On Marx and Leftism

[BainsBane]

25 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	I consider myself a leftist, have read Marx, and support many of his core principals
	12 (48%)
	I consider myself a leftist, have read Marx, but do not support his core principals
	1 (4%)
	I consider myself a leftist and have never read Marx
	2 (8%)
	I consider myself a centrist and have read Marx
	1 (4%)
	I consider myself a centrist and have not read Marx
	1 (4%)
	Marx is irrelevant to my concetpion of leftist politics
	5 (20%)
	I consider myself a leftist, have read Marx, and support some of his ideas/analysis
	3 (12%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[leftstreet]

1. I concur with his analysis of capitalism

Which is what he is famous for

I'm not sure what his 'core principles' are

[BainsBane]

4. That capitalism is exploitative by nature

That it is built on the exploitation of labor and social relations of production, that capital requires the exploitation of many for the benefit of the few. Exploitation and inequality are not incidental or byproducts of a capitalist economy but are central to it's very nature.

My other thread should give you some sense of them. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025442750
It links to a site with many of his writings.

[leftstreet]

6. Right. That came from his analysis

I see it as an observation, not really a principle

But if that's what you mean, then that's what I mean

[BainsBane]

9. It is an ideology that frames how one understands society

Human history past and present. I don't think the word observation adequately conveys his influence. Marxism is a mode of analysis and has given rise to countless schools of thought as well as political models.

[leftstreet]

11. Right

Agreed

[Adrahil]

106. OK, I think we can more or less agree on that. Now what?

How do we address the inherent weaknesses of a capitalist system without invoking all the weakness of traditional communist-socialist planned economies. How do we leverage the strength of the market without having to live with its weaknesses?

I'll be up front and say that I don't think anyone knows.

I personally think there are no perfect answers.

I think we need a hybrid economy with a regulated market, regulated capital investment and strong social services.

[TexasTowelie]

2. I've read The Communist Manifesto a few times and do support some of his principles.

Maybe that option could be added to your poll?

ETA: I agree with his thesis about capitalism, but believe that the elimination of private property is unrealistic and disagree with Marx about religion.

[BainsBane]

3. You don't think one conveys that?

[TexasTowelie]

7. Check my ETA.

I think that option #1 might be going a bit too far for me.

[BainsBane]

8. I see

Yes, I didn't meant to suggest you would have to agree with everything. I see a difference between Marx as historian and analyst of capitalism and as a model for a form of government. I can't say as I disagree with your points, but I still consider myself a Marxist. I see Marx as first and foremost a historian and political economist.

I'll add a new option though. It will be toward the bottom.

[VanGoghRocks]

51. When Marx and his followers call for the 'elimination of private property,' it is

important to understand that what is meant by 'private property' must be distinguished from what is meant by 'personal property.'

Private property = the private ownership of the means of production, i.e., factories, farms and so on.

Personal property = your clothing, your books, your toiletries, etc.

So private property, as Marx defined it, should be publicly owned for the benefit of all. But everyone gets to keep his or her personal property.

Hope that bastardized and abbreviated explanation helps.

With which aspect(s) of Marx' views on religion do you disagree?

[BainsBane]

56. Private property is itself a creation of capitalism

The concept did not exist until the early modern period that gave rise to capitalism. I don't recall Marx dealing with issues like clothing (other than textile production) or personal belongings. He speaks of property as a form of capital.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. Private property was around way before capitalism started

Ownership of land is private property. That existed before any economy got to a state you can call 'capitalism'.

[BainsBane]

65. That is not true

Land belonged to the crown (bestowed by God, was the theory) and held in trust by individuals, lords, who had custody over the land and the peasants who lived on it. They did not own the land outright. The concept of private property did not emerge until the early modern era that gave rise to capitalism. The Enclosure Movement was part of that process. Many great historians of your own country, like Douglas Hay, have written about the subject. In Latin America, that process began after independence in the early 19th century. Land that was previously held in common was parceled off to men with the means to acquire legal title. By the late 19th century, many of those men were foreign, primary British, who took advantage of the bureaucratic apparatus of the newly emerging capitalist state to acquire title to land that had previously been held collectively by indigenous communities rather than by individuals. In the process, peasants were dispossessed and converted to tenant farmers and eventually wage laborers. That process has happened at different times throughout the world. There is great reams of literature on the subject.

You assume private property is natural because you are imbued with the ideology of capitalism, as we all are. The advantage of learning history is that it teaches us that what we assume is natural and immutable has not always been that way at all.

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. As an example, the Roman Republic had ownership of land

when there was no crown at all (pre-Empire). I'm not assuming it's "natural"; just that the concept goes back way beyond the 'early modern' period.

[BainsBane]

84. That could well be

I don't claim knowledge in the totality of human history. However, in terms of Western Europe and the Americas, the concept did indeed emerge in the Early Modern period. There is a difference between using land and owning it. Owing land requires title and a legal system that protects private property. It requires a state bureaucracy of adequate reach to establish and uphold that right to property. Certainly Rome lacked the ability to execute that level of state authority throughout its empire.

[muriel_volestrangler]

87. Why are you 'certain' of that?

Rome, in both the Republic and Empire, did have an extensive bureaucracy and legal system, and state authority of legendary power.

We should be talking about the totality of human history, though, not just one corner with a restricted date range. Western Europe does after all, take some of its legal ideas from the Romans. Latin remained understood, and so the Roman land laws were known. I see no evidence that the concept of land ownership was invented from scratch at some 'Early Modern' point, and it just happened to match the concept that had been sitting in the copies of Roman laws all those years.

[BainsBane]

100. Do you know of documentation of land sales

and enforcement of private property laws in the furthest reaches of the empire? How then would feudalism arise later? How do I know the state was limited in the ancient world? Weber for one. The nature of transportation and technology for another.

I suggest you do some of the reading of the history of the subject in your own country if you want evidence. There is no shortage of literature on the subject. It is easy to "see no evidence" when you know little about the subject.
Certainly Marx wrote about the subject, and Marxism is not the point of this OP, not some ahistorical notion that the word has always been as you imagine it now. Private property is key to the exploitation of the many for the few. That is no more natural than patriarchy, racism, and other forms of exploitation the privileged believe natural and constant throughout history. If private property had "always existed,' there would have been no need to protect it by making property crimes capital offenses in 18h century England. There would have been no need to introduce it as means to dispossess indigenous peasants of land in the Americans.

[muriel_volestrangler]

102. yes:

The Roman code of the Twelve Tables lasted as long as the Roman Empire itself. Though more importantly, they represented a written code which applied right across the social scale from the patricians to the plebeians. The Twelve Tables are generally seen as the beginning of European law and are hence seen as a milestone in history.
It is surprising though that only excerpts of the laws survive to this day. The original tables were destroyed in 390 BC when the Gauls occupied and looted Rome. Naturally they must have survived in other form, yet little has passed down through time to the present. Some manuscripts are only partially legible.
The list on this page is not absolutely complete. Some points remain confused.
From what remains, it seems evident that the rules seemed to have been derived specifically from cases the decemvirs presided over. Hence it can appear a bit of a jumble.
Some laws can appear quaint, others seem extremely harsh.
...
For a sale of land a formal agreement was required. This agreement could be verbal. Once made, it was legally binding. If a patron ordered his slave set free in his will, or agreed to free him on a condition which the slave fulfils, or if the slave paid his purchase price to the owner, then the slave was to be set free. Had property been sold, then it should not be deemed acquired until the purchaser had provided payment. Usucapio was the acquisition of property by possession. If it was in your hands for a year, then it was yours by right. For land and buildings the time was two years. If a women lived with a man for a year, she was his in marriage by usucapio. (Notice that this is the same rule as for a woman as for any possession.) If she wished to avoid this, she was to stay absent from his house for three successive nights a year. If there were two conflicting claims by others over a man, one claiming him a slave, the other claiming him free, then in the absence of proof the judge (praetor) shall rule in favour of freedom. No-one was to remove material from or alter a building or vineyard without the permission of the owner. Who did so, was liable to pay twice the cost of the damage. If a man wished to divorce his wife he needed to provide a reason for doing so.

http://www.roman-empire.net/republic/twelve-tables.html

Talking of Weber:

This work is an English translation of Max Weber's thesis on Roman agrarian history awarded at the University of Berlin in 1891; its original title being 'Die Römische Agrargeschichte in ihrer Bedeutung für das Staats-und Privatrecht' or 'Roman Agrarian History in its relation to Roman Public and Civil Law'. The work was compiled under the supervision of Theodor Mommsen and submitted in order to gain the qualification necessary to teach at university level (Habilitation). Given the importance of Weber's later works to a number of disciplines, having both a modern version of this work, and an English translation, makes this book an important volume for anybody working in the field of Roman agrarian history or political theory.
...
The chapter then moves on to discuss land surveyors once more, the sale of farms and lots and the Roman common land, again all done in brief sections. Weber then moves on to a lengthier discussion on the 'Significance of Property Rights', centred on the role of possessio, though the date range does jump between the early Republic and the time of Constantine in just a few short paragraphs. The next sections shift focus once again, on to the real estate business in Rome and ager privatus, before finishing with a section on the 'Agrarian Revolution at Rome', though again this amounts to little over four pages of the translation. Overall this chapter is a busy one, jumping from topic to topic and changing time periods throughout each section. Thus this chapter acts as more of an introduction to a large number of different topics, some of which are highly technical and others very broad in their outlook, without finding a central theme to link them together.

Chapter Three is the most substantial of the work, over 60 pages in translation, and focuses on the key issues surrounding public and private lands, which will be the focus of most readers' attention. Once again this chapter is broken down into a large number of subsections, some 46 in total, each focussing briefly on a different topic. Once again the chronology of events under discussion ranges from the early Republic to the late Empire, but the focus shifts from being focussed solely on Italy to covering Africa, Asia and Sicily. As is to be expected, the chapter begins with a discussion on the various legal differences between the two categories of land and includes a discussion on the origins of the differentiation and the differences between the communal and clan basis for land organisation. The discussion then moves on to the nature of agrarian capitalism as practised in Republican Rome. Here we find Weber, on what now seems familiar territory, referring to the degeneration of the proletariat into an urban rabble who became estranged from the land, allowing the landowning class to expand at their expense. Weber them moves on to analysing the agrarian law of 111 BC, which he argues signalled the end of ager publicus in Italy. He then moves onto a wide ranging discussion on various aspects relating to the leasing of land in Rome, both legal and financial.

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-08-42.html

Feudalism arose because the western Roman Empire was conquered by a variety of mostly Germanic tribes. After that, you got a mixture of laws inherited from the Roman and Germanic traditions. For the history of my country, we can go back to the 11th century - before 'early modern' by anyone's definition, I think - to see the concept of land ownership, though it gets disrupted by the Norman invasion:

Domesday Book is the oldest government record held in The National Archives. In fact there are two Domesday Books – Little Domesday and Great Domesday, which together contain a great deal of information about England in the 11th century. In 1086, King William I (the Conqueror) wanted to find out about all the land in his new kingdom: who owned which property, who else lived there, how much the land was worth and therefore how much tax he could charge, so he sent official government inspectors around England to ask questions in local courts.

Fixed questions were asked, such as what the place was called, who owned it, how many men lived there, how many cows were there and so on. For each property, the questions were asked three times to see what changes had happened over time so that the king would know about the lands in Edward the Confessor’s time (before 1066), who William I had given it to and what it was worth then, and finally what the situation was in 1086 at the time of the survey. All the results of these questions were handwritten into the Domesday Book by scribes.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/domesday-book/

Strawmen in your latest post:
" some ahistorical notion that the word has always been as you imagine it now"
"no more natural than patriarchy, racism, and other forms of exploitation the privileged believe natural and constant throughout history"
" If private property had "always existed'"

I've already said this, but it needs repeating: I have never argued that private property is 'natural' or has 'always existed', just that you're wrong to claim it only dates from the early modern period and the rise of capitalism.

[Adrahil]

98. ummm... the concept of a free holding yeoman or franklin pre-exists the Early-Modern period....

that's just historical fact. These were people who owned private property and were not of the gentry. They exist as early as the 12th century.

The Anglo-Saxons also had private property pre-Norman invasion (and the coming of feudalism).

[BainsBane]

101. holding land is not owning land. There is a key distinction, as I already made clear.

[Adrahil]

107. Medieval free-holders DID own their land.

They held land in fee simple, without any feudal entanglements. Theoretically, not even the King could take their land without due process.

[TexasTowelie]

57. Thank you for making that distinguishment between private and personal property.

I had not noted that before in any of the literature that I've read.

As far as religion is concerned, I know that Marx grew up in a religious family, but eventually became an atheist. It is my understanding that he viewed religion as a construct to keep the proles in line with the thinking of the bourgeoisie regarding moral standards and observance of dedication to the economic system in place. However, I must admit that I'm not much of an expert in this area so if you have some information then please feel free to enlighten me (and others). I only received a basic understanding of Marxism while in college and I'm certain that some others are more knowledgeable than myself.

[VanGoghRocks]

64. Wow, this is a big topic to get into here and maybe not well-suited to this forum. Here's what I can

tell you (relying on some distant memories of coursework in Intellectual History): as a dialectical materialist (as opposed to a Hegelian idealist), Marx viewed human society and existence as consisting of a substructure (the system of economic production, e.g., feudalism or capitalism, and social relations, e.g., serf-Lord or worker-owner) in a dialectical (dynamic) relationship with a superstructure (the culture and ideology that grow up out of and, in turn, reinforces that substructure).

In this philosophical environment, Marx would clearly place religion in the 'superstructure' and view it as helping to reinforce existing economic relations. For example, when Paul commands (in Ephesians AND Colossians) that 'Slaves obey thy masters,' there actually were literally slaves and masters back then! So, one could say, Marx is arguing that religion as a part of the superstructure helps to reinforce the dominant social relations of the day.

But, and this is a huge 'but',' when Marx writes that 'religion is the opiate of the masses,' he is not sneering at the masses nor is he being cynical about religion as some sort of mind-numbing drug. Instead, Marx lived at the dawn of heavy industrialism and was well aware of the horrors faced by the early indsutrial working class. In a society red in tooth and claw, Marx saw religion as offering at least some palliative to an urban working class to ease its suffering.

Again, I feel as if I'm bastardizing and abbreviating the valiant and diligent work of many who have gone before me. But I hope this helps to refine a little bit your understanding.

[TexasTowelie]

86. Thanks for the explanation.

More than likely I'm moving into the next phase of my life if I'm approved for disability. My previous concentrations were in mathematics and the sciences when I was a college student. I avoided liberal arts and social sciences because of my relative lack of knowledge in relation to my peers and because one of my weaknesses which was to procrastinate on any writing assignment delegated to me (a definite curse to anyone wanting to major in those disciplines).

One of my goals if I receive disability is to return to my undergrad university and join the "senior university" where I can study in the areas that I missed out on during my first collegiate experience and also have some social involvement since I have some mental health issues. About 15 years ago when I lived with a contemporary I said that my philosophy on life is that when I am able to sustain myself without being employed then I'll become a philosopher and a thinker. Hopefully, that time period may be just a trip around the corner away from me.

[nomorenomore08]

5. I don't think "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a

fundamentally bad idea...

[Shankapotomus]

12. What is your issue with it, if you're willing to share?

It doesn't seem to be asking from anyone more than they can give nor granting to others more than they need, so where's the error?

[nomorenomore08]

15. I said it's NOT a fundamentally bad idea.

[Shankapotomus]

18. lol Sorry nt

[nomorenomore08]

19. That's okay. Didn't mean to snap at you.

[Shankapotomus]

45. No worries

I didn't even see it as a snap.

[3rdwaydem]

13. It's never worked when tried.

[nomorenomore08]

16. Depends what you mean by "tried." Many would argue that most self-proclaimed Communist regimes

thus far have been a perversion of Marxism.

[CAG]

20. because its not realistic. There's no legitimate provision for individual

incentive, which inevitably leads to utter corruption and perversion. The bottom line is that human nature screws up any utopian ideals of any political or economic system. At least capitalism allows for the legitimate provision for individual incentive, therefore the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs of the world give us wonderful products, we can have (if we successfully fight against the corporatists) an abundant selection of products in grocery stores, automobile lots, airlines, banks, education, etc. The problem is the lack of a well-regulated capitalism in a functioning democracy, which has gotten worse and worse the last several decades thanks to the effectiveness of fear-mongering propaganda to protect things such as the military industrial complex, trickle down economic voodoo, etc.

[3rdwaydem]

23. Very well put CAG!

[Maedhros]

68. /ignore [n/t]

[Tuesday Afternoon]

25. while I agree with what you are saying, I wonder why I don't consider myself a centrist

instead voting leftist with Marx's ideals being irrelevant, unlike you and 3rdwayDem.

Odd that.

[nomorenomore08]

44. It's not either/or. In fact, there is arguably almost no country that is purely capitalist *or*

purely socialist. Social Security, public assistance etc. are a form of moderate (or, if you prefer, "mild&quot socialism, and we shouldn't be afraid or embarrassed to state the truth. Socialism is not a bad thing - looking out for each other should be a basic value of any society worth a damn.

[BainsBane]

46. capitalism is based on greed and explitation of labor

It is fundamentally immoral.

[TexasTowelie]

60. On those points I am in complete agreement with you.

I saw your post last night urging other socialists to join this thread and I was ready to reply that I am a socialist, but refrained because I didn't want to start any arguments. This thread has helped my understanding substantially (particularly private property opposed to personal property).

I'm going back to change my vote from supporting some aspects of Marxism to many aspects. Thanks for helping those of us that were moderately informed (and disinformed) with this discussion.

[TBF]

52. If anything leads to "utter corruption and perversion"

it is capitalism - a system which is inherently unequal by design. AFAIC we should give up on currency entirely and use resource management as a model. The problem with capitalism is that you must step on others to get ahead and the goal is always profit as opposed to a more humane lifestyle in which resources are more wisely used. Regulation does not work because capitalism will not allow it to work - the goal is optimal profit so anything else is pushed aside in order to reach that goal.

[eridani]

58. Nonsense. The only proscription is against owning OTHER PEOPLE'S means of production

Bill Gates could still exist, but he would not be allowed to have employees, only business partners.

[CAG]

59. Thats just silly

[eridani]

63. What's silly about it?

Many original employees became millionaires by owning stock in Microsoft. If "many" is possible, why not "all"?

[CAG]

80. and what are all of those "business partners" supposed to do for money

while that small start-up (and the thousands of others that never become Microsoft) is getting initially small returns on investment? Where has this worked in a nation's history?

[eridani]

83. We've never had publicly owned banks before either

Granted, it might be easier to just let the 1% get really rich and then expropriate the money--which is absolutely unavoidable if we want to keep having an economy. Anyone who has ever played Monopoly knows what you have to do to keep playing after one person wins and gets all the money.

[Maedhros]

67. Look! Republican talking points on DU!

How precious.

/ignore list.

[CAG]

76. oh, for god's sake, democrats can't be capitalists now????

[CAG]

82. I suspect Elizabeth Warren would agree with my statements, does that make

her a republican talking point??

Oh, I forgot, I'm "ignored" now because you can't take an alternative opinion.

[VanGoghRocks]

69. Star Trek is set in a socialist\communist milieu. (Ever see any money changing hands

on the Enterprise?) I see plenty of individual incentive exercised by Enterprise crew members.

If there's no 'legitimate provision for individual incentive,' then please explain Bertolt Brecht.

[CAG]

77. I was unaware Star Trek was non-fiction and described a real-world, er,

real-universe, environment.

[VanGoghRocks]

79. Come on, CAG, where's your imagination? Star Trek is the 'history of the

future'. I wish I could be around for it.

Time to shed those 'mind-forged manacles,' to steal a line from William Blake.

[CAG]

81. Live long and prosper.... but don't prosper too much, you might be

seen as a capitalist!

[TexasTowelie]

88. Oddly enough, I was reading some commentary on the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal

from "Mr. Conservative" who argued that Star Trek was based upon the eradication of the evil of socialism.

While I am certainly no expert, I noted that Gene Roddenberry did not appear to be one who argued the virtues of capitalism. I pointed out episodes of TNG regarding the capitalist that was put into cryogenic stasis and to whom Picard said that the challenge was the advancement of oneself rather than pursuing wealth. I also pointed out the mockery of the Ferengi, caveat emptor and the 285 Rules of Acquisition.

Mr. Conservative on the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal has a delusional mindset though. He also suffers from grandiose disorder and Obama Derangement Syndrome.

[VanGoghRocks]

66. Because so many Russians are clamoring for the return of the Czar. Viva

Batista! . . . NOT!

[Puzzledtraveller]

91. It is particularly dangerous to progressivism

Many today who are disabled may be quite able under such a system. It is also a system that would make it potentially illegal to "choose" not to work. IMO.

[Adrahil]

99. As an idea it's fine. It's implementing it where things fall to pieces. NT

[nomorenomore08]

104. Like I said, nothing has to be an absolute. I just think it's a decent general principle. n/t

[Adrahil]

105. Well, I certainly agree with that. :) NT

[Shankapotomus]

10. I'm familiar with Marxism mostly through intermediaries

like Dr. Richard Wolff and consider myself a Leftist, support many Marxist criticisms of Capitalism and also believe, like Marx, that it will require technological leaps to get to a fully exploitation free economic system.

[nomorenomore08]

17. My overall stance is probably quite similar to yours.

But I mainly consider myself "moderate left" - like a Social Democrat type. Some of my positions may seem far left, but that's only by comparison with living in a (in many ways) very right-wing country.

[3rdwaydem]

24. I think all of us have some beliefs that are far left. I would also say that I am "moderate left."

[socialist_n_TN]

14. I'm not sure what kind of support you wanted, but.......

I voted in the poll!

[BainsBane]

35. That's the support I wanted!

Thanks!

[VanGoghRocks]

71. Hear, hear. I also voted for option #1, fwiw

[socialist_n_TN]

85. Me too........

But you already knew that.

[KG]

21. LOL.

[lovemydog]

22. I think reading Marx and subsequent political economists

is essential to understanding our world. We have many more choices other than the post-WWI USA model. Which is running out of steam in terms of providing meaningful, enriched lives. There's a reason why those in Switzerland, Scandinavian countries, and other countries in Western Europe consistently identify themselves as the most happy folks in the world. Reading political economists and actively making themselves agents of their own lives and their own governments is one major reason, imo. For anyone interested, a good place to start is with his essay Alienated Labor. The graphic novel Marx for Beginners is also excellent. We all should understand that every country has various forms of mixed economies. We would all do well by nationalizing health care. And then banking.

Thanks for the poll, BB.

[BainsBane]

26. Great suggestions!

[Warpy]

27. I had no idea this was such a literate bunch

I'll bet that out in the meat world, fewer than 1% have read Marx.

[BainsBane]

28. The responses are by nature self-selective

Those who haven't read Marx may be less likely to respond.

[Chan790]

47. More precisely than that.

It's been my experience that DU has a larger-than-representative proportion of political scientists, academics and historians which is probably skewing the results.

[YoungDemCA]

50. Well, they didn't call it the Red Scare for nothing

All of the propaganda-media, political, government, corporate-from the Cold War era really ingrained a very knee-jerk, reactionary response in the collective American psyche to anything remotely "Marxist" or "socialist."

And IIRC, you could be sent to prison in the 1950s (if not other decades as well) for teaching anything about Marx in the classroom. So it's no wonder that few people in the US have actually read him, let alone understand him.

[Warpy]

62. They were still pussyfooting around it in AP history in the mid 60s

I thought it was hilarious, I'd carried around a copy of the Manifesto with a particularly garish cover for months when I was 12 because I loved the reactions it got.

Uh, yes, I read it. Why do you ask?

[sarisataka]

29. I put Marx in the same category as utopian fiction

such as Utopia, and Men Like Gods.
They are interesting philosophical works that portray unattainable ideals. In all cases, selfish human nature is downplayed when describing the ideal society.

In reality I see the various fictional dystopian worlds, e.g. Nineteen Eighty-Four, Brave New World more likely to come to pass.

Erehwon is an interesting combination, using dystopian methods to create a satirical utopia.

[BainsBane]

30. Then you miss his major importance

Which is as a historian and political economist analyzing the development of capitalism. There is noting Utopian about his understanding of history and society. Quite the opposite. His ideas for a communist society are only a small fraction of what he wrote.

[sarisataka]

31. Admittedly I have mostly read his communism writing

And that is what I was referring to.

I agree with much (though it is a small amount that I have read) of his views of the destructive nature of capitalism. My readings on socialism, which accounts for human nature more IMO, are from other sources; many of which are based on theories of Marx.

I am most drawn to Foucault and his dark views on society. Our governance is largely out of our direct control and humans are our own worst enemies. We seem to thrive on self-destructive actions. Our saving grace is that small movements, or in our post modern internet age sometimes one person, can light a candle that pushes back the darkness. Thus we are our only hope of salvation.

[BainsBane]

43. Foucault is of course enormously important

I think the advantage of theory is that it poses new questions. While I'm more of a structuralist, I don't at all denounce post-structuralism. It has opened up whole new avenues of knowledge, particularly in terms of gender, sexuality, and queer studies.

This all came about because of the nonsense about Rand Paul "pulling the Democratic Party to the left." It made me ill. I posted on OP on Marxism vs. Paul in defining left, which in turn let to this poll.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025442750

[lovemydog]

33. I respectfully disagree.

The notion of capitalism working most efficiently to make lives meaningful is utopian fiction. In fact, many starve to death and die of health issues that are easily treatable. The world has the resources to have far less suffering. How to distribute resources most effectively and fairly - that's the crux of it. Pure communism has had its spectacular failures. Pure capitalism has had its spectacular failures. Pure socialism has had its spectacular failures. I suggest mixed economies, and that the real question is to what degrees.

I believe in democratic socialism, also sometimes referred to as socialism with a human face. Not the cold, dictatorial kind. One with more worker control, more labor control, more middle class and working poor control. In other words, where the people who made the goods and services we enjoy actually benefit to a greater degree than they do now. And that ownership of resources be retained more in the people, rather than in the hands of increasingly shrinking number of corporations that merge and consolidate and gain more and more capital and resources.

Marx, and most particularly those who both preceded and followed his work, was most concerned with how we structure our societies. The utopian aspects were a tiny slice, the tiny slice of theory that gets endlessly misinterpreted and misrepresented. By the way, I am not at all saying that there have not been pure Marxists who haven't committed horrible atrocities. There have. What I'm saying is that political economy is a very useful tool for understanding history, and for how to make our brief time on earth better and more meaningful for ourselves and our friends and other human beings and the world that we inhabit.

The amount of bad propaganda against his writings has more to do with the cold war, rich industrialists who would rather keep people ignorant in order to serve their own greedy desires.

I wouldn't even recommend Marx, for those who wish to understand political economy, because his name is so loaded from propaganda against him. I would recommend reading almost any political economist of the past 20 years. All have been influenced by Marx' writings. But they don't follow him like following some religion. That would be dangerous.

I hesitate to recommend too much reading, but I think Howard Zinn, Naomi Klein and Nelson Mandela are some recent examples of people who are enjoyable reading, and who have been very influenced by Marxist schools of thought, along with other great schools of thought as well.

[sarisataka]

38. Good points

Capitalism almost requires the 'haves' and 'have nots' to function. On certain micro-economies this has been shown to be a false premise but on a macro level I think there is no way around it.

On the large scale, there really has been no true communist state. To greater or lesser degrees they all have ended up resembling Animal Farm. At the little end, there are very effective communist communities- though they may never have even heard of Marx.

Your democratic socialism is similar to a discussion we had in a class long ago about what a real world utopia could look like. t is not a world where everyone has equal access to resources but instead fair access. A governmental body is still needed to limit those who will try to achieve an unfair level of resources to the detriment of others.

I also agree. It is hard to read Marx and even Engels fairly due to a century of anti-communism in western nations. Cold war era persons have many prejudices and, IME, the younger generation (who actually study politics and economics more than fantasy football) is too blindly accepting of Marx as a mean to piss off us older folks.

I have read some of Zinn and Klien but never considered Mandela ( ). I will have to pick up a book or two the next time I want to read on this subject. (If history holds true, that will be tomorrow)

[lovemydog]

39. Thank you saristataka.

I've also enjoyed reading your other posts in this thread. I'd like to read some Foucalt. Any good introduction that you'd suggest. For some reason (probably sheer ignorance) I associate him with being really difficult reading. And with semiotics, which was kind of the rage when I was in grad school. Interesting though that many like us have such curiosity and desire to learn more. And I admit there are pretty huge gaps in my knowledge. I'm like you, I'll probably start devouring some of this stuff tomorrow.

[sarisataka]

42. Thanks to you as well lovemydog

Yes, Foucault is not the easiest of a read. I had a professor break things down into digestible chunks with other writings in between. Still I often had to read his work twice to get a good grip on the points he was making.

I think a good start would be The Foucault Reader. http://www.amazon.com/Foucault-Reader-Penguin-Social-Sciences/dp/0140124861/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409032297&sr=1-1&keywords=9780140124866

It is a compilation of portions of his work. It lets you "sample" his work and let you decide if you want to read one of his full works or get ideas to go in other directions

[BainsBane]

48. Excellent point about capitalism as based on Utopian fiction

As well as how and why Marx has been discredited through McCarthyism and the Cold War.

[VanGoghRocks]

72. Sigh. Is there anything specific in Marx' and Engels' corpus with which you

take issue?

[sarisataka]

89. Several items

-note I am basing my view solely on the early communist writings. I understand Marx has a much wider range of writing, but I am not familiar with much of that work.

Mainly that Marx does not account for several of the classic human flaws. In particular, greed, envy, sloth and gluttony.
Humans have fallen to these sins throughout history and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The boiled down summary "From each according to ability; to each according to need fails on all four of these."
Sloth- very few people will put out their best effort without some reward. Instead the default is to do just enough- so each will not perform to their ability.
Greed and gluttony- though some are happy with enough to cover their needs and no more, many people want more than that. If everyone has a car, someone will want a bigger better car than their neighbor. The driving force of capitalism- keeping up with the Joneses- will not go away in a communist society. Example, the perks given to high members of the Communist Party in the USSR- did any of them need a fancy Zil (funny to describe it that way) to get around? No but it was a status symbol appealing to greed.
Envy- once someone has something a bit better than their neighbor, guess what. The neighbor wants it too. Thus the cycle begins again and the communist ideal is gone.

Also the idea of a homogeneous worker class happily toiling for the good of all is not realistic. Different jobs have different demands and workers in the jobs have different ideas as to how they should be rewarded. A heavy laborer working in harsh conditions living next to a librarian in identical homes eating identical foods and owning identical items will likely be unhappy. Why should the laborer have to work harder than the librarian's easy job but receive the exact same things. Their will be little working-class unity between them.

I do agree with Marx analysis of the destructive and unfair nature of capitalism. I just do not agree that pure communism is the solution.

[VanGoghRocks]

94. So much here to take issue with, one hardly knows where to start. You're right that

Marx rejects the 7 Deadly Sins (where's Pride in your litany, btw?), not explicitly but implicitly in his rejection of 'idealism' and embrace of 'materialism'. Many of these negative traits you list Marx would view as products of a class-based society. In a Communist state (speaking theoretically), there would be no classes, hence no negative traits.

The 'homogenous worker class working for the good of all' is actually a 'homogenous worker class working for the good . . . of the homogenous worker class.'

In accepting Marx' analysis of the evils of capitalism but rejecting his proposed solutions, you sound as if you would be quite comfortable as a European-style 'Social Democrat,' (somewhat akin to Bernie Sanders here). There's nothing wrong with such a stance, save that it does not address the underlying contradiction within capitalism, i.e., its tendency to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer hands, because it leaves the means of production under private, rather than public, control.

[sarisataka]

103. Very astute

I find many elements of the social democracies appealing but as can be seen, they still have pitfalls. The Scandinavian models seem to be the best but they also have some especially beneficial historical and cultural benefits not easily replicated elsewhere.

In retrospect, neglecting pride was an oversight. As the classic authors point out, not only is it the greatest sin but it drives the others.

[ZombieHorde]

32. I think I am more

post left than left, but yeah, I often agree with Marx's view of things.

[lovemydog]

34. What's post left?

I kind of want to go even further than that. And be post post left!

[ZombieHorde]

36. Hakim Bey is probably the most famous post-left advocate.

Post left critique of the media.

&feature=player_detailpage

Post left critique of police culture.

&feature=player_detailpage

Suggestions for post left direct action.

&feature=player_detailpage

[lovemydog]

37. Thank you ZH!

I like combining traditional left with post left. I despise neoliberal theory. I like that in Paris 1968 they combined situationism, dadaism, labor, students and older folks to topple the Degaullist regime.

[joshcryer]

41. +1, post-leftism ftw.

[joshcryer]

40. I disagree with Marx on implementation, but the core ideas are sound.

And, he really didn't get in the way of much talk about implementation.

[YoungDemCA]

49. Anyone who holds that capitalism was either naturally or historically inevitable should study more

And if after doing so, if you still haven't become more skeptical of said "inevitability"... I don't know what else to tell you.

[VanGoghRocks]

73. Well, Marx himself viewed capitalism as largely inevitable and *beneficial*, although

not the terminus of human existence or economic relations.

*beneficial* when compared to the systems of slavery and feudalism that preceded it.

[shenmue]

53. Haven't read any Marx yet

It's one of those "important books" I've been meaning to get around to, but never do.

[VanGoghRocks]

75. My ambition is to read Das Kapital in German before I die. I'm going to have

set aside some serious time for that little project

[BaggersRDumb]

54. His analysis of capitalism is spot on.

Americans in general dont know who he is or what he said, all they know is they are suppose to hate him and they think liberalism is some radical thing.

Most Americans are dumb.

Doesnt have to be that way though.

[Codeine]

55. I never agree with BainsBane

but in this case there has been a vigorous but polite and very effective defense of a thesis by said poster.

Excellently done.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

74. 1. Cool avatar.

2. In my youth, I actually sat and read Das Kapital cover to cover. I've also read Adam Smith, Keynes, Minsky, and a somewhat unknown but in his time prominent financial journalist who was, for all intents and purposes, an economist also, named Einzig, who's very good on foreign exchange.
Marx's theory of labor is actually just a continuation from Smith; Wealth of Nations uses it too. A lot of the stuff is superseded by Keynes, and the only real way to understand Keynes is to understand probabilities and what's wrong with them (Taleb, who dishonestly misreads Keynes, is useful for this) and then read Minsky.
Einzig used to poke Keynes (they knew each other) for some mistakes he made in understanding foreign exchange.

Marx was pragmatic as well as a revolutionary, which was his genius and made him great in his own time; he was first and foremost for the development of trade unions, and considered them equally as important as developing a worker's party aligned with those unions. He had a radical side and a pragmatic side. Lenin leaned more radical, but he understood the pragmatic side as well, and understood, once revolutions had been quashed in Germany and Hungary, that he'd have to throttle things back for a bit. Trotsky was thoroughly a revolutionary, IMO, and I'm not too sure the USSR would have been much better off under him than under Stalin. I don't think he really had a pragmatic side capable of the day to day administration of a functioning state. We'll never know, of course.
What we do know is that if unions are weak the workers get a smaller and smaller slice of the pie. The first priority is unionization, all over the world. That was Marx's first priority as well.

[VanGoghRocks]

78. In his 1903 tract 'What is to be Done?," Lenin argues that the

Last edited Wed Aug 27, 2014, 09:00 AM - Edit history (1)

traditional social-democratic parties (of urban industrial trade unionists) would be insufficient to bring about a proletarian revolution. Instead, Lenin argued, what was needed was a vanguard workers' party to lead the revolution on behalf of all workers.

This essentially is what happened in the November 1917 revolution, when the Bolsheviks toppled Kerensky and seized power.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

90. Yes, but it's also pretty clear that Marx probably would have agreed with him.

The Paris Commune happened in Marx's lifetime. He was not opposed to actual revolution happening right then. But he recognized that revolutions aren't exactly an everyday occurrence, and in the meantime advocated unions with political parties.
The Russian Revolution was only one of many that happened across Europe at the end of WWI. The others were suppressed, leaving Russia in the lurch. I don't doubt Marx would have supported all of them.

[TBF]

93. In fact Marx did write about his views on the Paris Commune -

Here is some commentary on that: http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/3315

And from Marx himself: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm

[Benton D Struckcheon]

96. Thanks for posting that.

I probably read that somewhere along the way way back when, and still had a vague memory of him supporting the Commune.

[Matrosov]

92. I have been "accused" of being a Marxist

Though it is not an accusation against which I'm in a hurry to defend myself. I wouldn't consider myself a staunch Marxist, yet I agree with very many of his principles.

Human history is indeed a history of the Haves trying to take advantage of the Have-nots. Some circumstances have changed over the millenia, but generally speaking the relationship between the capitalist and the worker has been the same relationship of master and servant as we've had since the dawn of time.

There are aspects of Marxism and, by extension, communism, that I find overly idealistic. I'm not so sure that we could ever really live in a true classless society in which everyone works toward the common good. One would think humans could see the individual benefit of looking after each other, but too many people are too selfish to recognize that.

On the other hand, capitalism does little more than try to harness the power of that selfishness. I've also read influential works of people on the other end of the spectrum, including the libertarians, and I'd argue that in many ways they are even more hopelessly idealistic, not to mention that their motivation tends to be one of greed.

Capitalists want the freedom to exploit others, Marxists want the freedom to not be exploited by others.

I'll concede that the attempts to apply Marxist theory, like the USSR, have not always worked out very well, though ironically that's been the result of the Marxism being perverted by the greed of others (such as the leaders of the Communist party, who lived luxurious lives compared to the average Soviet worker). Yet I also find it difficult to argue that a corporate dictatorship like under which we live now is somehow more desirable.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

95. Marxism is excellent at identifying serious problems. Unfortunately, it sucks at realistic solutions

That's basically the long and short of how I see Marxism.

[Adrahil]

97. No option really matches my opinion....

I think Marx's analysis was more or less on the mark. I think his solutions are batshit crazy.