Ask a Marxist

[Debater Slayer]

(Credit goes to @JustGeorge for the idea. Thanks!)

I have seen some overgeneralizations about Marxists or implications that all of us support the USSR, China, North Korea, or any other self-proclaimed socialist or communist state. This thread is to allow more room for questions and hopefully a clearer exchange of perspectives.

Some background to start with:

• I believe socialism is best arrived at gradually and incrementally rather than through widespread violence and repression like what Lenin, Stalin, and Mao exercised. Human nature and society are simply not amenable to such abrupt, forced transformation.

• As an extension of the above, I regard a hybrid economic model, even if mostly capitalistic, as a necessary stage toward the implementation of a fully socialist system. I wouldn't support such a system unconditionally but only as a temporary and realistic compromise.

• The aspect of Marxism that I most deeply agree with is dialectical materialism, because I see it as an overarching philosophical principle rather than a strictly economic one. It can be summarized thus:

dialectical materialism, a philosophical approach to reality derived from the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. For Marx and Engels,materialism meant that the material world, perceptible to the senses, has objective reality independent of mind or spirit. They did not deny the reality of mental or spiritual processes but affirmed that ideas could arise, therefore, only as products and reflections of material conditions. Marx and Engels understood materialism as the opposite of idealism, by which they meant any theory that treats matter as dependent on mind or spirit, or mind or spirit as capable of existing independently of matter.

Dialectical materialism | Definition & Facts

• It was not until last year that I took a serious interest in Marxism, so I have yet to read much of the work of some prominent Marxist theorists such as Engels, Trotsky, and Lenin. I believe this is worth noting in this thread.

With that out of the way, feel free to ask me anything about my views and I'll do my best to answer it.

 

[Father Heathen]

What do you think of Groucho Marx?

 

[Eddi]

What do you think about neo-Marxism?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What do you think of neo-Groucho Marxism?

I'll stop now.

 

[pearl]

I confess I know little concerning Marxism, other than it was/is understood to be opposed to religion, at least Christianity. And the Church regards it as a threat. Socialism independent of God?

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

(Credit goes to @JustGeorge for the idea. Thanks!)

I have seen some overgeneralizations about Marxists or implications that all of us support the USSR, China, North Korea, or any other self-proclaimed socialist or communist state. This thread is to allow more room for questions and hopefully a clearer exchange of perspectives.

Some background to start with:

• I believe socialism is best arrived at gradually and incrementally rather than through widespread violence and repression like what Lenin, Stalin, and Mao exercised. Human nature and society are simply not amenable to such abrupt, forced transformation.

• As an extension of the above, I regard a hybrid economic model, even if mostly capitalistic, as a necessary stage toward the implementation of a fully socialist system. I wouldn't support such a system unconditionally but only as a temporary and realistic compromise.

• The aspect of Marxism that I most deeply agree with is dialectical materialism, because I see it as an overarching philosophical principle rather than a strictly economic one. It can be summarized thus:

Dialectical materialism | Definition & Facts

• It was not until last year that I took a serious interest in Marxism, so I have yet to read much of the work of some prominent Marxist theorists such as Engels, Trotsky, and Lenin. I believe this is worth noting in this thread.

With that out of the way, feel free to ask me anything about my views and I'll do my best to answer it.

What do you think a well-developed Marxist based society would look like?
Like, would there still be some form of class differences? How does a government work in a society that tries to avoid class struggles? Would it eventually grow into some kind of commonwealth made up of anarchistic communes?

 

[Debater Slayer]

What do you think of Groucho Marx?

I don't really watch comedy, so I've never watched him. He has cool glasses, though.

 

[Orbit]

There's a lot of really good Marxist-Feminist stuff out there, like Dorothy E. Smith "Conceptual Practices of Power" and other writings on standpoint theory.

 

[Debater Slayer]

What do you think about neo-Marxism?

That depends on what "neo-Marxism" refers to, as it is a very loosely defined term with no agreed-upon principles. Generally, I think "Marxism" is a sufficient term to describe my views, because adding the "neo" prefix could lead to ambiguity and misunderstanding. This is especially the case nowadays because some people seem to use the term as a catch-all for anything they regard as a conspiracy or threat to social peace.

I don't agree with all of Marx's views, especially his strict economic determinism and his utopian belief in the possibility of an entirely classless, stateless society. This disagreement might fit into some conceptions of "neo-Marxism," but I prefer to clarify it when necessary instead of using the prefix to denote it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

What do you think of neo-Groucho Marxism?

I'll stop now.

I dislike it because Groucho Marx replaced his iconic glasses with contact lenses. Such postmodernist nonsense!

 

[pearl]

I don't really watch comedy, so I've never watched him. He has cool glasses, though.

There is a doctor frequently appearing on the news answering questions on Covid, all I think of is Groucho. He has the same shaped face, eyebrows and glasses etc.

 

[Eddi]

That depends on what "neo-Marxism" refers to, as it is a very loosely defined term with no agreed-upon principles. Generally, I think "Marxism" is a sufficient term to describe my views, because adding the "neo" prefix could lead to ambiguity and misunderstanding. This is especially the case nowadays because some people seem to use the term as a catch-all for anything they regard as a conspiracy or threat to social peace.

I don't agree with all of Marx's views, especially his strict economic determinism and his utopian belief in the possibility of an entirely classless, stateless society. This disagreement might fit into some conceptions of "neo-Marxism," but I prefer to clarify it when necessary instead of using the prefix to denote it.

I think that neo-Marxism accounts for how the capitalist system managed to survive and defeat revolutionary socialism, which Marx thought would inevitably triumph

Max Weber is a much better social theorist than Marx anyway IMO

 

[Debater Slayer]

I confess I know little concerning Marxism, other than it was/is understood to be opposed to religion, at least Christianity. And the Church regards it as a threat. Socialism independent of God?

Multiple prominent Marxist theorists were conspicuously anti-religious, including Lenin and Trotsky. Marx himself saw religion as a "sigh of the oppressed" and a tool of control. Lenin also carried out purges against the clergy.

I strongly oppose state atheism, myself, and I believe that the state should be secular and guarantee freedom of religion. State atheism is, in my opinion, the mirror image of theocracy, albeit with an anti-religious flavor.

 

[Revoltingest]

• As an extension of the above, I regard a hybrid economic model, even if mostly capitalistic, as a necessary stage toward the implementation of a fully socialist system. I wouldn't support such a system unconditionally but only as a temporary and realistic compromise.

Does this mean that your ultimate goal
is the elimination of all capitalism?

 

[Debater Slayer]

What do you think a well-developed Marxist based society would look like?
Like, would there still be some form of class differences? How does a government work in a society that tries to avoid class struggles? Would it eventually grow into some kind of commonwealth made up of anarchistic communes?

This is a very broad question, and it's hard to answer it without specifying at least a few areas of focus because theory can only predict so much of practical application and the challenges that arise stochastically in the process.

I definitely think there would still be class differences, albeit greatly minimized compared to now. The government would, first and foremost, be democratic and not heavily centralized as in the USSR, because the latter approach simply leads to abuse and corruption. Human nature is too unreliable to be trusted with that much concentrated power without democracy, let alone over the long term.

I'm not an anarchist, and I believe the state will always have a crucial function in society. This is why I believe that Marx's vision of a classless, stateless society is overly idealistic. Humans will never perfectly regulate themselves on a larger scale, like a country of millions, without some form of oversight and regulation by another entity like the state.

Human greed and ambition also ensure that a fully classless society will probably never happen. Instead, one can be realistic and account for these human flaws by pursuing an approximated vision of an ideal society while acknowledging that such a society will never exist in practice. The function of the (democratic) state in that context would be to provide necessary regulation, law enforcement, education, social security, etc., without overstepping (e.g., repressing dissent or censoring political criticism).

 

[Debater Slayer]

Does this mean that your ultimate goal
is the elimination of all capitalism?

As in private ownership altogether? No. Private ownership has its place, but it shouldn't dictate social norms, laws, and politics nearly as much as it currently does. The power of wealth to influence these domains would be greatly reduced and ideally eliminated. The latter is a perfect scenario that I don't think would be plausible, though, so reduction of influence is a more realistic goal.

 

[Debater Slayer]

There's a lot of really good Marxist-Feminist stuff out there, like Dorothy E. Smith "Conceptual Practices of Power" and other writings on standpoint theory.

Thanks for the recommendation! I'll look up the book.

 

[Nakosis]

(Credit goes to @JustGeorge for the idea. Thanks!)

I have seen some overgeneralizations about Marxists or implications that all of us support the USSR, China, North Korea, or any other self-proclaimed socialist or communist state. This thread is to allow more room for questions and hopefully a clearer exchange of perspectives.

Some background to start with:

• I believe socialism is best arrived at gradually and incrementally rather than through widespread violence and repression like what Lenin, Stalin, and Mao exercised. Human nature and society are simply not amenable to such abrupt, forced transformation.

• As an extension of the above, I regard a hybrid economic model, even if mostly capitalistic, as a necessary stage toward the implementation of a fully socialist system. I wouldn't support such a system unconditionally but only as a temporary and realistic compromise.

• The aspect of Marxism that I most deeply agree with is dialectical materialism, because I see it as an overarching philosophical principle rather than a strictly economic one. It can be summarized thus:

Dialectical materialism | Definition & Facts

• It was not until last year that I took a serious interest in Marxism, so I have yet to read much of the work of some prominent Marxist theorists such as Engels, Trotsky, and Lenin. I believe this is worth noting in this thread.

With that out of the way, feel free to ask me anything about my views and I'll do my best to answer it.

I'd think a problem for dialectical materialism is would be in the latest thinking that what we consciously perceive as reality is not objective reality but a prediction of of reality as conceived of by our mind. So, we can't solely rely on our perceptions for knowledge of reality.
Basically our perception of reality can contain errors we wouldn't even be aware of.
This i think would limit the reliability of dialectical materialism.

 

[Revoltingest]

As in private ownership altogether? No.

I'm not clear on what that means.
Let's divide up "private ownership" into 2 types
relevant to socialism vs communism...
Owning the means of production vs private property
(eg, homes, cars).

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'd think a problem for dialectical materialism is would be in the latest thinking that what we consciously perceive as reality is not objective reality but a prediction of of reality as conceived of by our mind. So, we can't solely rely on our perceptions for knowledge of reality.
Basically our perception of reality can contain errors we wouldn't even be aware of.
This i think would limit the reliability of dialectical materialism.

Our perception and experience of material conditions still shape our views, actions, and interactions with others, which is what I understand to be the crux of dialectical materialism. Our perception doesn't have to be a perfect reflection of reality in order to have this influence.