Is Marxism still relevant?

[ALago1]

I should preface this question by saying that I consider Marxism not to be a defined economic system like capitalism or communism, but rather a philosophy of history and sociology. More specifically, the basics of Marx's thought is that systems of economic organization change and evolve over time.

We've had slavery evolve into feudalism and feudalism evolve into capitalism. Logically, the next step should be that capitalism should evolve into something that would resemble socialism and eventually communism (though not the type of communism practiced by the USSR and China).

Why are people so ready to dismiss his theory? I think because they confuse Marxism with USSR communism. One of the major things that is wrong about that is that the USSR pretty much went from being a feudal pre-capitalist country straight into communism, totally bypassing the capitalist and socialist stage, which is essential in vamping up production and generating a substantial infrastructure of capital. That is NOT in line with what Marx was saying.

Any other thoughts here?

[northzax]

1. no, not at all

and really, it never was.

[asthmaticeog]

2. You're wrong. nt

[northzax]

5. no, you're wrong. (nt)

hey, this is fun!

[asthmaticeog]

7. Hey, I gave my reply as much thought

as you gave your laughably misinformed post. Fair's fair.

[northzax]

16. well I could write an 8000 word essay on it

but it's not really neccesary, nor is a commentary on why Zoroastrianism is no longer relevant in the modern world. Marx had some interesting ideas, but every implementation of them has failed miserably, and as a prophet, he hasn't been all that successful. in an ideal world, Marxism might work, but then it wasn't developed for an ideal world, his system was based on coming about because of human failings, and then failed to take those same failings into account in developing a replacement system. Q.E.D.

[asthmaticeog]

25. .

"Marx had some interesting ideas, but every implementation of them has failed miserably"

When exactly have they been implemented? I didn't see any worker control of the means of production in the USSR, or even in nations where socialism's and social democracy's ideas have been successful, like Sweden. So please cite EVERY specific failure.


"and as a prophet, he hasn't been all that successful"

Agreed - Marx's greatest failing was his utopianism. But that doesn't mean he was never relevant. You've failed to make your point yet again.


"in an ideal world, Marxism might work"

Are you just skyblueing because you have nothing REAL to say? Yes, he answered for himself, yes you are. That statement means nothing.

[northzax]

30. I believe I said

or meant to say, that the ideals had never been successfully implemented. And because they were developed for a utopian world, they never will be. They simply do not take human nature into account. in a small, voluntary community, perfect communalism might, in fact, work, for a while. But ten thousand years of human history makes a strong arguement about the base human instinct for requiring leadership and acquisition.

Marx made an intruiging case for his utopia, but like so many, failed to provide a real blueprint on how to implement it in the real world. Jesus did the same thing. love thy neighbor and all that. the proof, unfortunately, is in the pudding. Humans do not act in that manner on a consistent basis. Turn everything over to the proletariat, and you need some sort of a system in place to ensure that the more talented, greedier or more capricious don't gain more power. And that requires some sort of enforcement, which involves giving power to someone over someone else. How do you resolve the fact that someone now has power over others in some way? you can't, within the system Marx described. or maybe YOU can inform me of how that would work. How do you resolve the conflict between the guy who can work more, but refuses to, and the guy who has to pick up his slack? they're both owners of the company, what can they do? How do you reward the guy who tinkers in his garage and invents the PC, or penicillin?

If we start at the same place, and your talents and abilities far exceed mine, you spend your time off work reading, and studying and generally making yourself more productive, while I go to happy hour every night and show up for work hungover, aren't you going to be pissed off that you are producing more, more efficiently than I am, but we share the same resources? you're really willing to carry my lazy ass? come on. You're simply smarter, and harder working than I am, but what do you get for that? nothing. and you're fine with that?

I don't need to cite failures to say something isn't relevant, you need to cite successes to show that it is. You are making the positive arguement, you need to say that something CAN work, since it never has. The problem with marxism is the marxists, just like the problem with christianity is the christians.

[asthmaticeog]

40. Your burden-of-proof argument is laughable.

YOU dismissed Marxism outright. YOU needed to cite reasons.

Fun straw-man, too, with your little hangover scenario. Marx never argued against meritocracy - quite the contrary. I owe this discussion nothing further. Nice chattin'.

[northzax]

48. ok, I will cite the proof then.

I will now cite all the countries in which Marxism has been successfully implemented.

1:

ok, now what?

and to further the arguement. I suggest you read "The Critique of the Gotha Programme" Part I, especially, in which Marx clearly states that inequity in meritocracy is wrong, but inevitable in the first stage of his program. However, once society moves past the first stage, where people are rewarded more for their ability, into the utopian society, the borgeious right to get what you work for will vanish:

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

What else you got?

[asthmaticeog]

56. Disingenuous.

The proof you need to cite is countries where it was implemented and failed. I'll wait.

And I aldready said I objected to his utopianism. You ain't got shit.

[northzax]

58. you aren't commenting on his own words?

where, contrary to your statements above, Marx explicitly refutes the concept of a meritocracy as a borgeous concept that will fall away in the new society? But you said he was in favour of a meritocracy. which one is it? kind of a big point, don't you think?

Marxism hasn't been implemented successfully anywhere because in Marx's own thought process, it can't be. He knew it wasn't attainable because it requires behaviour diametrically opposed to everything human have ever known. He saw the excesses of capitalism and created a virtual world in which the excesses are the other direction. But it is bullshit and unnatainable. It's like asking where has anyone implemented a society based on people photosynthesizing? ain't gonna happen.

now, I think I've answered enough questions, so why don't you explain why Marxism is relevant as a political system? explain under what circumstances it could actually work? your turn.

[Runcible Spoon]

41. I get sick of this argument: "never successfully implemented"

look, just because it wasn't done exactly to the letter does not mean Marx's project is irrelevant. Even if you don't think Communism was ever successfully tried as a project, or ever could be, does not mean we should categorically dismiss Marx's incredibly perceptive take on the history of capitalist development. Hey, arguing that Christianity was never followed exactly as Christ wanted it (whatever that means, anyway) or even implemented in exactly the right ways as the multitude of Christian documents and their attendant sects proscribe, does not mean that Christianity is not irrelevant to a huge chunk of this planet. Insert any other religious tradition with orthodox doctrine. Literalism is always a waste of time with any social project- practicality, interpretation, and contextuality will always win out..

[northzax]

49. I think it was relevant at the time

but it was really a reaction to the current circumstances that Marx saw in his lifetime, which have basically changed. So historically, to see how things developed, it is relevant, but no more than that. There are many failed experiments that are relevant historically, but only historically.

I recall a cartoon my history teacher had on her office door: "what's the 30 years War have to do with your career? Frankly, not much." Marxism is the same, an interesting historical footnote, useful for understanding how things got to where they are now, but not all that useful for looking forward.

[Runcible Spoon]

52. I guess the gist of it is...

as long as capitalism, commodity fetishism, and class conflict still exist, then Marxism will always be relevant :)

[Bucky]

6. No, YOU are wrong!

Ha ha. I win the debate.

[baby_mouse]

13. Well *I'M* right.

So that's settled, then!

[Dr.Phool]

15. What do you have against Groucho?

The Marx Brothers are as relevent now as they ever were.

[northzax]

17. they would be the only relevant members of the extended

famille Marx.

[rman]

59. impressive arguments

:sarcasm:

[northzax]

61. which ones?

again?

[bryant69]

3. Marx's critique of Capitalism is always relevent

And always worth considering. His theories on the inevitable progress of history and on how Capitalism might be overthrown are irrelevant, and, in some ways, dangerous (not that I would favor any limitations on free speech or free thought).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ALago1]

10. Very true

Although I'd agree with the notion that his advocation of revolution to speed up evolution is not really relevant or welcome, I wouldn't say that the actual theory of dialectical materialism is disposable and shouldn't be considered.

Plus his critiques of capitalism in and of themselves are for the most part correct.

[dipsydoodle]

4. It became

just a word used to spook idiots

[wake.up.america]

8. Can't tell you how many times I have been called a communist....

don't like it.

[baby_mouse]

9. Only as a slur against anyone who doesn't vote puke. NT.

[ugarte]

11. He only seems to be irrelevant in this country

When I travel in Latin America, I meet plenty of Marxists (more of them than ever, I would say)...same in Europe. You cannot judge the world by the apathy and ignorance you see in the USA.

[originalpckelly]

12. No and I will prepare a long post so that you can understand why. (n/t)

[ohiosmith]

14. Yes. Wanna buy a duck?

[ALago1]

18. Hehe

Well THAT brand of Marxism will never fall out of relevance...

[DUHandle]

21. All hail Marx

and Lenin

[ALago1]

24. I never understood...

...why Lenin gets lumped with Marx. Engels, sure as they were both political philosophers. But Lenin really wasn't a true Marxist...

[DUHandle]

27. Here's why

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. Now more than ever

But one has to look at the entire Marxist tradition, how it evolved and changed to address the evolution of capitalist production. If one just reads Marx, you certainly learn a helluva lot about capitalism, but primarily about its mid-19th century variety. One would have to go further, and look at, say, Adorno and Horkheimer and the whole Frankfurt School tradition, one would have to look at Lukacs, one would have to look at Ernst Mandel's incredible analysis of "spatkapitalismus," even at Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt's reading in "Empire," etc. The basic fact is that few people bother to read Marx, much less the rich Marxist tradition, and usually spout the same nonsenses about political economy that Marx himself so deftly analyzed 160 years ago (as if there is a difference between the capitalist dogma of the wall Street Journal editorial page and David Ricardo!). What has dropped out of Marxist analysis a very long time ago is the version of dialectical materialism that says capitalism must, by its own weight, transform into socialism. Of course, no Marxist has really believed this for quite some time, though various capitalist ideologues pretend that this is what Marxists still believe, primarily because it is ridiculous. One would have to read Deleuze and Guattari's amazing Capitalism and Schizophrenia volumes. I think there may be five or six people on this entire board who are even qualified to define what Marxism is today, if that. This in itself might be used as evidence that marxism is irrelevant...if you follow the market theory of value, in any case. ;-)

[eallen]

20. It gets dismissed because it is a wacky, historicist theory.

The notion that there is some simple law that underlies the evolution of societies is belied by the complexity of real history. Marx had some real insights into the nature of capitalism, especially the nature of capitalism at the time that he wrote. Personally, I always get a kick out of responding to freepers with quotes from Marx where he and they are in complete alignment, quotes that smash their cartoon view of what Marx thought.

That said. The Hegelian notion borrowed by Marx that History marches to some idealistic logic simply has no basis in fact. It is philosophizing in the worst sense of the word. It is to the study of history what Intelligent Design is to the study of biology.

BTW, I don't think it purely accident that Hegelian dialectic is so easily bent to utopian movements that turn into dystopian nightmares. The idealized view of History is very easily turned into a kind of god, dividing people into those who are fighting for Progress and those who are retarding it. The fact that the fight requires a lot of damage and horror in the short term can be overlooked if one is certain of being on the right side of History, and if one believes dialectical logic makes long-term victory certain. Scary stuff. Hegel and Marx may not have meant it that way. But that just shows that Marx was as naive about philosophy as he was insightful about capitalism.

The bottom line is that, despite his claims, much of Marx's thinking was not empirical, but ideological. It was a smarter and more modern ideology than the old religions such as Christianity or Islam, and hence more tempting to educated westerners. But it is ideology still.

[ALago1]

23. A well thought out reply

But you really don't think that class struggle is one of the primary influences on how societies organize and evolve? I think history does show that...

[eallen]

28. I think it like religious struggle, ethnic or political conflict, etc.

Criticizing the notion that class struggle is the driver of history does not mean dismissing it entirely. Quite clearly, within an industry, labor and capital compete for a slice of the same revenue. That competition frequently is overwhelmed by larger economic forces that throw the entire industry into a spin, as happened with the rail industry, and also has to be seen in the context of other social issues. Is it real? Of course. So are ethnic conflict, pollution, global warming, educational issues, genetic technology, religion, demographic issues, nuclear arms races, etc.

I think Marx brought certain things into focus that remain in focus. Issues such as measures of inequality and economic mobility and their causes are hot topics, and perhaps would not be so hot were it not for Marx. That doesn't mean one has to buy into the whole ball of wax.

:hippie:

[ALago1]

31. Gotcha

Strict adherence to one person's thought is a bad idea. No one person has the perfect answer to anything.

[eallen]

26. Keep in mind that Marx saw liberalism as the enemy of communism.

And he was absolutely correct about that. Liberalism tends to be anti-credal, to make strong allowances for individualism, and to couple with capitalism. The Marxists of the mid-20th century saw, again correctly, that the social programs that were adopted in the west buttressed liberalism and they viewed them as an attempt to derail the inevitable march to communism. Where is the communal ownership of the means of production? Not in Sweden. There you get day care and parental leave and healthy pensions, but businesses are still owned by individual capitalists and investors who purchase stock shares, just as they were in Marx's day.

Being a liberal, I think that that is a good thing.

:hippie:

[ugarte]

37. Wouldn't you say, however, that without the 'threat' of Marxism

a capitalist society is less likely to liberalize? Weren't the gains of labor in the early part of the 20th century in large part due to management's fear of Marxism?

[eallen]

45. On the basis of what history I've read, that seems part of the story...

I'm leary of reading that as a rule of how things work, rather than an observation of how things occurred. Had Marx never been, there might have been other inducements and threats to some of those same reforms. Of course, the path would have been different.

There's an irony here, in that to the extent you believe in historical law determined by class struggle, the presence of a great author like Marx and the influence of the ideology he created shouldn't count for much. To the extent that ideologies have an affect on history, well.. then Marx was wrong. Since I believe both play a role, I'm allowed to point to class struggle without Marx, while simultaneously pointing out the effects of Marxism above and beyond class struggle.

:evilgrin:

[alcibiades_mystery]

65. Being a Marxist

I'd agree with Marx. And you won't catch me dead calling myself a liberal. Ugh.

[eallen]

68. Well, at least we know where each stands. But shouldn't you be in the SWP?

Of course, you'll get a more hospitable welcome here than a liberal would over at the Free Republic. This place is full of liberals, and it doesn't quite grate on us to hear about ideologies opposed to liberalism, the way it grates on the freepers to have challengers in their midst. That said, there is more distance between liberals and Marxists than there is between liberals and conservatives.

[alcibiades_mystery]

73. I'm not a Democrat, big D

Never much cared for political parties. I'm independent. Marxism does not require party affiliation.

[Odin2005]

42. Philospher Karl Popper really ass-raped Marx's historicism.

His ideas on class struggle are relavent (many historians, especially the late British historian Arnold Toynbee, give class struggle and important role in a civilizations life cycle, but his telological theory of history is nonsense. History is a mix of cyclical (rise and fall of civilizations) and linear (technology) processes. I get a real kick when my fellow socialists go on about how Marxism is scientific. Marx was about as scientific an IDer. All utopian movements end up has totalitarian governemnts if they come to power as they are forced to stifle dissent from those who do not agree with thier utopia. Utopian movements often violate human nature as well by wanting to engineer a perfect society and other Blank Slate nonsense. People on the far left need to quit idolizing Marx and try something different.

[eallen]

44. Given that, Marx's analysis of capitalism had many useful insights....

Some of which have become part of today's common outlook. That leads some people today to say that what was good about Marx was obvious, forgetting that it wasn't quite so obvious when he said it.

:hippie:

[alcibiades_mystery]

64. Marx examined the social machine of capitalism

There's much to do about the "teleological theory of history" which is always simplified into nonsenses and then hooked up to a supposed utopia - as if Marx were some sort of fool, far stupider than all the wise wise people on this very thread. Riiiiiight. Never mind that the "rise and fall" notion is itself abstract teleology with respect to any one regime (the only regime that manages to escape is capitalism itself, which tells you all you need to know about the ideological function of this doozy), or that the supposedly linear processes of technological development are always fraught with breaks, reversals of force, etc. - at the very material level that Marx would ask us to analyze. No, Marx is stupid because he supposedly thought that history would end in a utopian society. Needless to say, Marx was not this stupid, even when he came close to saying things like this (rarely). This form of abstraction is precisely what he critiqued in Hegel and the young Hegelians. Marx examined the capitalist social machine - he posited - quite rightly - that it could not sustain itself in its current form - current for his analysis, of course. This is no more "teleological" than is saying a car that is not supplied with gasoline will eventually stop moving. He was absolutely right about the form of capitalism he examined. It was unable to sustain itself. What he underestimated was its capacity to transform itself while retaining the system of exchange value. This has been the subject of the Marxist tradition for a century or more. That Popper would engage in his usual ideological attacks is not at all surprising, given his commitments, and his comical liberal notion of the open society.

[eallen]

69. You said it just right.

"What underestimated was capacity to transform itself while retaining the system of exchange value."


I think the modern economist's response to that would be: Exactly! Well put.

:hippie:

[Runcible Spoon]

43. well technically trying to make any generalization about human societies..

is ideological...empiricism will fall since it can always be argued that the criterion being measured are arbitrary, or worse yet, motive-driven...I completely agree about the need for a historical context when studying social systems, and yes there is a structuralist flavor to Marx at times, and this is a common criticism...analogous to Durkheimian notions of "collective conscience" or even better, Tylor/Spencerian "psychic unity"..cultural evolutionism and its attendant evil twin, social Darwinism should be avoided...all that said, I think Marxism can be nicely incorporated into much better political economy approaches, studies that combine the "reality" (and I mean that to say some sense of objectivity shared as a hegemonically constructed metadiscourse rather than some"thing" that actually "exists":) of struggle, economy, and political organization with localized meaning, history, context, and contradictory ideologies which both discursively shape and are shaped by, whilst sometimes threatening/reinforcing dominant mechanisms of control...

[alcibiades_mystery]

67. At no point does Marx posit "some simple law that underlies evolution"

of society.

He is always talking about material processes as they run into each other, real practices of people as they run into conflict.

The only thing ideological on this thread is an absurd simplification of Marx.

[HamdenRice]

22. Yes, just ask our elites: Marxism has been absorbed by our tradition

It is interesting that our elites tell us that Marxism is dead, yet so many of his insights -- especially those in the historical and sociological fields, as the OP suggests -- have been absorbed into our intellectual traditions of both the left and the right.

Development theory and modernization theory -- for example, absorbed a lot of Marx's ideas about the development of classes and the evolution of politics.

Historians routinely rely on Marx's theories, although many do so without attribution.

The neocons who run the country absorbed a lot of Trotskyite ideas.

If it wasn't irrelevant, it would not have been absorbed by so many other disciplines.

[kentuck]

29. Only as a boogeyman for the right...

Move on. Keep the good and discard the bad.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

32. Marxism is still important in historiography and sociology

Marx was able put forward the idea of class conflict in a relatively understandable way and "class conflict" is a widely-used (and very valid) term in contemporary historiography and sociology.

However we should not fall into the binary trap of either accepting Marx's theories 100% or rejecting everything. Personally I find Marxist historiography to be overly positivist, too singular and at times very anachronistic. However I believe his critiques of capitalism and subjugation of women to be generally on the mark and Marxism as an analytical tool is still very valid.

Marxist theories are ideology, economics and philosophy. Later in his life Marx often commented disapprovingly of the proto-communist movements that seemed to leap upon some of his economic observations and ignore everything else he observed in society and history. There is still this tendency today (to which the OP refers) where people mention Marxism and simply focus on the economics part, leaving everything else out.

Marx's ideas are best used when they are considered along with other philosophies: including L'Histoire des Mentalitiés; Feminisms; Quantative history/sociology; post-modernism and others.

[ALago1]

34. Thanks for your thoughts

I agree for the most part, and also just wanted to say that your sig pic is tripping me out lol..

[Anarcho-Socialist]

38. Thanks

Stare into the sigline for a little longer...

...and soon you'll hear my thoughts.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

39. BTW...

Why don't you set-up your DU Journal? Your OP seems like an ideal (and most worthy) journal entry.

[ALago1]

50. Yeah I definitely gotta do that soon

I love the feature but haven't found the time to do so. Thanks for the compliment on the thread though...

[Sammy Pepys]

33. As an academic interest, yes....

...but otherwise no.

[JanMichael]

35. Class conflict and expoitation are indeed relevant.

As is the historical churning of one system to another.

Actually Marx is probably more relevant today than in the heyday of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Multi-National Corporations and the gigantic economic gap between those with means and those without inside Western nation's borders as well as in the rest of the world are reaching epic proportions and something is bound to break this deadlock.

[TahitiNut]

36. Marx perfectly predicted the abuses (devolutions) of capitalism

There's no question whatsoever that the boundless exploitation of the working class ('proletariat'), elimination of the owner/operator middle class ('petty bourgeoisie'), and ever-narrowing concentration of the very wealthy bourgeoisie into a power elite, absent public controls and contrary systemic forces, is paralleling the historical development of feudalism. It should be no surprise that the appalling historical abuses of monarchies and totalitarian regimes, offset only slightly by a compliant Church and the threat of revolution, would be paralleled by the privatization of power, where private wealth literally purchases governance, reducing governing systems to mere subsidiaries of global capitalism. Following the precedent of Henry VIII, the 'Princes of Industry" have created their own sycophantic "churches," eliminiating the ameliorative influence of any humanism and sense of justice that a truly spiritual 'faith' would offer.

[RagingInMiami]

46. I think it goes against human nature

[Neil Lisst]

47. No. Harpoism is the new thing.

[originalpckelly]

51. More about US than Communism

Marxism is a optimistic ideology, but it is "George W. Bush" optimism. Instead of hoping for the best and preparing for the worst, Marxism solely relies upon hope and altruism. It assumes the members of the temporary revolutionary government will allow that governmental power to dissolve. All people are greedy. I don't care what you may think you are, if given the chance you would be greedy. Greed is a phenomenon to ensure self-preservation. There is no recourse in a nation with the temporary revolutionary government that goes wrong, save another revolution. Absolute unchecked power cannot be invested in the hands of a few or one because it will inherently be used for ill. This is why the American federal government has performed so well. Marxism was wrong, people have innate flaws. You can't fix everything. Sometimes people make it through the cracks, even if you seal them regularly.

It is actually quite interesting to note most of the problems that arise in Marxism are ones arising in the USA now. We have invested too much power in the hands of one or a few and they are greedy with that power. Members of the Republican party act exactly like little zombies, just as members of the Communist parties used to. The death of individualism is the death of individual rights and liberty, no matter how high the goals of the people killing individualism.

By the way the President is also controlling every Democrat. He is the driver of this car because it is he who we immediately oppose. He just has to support something and we will in short order disagree with it just as a knee-jerk reaction. We may not have started this "zombieism," but if we want to win the elections we will develop a centralized message.

All of this is because of the symmetry between opposing sides. We may disagree on ideology, but we must use the same administrative methods to win. This is actually on of the reasons the USA is now destabilized. We had to adapt our Republican form of government so that we could respond to a Soviet nuclear attack. Now, even though this is just a temporary pause in the Cold War, our nation is falling apart because of the centralization.

(The Cold War is not over, if you want evidence just look at how the Russian Federation handled the Kursk. Think WWI and the period after and then the rise of Hitler because of poverty. This will happen in Russia and in fact there is already the de-democratization and racial hatred beginning to form.)

[GirlinContempt]

62. There is no recourse in a nation with the temporary revolutionary governme

that goes wrong, save another revolution"

Thats the whole theory. Yeesh.

[toddaa]

53. Marx was a state socialist

So, no. Marxism is only a particular form of socialism. His nemesis in the Workers International, Mikhail Bakhunin, offered a very different anti-authoritarian form of socialism under the banner of anarchism. Authoritarian government of all stripes must be resisted. Karl Marx was very good in critiquing capitalism, but the alternative that he offered was just as bad.

Plus, I can't stand Hegel's dialectic. Boring, boring, boring. ;)

[ALago1]

54. Are you sure about that?

I haven't read him in a year or so, but I was always under the impression that Marx opposed any state or authority, and thought the "new" economic system had to be run by the people equally, with no central planning figure whatsover...

[northzax]

55. he created the handy 'transition stage'

where the people would be reeducated about what was important. that requires totalitarianism. I think that's what he means by state socialist.

[rman]

60. Was Marx ever head of state, member of government?

I think it was others who "created" totalitarianism. And then i'm thinking more along the lines of Stalin then Lenin and Trotsky.
For all i know Marx has created a theoretical foundation for socialism and communism, but not so much for totalitarianism.

[toddaa]

70. Authoritarianism and totalitarianism are not exactly the same thing

Anarchism means simply without archism. Without heirarchy. If you look at how the First International split, Marx was definitely an archist. He wanted to impose socialism via the State. The State doesn't necessarily translate into a totalitarian regime, but it does mean that there is a central authority that imposes restrictions on individual liberty. That's the fundamental difference between the anarchists and the statists.

I highly recommend AK Press' wonderful anthology of anarchist writing, No Gods, No Masters. You'll get a very different view of socialism from a non-Marxist anarchist perspective.

[rman]

71. Well, i already am anarcho-socialist

Just not very well versed in Marx.

Thanks for the clarification though.

[northzax]

75. Marx recognized that the transition to his utopia

wouldn't be easy. And his answer was that the state would have to force new behaviour onto people, and that many of the structures of the old society, including meritocracy and unequal distribution, would continue through the process of development. What he didn't lay out very well was how to make that second leap, he just thought it would happen naturally. But since we know that governments and humans are loath to relinquish power and priviledge, that's kinda the key step.

[rman]

76. Maybe Marx was correct,

maybe it will happen naturally; maybe we are seeing the beginnings of it now.

[toddaa]

57. That was Bakhunin, not Marx

Without reading anarchists like Bakhunin, Kropotkin, and Goldman, you are only getting half the story on socialism. Marxism is a heirarchical form of socialism in which the state nationalizes industry. Under anarchism, the workers either directly or through labor syndicates control industry. Both have their flaws (as in big behemoth bureaucracies), but anarcho-socialism has no central authority.

[bemildred]

63. Relevant to what?

Marx had important insights about the importance of economic factors in political history. His record as a prophet, however, stinks. There is every reason to think we are heading for an economic collapse; but a return to feudalism, or even pre-medieval social and economic organization seems far more likely than a socialist utopia, or political progress of any sort.

You are right that most Amurkins have only a stereotyped propaganda image of Marx and his successors.

The problem is that you can have all the bright utopian plans you like, but as long as they are based on the same old semi-intelligent ape-critters, you are going to wind up with a semi-intelligent ape-critter sort of society. What we need is better people. Lots of them, not better plans.

[chicofaraby]

66. Only slightly

He is relevant only because of his willingness to look at history from an economic viewpoint instead of the purely political, "who won which battle" style of historical thought.

As far as his mumbo-jumbo predictions about "progress," he's as relevant as phrenology.

[tocqueville]

72. Marx (and specially Lenin) were wrong about the proletariats role

they saw it as the new ruling class, but where it has been implemented it has always led to a mafia-type organisation and absence of democracy.

Capitalists are much more progressive (historically) than blue collars, the same way the bourgeois that started the American and French revolution were more progressive than the rednecks that were their army. But their greed is their limit.

The next ruling class will be the blogosphere, because they sit on what is really valuable today : information. Those unable to understand or even to get at the information will be ruled. The Pentagon has already understood that and started the war for supremacy.

But Marx could not foresee the Internet. It's interesting to see that in what would become the biggest capitalist country in the world, the working class has been completely fucked up, but the ruling class represented by Bush today is committing economical suicide. In Europe where the working class could seize power in several countries, the result has been in two cases extreme dictatorships with following two world wars, and today this same working class is still the major brake to development, France sadly being the worse example.

[xchrom]

74. to a certain extent -- we are all marxists.

marx set a standard to view the history of class and economics.

and we are still using his view.

even capitalists -- including modern capitalists are marxist in that he shaped the world with his writings.

and few dispute the accuracy of his historical views and economic views.

one can debate the fine points of marxian views -- or whether we can approach a marxist utopia.

that being said -- modern marxists and socialists change with the times --picking and choosing view points that they think will work -- few people engage in a 100% vision -- those who do quickly become irrelevant.