Marxism as a Lived Tradition

[Kirran]

My view of religion tends to be one that defines them rather more by how they function as lived experiences, the values they inspire and how they are practiced and understood by their adherents. This is somewhat in opposition to the idea prevailing in the Mediterranean and Western worlds which sees religions as sets of truth claims and imperatives, differing from which casts you out of the fold. This is what religious orthodoxy tends to be about, and the "Protestant atheists" making up much of the more vocal irreligious demographic in the West is similar in its outlook.

But for some reason, it seems I've been looking at Marxism more in the sense of that abstract, pure set of doctrines and ideals. I noticed this after flipping tabs from a Michael Muhammad Knight article to a thread where @Laika was talking about his ideology's historical relationship with sexuality, and caught myself half-wondering why he was so concerned with what people claiming the same ideology had done when they didn't represent him.

I've never seen anarchism in this light, but that's because I see it as less an ideology that an organisational expression of basic moral and social principles.

However, as regards Marxism maybe it actually makes a lot more sense to treat it as a living and evolving tradition, defined not so much by what Marx said 150 years ago but by what people identified or associated with the tradition understand it to be now and what they're saying and doing. As a social movement which is attempting to change society, an unchanging view of it might not be the most healthy.

So there's that. Anyone have any opinions on Marxism as set of pure ideals expressed in different cultural environments/dealing with different issues as they arise vs. lived tradition non-separate from those environments?

 

[Laika]

My view of religion tends to be one that defines them rather more by how they function as lived experiences, the values they inspire and how they are practiced and understood by their adherents. This is somewhat in opposition to the idea prevailing in the Mediterranean and Western worlds which sees religions as sets of truth claims and imperatives, differing from which casts you out of the fold. This is what religious orthodoxy tends to be about, and the "Protestant atheists" making up much of the more vocal irreligious demographic in the West is similar in its outlook.

But for some reason, it seems I've been looking at Marxism more in the sense of that abstract, pure set of doctrines and ideals. I noticed this after flipping tabs from a Michael Muhammad Knight article to a thread where @Laika was talking about his ideology's historical relationship with sexuality, and caught myself half-wondering why he was so concerned with what people claiming the same ideology had done when they didn't represent him.

I've never seen anarchism in this light, but that's because I see it as less an ideology that an organisational expression of basic moral and social principles.

However, as regards Marxism maybe it actually makes a lot more sense to treat it as a living and evolving tradition, defined not so much by what Marx said 150 years ago but by what people identified or associated with the tradition understand it to be now and what they're saying and doing.

So there's that. Anyone have any opinions on Marxism as set of pure ideals expressed in different cultural environments/dealing with different issues as they arise vs. lived tradition non-separate from those environments?

The most creative moments I get the buzz because I can think of it like being an explorer. Marxism is supposed to be a science (it's debatable) so learning the history and the theory is a process of discovery. It's one great adventure into the unknown- and there may be monsters lurking in the shadows!

Marxists usually have a rough idea of the destination they are heading, I.e. Communism. They may of course be significant disagreement as to what that actually is or looks like. Some may think it's national, others international. Some think you can get there over night, others that it could take centuries. The interesting ones are often those that jump out at you as unexpected.

But the sheer number of routes to that destination is what gives Marxism its diversity and its unpredictability. I'd obviously like to take a pro-lgbt route as a gay guy, but that's not the only possible path and historically isn't even the most used one. It is a living tradition in the sense of you have to find your way there. The theory is a compass so you need it to find directions. Getting lost occasionally is part of the journey.

Communism is an unknown country. we've never been there and never seen it as a sort of "finished" product. What we've had lots of attempts and transitional stages of "socialism". Some we may like and others we won't. Either way you have to use the history as a rough "map" of the terrain to see what is possible. Having a knowledge of those theories and parts of history is important just to give you a sense of where you are, what's been tried before, how it turned out and what's possible.

In so far as Communism is utopian, it has the goal of creating the "new man" and the "new woman" of the ideal society. Part of that means living out your ideals- sometimes it's big but mostly it's small deatils. Everything you do becomes part of this bigger picture. often it's subtle and you learn to live within the gradations and uncertainty- as life is never absolute. It stops being an ideology when you learn to "walk the walk".

Whilst Communism is not a "religion" on paper- the experience of living with it as both a relationship with reality and an inner experience of searching for and trying to realise an idealised self is absolutely identical with religion. There isn't really another word that adequately communicates how personal and intimate it is as a belief system. It is a leap of faith into the unknown.

 

[Kirran]

You were bi last time we talked!

The most creative moments I get the buzz because I can think of it like being an explorer. Marxism is supposed to be a science (it's debatable) so learning the history and the theory is a process of discovery. It's one great adventure into the unknown- and there may be monsters lurking in the shadows!

Marxists usually have a rough idea of the destination they are heading, I.e. Communism. They may of course be significant disagreement as to what that actually is or looks like. Some may think it's national, others international. Some think you can get there over night, others that it could take centuries. The interesting ones are often those that jump out at you as unexpected.

But the sheer number of routes to that destination is what gives Marxism its diversity and its unpredictability. I'd obviously like to take a pro-lgbt route as a gay guy, but that's not the only possible path and historically isn't even the most used one. It is a living tradition in the sense of you have to find your way there. The theory is a compass so you need it to find directions. Getting lost occasionally is part of the journey.

Communism is an unknown country. we've never been there and never seen it as a sort of "finished" product. What we've had lots of attempts and transitional stages of "socialism". Some we may like and others we won't. Either way you have to use the history as a rough "map" of the terrain to see what is possible. Having a knowledge of those theories and parts of history is important just to give you a sense of where you are, what's been tried before, how it turned out and what's possible.

In so far as Communism is utopian, it has the goal of creating the "new man" and the "new woman" of the ideal society. Part of that means living out your ideals- sometimes it's big but mostly it's small deatils. Everything you do becomes part of this bigger picture. often it's subtle and you learn to live within the gradations and uncertainty- as life is never absolute. It stops being an ideology when you learn to "walk the walk".

Whilst Communism is not a "religion" on paper- the experience of living with it as both a relationship with reality and an inner experience of searching for and trying to realise an idealised self is absolutely identical with religion. There isn't really another word that adequately communicates how personal and intimate it is as a belief system. It is a leap of faith into the unknown.

I'm glad you mentioned it as a science, I was kind of meaning to go more into this in my initial post. This (an ideology as a methodology and way of approaching living and reasoning) is something not found in that I can tell Abrahamism, but somewhat aligns with Daoist ways of approaching tradition, and to an extent Buddhist and Hindu ways. I am not sure if this fits in with my first definition of seeing an ideology as having an abstract purity that exists beyond circumstance, or whether this is a third option. I'm inclined to feel it fits in with the former view, as surely in practice a methodology is inseparable from its usage, and any declaration of correctness/orthodoxy is only imposed from a particular perspective.

What you reckon?

 

[Laika]

You were bi last time we talked!



I'm glad you mentioned it as a science, I was kind of meaning to go more into this in my initial post. This (an ideology as a methodology and way of approaching living and reasoning) is something not found in that I can tell Abrahamism, but somewhat aligns with Daoist ways of approaching tradition, and to an extent Buddhist and Hindu ways. I am not sure if this fits in with my first definition of seeing an ideology as having an abstract purity that exists beyond circumstance, or whether this is a third option. I'm inclined to feel it fits in with the former view, as surely in practice a methodology is inseparable from its usage, and any declaration of correctness/orthodoxy is only imposed from a particular perspective.

What you reckon?

Marxists define truth in terms of "what works" in a very practical sense. The term for it is the "unity of theory and practice". There are certian fixed points within it (namely materialism) but the dialectical nature of Marxism means it does have a more "eastern" qualitity than comparing it with the abrahamic religions. Marxism has its share of literalists and fundamentalists who quote lenin, marx. I just don't use it that way as the scope of the tradition is vast enough to accomodate that. I think that more or less answers your question?

I'm sort of bi/gay. I haven't fantasied about women for a while though.

 

[Laika]

@Kirran

This may be helpful. The first chapter actually spells out the need to find the "way" to be Communist.

How to Be a Good Communist

 

[Kirran]

Marxists define truth in terms of "what works" in a very practical sense. The term for it is the "unity of theory and practice". There are certian fixed points within it (namely materialism) but the dialectical nature of Marxism means it does have a more "eastern" qualitity than comparing it with the abrahamic religions. Marxism has its share of literalists and fundamentalists who quote lenin, marx. I just don't use it that way as the scope of the tradition is vast enough to accomodate that. I think that more or less answers your question?

It's interesting, but I'm not sure it does exactly answer my question. Or if it does, I'm not getting it.

For example, most Muslims will believe that there is a pure Islam that exists independent of how some people might practice it. That regardless of how different people understand Islam, there is a true form of it which we should aspire to. Some Muslims differ on this, of course (like MMK, mentioned). This pure form is something which they may feel they follow, but is ultimately something abstract and independent of reality on the ground. This gives rise to a rejection of the idea that a tradition might evolve, that there can be change and development, and the villification of innovation. This isn't found in all traditions, with some accepting that they are evolving both in understanding and in practice, and aren't bound to a historical moment of perfect revelation.

Would you say that most Marxists see their tradition in a way which can be pigeonholed into one of these two categories? I.e. is there 'Marxism' outside how people do Marxism?

I'm sort of bi/gay. I haven't fantasied about women for a while though.

Putting yourself in a box so people can generalise about you is very important.

@Kirran

This may be helpful. The first chapter actually spells out the need to find the "way" to be Communist.

How to Be a Good Communist

Thanks, I had a quick look through, I'll keep the tab up for later reading

 

[Laika]

It's interesting, but I'm not sure it does exactly answer my question. Or if it does, I'm not getting it.

For example, most Muslims will believe that there is a pure Islam that exists independent of how some people might practice it. That regardless of how different people understand Islam, there is a true form of it which we should aspire to. Some Muslims differ on this, of course (like MMK, mentioned). This pure form is something which they may feel they follow, but is ultimately something abstract and independent of reality on the ground. This gives rise to a rejection of the idea that a tradition might evolve, that there can be change and development, and the villification of innovation. This isn't found in all traditions, with some accepting that they are evolving both in understanding and in practice, and aren't bound to a historical moment of perfect revelation.

Would you say that most Marxists see their tradition in a way which can be pigeonholed into one of these two categories? I.e. is there 'Marxism' outside how people do Marxism?



Putting yourself in a box so people can generalise about you is very important.





Thanks, I had a quick look through, I'll keep the tab up for later reading

Marxism makes a claim to be objectively true. So there is a "Marxism" outside of how "Marxists" do it, which is a source for a lot of internal conflict over who has the true or correct interpretation of Marxism.

But at the same time Marxism is a science. It's based on evidence and practical applications and finding ways to apply its philosophy. It's claim to the status of knowledge means it is both open to practical application and at risk of corruption.

So I think it may be a bit of both?

 

[Kirran]

Marxism makes a claim to be objectively true. So there is a "Marxism" outside of how "Marxists" do it, which is a source for a lot of internal conflict over who has the true or correct interpretation of Marxism.

But at the same time Marxism is a science. It's based on evidence and practical applications and finding ways to apply its philosophy. It's claim to the status of knowledge means it is both open to practical application and at risk of corruption.

So I think it may be a bit of both?

OK, I see. Thanks for your input, as the resident Marxist.

Do you have the correct interpretation? I should hope so!