parlance, and that is enough to turn arguments about genocide in history books to a loving trainwreck, particularly when economists, lawyers and politicians start weighing in with their own disciplinary baggage.

The Ukraine genocide question is so cluttered and such a clusterfuck as a result that the arguments come across to me more as pure responses to one-another.

I'm happy to leave the argument between us as it sits here because I think for us to do better we'd really have to drag the texts out, and I don't have them readily available, so I'd have to lean on my friend more heavily (who incidentally sent me that text on a facebook message at midnight, which may account for its Alexandrian nature).

Although, on one point - in relation to the Kazakh case, I did say

quote:

most other locales.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2015 18:41

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Bob le Moche posted:

You don't try to build communism unless you have socialism first. A communist dictatorship is impossible according to the Marxist definition of communism, which includes statelessness. Historical "communist parties" claim to seek to be working towards communism, but do so through socialist economic policies.

I think this is a weak statement, and at the very least needs to be expanded upon.

Political Marxism as espoused by Karl Marx involves violent overthrow of the system of social relations and then an enforced transitionary period in which private property is abolished.

Wikipedia is sufficient to make this point:

Karl Marx posted:

Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle between the classes, as had bourgeois economists their economic anatomy. My own contribution was (1) to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; [and] (3) that this dictatorship, itself, constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society

Wikipedia posted:

Marx expanded upon his ideas about the dictatorship of the proletariat in his short 1875 work, Critique of the Gotha Program, a scathing criticism and attack on the principles laid out in the programme of the German Workers' Party (predecessor to the SPD). The programme presented a moderate, evolutionary way to socialism, as opposed to revolutionary, violent approach of the "orthodox" Marxists. As result the latter accused the Gotha program as being "revisionist" and ineffective.

The idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat has always been core to subsequent communist movements as a stepping-off point to literal dictatorship, and here Marx deserves at least some criticism. He's always very hazy about the best way to move from the dictatorship step to the communist stateless step, even if he is realistic about the difficulties. Marx's questionable work in this area has provided some of the biggest piles of ammunition for later and more violent thinkers.

In a sense the Marxian commune that acts as the dictatorship of the proletariat is democratic socialism (for him the Paris Commune is a good example), but only after the violent overthrow of capitalism shatters it. For Marx this is truly indispensable.

You are also working under the assumption that the communist movements believed they were immanentizing the eschaton, which is not necessarily the case. Lenin did not regard the USSR in which he lived as the actualisation of the socialist/communist ideal.

Disinterested fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Feb 11, 2015

# ¿ Feb 11, 2015 21:55

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Bob le Moche posted:

You can't be a capitalist when you can't own any capital - private ownership of capital is something that is enforced by the state through various institutions including the legal system and the institutionalized violence of the police and prison system. To prevent capitalism: just don't do that.

The manner of enforcement of proprietary obligation would change, nothing else. The USSR is the most obvious example of how this thinking can go wrong - the upheaval and chaos it wrought in the form of scarcity and wholly inadequate economic distribution created selfishness where it had not previously existed, as people had to learn how to behave in a utilitarian individualist way to get by much more often.

Property is socially constructed, not merely legally constructed.

Also, and back on the topic of Marxism (and away from this), Marx only believes in the abolition of private property; he still believes in a concept of personal property. Items that are of uniquely intrinsic value to you, like your family photographs, are considered to be still owned by you.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2015 22:04

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Ardennes posted:

If you want to say during the 1980s people got more individualistic as the lines grew, fine but then you are comparing the USSR to itself not some time of state before the"upheaval and chaos."

Well one can account for Tsarist Russia by way of its pre-modernity. Additionally, in Tsarist Russia the selfishness is not as much of a paradox with the official ideology of the state, but that would not account for my choice of wording that implies more selfishness as such.

The best example of this is indeed the end period of the Soviet Union and then the break period in to severe, dysfunctional and stark crony capitalism. But I think a similar argument could be made for the Stalinist agrarian collectivisation period we have just spoken about.

Disinterested fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Feb 11, 2015

# ¿ Feb 11, 2015 22:17

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Bob le Moche posted:

I don't disagree with any of this. My post was just a clarification since I saw posts talking about "communist dictatorships" and equating the USSR with communism. Also in my reading of Marx he comes off as very much pro-democracy ("democracy is the road to socialism" etc). The term "Dictatorship of the proletariat" in contrast to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is also not that complicated to grasp, and is only ever taken to mean "totalitarian state dictatorship" by people who don't understand any of it anyway.

No, I think you have to some degree failed to internalise the harshness of Marx's message even if you get it in general. You are also probably looking at Marx too uncritically.

Firstly, democracy as road to socialism is a sentiment in Marx that could be interpreted in a more teleological sense to yours - namely, that democracy is a contingent event for the creation and development of the tensions that will violently give birth to communism. One has to consider that in the context of his utter contempt for non-revolutionary socialists and Fabians. His contempt for anarchists of the Bakuninite tradition can be accounted for in a similar way (they want to abolish the state prior to the revolution, which for Marx is utterly unscientific and wrong).

A democracy dominated by a single class installed by force (even if that's what you already have in bourgeois society) is quite a complicated thing to try to justify in its own terms. Violence as an expression of democracy is very difficult to reconcile with ideas about the right of the individual (including individuals in the revolutionary movement) - and I think to describe this as merely a form of bourgeois political conception is a patronising hand-wave even when it appears in Marx (which is sometimes but not always)).

Bob le Moche posted:

Both these things are true, but it's much, much harder to break a strike and prevent your employees from occupying your factory when you have only "de facto" control over the means of production and don't have a state backing your interests with the threat of violence.

It's very difficult to tell a story about how a society so constituted will practically function, which is probably one of the reasons why Marx doesn't really try that hard at it. His answer would be, I think, that we are too constrained by our present form of false consciousness.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2015 22:31

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Ardennes: I think it is more that you are reading unintended things in to what I am saying. I'd be curious to know what you think my ideological viewpoint is. Although if you have a totally non-ideological version of history to offer, I am all ears.

Ardennes posted:

I would say if anything it was in a transitional phase, and failing badly at it. Capitalism simply was not working.

I don't disagree with this.

Ardennes posted:

In this sense though, even Tsarist Russia theoretically based on its heavily Christian emphasis was also paradoxical. If there is a comparably more selfishness you would have to show it.

I did consider this, but I don't think the emphasis was quite the same. The promise of Marxist-Leninism is, after all, the eventual abolition of all private property and bourgeois individualist conceptions. In any event, my second sentence highlights the troublesome nature of my own choice of phrasing:

'but that would not account for my choice of wording that implies more selfishness as such.'

Which I think was probably the foundational mistake in the first post of mine, which was too much of a drive-by.

Ardennes posted:

Stark crony capitalism itself was a designed system, it wasn't simply a result of the Soviet experience. American advisers were over there helping "design" the transition and rubber stamping it.

I am entirely aware of this and don't discount it at all.

Ardennes posted:

I think you largely have a largely ahistorical understanding of Russian history and that is feeding your ideological viewpoint (or vice-versa). This thread is basically a Russian history thread, so it better be done right.

Well then, feel free to put forward an alternative account. Do you think that the Soviet Union made people more unselfish, in general? I have already accepted the proposition that that phenomenon may vary with period and place.

Ardennes posted:

Hell, Marxist-Leninism allowed the opening for private business as well and effectively some type of private property (for a while at least).

And, indeed, it was intended on a transitional basis (but not as transitional as it turned out).

Ed: To clarify, a better version of my remark probably would have been:

'It can be the unfortunate tendency of Really Existing Communism to unwittingly encourage the kind of individualism it abhors, as people are forced to look to themselves for assistance in times of scarcity or adversity.'

Here one could just as easily be talking about the opportunistic use of accusations of sedition to satisfy personal vendettas or well-documented incidences of cannibalism during famines in Ukraine or North Korea, or the incredible number of informants in the GDR. It is not my argument that this is particular to communism, it is just a stark irony that this is the kind of thing that communism has aspired to abolish for good.

I think this POV is principally borrowed from Zizek, though I can't seem to remember where he says it.

Or something like that.

Disinterested fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Feb 11, 2015

# ¿ Feb 11, 2015 22:43

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Ardennes posted:

Yes, and that is a honest failure of those regimes. There is something to take away from their experience but at same time, boxing in Marx for them seems short-sighted (as with any other ideology).

I'm not sure what you mean about 'boxing in Marx for them'.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2015 23:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 19:48

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Nintendo Kid posted:

Then I would say that Marx's sense is defective in describing the 20th century, much less the 21st.

It doesn't really account for the very real situation of the corporation turning in to your para-state, as for example with United Fruit. To just go down one route.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2015 23:30

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Is Marxism dead?

«‹›2 »