The influence of Karl Marx.

jonniebgood1

Many countries claim or claimed (refering to 20th century also) to be Marxist in their nature, yet they pay little more than passing reference to the observations of Karl Marx. In current times the mere mention of the dreaded word 'Communism' has people running to hide the family silver. This is most likely due to the failures of states that attempted to run doctrines. In broad terms Marxist theory has been associated with these states as their aim and almost as a justification for all manner of violent means that were used to gain control. Marxism saw community at the centre of the governing principle rather than money and I don't see many examples of this succeeding.

As a starting question I would ask for examples from history of where people see examples of states that abided by Marxist theories or principles.

I do not know of any perfect examples but certain periods of time in some countries may have some characteristics. The Communist manifesto is a good starting point and not overly long description of some of these theories. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/61

Jolly Red Giant

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

As a starting question I would ask for examples from history of where people see examples of states that abided by Marxist theories or principles.

Russia 1917-1924 (despite being forced to defend the country from invasion by 21 western powers and fight off the white army).

Dr.Nightdub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

This is most likely due to the failures of states that attempted to run doctrines.

You could just as easily argue that it was due to the isolation of regimes that were attempting to move in that direction - apart from the example of Russia highlighted by JRG, other examples would be Barcelona in the early stages of the Spanish Civil War (vividly described in Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia") or Chile in 1973.

Other examples people might point to would be Cuba since 1959, Nicaragua under the Sandanistas in the 1980s, or even Venezuela under Chavez today. All certainly incorporate elements of socialist thinking and the first two were certainly heavily influenced by Marxism. However, I'd argue that these are more properly described as left-wing nationalist regimes which, under pressure of the isolation I mentioned earlier, end up having to adapt themselves to try to survive in a capitalist world and in the process, run into a contradiction in terms: Marxist and capitalist states can't co-exist.

Part of the problem with answering the question is there's no single definition of what constitutes a "Marxist state", just as there is no single model of a capitalist state - we live in one, but so did Egyptians before last year and they still do today; that particular conundrum can't be answered by reference to democracy as neither end of the spectrum has exclusive rights to democracy - it was practiced in Bolshevik Russia and is also practiced today in the USA.

States may well describe themselves as Marxist, or be viewed by some as Marxist - e.g. China and eastern Europe after WW2 - but then you get into the whole discussion of what constitutes Marxism / socialism / communism and that's probably a bit off-topic for a history forum.

Reekwind

jonniebgood1 wrote:

As a starting question I would ask for examples from history of where people see examples of states that abided by Marxist theories or principles

That's a bit of a wild goose chase given that "Marxist theories or principles" have themselves undergone continual evolution

Is there a society that corresponds to exactly what Marx wrote in the 19th C? Yes, it's called capitalism; Marx's writings being overwhelmingly concerned with the economic system in which he lived and witnessed. These were later turned into 'Marxism' by the late 19th C Social Democrats... a very different Marxism from what we know today, largely a product of the early 20th C Russian experience

So while we can point periods or policies that were entirely out of step with both the spirit and letter of what Marx wrote, I'd be hesitant in asking the reverse. Even in the 1930s USSR, when 'Marxism' had fossilised into dogma and the 'proletarian state' was practically at war with the proletariat, the policies and decisions were still justified as being in accordance with "Marxist theories or principles"

jonniebgood1

Reekwind wrote: »

That's a bit of a wild goose chase given that "Marxist theories or principles" have themselves undergone continual evolution

I mean in a pure sense, i.e. the sense of communal ownership, people work not for their own benefit but for the good of the community. A huge social change. If I go down that route I will move thread to philosophy.

Reekwind

Then no. The 1936 Soviet Union Constitution (plus associated speeches) claimed that the first stage of a communist society (ie, socialism) had already been reached in the USSR. (A point reiterated in 1938 as the victory of socialist construction.) This was obviously not the case

jonniebgood1

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Russia 1917-1924 (despite being forced to defend the country from invasion by 21 western powers and fight off the white army).

The introduction of Lenins NEP in 1921 saw the re-introduction of open market policies, basically peasant farmers as the best example were able to sell their surplus produce (whilst paying requisition quotas) as opposed to giving it all over to their communities as had been the case under 'war communism'. Marxist ideals would see the profiteers from this arrangement under the NEP as the creation of a new class. The NEP can be claimed to be a transitional stage but if we take Communism as described in Marx and Engels manifesto then this does was not described in the way that it could be said the Russian revolution was.

Jolly Red Giant

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The introduction of Lenins NEP in 1921 saw the re-introduction of open market policies, basically peasant farmers as the best example were able to sell their surplus produce (whilst paying requisition quotas) as opposed to giving it all over to their communities as had been the case under 'war communism'. Marxist ideals would see the profiteers from this arrangement under the NEP as the creation of a new class. The NEP can be claimed to be a transitional stage but if we take Communism as described in Marx and Engels manifesto then this does was not described in the way that it could be said the Russian revolution was.

The NEP didn't see the 're-introduction of open market policies' - it was a measure to increase agricultural production as a result of the devastation caused by the civil war. The state continued to maintain control over the main sectors of industry, the financial sector, foreign currency transactions and foreign trade etc.

Neither was the NEP intended to create a new 'class' - Stalin went substantially further than ever intended by Lenin after he came to power in 1924 and then panicked and put on the brakes with collectivisation to devastating affect.

Final point - the NEP cannot be 'claimed to be a transitional state' - Lenin himself described it as a strategic retreat in mainly one sector of the economy. Russia was not an advanced capitalist state but a predominantly feudal society when the Bolsheviks won power. These measures under tight state control were necessary at the time.

Jolly Red Giant

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

You could just as easily argue that it was due to the isolation of regimes that were attempting to move in that direction - apart from the example of Russia highlighted by JRG, other examples would be Barcelona in the early stages of the Spanish Civil War (vividly described in Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia") or Chile in 1973.

There were elements of socialism in Catalonia during this period but never anything approaching the scale in Russia. Better examples would have been the Bavarian Soviet in 1918-1919 and the Hungarian Soviet of 1919.

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

Other examples people might point to would be Cuba since 1959,

Cuba is not and never was a socialist country. Castro was a liberal when he came to power and initially sought agreement with the USA only for the Americans to snub him because the Cuban working class and peasantry took over the sugar plantations. He only went to the USSR as a last resort and then imposed a Stalinist regime to maintain his power.

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

Nicaragua under the Sandanistas in the 1980s,

Didn't even go as far as Castro - The Sandanistas were a hoch-poch of different left-wing strands that once they succeeded in overthrowing the Samoza dictatorship had no idea what to do because they had practically zero base among the Nicaraguan working class. While the Sandinistas had many successes (like Castro) i.e. in education - they never remotely came clsoe to introducing measures commensurate with socialism.

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

or even Venezuela under Chavez today.

Left-wing government that has not and probably never will, move to overthrow capitalism. The likely outcome is a viscious and bloody counter-revolution organised by the right-wing and the USA.

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

However, I'd argue that these are more properly described as left-wing nationalist regimes which, under pressure of the isolation I mentioned earlier, end up having to adapt themselves to try to survive in a capitalist world and in the process, run into a contradiction in terms: Marxist and capitalist states can't co-exist.

Yes - I would largely agree with this assessment - although Castro and to a lesser degree the Sandanistas would better be described as Stalinist regimes as they had all the hallmarks of Stalin's 'socialism in one country' etc. And Chavez is adopting more trends of a Stalinist bureaucracy as time goes on.

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

Part of the problem with answering the question is there's no single definition of what constitutes a "Marxist state", just as there is no single model of a capitalist state -

Partly true - in definition terms it comes down to the relationship of the working class to the means of production.

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

but then you get into the whole discussion of what constitutes Marxism / socialism / communism and that's probably a bit off-topic for a history forum.

Ongoing and continuous between Trotskyists and Stalinists on places like revleft.com - but to be honest, the Stalinists really haven't a leg to stand on since the collapse of the Wall (or Albania for some of the more off the wall Stalinists).

conor.hogan.2

No country has enacted Marxism or Communism to any reasonable degree. They all had other major problems which has clouded the general population against Communism.

As you said "communist" is bandied about, wrongly a lot too.

jonniebgood1

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The NEP didn't see the 're-introduction of open market policies' - it was a measure to increase agricultural production as a result of the devastation caused by the civil war. The state continued to maintain control over the main sectors of industry, the financial sector, foreign currency transactions and foreign trade etc.

It was required not simply because of the civil war but moreso as a stimulus to stave off famine. That a stimulus or measure (call it what you like it was designed to encourage food production) was needed at all, and its introduction, means that this period is not Communist as outlined by Marx. It was successful and helped boost the overall economy but in ideological terms it was a sacrifice. It is furthermore clear as you say that these measures were needed and it is in that context that I described it as transitional. In a true Communist state there would be no need for a private incentive such as that. It is described in 'the Bolshevik revolution' by Carr as follows

The antidote [to war communism], familiarly known as NEP, was.. .a
series of measures not conceived at a single stroke but growing gradually
out of one another. It began, by striking at the point of greatest danger,
as an agricultural policy to increase the supply of food by offering fresh
inducements to the peasant; it developed into a commercial policy for
the promotion of trade and exchange, involving a financial policy for a
state currency; and finally, reaching the profoundest evil of all, it
became an industrial policy to bring about that increase in industrial
productivity which was a condition of the building up of a socialist
order.

Duggys Housemate

I think it is either/or. We ban fascists and Marxists, or we ban neither. Both are engaged in hate crimes, the former based on race, the latter based supposedly on class but in reality on all political opponents, I.e the use of the word "petit-bourgeois" to describe political enemies. That phraseology has been used to kill millions. Marxism is bunk anyway, no economics, bad philosophy, anti- science. They should at least be kicked out of the universities.

jonniebgood1

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I think it is either/or. We ban fascists and Marxists, or we ban neither. Both are engaged in hate crimes, the former based on race, the latter based supposedly on class but in reality on all political opponents, I.e the use of the word "petit-bourgeois" to describe political enemies. That phraseology has been used to kill millions. Marxism is bunk anyway, no economics, bad philosophy, anti- science. They should at least be kicked out of the universities.

I am interested in the killing of millions that you refer to. How do you relate this to Marxism? I don't think Marx envisaged or wrote about this although it is thought by many that he did. Also how is Marxism "bad philosophy, anti- science"?

Duggys Housemate

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I am interested in the killing of millions that you refer to. How do you relate this to Marxism? I don't think Marx envisaged or wrote about this although it is thought by many that he did. Also how is Marxism "bad philosophy, anti- science"?

Marxism killed millions. Does it matter that Marx demanded the killing of millions or not? It is implicit in Marxism that "exploitative" classes be eliminated. There is no way to a Marxist state without tyranny.

As for the theory, it is worse than creationism in terms of its relationship with science. There is no economics, in it. Find an economics book - the science in this - and you won't find Marx in there.

Anti-Science. Non science. No science whatsoever. Not an equation. Nineteenth century gibberish.

The philosophy is borrowed from German Idealism, and medieval scholasticism, except the former is made "materialistic" which is like having an atheist view of God, and the religious stuff is just taken and jumbled up into different jackets. The labour theory of value - which is wrong, but essential to Marxism - is from Aquinas. The ideas of alienation come from Christianity, except he takes alienation from God and just throws it onto labour, and products. All ramblings without a shred of proof, or empirical evidence.

jonniebgood1

Note: this was going off topic in the Irving thread so I moved the last three posts here.

Moderator

jonniebgood1

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Marxism killed millions. Does it matter that Marx demanded the killing of millions or not? It is implicit in Marxism that "exploitative" classes be eliminated. There is no way to a Marxist state without tyranny.

You are mixing up Marxism with many other things. Stalinism is not Marxism for example although Stalin took some Marxist aims. The pathway to a Marxist state was social revolution, rather than tyranny.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

As for the theory, it is worse than creationism in terms of its relationship with science. There is no economics, in it. Find an economics book - the science in this - and you won't find Marx in there.

What economics are required to understand self sufficient entities?

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Anti-Science. Non science. No science whatsoever. Not an equation. Nineteenth century gibberish.

In their original forms they are theories based on social order. Why do they need science?

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The philosophy is borrowed from German Idealism, and medieval scholasticism, except the former is made "materialistic" which is like having an atheist view of God, and the religious stuff is just taken and jumbled up into different jackets. The labour theory of value - which is wrong, but essential to Marxism - is from Aquinas. The ideas of alienation come from Christianity, except he takes alienation from God and just throws it onto labour, and products. All ramblings without a shred of proof, or empirical evidence.

They were theories and they have proved IMO incorrect in history. Others may differ. The views on Christianity were part of these theories and can be easily understood as necessary if seeking a classless society. How can their be a classless society with an elevated god figure. In any case I don't think that he claimed there was proof or evidence of any of this. They were more a commentary on capitalism of the time with proposals of what Marx saw as a better way.

Ravelleman

Karl Marx made one fundamental error in his writings - the key characteristic of society is not a struggle between an exploited working class and a wealthy class of capitalists but rather between a class of workers and a class of integrators, essentially managers that can integrate all of the different factors required by industry to produce goods. As the world moved into the industrial age these integrators were usually the same people that owned businesses but as industry expanded they separated - many business owners and investors require the services of people with expert knowledge of management and integration, even though they control capital.

Ultimately Marxism and capitalism have the same 'super-ideology', that is to say the expansion of the industrial system, technological progress and creating higher living standards. Most of the difference lies in approach.

Jawgap

If you want to see how Marx 'fits' in with the development of economic thought, I'd recommend "Grand Pusuit: The Story of Economic Genius"

It provides a good run through of the history of economics over the last 200 years or so, including a decent discussion on Marx (and Engles) and their influences when developing their ideas. It also provides a good picture of how Marx's ideas compared, succeeded and failed in relation to the developing body of work.

Hayek in his lecture forllowing the award of the Nobel Prize for economics gives a good explanation as to why planned economies don't / can't work....

The Pretence of Knowledge