FWIS3

For some reason Marxist theory is still a huge deal among political academics. I've seen this myself at times - the UM Dartmouth course on sociology for instance was heavily into it, during the segment on class oppression. And that was an introductory course.

But, but... every Marxist (or similar) revolution so far has turned nasty, or degenerated into something that wasn't socialism. And meanwhile the more functional extant countries, with more functional left-leaning policies, are ones that did not undergo revolutions; at least by most people's definition, AFAIK. The ones that are "liberalized," as some people would put it. Hell - at this point the United States could, by a lot of measures, be considered more socialist than the PRC. Working conditions and labor laws, freedom of expression, even poverty levels.

So why are we still even talking about Karl Marx in a modern context? Why are we still acting like the methods and results of Marxism are more desirable than those of runaway capitalism? Perhaps I speak from ignorance, but all that blood-soaked history seems to me about as strong a disproof as one could possibly ask for, no?

Edit: but needless to say I'd love to hear input from those who live in more left-leaning countries. Rommie? SFC? TSC (if you want to comment)?

My opinion, potentially not well informed, is that the only people still talking about Karl Marx in a modern context are academics, and that they are fairly divorced from the real world.

So why are we still even talking about Karl Marx in a modern context? Why are we still acting like the methods and results of Marxism are more desirable than those of runaway capitalism? Perhaps I speak from ignorance, but all that blood-soaked history seems to me about as strong a disproof as one could possibly ask for, no?

No... the philosophy is sound. But like any political philosophy, it looks really great on paper, it's when you add the human element that it goes to hell in a hand basket.

All of the great political thinkers have something of value to say. You don't just discount what they say because you don't like what others have "done in their name", even though, that's not what has happened.

@brite: I'm not discounting every single insight Marx had. Maybe I came across too strongly in the OP. I want to draw a scientific analogy, to e.g. Aristotle or Newton, but that won't work because this is IMO an ethics problem.

Short version: the thing I see over and over again, from all over the more radical areas of the political spectrum, is that
a) the ends justify the means
b) the means in question will produce the desired ends

Last time I got into a discussion about politics outside this forum, someone told me that, since I am a US citizen and they are not, they consider me de facto "an appropriate target for violence." No other poster so much as batted an eyebrow; in fact a bunch decided to emphasize that point. Elsewhere I've seen people draw comparisons between the modern US and Nazi Germany, and claim that violent revolt is the only way forward. And you know, I see the point, but I think this is crap.

Hell, even the instructor in the Dartmouth course came out in favor of premeditated violence at times. Do you see what I'm getting at? The logical end of this kind of thinking is either
a) a revolutionary bloodbath, probably followed by ~50 years of dictatorship
or, much more likely
b) a reactionary backlash that undoes decades of painstaking social progress

(b) is the one I'm really worried about, frankly, given e.g. the shitty response to Ferguson. I suppose one could make a good point that the reactionaries will be reactionary no matter what, and to some extent I think that's true. But if you make the middle class worry that their heads will end up on pikes courtesy of the Revolution, they will get behind the reactionaries faster than you can say "no fair."

Whatever. Long story short, I believe that it is stupid to ask people to predicate violence on blind faith. I'm not a pacifist, but I don't consider preemptive violence to be ethically acceptable when the outcome is completely up in the air.

Hope I'm making sense (and not getting on your nerves with my pomposity etc.)

I think the reason you hear so much about Marxism even today is not because most people still believe the theory, but it became so intertwined with socialism in general. (Though I will note that in Nepal Marxism is still quite popular, and Marxism still runs a few local governments in India.) Plus it is still evoked to pay lip service in places like China, though I very much doubt ol' Karl would recognize the version they practice there today.

I mention this because I think if you look at places in Western Europe that are fairly socialist (Sweden is a big example, but also NL) socialism did not purely derive from communism but also from a religious standpoint- I know the Dutch the best, and here there is still a holdover from the Golden Age that no one should go hungry or not have a place to sleep, but poverty is a sin and don't you forget it. TBH the most I hear about communism today is actually more jokes in our institute, as our founding astronomer was also a leading communist. (Short version, he was too politically degenerate for the venerable Leiden Observatory which is the Harvard of NL, but Amsterdam has always been a haven for degenerates so my university took him on. Interestingly until this year my university also gave off May 1 ie Labor Day even tho it's not a Dutch national holiday, but that's unfortunately changing- I liked the day off.)

Marxism was a convenient tool for those who believed that violent means were the only way to achieve the revolution. Because Marx espoused the theory that the only way for the masses to throw off the yoke of capitalist tyranny was by violent means. IOW people like Mao and Lenin adopted Marxism (or a semblance of it) because it gave them a legitimate political paradigm for justifying mass murder and looting the wealth of individuals.

Unfortunately, many otherwise well intentioned socialists espouse Marxism because along with murdering the capitalists and taking all their wealth for the people he also endorsed a form of true socialism. After all, it seems so much more humanitarian if you use the resources to clothe, house, and feed everyone after you kill the capitalists and take the money they accumulated through economic slavery.

And that boys and girls is Marxism in less than 250 words. Of course, if you look at the conditions workers were enduring at the time you almost understand why Marx felt the way he did.

Gullible Jones wrote:Hell - at this point the United States could, by a lot of measures, be considered more socialist than the PRC. Working conditions and labor laws, freedom of expression, even poverty levels.

Kinda why some people think it makes sense. We're there now, why not? The violence--yeah, almost everybody buys into that at some point. How many soccer moms want to literally kill the little shit who ruined their little one's entire career by slide tackling him from behind?

SciFiFisher wrote:Marxism was a convenient tool for those who believed that violent means were the only way to achieve the revolution. Because Marx espoused the theory that the only way for the masses to throw off the yoke of capitalist tyranny was by violent means. IOW people like Mao and Lenin adopted Marxism (or a semblance of it) because it gave them a legitimate political paradigm for justifying mass murder and looting the wealth of individuals.

Unfortunately, many otherwise well intentioned socialists espouse Marxism because along with murdering the capitalists and taking all their wealth for the people he also endorsed a form of true socialism. After all, it seems so much more humanitarian if you use the resources to clothe, house, and feed everyone after you kill the capitalists and take the money they accumulated through economic slavery.

And that boys and girls is Marxism in less than 250 words. Of course, if you look at the conditions workers were enduring at the time you almost understand why Marx felt the way he did.

Oddly enough, Marx came up with his ideas after witnessing the living conditions of the British Worker during most of the 19th century. Yet, Marxism was never very popular there....

grapes wrote:Kinda why some people think it makes sense. We're there now, why not? The violence--yeah, almost everybody buys into that at some point. How many soccer moms want to literally kill the little shit who ruined their little one's entire career by slide tackling him from behind?

There is a huge, huge gulf between "wanting to" and considering it acceptable.

Gullible Jones wrote:There is a huge, huge gulf between "wanting to" and considering it acceptable.

That's my point. That gulf is leaped just by making it acceptable. Or, in most cases, just justifiable. Marx was one of the justifiers of course.

Oh okay, I think I see what you're saying...

In that case - well, I'm very far from being a fan of Dostoevsky, but I kind of have to agree with him here; reactionary though he was. I consider such "rational" justification to be a veil for rationalization.