Karl Marx. Was he right or will he be?

Blue_Lagoon wrote:

Marx was of historical importance and a useful starting point for debate, but not relevant in today's rapidly changing world. For example, his 2-class paradigm was overly simplistic, suffered from the limitations associated with being a dichotomy, ignored the very complex and diverse aspects of social stratification, and did not anticipate future investment and retirement plan equity (and bonds) ownership by his "workers."

I agree, it was too simplistic, and was interpreted in ways that led to many deaths. But I still think capitalism creates classes (as feudalism did). But as capitalism became more complex, so too did social stratification, and so the theory had to meet those demands. And they have. See, for example, the theories of French sociologist Pierre Bordieu. So, again, holding a whole tradition of thought accountable to a 100-year-old book when, clearly, things have changed and theory has reacted to that change is unfair. It's like holding science accountable to the ancient alchemists.

Valmont wrote:

Please don't shroud your answer by telling us what it isn't. I respect that you obviously know more than me about the subject but I'm not convinced. If it isn't a roadmap to communism, what is it a road map to? Does it have any practical applications? I take issue with the application of Marxist ideals not the theory as I'm no expert on the subject.

'Marxism', as it's called, is such a massive and complex collection of ideas that it defies quick summation. In fact, the Marxian tradition tries to avoid oversimplification because, duh, the world is a very complex place. It's very difficult to correct people's misunderstandings of what it's about.

And here you make a critical mistake. The division of theory and practice. You say 'in theory' it's good, but 'in practice' it's terrible. Marxian thought places front and centre the interrelations between theory and practice: what we think affects what we do, and what we do affects what we think. The best social theory is only as good as its ability to reflect social reality. The Marxian tradition accepts that knowledge, for example, is not always objective, and therefore, understandings and explanations are skewed by human interests and social power.

So, to go back to the Russian Revolution and the failure of actual-existing 'soviet communism', either the theory was wrong, or the implementation was wrong, or both. Clearly. So energy was put into undersanding why. When the theory said the conditions were right for Italy to go communist in the 1930s but it didn't happen, Antonio Gramsci developed new theories within the Marxist tradition (hegemony) to explain why, instead, Mussolini rose to power. This is always happening within Marxian thought.

The same happens within 'mainstream' social sciences, like economics, but economists don't like to admit that their theories don't work. And their apolitical standpoint is itself political. Clearly, many of the wonderful theories that caught on in the 1980s have failed - we are in crisis.

Interestingly, the Marxian analysis of capitalism is just that: its tendency is to move from crisis to crisis following familiar patterns: investment and growth phase, followed by overproduction and overaccumulation which is unsustainable, then the bubble bursts, there's a massive crisis which gives employers the power to reduce wages and living standards to boost profits. Then a new structure emerges, and the cycle starts all over again.

And, finally, for the record, the tone of Das Kapital is very convivial in relation to capitalism. Marx greatly admired Adam Smith and capitalism - he thought it was a fascinating system where things happened so quickly and he recognises how dynamic it was - how quickly capitalist markets could adapt. But, as the current crisis reveals, it has a dark side which causes untold suffering to a great many people on the planet. And so it is a critically important alternative analytical framework and political standpoint with which to understand and prevent such suffering.

The most important thing in this Recession is to keep a steady head and most importantly to keep left wing socialists, Trade Unions, Political Correctness and Liberalism well and truly under control.

Keep the unions down during the recession?

We need stronger unions now more than ever! The workers in Waterford are showing the way to make weak unions and the government sit up and pay attention. I work (there goes the jobless lefty steretype ) and if the government expect me to stop seeking better conditions/pay whatever else for myself as a worker because Fitzpatrick&Friends had a bit of a 'whoopsies' they can forget it. Workers didn't make this recession, if we're the ones losing jobs we've a right to fight back- the unions should be our way of doing this. Sadly in this country, they couldn't be weaker.

The most important thing in this recession is that working people and other people affected by cuts (students for one) stand together and aren't taken out by 'divide and conquer' techniques.

----


As for the bolsheviks 'killing their own', the first people they went after were socialists Anarchists were prime targets for Lenin and his Red Army. To imply that 'Russia was a hundred blokes going a bit mad so socialisms never worked' is to forget the mass-movements that made the Spanish Revolution a reality in the 1930s. That was communism in its truest form. When you need to build a brick wall around your 'commune' so people don't escape, thats not socialism- its state imposed capitalism.


And as for the liberal agenda, as a leftist....I hate the 'liberal agenda' more than most. Most people on the left (Who tend to be workers striving for better conditions) couldn't be further from wooly-liberals. We'll be the ones still pushing the government during the recession, we're easy to spot.