[RD] What does Marxism offer?

Or to put it another way, they are relative terms, not essentialist or absolute terms. There is something to be said for that view, certainly.

Because the definition of right-wing politics includes both authoritarianism and militarism.

 

Even if that's true, that doesn't automatically mean it's exclusive to them.
If we want to avoid the left-wing and right-wing terms, then people who call themselves Progressives, Regressives, Liberals, or whatever other label you want to bring in, are all capable of being authoritarians.

 

Whatever qualms you have with Trump, at least he doesn't try to shut down speech that he doesn't like.

 

No, he just implores the director of the FBI to lock up journalists for speech he doesn't like.

Come on, do better than this.

 

That doesn't seem like a good analogy with the Soviet Union but whatever.

My understanding is that Marx advocated a dictatorship of the proletariat which would naturally evolve into a state of communism. Isn't that what Lenin is saying by "that very happy time when politics will recede into the background, when politics will be discussed less often and at shorter length, and engineers and agronomists will do most of the talking?"

Okay, think of my question in these terms: Marxists generally believe things like religion, family units, markets, nationalism, etc are all artificial things created by the capitalist system. Not all Marxists apply that to everything I've mentioned, but they usually seem to tie together.

Well, it's not any more. Plenty of conservatives use the term to label the SJW movement. Can't we give them the benefit of the doubt and agree that nobody is trying to be anti-Semitic here?

 

Well, it's not the best analogy in the first place. But I do think there's a tenuous connection.

 

Errrrr, do you not remember the election campaign?

He literally implored people at his rallies to toss out protestors, people were injured, Trump offered to pay the legal bills for anyone who attacked protestors, and now Trump is getting sued for inciting violence.

Bit of a poor showing there mate; and this is without going into his all-out offensive against the "fake" news, the "failing" New York Times, and the "lying" CNN - including his off-mike comment to Kelly saying he wishes he could use a decorative sword he received against the media.

 

On what standing?

 

If Marxists do believe this, they may be missing quite a few pieces of the puzzle. Does your main objection to Marxism stem from your (very normal) adherence to these things?

 

Marxists tend to think those things are the consequence of class society, not specifically capitalism.

 

That they like the Jewish state, Jews in general, the Jewish presence in the Western world, and many of them are religious Jews themselves. I think that's all the boxes ticked.

Yes.

No real difference. If you want to overthrow class society, you are also overthrowing everything that people in that society believe in. Do you simply expect new values to emerge or do you have something to replace them?

 

Well, as I'm not a revolutionary Marxist these questions aren't best directed at me.
And yes, there is obviously a real difference between a class society like feudalism and a class society like capitalism. Marx spent, like, thousands of pages explaining the differences between capitalism and previous class societies.

 

Hey guys!

So the original post doesn't really seem to be talking about Marxism, which was no more than a philosophical lens through which to view history. It's actually talking about the Far Left in general, and a broad range of ideas associated with the Far Left.

I'm someone on the Far Left who subscribes wholeheartedly to essentially every single thing OP went on about, and so I feel comfortable saying that the thing that my ideology offers is a liberation of human society from the chains of class structure, which inherently develop divisions along the lines of "biology", which in reality means the lines of socially constructed concepts of certain biological traits which really result in only marginal differences of ability. I mean it seems to be a criticism of anti-racism and feminism, as well as socialist distribution of wealth, three things whose purpose is quite clear: respectively, the destruction of racism, sexism, and the class-based distribution of wealth.

The grounds of OP's disagreement with these systems being destroyed seems to be the falsehood that they are more efficient than a theoretical society lacking of them, which is an outrageous claim to make because there has never in human history been an example of a society, global or local, that lacks these constructs, since pre-agricultural hunter gatherer civilization was predominant as the organization of human society.

So in short what we offer is a better world for most, a less powerful life for others (those in power, usually), and an idea that most folks who would probably be on this website would not be willing to grasp.

 

I don't agree with this. Even if we define racism, sexism, and class very broadly there must have been a point in time before which these things existed. Unless you are using "history" in its technical (ie, since the invention of writing) rather than colloquial sense.

 

I'm not, I included that bit in the end about pre-agricultural civilization.

 

That is not true, any more than the "Far Left" constitutes a single set of beliefs.

I'm not a racist or a sexist, nor do I particularly like the class-based distribution of wealth.

No, I just think they're more stable (although religion is certainly more efficient than secularism, and usually more just). What I'm saying in the OP is that you can't expect people to reject their deeply held values for an open-ended promise of 'liberation.' I personally think that modern industrial food is killing a lot of people and making many more miserable, but I don't go around beating up people for eating a cheeseburger.

That is not true. The kibbutz and the Spanish Revolution, off the top of my head.

There's nothing like dismissing the beliefs of the common folk to rally them around you.

 

I disagree, because words have definitions. Marxism is defined by Marxist theory rather than historical groups that self-defined as Marxists. Likewise, the Far Left is defined by a specific set of beliefs.

Me neither!

Most folks' deeply held values are actually pretty compatible with radical Leftism, they just don't know it. And see that's a great example because, although I agree you shouldn't go around beating up people who eat hamburgers, I think that direct action should be taken to dismantle industrial animal agriculture because of the fact that it is responsible for tremendous environmental destruction. This same logic is applied to most things; don't go around punching people who are at work, but rather take action to dismantle the construct of the capitalist workplace on a large scale. That's the idea anyways.

The Spanish Revolution was beset on all sides by fascist aggression and, while the Republican communes were pretty close, they were too heavily involved in conflict with direct neighboring fascist outposts often to really be defined as independent societies. And were there many kibbutz before the establishment of the Israeli state?

Actually their beliefs don't need to be dismissed. If you specifically mean religion, you'll find that us on the Left can cherry pick Bible and Quran verses just as well as those on the Right, and there's plenty of Leftist support in most religious texts and customs.

 

I don't know if this even makes sense as a term. Pre-agricultural society is not civilization, almost by definition.

 

I disagree, I find that the general sort of definition of civilization as having x technological characteristic lends itself to the declaration that a society without x characteristic is therefore uncivilized.

Although if you're more comfortable with the semantics you can pretend I said society.

 

Definitions are almost never useful in politics.

Like say?

Sit-in protests mean nothing to people whose livelihoods depend on coal mining. Health pamphlets mean nothing to people addicted to food.

There were over eighty.

The problem is that cherry-picking only works for people on the high school debate team, Vox readers and politicians with multi-faith constituencies. Go tell the Amish that they have to treat women equally because Jesus was all about equality.

Yeah, who ever heard of pre-agricultural societies taking slaves or killing foreigners?