Understanding Marxism

Economics Political Theory
1

Let me start by saying that I have an unusual way of learning. I found that I’m resistant to sitting down and reading a book, and learning. I learn much better by debating with people, and trying to pick out inconsistencies in their reasoning, and I come to conclusions by sympathizing with the inverse of their fallacious thought process. I came to the Austrian school, by way of realizing that Left-wingers hadn’t a clue of how economics worked. I know most of the Austrian school and libertarian political theory without reading a single book, and by reading, max, 100 articles. I have my own sort of unique hueristic when it comes to learning, and it relies on others. I’m very much a group learner, which is why I’ve come here today to ask about Marxism.

I’ve found it impossible to not only debate with Marxists, but to understand Marxism and Marxists themselves. I can connect with Socialists, Anarchists, whoever, really, by finding a chink in their armor and digging underneath it. I’m a polemicist at heart. Debating with Marxists is impossible because the entire time you’re trying to convince them that capitalism is not as they see it or perceive it, but how austro-libertarians conceptualize it. I do what Stefan Molyneux refers to as ‘arguing from first principles’ when debating with a Marxist, and it never gets past the starting point. I have a hard time sympathizing with pretty much ANY Marxist view, because the entire Marxist school of thought rests on one central pillar: Exploitation Theory. Socialists to me, are just misguided populists, whereas Marxists are on another planet. You can talk some sense into a Socialist, but Marxists are so wrapped up in dialectics and from what seems to be this pathological drive to be some post-modern intellectual, that I can’t learn anything about Marxism. Over the years, I’ve come to understand the nuances of various political philosophies by debating with people, and eliciting an emotional response which allows you to understand what’s going on in their brain and understand the nuances of their philosophy. Marxists seem to bury themselves in a contrived, self-affirming echo chamber/feedback loop which makes this approach impossible.

My question is really, what do you know about Marxists? What makes them tick? What have you observed from psychoanalysing them? Any insights would be appreciated, because I’ve been consistently debating Marxists for a good while now, almost never with any progress.

To me, Marxism seems like a giant TED talk of divising different ways to get people to hate capitalism. Am I wrong? A Marxist I was debating with recently said that Marxism was ‘the most nuanced, sometimes most complex political theory the world has seen’. I’ve been exposed to a little bit of post/Neo-Marxists, like Zizek, and the only complex thing I see about Marxism, is how they can rant and rave so long about a topic that fundamentally starts from a flawed beginning point, and how voluminous their works are, for what seemingly amounts to nothing. Marxism seems to be left-wing populism mixed with right-wing authoritarianism, topped with a large dose of ‘I know what’s best for you’ technocracy (In other words, a typical Revolutionary Leftist), and an ingredient that I can’t put my finger on, which clearly separates Marxists from the rest of the RevLeft.

Help me understand Marxism. I’ll accept light reading, but really the questions contained in this thread are what’s holding me back. Thanks in advance for any and all help.

2

Marxism - A Materials List

Here you go.

3

You should also realize that Marxism has be broken up into various sub-schools of thought which began around 1899 with Eduard Bernstein’s work called Evolutionary Socialism. It goes through various changes based upon different countries such as France, Germany and Russia. The most technical piece that would help you understand all of it is Leszik Kolakowski’s worked The Main Currents of Marxism which is a three volume set of the development of Marxism up to the mid 20th century. For 20th century Marxists, I would generally focus on the Analytical School which is headed by G.A. Cohen. His work Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defence is actually pretty good and worth reading. It would be good to have your discussant tell you which school he/she subscribes to because someone that follows Cohen’s work isn’t going to be huge on dialectical methods like Marx was, nor will someone who follows Bernstein be keen upon the deterministic nature of historical development. If you are looking for some light reading then I would recommend Alexander Gray’s The Socialist Tradition: Moses to Lenin.

You should also realize, if you haven’t already, that not all socialists are Marxists. It’s can be argue that many of todays schools which constitute “Marxism” aren’t actual Marxist. You will usually just run into people who want wealth redistribution, fair wages, etc. and try to pass that off as Marxist. I call it dark matter socialism because it’s everywhere and yet means nothing. It’s just there to fill the gaps between what people are actually focusing on.

4

I have this same difficulty. I have had an ongoing debate with a true-blooded Marxist for about 3 months now. He literally talks in circles, and throws Ad-Hom’s readily, which I have pointed out negates his whole ideal of Moral Relativism. Using moral justification of the worker class, and the downtrodden while ignoring the economic realities I have made blantantly obvious already.

I have concluded that Marxism is more of a Political Religion, than a realistic socioeconomical system. Even the term socioeconomics comes from this ideology. Most of how the modern political landscape is defined these days is derived from Marxist ideology, which makes the debate difficult, because you are using their terminology. They seem to be making it up as they go along, and really have no clue what they are doing for the most part.

5

Karl Marx Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry

6

I think the whole point is he doesn’t want to read anything. He wants to know how you guys think about and express the issue.

I don’t think there is, or ever was a concise “Marxism.” Marx even replied once, in response to die-hard revolutionaries who opposed all forms of reformism, “if that is marxism, I am certainly no Marxist.” (Je ne suis Marxiste or something like that lol).

There was even a dichotomy within Marx, between the Communist Manifesto Marx, and the Das Kapital Marx.

Talking to marxists? I’m really on their side in a lot of issues. But I just try to remind them that

is not, nor cannot serve as a genuine implementation of revolutinary worker empowerment. Statist institutions serve to protect themselves first, and everything else after. Bring up Kronsdat. That was really the turning point where the Bolshevicks hijacked the emerging worker’s state and created an arm of tyranny.

7

The whole idea of a “worker class” is a myth. The only people that can not be considered “workers” are those that live on welfare.

8

That’s not exactly true. And I think Marx would agree with me. The proletariat was not, in his mind, a static caste system. And it did include some of those on welfare and unemployment. Tho the perpetual free-loaders would be considered lumpenproles.

The class is just a meaningful tool to analyze one’s relation to the means of production. If you have no private controlling access to it, you are a proletariat. This includes many, if not most, managers, and day traders.

A worker who saves money and starts a private business would be a bourgie. But a worker who saves money and starts a co-op, or a non-profit or something would still be considered a prole.

That’s another thing. Marxists don’t talk about entrepreneurs, in my experience. Bring that up.

9

The whole idea of a “worker class” is a myth. The only people that can not be considered “workers” are those that live on welfare

This is just bonkers (although still not as bonkers as the ‘seasteading’ thread).

10

The statement above that marxism is just political religion is my beleif also. marxists behave like fundementalist Christians.They refuse to accept evidence and lie constantly.

It is pointless to debate them.Just try and marginalise their influence.

11

'I think the whole point is he doesn’t want to read anything. He wants to know how you guys think about and express the issue. ’

Getting information from one source (in this case, just discussion) is never a good idea.

'I don’t think there is, or ever was a concise “Marxism.” Marx even replied once, in response to die-hard revolutionaries who opposed all forms of reformism, “if that is marxism, I am certainly no Marxist.” (Je ne suis Marxiste or something like that lol). ’

Can you cite that? There is a concise definition of what is Marxism, there are just various sub-schools like I stated previously.

‘There was even a dichotomy within Marx, between the Communist Manifesto Marx, and the Das Kapital Marx.’

Yes the supposeded young Marx and old Marx. I don’t think there is any validity to this claim though because throughout his life, in each of his works, Marx was trying to explore and define the concept of “alienation” which was pivotal to the development of history.

12

‘That’s not exactly true. And I think Marx would agree with me. The proletariat was not, in his mind, a static caste system. And it did include some of those on welfare and unemployment. Tho the perpetual free-loaders would be considered lumpenproles.’

Marx would not agree with you because once one was a proletaraite there was nothing one can do about it except overthrow the Capitalist system. That was the whole point about the fall of Capitalism. It would polarize the world into two classes proletariate and bourgeosise. Through competition and centralization of capital, the bourgeosise would become proletariate till there we so few bourgeosise left that the greater mass of proletariate, achieveing class consciousness, would overthrow the dictatorship of the bourgeiosise and install the dictatorship of the prolertariate. The premise that a proletariate can break free from their class and obtain wealth on the scale of a bourgeoisise is nothing but bourgeosise socialism which Marx ciriticized Proudhon for in The Communist Manifesto.

‘A worker who saves money and starts a private business would be a bourgie. But a worker who saves money and starts a co-op, or a non-profit or something would still be considered a prole.’

Bourgeosise are born into their class and a proletariate cannot “save” money to open a business. They live on subsistence and have no access to the means of production according to Marx.

13

'There was even a dichotomy within Marx,

Max Stirner has that affect on people trying to speak nonsense. Check out Marx ramble, stammer, and wiggle his way in nonsense and non arguments in The German Ideology to see the “break”.

14

I second the recommend for Leszek Kolakowski’s Main Currents of Marxism. It’s the definitive work on Marxism.

15

I know you don’t want to do any reading, but to be honest you will never learn anything to a high standard unless you do so. That’s just the way it is. Reading may not come natural but it is a learnt skill - the more you do it the easier it gets.

I would suggest also that you should read Marx if you want to learn about Marxism, but also read him alongside an accompanying guidebook. If you genuinly can’t get round to reading anything then head over to David Harvey’s website and watch the series of lectures he has on Das Kapital.

16

Thanks for the good advice, Laotzu del Zinn, this will come in handy. I have another question for you. How would you go about convincing a Marxist that everything is an economic transaction. I’ve found trying to explain that, and praxeology, etc., is practically impossible.

Also, it’s not necessarily true that I don’t want to ‘read anything’, I will read stuff that’s pertinent, but I’m mainly trying to figure out what makes Marxists tick. Marxists seem pretty devoid of emotion, whereas with a Socialist it’s easier to identify their populist emotional appeals. The Marxists I debate with don’t make their populist emotional appeals like socialists do; they have populist sentiments, but they seem driven by something other than emotional appeal.

17

“Thanks for the good advice, Laotzu del Zinn, this will come in handy. I have another question for you. How would you go about convincing a Marxist that everything is an economic transaction. I’ve found trying to explain that, and praxeology, etc., is practically impossible.”

Because not everything is an economic transaction.

“Also, it’s not necessarily true that I don’t want to ‘read anything’, I will read stuff that’s pertinent, but I’m mainly trying to figure out what makes Marxists tick. Marxists seem pretty devoid of emotion, whereas with a Socialist it’s easier to identify their populist emotional appeals. The Marxists I debate with don’t make their populist emotional appeals like socialists do; they have populist sentiments, but they seem driven by something other than emotional appeal”

Because Marx thought his system was scientific. It would be like trying to disprove that water is H2o to them. That is why you have to disprove it by showing the contradictions. Laws of historical development cannot have contradictions for they cease to be laws then.

18

Care to clarify, or are you just stammering for a vitrolic reply?

This is simply not true. To say otherwise is to ignore the very basis of the idea of economics. Every action you take in the real world

is based on economics. Whether you decide to grow your own food, or buy at the grocer. Whether you chose to live in a commune, or work on Wall Street. Economics is not simply about money and it’s usage. It’s about all transactions that allow any standard of living. Whether you barter to live with labor, or pay with stored wealth for other good’s. The only thing that does not relate to economics is death, and even that can be brought in if you live in a nation where a coroner and funeral home are brought into the situation.

19

"This is simply not true. To say otherwise is to ignore the very basis of the idea of economics. Every action you take in the real world

is based on economics. Whether you decide to grow your own food, or buy at the grocer. Whether you chose to live in a commune, or work on Wall Street. Economics is not simply about money and it’s usage. It’s about all transactions that allow any standard of living. Whether you barter to live with labor, or pay with stored wealth for other good’s. The only thing that does not relate to economics is death, and even that can be brought in if you live in a nation where a coroner and funeral home are brought into the situation."

Then what is sleep? Is this an economic transaction that we are having right now? Don’t become the the Thales of economics, thinking everything in the world is made up of economics.

20

If you understand classical Greek, you know it’s a conceptual language, much like the language of present day Asia.

Economics is derived from the Classical Greek word Eco- (actually oikos in Greek) and nomo.

Oikos (eco) with means indirectly house or environment. Directly it refer’s to the area of being or living.

Nomos means indirectly rules, natural laws or laws of the government. Directly it refer’s to the concept of a general system rules that are unflexible without consequence.

Sleep is an exchange of a period of down time for the physical body to repair itself in exchange for mental stability and physical health. It’s a direct exchange. It falls clearly under root word example of Economics from the base concepts laid out by the Greek’s.

Yes this an economic transaction that is taking place between you, me and everyone on the Internet that reads this. Whether you recognize it or not, we are all exchanging idea’s for the betterment of each other to further the thought process in the concept of promoting further exchanges and idea’s to be formed. This is why open dialogue is valuable, because to helps to build relationships where idea’s can be “purchased” at the expense of time spent during open discourse.

Everything is Economics. Please do refrain from telling other’s what they should and should not do.

If I’m to be referred to as Thales, I would think that to be a complement. I’m hardly that accomplished however, and I doubt I would ever attain such a noteriety when surrounded by far greater mind’s than myself.