What is Marxism, and what not?

[roderic]

Quite a complex and extensive subject, since a multitude of schools of thought, movements and governments have emerged who in one way or other either regard themselves as Marxist or based upon Marxism, or are regarded by critics as such.

To start with, the wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism) gives a good overview:
Classical Marxism refers to the body of theory directly expounded by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The term "Classical Marxism" is often used to distinguish between "Marxism" as it is broadly understood and "what Marx believed", which is not necessarily the same thing. ...
As the American Marx scholar Hal Draper remarked, "there are few thinkers in modern history whose thought has been so badly misrepresented, by Marxists and anti-Marxists alike."The main ideas to come out of Marx and Engels' collective works include:

* Exploitation: Marx refers to the exploitation of an entire segment or class of society by another. He sees it as being an inherent feature and key element of capitalism and free markets. The profit gained by the capitalist is the difference between the value of the product made by the worker and the actual wage that the worker receives; in other words, capitalism functions on the basis of paying workers less than the full value of their labour, in order to enable the capitalist class to turn a profit. This profit is not however moderated in terms of risk vs. return.
* Alienation: Marx refers to the alienation of people from aspects of their "human nature" ("Gattungswesen", usually translated as 'species-essence' or 'species-being'). He believes that alienation is a systematic result of capitalism. Under capitalism, the fruits of production belong to the employers, who expropriate the surplus created by others and in so doing generate alienated labour.[6] Alienation describes objective features of a person's situation in capitalism - it isn't necessary for them to believe or feel that they are alienated.
* Base and superstructure: Marx and Engels use the “base-structure” metaphor to explain the idea that the totality of relations among people with regard to “the social production of their existence” forms the economic basis, on which arises a superstructure of political and legal institutions. To the base corresponds the social consciousness which includes religious, philosophical, and other main ideas. The base conditions both, the superstructure and the social consciousness. A conflict between the development of material productive forces and the relations of production causes social revolutions, and the resulting change in the economic basis will sooner or later lead to the transformation of the superstructure.[7] For Marx, though, this relationship is not a one way process - it is reflexive; the base determines the superstructure in the first instance and remains the foundation of a form of social organization which then can act again upon both parts of the base-structure metaphor.[citation needed] The relationship between superstructure and base is considered to be a dialectical one, not a distinction between actual entities "in the world".[citation needed]
* Class consciousness: Class consciousness refers to the awareness, both of itself and of the social world around it, that a social class possess, and its capacity to act in its own rational interests based on this awareness. Thus class consciousness must be attained before the class may mount a successful revolution. Other methods of revolutionary action have been developed however, such as vanguardism.
* Ideology: Without offering a general definition for ideology[8], Marx on several instances has used the term to designate the production of images of social reality. According to Engels, “ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker consciously, it is true, but with a false consciousness. The real motive forces impelling him remain unknown to him; otherwise it simply would not be an ideological process. Hence he imagines false or seeming motive forces”.[9] Because the ruling class controls the society's means of production, the superstructure of society, as well as its ruling ideas, will be determined according to what is in the ruling class's best interests. As Marx said famously in The German Ideology, “the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force”.[10] Therefore the ideology of a society is of enormous importance since it confuses the alienated groups and can create false consciousness such as commodity fetishism (perceiving labor as capital ~ a degradation of human life).[citation needed]
* Historical materialism: Historical materialism was first articulated by Marx, although he himself never used the term. It looks for the causes of developments and changes in human societies in the way in which humans collectively make the means to life, thus giving an emphasis, through economic analysis, to everything that co-exists with the economic base of society (e.g. social classes, political structures, ideologies).
* Political economy: The term "political economy" originally meant the study of the conditions under which production was organized in the nation-states of the new-born capitalist system. Political economy, then, studies the mechanism of human activity in organizing material, and the mechanism of distributing the surplus or deficit that is the result of that activity. Political economy studies the means of production, specifically capital, and how this manifests itself in economic activity.

[roderic]

contnd:
Since Marx's death in 1883, various groups around the world have appealed to Marxism as the theoretical basis for their politics and policies, which have often proved to be dramatically different and conflicting. One of the first major political splits occurred between the advocates of 'reformism', who argued that the transition to socialism could occur within existing bourgeois parliamentarian frameworks, and communists, who argued that the transition to a socialist society required a revolution and the dissolution of the capitalist state. The 'reformist' tendency, later known as social democracy, came to be dominant in most of the parties affiliated to the Second International and these parties supported their own governments in the First World War. This issue caused the communists to break away, forming their own parties which became members of the Third International.
....
Marxist political parties and movements have significantly declined since the fall of the Soviet Union, with some exceptions, perhaps most notably Nepal.Note:Although there are still many Marxist revolutionary social movements and political parties around the world, since the collapse of the Soviet Union and its satellite states, very few countries have governments which describe themselves as Marxist. Although socialistic parties are in power in some Western nations, they long ago distanced themselves from their direct link to Marx and his ideas.

[roderic]

Marxists about Marxism: (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/intros.html)
Marxism in these web pages is understood as the theory and practice of working class self-emancipation. This theoretical and political tradition is radically different from the way Marxism is generally described by both critics and many 'adherents' who identify Marxism with the repressive state capitalist regimes that used to dominate Russia and eastern Europe and still hold sway in China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba. David McNally explains in one of the chapters of Socialism from Below how this confusion came about, as a consequence of the defeat of the Russian revolution during the 1920s, and the consequences the defeat had for the international communist movement.

Some philosophical background of Marx and dialectic materialism - no, I haven't read it all myself either, but it shows Marx's roots in German philosophy: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/abstract.htm

[Missouri Mule]

I don't think it is complicated at all. What confuses me is why anyone would espouse such an unworkable philosophy so against the human spirit.

Does anyone here know of ANYONE who agrees with everyone else?

To me that is a prima facia case that Marxism is clearly unworkable. We are not robots. We are human beings.

[mataj]

What is Marxism? A toxic mental excretion from corrupt brain of a spawn of Satan's bowel. Even brief exposure to this absolutely evil ideology causes permanent brain damage and insanity. :p

I don't think it is complicated at all. What confuses me is why anyone would espouse such an unworkable philosophy so against the human spirit.

Does anyone here know of ANYONE who agrees with everyone else?

To me that is a prima facia case that Marxism is clearly unworkable. We are not robots. We are human beings.You are mixing Marxism and communism here. Marxism is philosophy, socialism and communism are socio economic systems proposed by Marx. Socialism is alternative to capitalism, communism its succesor.

Marxistic philosophy is very useful in analysing and evaluating society, economy, and one's place within it. This is the reason why Marxism is often satanized by fascistoid groups, who utilize ideology, deception and propaganda as a primary tools of their struggle for power.

IMHE, socialism is was not entirely unworkable. Sure enough, it functioned worse than capitalism due to lack of democratic checks and balances, but in general, life of an average Joe's wasn't so bad. Borders towards the West were opened all the time, yet majority of the people chosed not to migrate.

In certain areas of human endevour, like science or open source software development, communist approach (to everyone according to his needs, from everyone according to his abilities) is the only approach feasible. When and if the material products become as easily reproductible as information, communism will be viable in the real economy as well. Until then, capitalism seems to be the best option available.

[roderic]

I don't think it is complicated at all. What confuses me is why anyone would espouse such an unworkable philosophy so against the human spirit.What exactly about it is "against the human spirit"?

Does anyone here know of ANYONE who agrees with everyone else?
Of course not. What does this have to do with Marxism? :confused:

To me that is a prima facia case that Marxism is clearly unworkable. We are not robots. We are human beings.Again, I fail to see how the notion of "robots" relates to Marxism.

Is there anything in what I posted you specifically like to comment on? Feel free to rip any aspect of the philosophy, political practice of historic or current groups which are closely linked to Marxist ideology apart.

But it would help to establish some common ground in understanding what it is first.

[Turenne]

I don't think it is complicated at all. What confuses me is why anyone would espouse such an unworkable philosophy so against the human spirit.

Does anyone here know of ANYONE who agrees with everyone else?

To me that is a prima facia case that Marxism is clearly unworkable. We are not robots. We are human beings.

Rather ironically, Marx would agree with you. He saw 19th century capitalism as degrading to the human spirit, and essentially reducing workers to the status of objects rather then humans.

[Missouri Mule]

What is Marxism? A toxic mental excretion from corrupt brain of a spawn of Satan's bowel. Even brief exposure to this absolutely evil ideology causes permanent brain damage and insanity. :p

You are mixing Marxism and communism here. Marxism is philosophy, socialism and communism are socio economic systems proposed by Marx. Socialism is alternative to capitalism, communism its succesor.

Marxistic philosophy is very useful in analysing and evaluating society, economy, and one's place within it. This is the reason why Marxism is often satanized by fascistoid groups, who utilize ideology, deception and propaganda as a primary tools of their struggle for power.

IMHE, socialism is was not entirely unworkable. Sure enough, it functioned worse than capitalism due to lack of democratic checks and balances, but in general, life of an average Joe's wasn't so bad. Borders towards the West were opened all the time, yet majority of the people chosed not to migrate.

In certain areas of human endevour, like science or open source software development, communist approach (to everyone according to his needs, from everyone according to his abilities) is the only approach feasible. When and if the material products become as easily reproductible as information, communism will be viable in the real economy as well. Until then, capitalism seems to be the best option available.

This is a subject I believe I can speak to from personal work experience. I worked as a middle manager and it astonished me at how difficult it was to reach a concensus among what otherwise would be reasonable people. Someone inevitably is always grinding some kind of ax and by the time the "plan" comes to fruition it is so watered down as to be next to worthless.

I used to say that if I as a manager would ask an employee to relocate their pencil from one side of their desk to the other I could expect a fight. Not a particularly good analogy perhaps but my point was that people do not like change; any change. We are creatures of habit and resist change.

Marxism; Socialism, Communism or any other "ism" requires that we change from the existing order. That is why politics is so divisive. As much as we like to think of ourselves as logical and well meaning we seldom see things from the same perspective. People are naturally illogical, emotional and seldom able to remove their own prejudices from their thinking. Yet, as we know all too well; there are winners and there are losers in all endeavors. If are to survive long we have to choose our battles wisely. We can't hope to engage in every minor skirmish. But in matters of principle we have to draw the line. And to the subject, I draw the line in being coerced by a more powerful force to change to a philosophy that I find so onerous and so unnatural that I will resist to my dying day to see that it does not come to fruition.

[roderic]

And to the subject, I draw the line in being coerced by a more powerful force to change to a philosophy that I find so onerous and so unnatural that I will resist to my dying day to see that it does not come to fruition.Which "more powerful force" is trying to "coerce" you, in a way that is different from the "coercing" any government does to those who disapprove of its policies?

And, btw, you have not addressed anything in particular that you find so onerous and unnatural.

[mataj]

This is a subject I believe I can speak to from personal work experience. I worked as a middle manager and it astonished me at how difficult it was to reach a concensus among what otherwise would be reasonable people. Someone inevitably is always grinding some kind of ax and by the time the "plan" comes to fruition it is so watered down as to be next to worthless.

I used to say that if I as a manager would ask an employee to relocate their pencil from one side of their desk to the other I could expect a fight. Not a particularly good analogy perhaps but my point was that people do not like change; any change. We are creatures of habit and resist change.

Marxism; Socialism, Communism or any other "ism" requires that we change from the existing order. That is why politics is so divisive. As much as we like to think of ourselves as logical and well meaning we seldom see things from the same perspective. People are naturally illogical, emotional and seldom able to remove their own prejudices from their thinking. Yet, as we know all too well; there are winners and there are losers in all endeavors. If are to survive long we have to choose our battles wisely. We can't hope to engage in every minor skirmish. But in matters of principle we have to draw the line. And to the subject, I draw the line in being coerced by a more powerful force to change to a philosophy that I find so onerous and so unnatural that I will resist to my dying day to see that it does not come to fruition.Onerous or satanized?

You claim, that people are, above all, illogical and emotional. Basically, that's true. Logic is not something we posess naturally. It was invented, mostly by Aristotle. As such it has to be learned, and it is learned, if society chooses so. Or, better yet, people are logical as much as their rulers let them be logical. The more authoritarian they are, the less logic they tolerate at their underlings. As far as I can tell, logic is pretty much unwelcome guest in US public life. Your politics and media never appeal to reason. Their messages are directed solely to people's entrails, never to brains. Now, according to Marxism, one must ignore the abovementioned gut appealing stuff, and follow the money instead. This is the primary reason why Marxism is reviled and satanized by ... let call them gut-appealers. It makes people irresponsive to their ideologies, religions, PR and perception management. Brainwashed, so to speak.

[Missouri Mule]

Onerous or satanized?

You claim, that people are, above all, illogical and emotional. Basically, that's true. Logic is not something we posess naturally. It was invented, mostly by Aristotle. As such it has to be learned, and it is learned, if society chooses so. Or, better yet, people are logical as much as their rulers let them be logical. The more authoritarian they are, the less logic they tolerate at their underlings. As far as I can tell, logic is pretty much unwelcome guest in US public life. Your politics and media never appeal to reason. Their messages are directed solely to people's entrails, never to brains. Now, according to Marxism, one must ignore the abovementioned gut appealing stuff, and follow the money instead. This is the primary reason why Marxism is reviled and satanized by ... let call them gut-appealers. It makes people irresponsive to their ideologies, religions, PR and perception management. Brainwashed, so to speak.

Having followed politics virtually all of my life (I remember Truman) and having an unnatural interest in the subject that most people eschew I have observed that most people are not logical when it comes to politics and they are very heavily influenced by their upbringing; their education; their peers and finally their own personal life experiences; especially economic issues.

I'm sorta in the middle; neither being rich nor poor. I'm am comfortable having no need to acquire any further material wealth. I have a safe and secure home environment; a wife who loves me, neighbors who are neither overly close but nonetheless quite friendly and an area of the nation that is not at war with itself. I can live with whatever comes next Tuesday and have to accept the fact that whatever happens happens. I can't control events. I am however, cognizant of how power is used and misused having seen it up close and personal in state government. I've seen the back room dealing, the back stabbing, the duplicity that makes up the behavior of far too many people. And I have over the 35 years of my working career spoken to literally tens of thousands of people. I think I know human nature pretty well.

Where I come down is this. Knowing what I know about human nature and what I believe is the proper role of government I try to frequently read the Constitution to understand as best I can the way we ought to conduct our lives and what the government is supposed to be about. I do not like nor do I approve of the dysfunctional way that government today rewards those who essentially buy the favors of politicians in high office who piously proclaim one thing and do another. In other words it appears our government is for sale to the highest bidder and that is what seemingly afflicts the financial markets today. But the damage is done. We need to apply the remedies that are available to right the ship of state and we need a government that keeps out of our lives as much as is possible but provides essential services. I do not believe that whatever degree of totalitarian government is imposed that I will be comfortable. I use the analogy of the frog in the boiling pot. We have been put into a lukewarm pot of water and it is now at the point of no return. I fear that we are far down the path to a government that our founding fathers never intended and warned repeatedly against us moving to. I believe sincerely we are a very short step on the first rung of casting aside the Constitution in the interest of the "greater good" that we will, at some future date, have to remedy through less than peaceful means. This is why I believe that serious consideration should be given to the dissolution of the union through peaceful means. Although Lincoln, our greatest president, fought the Civil War to preserve the Union; he did not fight the war with over 600,000 American dead to install a Marxist form of government no matter how appealing or innocuous it might seem to those who believe government should provide from cradle to grave. So far as I know the Constitution and/or Declaration of Independence only stated we have the right for the pursuit of liberty and happiness. We have gone well beyond that stage and we had better get our act together before it is too late to turn back.

[Agnapostate]

Why the point about Nepal? I was under the impression that the Maoists had recently won an electoral victory in Nepal, though I suppose you could consider Maoism as legitimate a form of Marxism as Leninism.

[roderic]

Having followed politics virtually all of my life (I remember Truman) and having an unnatural interest in the subject that most people eschew I have observed that most people are not logical when it comes to politics and they are very heavily influenced by their upbringing; their education; their peers and finally their own personal life experiences; especially economic issues.I tend to agree, and, if I may say so, your take on anything vaguely connected to Marxism or socialism is quite a good example of how someone's political views reflect the time and area of upbringing.

Ironically, the very thread I aimed at establishing some value-free common ground on what is meant by "Marxism" has quickly turned into the standard rejection and demonisation of the term.

[mataj]

In other words it appears our government is for sale to the highest bidder and that is what seemingly afflicts the financial markets today.That's because of free market fundamentalism, not marxism.

I do not believe that whatever degree of totalitarian government is imposed that I will be comfortable.As far as I know, Marx does not advocate totalitarian government.

Socialist totalitarian governments are relatively easy to get rid off. Vast majority of them went down relatively peacefully around 1990. With fascist totalitarian governments, this is not the case, they all cling to power tooth and nail. It's fascism you should be worried about, not marxism or socialism.



Why the point about Nepal? I was under the impression that the Maoists had recently won an electoral victory in Nepal, though I suppose you could consider Maoism as legitimate a form of Marxism as Leninism.Maoism is just one of may bastardizations of Marxism. Stalinism is another.

Try to put yourselves in the shoes of a communist revolutionary. You spend year and years underground, in constant fear of death or worse. You fight a guerilla war, run around in the bushes, wet, cold, and hungry, in all kinds of weather while being shot at. As you can well imagine, that seriously sucks.

And then, after years and years of struggle, you carry your revolution succesfully through, come to power, and become President Agnapostate, hero of the revolution. You get a nice presidential palace, a couple of residences, a fleet of cars, batallion of female body guards, and start enjoying the fruits of your revolutionary toil and struggle. And then, all of the sudden, you notice that your ungrateful underlings judge you by the same marxist criteria you used to judge your old class enemies: "This goddamed Agnapostate, he's no better than burgoisie of old, just look at all that palaces, cars, and women he has! He's alienatig our labour and all that!" Would you let this go on unchallenged? Hell no! As number 1 authority in revolution and Marxism, you develop your own interpretation of Marx, say Agnapostatism, which emphasises the need for revolutionary heroe's luxurious life. You make Agnapostatism the official ideology of your country, teach it in schools, and throw all them nasty Marxists in gulags.

[Albert08]

My antiquated view of Marx was that he had a compelling ideal, that all individuals given access to the means and freedom to associate could create a more perfect existence that lacked the proper engine. I believe that many “Marxist” ideals are well represented in American political culture.

Proposing that highly motivated young people with proven potential should have access to post secondary education is a Marxist ideal. Remember when Marx wrote lower class people were considered inferior and unworthy.

Allowing the right of workers to associate and collectively bargain contracts is another well established Marxist ideal.

The down side of ideals is that they are not scientific principles that can be universally applied. Given this if I had to chose between Marxism and Social Darwinism I would chose Marxism.

[mataj]

My antiquated view of Marx was that he had a compelling ideal, that all individuals given access to the means and freedom to associate could create a more perfect existence that lacked the proper engine. I believe that many “Marxist” ideals are well represented in American political culture.OK, let's go by the numbers

Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848 (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html#Proletarian)

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. 1, 3: Too radical

2: Done. Generally it works OK

4: Ouch!

5: Done. ECB (and probably FED as well) is exactly that. In the communist times, we had another institution called "The national bookkeeping (or transactional) service". It did far better job than commercial banks. Unfortunately, we were forced to dissolve it, because it was incompatible with EU legislation.

6: Partially done and undone, not in the USA but elsewhere. Some of that stuff got privatized, but IMHE railroads & power grid work better if state owned. Telecommunicatons & internet are better privatized.

7: Same as above. About 40% of big companies here are still state owned, and they work quite OK.

8: Industrial armies? Hmmm... Something US prison labour like, chaingangs & stuff?

9: Done

10: Done


It's roughly fifty-fifty, just like most of other things in politics.

[roderic]

Ah, mataj cut to the chase, brief and practical:
The points of the manifesto.

This gives something measurable on what has been achieved out of the original demands, but it does not define the ideology and its off-shoots.
I was looking for something more philosophical, but fair enough.

[Agnapostate]

I don't think it is complicated at all. What confuses me is why anyone would espouse such an unworkable philosophy so against the human spirit.

Does anyone here know of ANYONE who agrees with everyone else?

To me that is a prima facia case that Marxism is clearly unworkable. We are not robots. We are human beings.

I do agree that Marxism is in many ways an unworkable system because of Marx's theory of historical materialism, which I hold to be scientifically inaccurate. However, you make a mistake in applying the same standard to all forms of socialism and communism by assuming that such economic systems are based on pure altruism and not on self-interest. Evolutionary biology and its implications for humanity were badly misunderstood by Marx and Engels, who insisted that Darwinian evolution and its implications only extended to the edge of animal history, while having no effect whatsoever on human history. Engels also misunderstood the distinction between Darwinism and Lamarckianism, which led to unfortunate consequences later when it came to the Soviet obscenity of Lysenkoism.

The Marxist (and admittedly, more broadly socialist) doctrine of the "perfectablity of man" is factually and historically inaccurate. Human nature is not malleable to the extent that they believe it to be; there are fundamental and inherent portions of human nature that cannot be easily altered. Even as an anarchist, I can recognize that the establishment of hierarchy or a chain of command is a biologically natural process, though I do not regard it as a beneficial one.

However, you are incorrect in stating that all forms of socialism are contrary to human nature. I fear that you possess the inaccurate belief that socialism is based on some sense of altruism or charity, while maintaining that capitalism is more "natural" because it relies on economic self-interest. You likely also regard competition as the chief manifestation of "human nature." This belief ignores the ways in which cooperation, rather than competition, can serve in the self-interest of beings involved.

Suppose, for instance, that you had been falsely accused of a crime, along with another person. You are told that if you simply confess that the other person committed the crime, you will be released and he will be sentenced to thirty years in prison. However, he has been offered the exact same deal against you, and if you both accuse the other, you will both be spending fifteen years in prison. If neither one of you accuses the other, there will be no case against either one of you, and you will only be detained for a few months, and then released. This is an illustrative case regarding the merits of cooperation as opposed to competition.

The anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin wrote a book entitled Mutual Aid regarding the nature of cooperation rather than competition in natural circumstances, based on his observations during his time in Siberia.

The full text is available here. (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html)

The validity of Kropotkin's work on this topic was affirmed by no less an authority than the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould.

http://www.marxists.org/subject/science/essays/kropotkin.htm (Note: Kropotkin was not a Marxist himself; neither am I.)

The central logic of Kropotkin’s argument is simple, straightforward, and largely cogent...I would hold that Kropotkin’s basic argument is correct.

Gould did fault Kropotkin with not realizing that cooperation was primarily intended to benefit individual organisms, which was a common mistake at the time, but again, this misconception was not one isolated to Kropotkin.

As a whole, his work is valid.

[Agnapostate]

This is a subject I believe I can speak to from personal work experience. I worked as a middle manager and it astonished me at how difficult it was to reach a concensus among what otherwise would be reasonable people. Someone inevitably is always grinding some kind of ax and by the time the "plan" comes to fruition it is so watered down as to be next to worthless.

I used to say that if I as a manager would ask an employee to relocate their pencil from one side of their desk to the other I could expect a fight. Not a particularly good analogy perhaps but my point was that people do not like change; any change. We are creatures of habit and resist change.

This is an illustrative analogy for the purpose of proving my point about workers' self-management. Many employees resent the hierarchical authority positions of their bosses, and will often resist even the least burdensome demand merely because it is conveyed through the establishment of hierarchical authority. Though not strictly libertarian socialist, Yugoslavia under Tito did incorporate certain components of workers self-management, and maintained a stable economy and general society with low unemployment rates, and increased life expectancies and living standards.

Marxism; Socialism, Communism or any other "ism" requires that we change from the existing order. That is why politics is so divisive. As much as we like to think of ourselves as logical and well meaning we seldom see things from the same perspective. People are naturally illogical, emotional and seldom able to remove their own prejudices from their thinking. Yet, as we know all too well; there are winners and there are losers in all endeavors. If are to survive long we have to choose our battles wisely. We can't hope to engage in every minor skirmish. But in matters of principle we have to draw the line. And to the subject, I draw the line in being coerced by a more powerful force to change to a philosophy that I find so onerous and so unnatural that I will resist to my dying day to see that it does not come to fruition.

Any other "ism?" Does that include capitalism? Neoliberalism? ;)

See above response to the "unnatural" issue.

Where I come down is this. Knowing what I know about human nature and what I believe is the proper role of government I try to frequently read the Constitution to understand as best I can the way we ought to conduct our lives and what the government is supposed to be about. I do not like nor do I approve of the dysfunctional way that government today rewards those who essentially buy the favors of politicians in high office who piously proclaim one thing and do another. In other words it appears our government is for sale to the highest bidder and that is what seemingly afflicts the financial markets today. But the damage is done. We need to apply the remedies that are available to right the ship of state and we need a government that keeps out of our lives as much as is possible but provides essential services. I do not believe that whatever degree of totalitarian government is imposed that I will be comfortable. I use the analogy of the frog in the boiling pot. We have been put into a lukewarm pot of water and it is now at the point of no return. I fear that we are far down the path to a government that our founding fathers never intended and warned repeatedly against us moving to. I believe sincerely we are a very short step on the first rung of casting aside the Constitution in the interest of the "greater good" that we will, at some future date, have to remedy through less than peaceful means. This is why I believe that serious consideration should be given to the dissolution of the union through peaceful means. Although Lincoln, our greatest president, fought the Civil War to preserve the Union; he did not fight the war with over 600,000 American dead to install a Marxist form of government no matter how appealing or innocuous it might seem to those who believe government should provide from cradle to grave. So far as I know the Constitution and/or Declaration of Independence only stated we have the right for the pursuit of liberty and happiness. We have gone well beyond that stage and we had better get our act together before it is too late to turn back.

And I would disagree that libertarian socialism does not achieve the aim of promoting human happiness and liberty. The brutal authoritarian "socialism" of the Soviet Union, (better described as state capitalism), certainly did accomplish that. I don't regard the effects of capitalism or "free enterprise" (which is nonexistent) as being particularly beneficial when they result in consequences such as this:

http://jeremyandsandyhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/haitian.jpeg

Libertarian socialism combines the liberty of removing unjustified forms of hierarchical authority from governance over the individual with the provision of resources for all in need of them. Such a more perfect political philosophy has not been encountered by me.

[Missouri Mule]

This is an illustrative analogy for the purpose of proving my point about workers' self-management. Many employees resent the hierarchical authority positions of their bosses, and will often resist even the least burdensome demand merely because it is conveyed through the establishment of hierarchical authority. Though not strictly libertarian socialist, Yugoslavia under Tito did incorporate certain components of workers self-management, and maintained a stable economy and general society with low unemployment rates, and increased life expectancies and living standards.

Any other "ism?" Does that include capitalism? Neoliberalism? ;)

See above response to the "unnatural" issue.

And I would disagree that libertarian socialism does not achieve the aim of promoting human happiness and liberty. The brutal authoritarian "socialism" of the Soviet Union, (better described as state capitalism), certainly did accomplish that. I don't regard the effects of capitalism or "free enterprise" (which is nonexistent) as being particularly beneficial when they result in consequences such as this:

http://jeremyandsandyhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/haitian.jpeg

Libertarian socialism combines the liberty of removing unjustified forms of hierarchical authority from governance over the individual with the provision of resources for all in need of them. Such a more perfect political philosophy has not been encountered by me.

I don't particularly view "capitalism" as an "ism" in the traditional understanding. Given to our own devices and without an ideology normal people will engage in private enterprises without the benefit of coersion or a forced change of their beliefs and behavior. It would be more correct to refer to "capitalism" as merely free market normal behavior.

Having said that we can see from the current market melt-down that certain people were "more equal" than others in that they concocted get rich schemes that were indecipherable to human understanding. The ones who devised these schemes knew what they were doing and were essentially con men who ran ponzi schemes that the general public engaged in believing that things would only increase in value although human history has provided numerous examples of this faulty assumption. The opposite of this is panic when everyone takes on the trappings of impending doom and abandons the market altogether although the fundamentals do not support those decisions. That is where the principle of law, regulations and policies are enacted to attempt to ferret out and prevent such predatory behavior. The United States could not be said to have had pure capitalism for over a century. It could, however, be said that the purest form of capitalism exists today in China even though it maintains an authoritarian government. Communism was proven to be an abject failure as it only spread the poverty. The failure of China today is that only perhaps 25% of the population are sharing in the wealth while 75% are still mired in poverty although many are moving into the middle class as their economy expands.

[Scaryclouds]

And I would disagree that libertarian socialism does not achieve the aim of promoting human happiness and liberty. The brutal authoritarian "socialism" of the Soviet Union, (better described as state capitalism), certainly did accomplish that. I don't regard the effects of capitalism or "free enterprise" (which is nonexistent) as being particularly beneficial when they result in consequences such as this:

http://jeremyandsandyhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/haitian.jpeg

Libertarian socialism combines the liberty of removing unjustified forms of hierarchical authority from governance over the individual with the provision of resources for all in need of them. Such a more perfect political philosophy has not been encountered by me.

Despite there being a term "libertarian socialism" there is in fact no such thing as "libertarian socialism," they are near complete opposites. Libertarianism wants to dramatically reduce the scope and size of government, socialism wants to do the exact opposite. Libertarian proposes that the individual is the best means of providing for themselves, socialism suggest the government is the optimal provider.

Personally I have a preference towards libertarianism. While not perfect, I would never have to be fearful of a libertarian government forcing its will upon me or doing other undesirable acts. Whereas with a socialistic government I would have much more fear of abuse at the hands of government agents.

Now I'm not suggesting in an absolute sense that libertarianism is better than socialism, I know when it comes to the environment particularly diffuse problems (i.e. global warming) a libertarian government would be ill-equipped to take on such issues. Just that I believe that a smaller less intrusive government is preferable to a larger one.

[Agnapostate]

I don't particularly view "capitalism" as an "ism" in the traditional understanding. Given to our own devices and without an ideology normal people will engage in private enterprises without the benefit of coersion or a forced change of their beliefs and behavior. It would be more correct to refer to "capitalism" as merely free market normal behavior.

Having said that we can see from the current market melt-down that certain people were "more equal" than others in that they concocted get rich schemes that were indecipherable to human understanding. The ones who devised these schemes knew what they were doing and were essentially con men who ran ponzi schemes that the general public engaged in believing that things would only increase in value although human history has provided numerous examples of this faulty assumption. The opposite of this is panic when everyone takes on the trappings of impending doom and abandons the market altogether although the fundamentals do not support those decisions. That is where the principle of law, regulations and policies are enacted to attempt to ferret out and prevent such predatory behavior. The United States could not be said to have had pure capitalism for over a century. It could, however, be said that the purest form of capitalism exists today in China even though it maintains an authoritarian government. Communism was proven to be an abject failure as it only spread the poverty. The failure of China today is that only perhaps 25% of the population are sharing in the wealth while 75% are still mired in poverty although many are moving into the middle class as their economy expands.

All right, the remark was somewhat off-hand, to be honest. The greater point was my other arguments.

Despite there being a term "libertarian socialism" there is in fact no such thing as "libertarian socialism," they are near complete opposites. Libertarianism wants to dramatically reduce the scope and size of government, socialism wants to do the exact opposite. Libertarian proposes that the individual is the best means of providing for themselves, socialism suggest the government is the optimal provider.

Personally I have a preference towards libertarianism. While not perfect, I would never have to be fearful of a libertarian government forcing its will upon me or doing other undesirable acts. Whereas with a socialistic government I would have much more fear of abuse at the hands of government agents.

Now I'm not suggesting in an absolute sense that libertarianism is better than socialism, I know when it comes to the environment particularly diffuse problems (i.e. global warming) a libertarian government would be ill-equipped to take on such issues. Just that I believe that a smaller less intrusive government is preferable to a larger one.

That is manifestly false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies that aim to create a society without political, economic, or social hierarchies, i.e. a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to tools of information and production, or a society in which such coercive institutions and hierarchies were drastically reduced in scope.

This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions that own and control productive means as private property, in order that direct control of these means of production and resources will be shared by society as a whole. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that informs the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of social life. Accordingly libertarian socialists believe that “the exercise of power in any institutionalized form – whether economic, political, religious, or sexual – brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised.”

Libertarianism has been regarded as a leftist movement everywhere in the world. It is sad and shameful that American capitalists have been able to corrupt and pervert the term for their purposes.

It is in fact "libertarian capitalism" that is an oxymoron because capitalism permits for the establishment of private property and wage labor, themselves tyrannical forms of oppression. onsider first the social and economic systems that have permitted private property to be gained in capitalist society. Various incarnations of imperialism, and state-controlled forms of capitalism were originally responsible for the robbery of indigenous inhabitants of America of land and resources, for instance. It is imperialistic and colonialistic robbery that has secured control of the means of production in the hands of the upper class in every capitalist society. Their lucrative inheritances were not gained through just means; they were gained through the very form of statism and government economic interventionism that any consistent right "libertarian" ought to oppose.

It is after this establishment has been initially constructed that the issue of tyranny becomes relevant. It is when a minority elite possesses a majority of wealth, as well as majority privatized control over the means of production, as is the case now, that they are able to use the "leverage" gained by the establishment of an unjust economic system that relies on state intervention to force others to work for them. The vast majority of the working class is coerced into fairly menial forms of labor because a privileged elite holds private control of the means of production, and as a consequence, is able to entrap workers into wage slavery, in which the bottom of the lower classes suffers.

[roderic]

I don't particularly view "capitalism" as an "ism" in the traditional understanding. Given to our own devices and without an ideology normal people will engage in private enterprises without the benefit of coersion or a forced change of their beliefs and behavior. It would be more correct to refer to "capitalism" as merely free market normal behavior.Let me add another question ot two to my other unanswered ones in this thread:
What is the "traditional understanding" of an "-ism"?

"Normal" people will also cooperate with each other and share resources, without coercion to adhere to an ideology which idolises private property. Marx did not invent the concepts of communal property and redistributing of wealth, nor socialism. He has, however, formulated a particular brand of revolutionary socialism following his philosophy of dialectic materialism.

How can "free market behaviour" be "normal" if it has never existed outside the theoretical models presented by the ideologues of capitalism?


Having said that we can see from the current market melt-down that certain people were "more equal" than others in that they concocted get rich schemes that were indecipherable to human understanding. "More equal"? :confused: The ones who devised these schemes knew what they were doing and were essentially con men who ran ponzi schemes that the general public engaged in believing that things would only increase in value although human history has provided numerous examples of this faulty assumption.Is this outside the "normal" behaviour in the free market? :rolleyes: The opposite of this is panic when everyone takes on the trappings of impending doom and abandons the market altogether although the fundamentals do not support those decisions.When and where has this happened? That is where the principle of law, regulations and policies are enacted to attempt to ferret out and prevent such predatory behavior. The United States could not be said to have had pure capitalism for over a century. Yes, so what would you call these regulations?
Surely this is not "Marxism", but these policies have been influenced by Marxist economic theories - anti-monopoly legislation prevents the worst excesses of capitalism as analysed by Marx. Perhaps you are not aware of the profound influence the man had in the 20th century?

[roderic]

Libertarianism has been regarded as a leftist movement everywhere in the world. It is sad and shameful that American capitalists have been able to corrupt and pervert the term for their purposes. That's not fair.
"Libertarianism" has been adopted to 'left' and 'right' parts of the political spectrum, but it is best understood in terms of the "Nolan chart" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_chart) and as a vertical axis adding to the left-right linear spectrum, as in "political compass".

Libertarian Socialism I regard as a modern 'relative' of anarchism. As Bakunin stated:
"Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and Socialism without freedom is slavery"

[Missouri Mule]

All right, the remark was somewhat off-hand, to be honest. The greater point was my other arguments.

That is manifestly false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Libertarianism has been regarded as a leftist movement everywhere in the world. It is sad and shameful that American capitalists have been able to corrupt and pervert the term for their purposes.

It is in fact "libertarian capitalism" that is an oxymoron because capitalism permits for the establishment of private property and wage labor, themselves tyrannical forms of oppression. onsider first the social and economic systems that have permitted private property to be gained in capitalist society. Various incarnations of imperialism, and state-controlled forms of capitalism were originally responsible for the robbery of indigenous inhabitants of America of land and resources, for instance. It is imperialistic and colonialistic robbery that has secured control of the means of production in the hands of the upper class in every capitalist society. Their lucrative inheritances were not gained through just means; they were gained through the very form of statism and government economic interventionism that any consistent right "libertarian" ought to oppose.

It is after this establishment has been initially constructed that the issue of tyranny becomes relevant. It is when a minority elite possesses a majority of wealth, as well as majority privatized control over the means of production, as is the case now, that they are able to use the "leverage" gained by the establishment of an unjust economic system that relies on state intervention to force others to work for them. The vast majority of the working class is coerced into fairly menial forms of labor because a privileged elite holds private control of the means of production, and as a consequence, is able to entrap workers into wage slavery, in which the bottom of the lower classes suffers.

I can't speak to Libertarianism in other parts of the world but in the U.S. it is traditionally interpreted to mean a philosophy that has a minimum of government intervention in our lives. It would legalize drugs for example and would not involve ourselves in foreign affairs. Essentially it would limted to the most basic of governance to the smallest extent possible. I voted for the Libertarian candidate in 2004 because I had the freedom to do so not needing my vote in Texas. It was more of a protest vote as I suspect many people who vote for the ticket do.

[Mickey Shane]

Marxism seeks to better society through team work. The workers must understand that you should only take what you need so that the group will gain prosperity over time.

Human greed ruins this idea in real practice everytime.

[Fred C. Dobbs]

As you noted marxism isn't founded in reality.

[Agnapostate]

That's not fair.
"Libertarianism" has been adopted to 'left' and 'right' parts of the political spectrum, but it is best understood in terms of the "Nolan chart" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_chart) and as a vertical axis adding to the left-right linear spectrum, as in "political compass".

Libertarian Socialism I regard as a modern 'relative' of anarchism. As Bakunin stated:
"Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and Socialism without freedom is slavery"

The Nolan chart, aside from being extremely crude and primitive, is biased towards capitalism. I don't especially care if capitalists want to call themselves "libertarians" if people want to believe them, but the fact that "libertarian socialism" is considered an oxymoron because of their efforts is shameful. Libertarian socialism includes anarchism, but the terms are usually not considered synonymous. Libertarian socialism can include council communism, left communism, and some forms of libertarian Marxism, such as Luxemburgism.

I can't speak to Libertarianism in other parts of the world but in the U.S. it is traditionally interpreted to mean a philosophy that has a minimum of government intervention in our lives. It would legalize drugs for example and would not involve ourselves in foreign affairs. Essentially it would limted to the most basic of governance to the smallest extent possible. I voted for the Libertarian candidate in 2004 because I had the freedom to do so not needing my vote in Texas. It was more of a protest vote as I suspect many people who vote for the ticket do.

Yes, I know that's what it means in the U.S. I do live in the U.S., after all. I was merely pointing out that libertarianism as a whole is not thought of as being a capitalist doctrine.

[roderic]

The Nolan chart, aside from being extremely crude and primitive, is biased towards capitalism. I don't especially care if capitalists want to call themselves "libertarians" if people want to believe them, but the fact that "libertarian socialism" is considered an oxymoron because of their efforts is shameful.Fair enough, I just meant to point out that 'libertarian' may apply to right or left leaning stances.

Libertarian socialism includes anarchism, but the terms are usually not considered synonymous. Libertarian socialism can include council communism, left communism, and some forms of libertarian Marxism, such as Luxemburgism. Ah, Luxembourg, yes, one of my fav historic heroes.
"Libertarian Marxism", this confirms the use of "libertarian" beyond the scope of the left-right one-dimensional scale.
As already pointed out, "Libertarian" with a capital "L", by contrast, is related to (as in heavily influenced by) "Classical Liberalism" - the ideology of early capitalism.

Clarifying terms has been one of my concerns, since there seems to be considerable confusion and misunderstanding.

"Marxist", in political terms, implies a revolutionary position, a central theme of Marxism, in contrast to left positions which are influenced by Marxist theory, such as, in particular, Social-Democracy.

[Mike1977]

Proposing that highly motivated young people with proven potential should have access to post secondary education is a Marxist ideal.



The thing Marxists don't realize is the biggest reason the young people are "highly motivated" is due to the monetary gain they will receive after their secondary education. Take that away and the motivation disapears.

[Agnapostate]

I don't disagree with you, roderic. In fact, I was simply pointing out that the right didn't have a monopoly over the term "libertarianism," not that anyone else had a monopoly over it. But if it were to come down to it being a "leftist" philosophy and a "rightist" philosophy, I would be inclined to consider it a "leftist" one.