Is Marxism dead?

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

Kurnugia: Sep 2, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/HAPPIDROME-Part-One

quote:

Murray Bookchin was born in New York in 1921. In the 1930s he joined the American Communist Party. But after the second world war he began to question the whole theory that underpinned revolutionary marxism.

What changed everything for him was the experience of working in a factory. Bookchin had gone to work for General Motors - and he realized as he watched his fellow workers that Marx, Lenin and all the other theorists were wrong about the working class.

The Marxist theory said that once working men and women came together in factories the scales would fall from their eyes - and they would see clearly how they were being oppressed. They would also see how they could bond together to become a powerful force that would overthrow the capitalists.

Bookchin saw that the very opposite was happening. This was because the factory was organised as a hierarchy - a system of organisation and control that the workers lived with and experienced every second of the day. As they did so, that hierarchical system became firmly embedded in their minds - and made them more passive and more accepting of their oppression.

# ¿ Oct 31, 2014 21:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 13:20

Kurnugia: Sep 2, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

reports say marx dead

# ¿ Nov 1, 2014 00:26

Kurnugia: Sep 2, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

for the latest, stay tuned to this station

# ¿ Nov 1, 2014 00:27

Kurnugia: Sep 2, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

Wheeee posted:

Marxism is outdated and in need of a modern overhaul utilizing the advanced economic models and sociological data we now have access to, but it was and is built on a pretty solid foundation

a solid foundation of make-believe and proletarian dictatorships

# ¿ Nov 2, 2014 14:06

Kurnugia: Sep 2, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

The economic basis (lol) of marxism was the idea that working together in a factory, the people would spontaneously develop a "class consciousness" and automatically see themselves as a part of a greater whole, with which they could co-operate naturally and without coercion. This does not happen. Ergo, marxism is impossible.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2014 15:39

Kurnugia: Sep 2, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

OwlBot 2000 posted:

Also, please don't confuse "Marx's opinions on things" with "Marxism". The former is trivia, the latter is a framework for studying history and society through the lens of material conditions, technological progress and class struggle.

Yeah, cuz people behave like loving cogwheels based on their income level or something. Marxism is so loving dumb I can't fathom how anyone could take it as serious attempt to explain historical causalities.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2014 20:44

Kurnugia: Sep 2, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

Obdicut posted:

Marx doesn't say people behave like cogwheels based on their income level.

How much Marx have you read?

Marx was a insufferably boring writer, so none. I've read plenty of analyses regarding his theories of how the so-called oppressed workers would develop their class-consciousness, which underpins his conjecture that the dominant force of history is class struggle. Of course, the problem is that the whole division between "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" is completely arbitrary. It has to be, because in reality there is no such thing as a social class that would define people's position or fate in society. People are what they think they are, and there's a lot more to that than being "proletarian" or not.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2014 20:53

Kurnugia: Sep 2, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

Obdicut posted:

Then you should probably shut the gently caress up about Marxism.

Well don't worry, the only people who care about Marxism are people insufferable enough to read his towerblock of das kapital. The rest of the world is going to continue ignoring you because you are incapable of making coherent arguments.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2014 20:59

Kurnugia: Sep 2, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

Bob le Moche posted:

How do you pay for your livelyhood? Is it primarily through owning shares in a company, rent from property, or some such thing? Then you're part of the bourgeoisie. Is it by entering a contract with an employer who pays you for your work? Then you are a proletarian. Most people will easily recognize themselves as currently belonging to one of these two categories.
The social class in which you were born is in fact the primary factor which determines your position in society and social mobility is pretty much a myth. Anyone who takes a serious look at the data knows this. Here is a recent article on the topic: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...erything-wrong/
You display your ignorance with a lot of pride.

Actually I do both, as do a lot of people I know. Meanwhile my best friend's father is an old-school communist, who own's his own metal workshop and employs three people. You say proletarian, I tell you I am not. Because I don't think of myself as belonging to any group that has any common interests with you. Of course you cannot understand this argument (because you're a marxist), that people's self-image is more important to them than their income class.

Also, just because America is a shithole doesn't necessarily mean things here are as bad as with you guys. Enjoy your broken rear end society I guess :shrug:

# ¿ Nov 3, 2014 21:12

Kurnugia: Sep 2, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

Bob le Moche posted:

I'm sure the people who make the food you eat, the clothes you wear, and built the building you live in also own some stocks on the side in addition to working for a living. If they don't they just need to believe harder that they do.

Also where do you live and do you think that your society is a bubble that is somehow independent from the rest of the global economy?

Is there a point in any of this?

# ¿ Nov 3, 2014 21:18

Kurnugia: Sep 2, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

icantfindaname posted:

Ultimately I just think Marx's vision is extremely unconvincing. He wants a revolution to fix 'alienation' a concept which isn't adequately defined, and doesn't specify an actual way to get rid of it. When this is pointed out leftists get defensive and insist it's the only solution.

So far as I've understood, Marx's concept of 'alienation' is a lack of class-consciousness, and the feeling being... I dunno, alienated? gently caress, who knows. There's point in saying that the industrial revolution broke the old system where people belonged and felt a part of their villages and whatever poo poo-rear end hillbilly communes they had back then. Jumping from that to saying that the resulting alienation that people now feel in a society where we hardly belong to anywhere will necessarily lead to the inception of the 'proletariat' and the 'bourgeoisie' is of course a fantasy, as we've seen. There are plenty of alternatives for humans to fulfill their social needs besides feeling some vague sense of camaraderie with the assholes they happen to currently be working with.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2014 21:26

Kurnugia: Sep 2, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

Being called ignorant by a marxist is like being called a sheeple by a conspiracy theorist.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2014 21:29

Kurnugia: Sep 2, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

Typo posted:

^^^^^

Pretty good summary of 21st century marxism right here

It's like an echo chamber full of poo

# ¿ Nov 3, 2014 21:34

Kurnugia: Sep 2, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

Obdicut posted:

Have you actually read Marx?

# ¿ Nov 3, 2014 21:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 13:20

Kurnugia: Sep 2, 2014; by Nyc_Tattoo

Obdicut posted:

Is the idea that to criticize something you should actually know something about it a strange revelation to you?

Do you get that I'm not a Marxist, and I disagree with most of his predictions and his solutions?

You really don't see the hilarity in responding to criticism of his ideas with 'you just don't understand'?

# ¿ Nov 3, 2014 21:48

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