I'm a resident marxist historian. Any misconceptions I can answer. Any other marxists lurking should feel free to answer as well since I may leave soon.
Any questions about Marxism/Marxist History/Marxist economics/Marxist Sociology/Marxist Paleobotany, feel free to ask
bitches
Is the hatred of socdem justified for muh rosa?
>marxist historian.
So essentially you're not a reap historian because you don't even pretend to look at history from an unbiased point of view. Instead you pick and choose facts and events that further the predetermined narrative of muh eternal class struggle.
How do Marxists rationalize the state withering away after a dictatorshup of the proletariat? Did Marx believe that the proletariat were all good people, or rather would be once they attained class consciousness?
I should of course specify, I ain't OP.
That said the usage of dictatorship in this instance is more a stylistic thing. Marx lived in a time before universal male sufferage regardless of property, hence dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Theoretically, the dictatorship of the proletariat was one in which the proles held political power in which they could exclude the bourgeoisie. A lot of folks supposed that if the poor had equal vote standing with the rich then that would be a de facto dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
You can imagine the shock it was to the social democratic parties when universal male suffrage didn't immediately end up bringing about socialist-dominated parliaments.
You could look further than Rosa. The SPD was one of the biggest parties in the second international, and they decided they preferred supporting the war than keeping the international together.
Though at least unlike the french they tried to keep up a semblance of radical politics. The SFIO, well, they went nationalist without so much as a fraction of mental gymnastics.
Yeah, voting didn't pan out that way, but I thought Marxism was
Revolution->Dictatorship of the Proles->State dissapates. Am I mistaken?
I read in an article of Marxism that you should do away with the ideological underpinnings and assumptions of old and just create a new model based on World Systems theories and Dependency. P.S. I hate communist
Sure, but involves a misunderstanding of what "dictatorship of the proletariat" means. As far of marx understood it, the state powers of the dictatorship of the proletariat weren't much more than that of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, unless it involved killing croats or not having federalism.
I mean hey, there's plenty of folks who go to the polls with the position of reducing government power and expenditure. About the same but from the left, innit?
Alrighty then. A few questions:
1. Why do we pretend as if Marx hated capitalism, even though he fucking loved it and considered it to be beneficial to society at large? The first few pages of the Communist Manifesto is some of the biggest defense of capitalism you can read in all of 19th century.
2. Why do we act like Marx was the original critic of capitalism, even though the right wing/reaction criticized it as an inhumane system and liberal bullshit decades before Marxism was a thing?
3. Why is it commonly ignored, even by Marxists themselves, that the internationalist nature of Marxism has roots primarily in Jewish interests?
>they decided they preferred supporting the war than keeping the international together.
Was that what eventually destroyed the international? Did they simply did it for muh nationalism or realpolitik?
That's my point. Why did he not believe the dictatorship of the proletariat would become the dictatorship of the bourgeois 2.0?
Wasn't it because dialectic logically led to that conclusion
As in a class that won't exploit and want class equality
The SPD put up a real front, they actually posed it as a war of national liberation against russian feudalism. It's dishonest, but hey, it's trying!
The fucking french, they were str8 up nationalist, didn't hide it at all.
It would have been in effect dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, except exercised for proleterian interests. Really now compared to the dictatorships we all know and hate these days, classical dictatorship of the bourgeoisie ain't that bad at all.
Bear in mind that these were 19th century guys. They didn't experience dictatorship as, well, str8 up dictatorship. They used the term strangely, compared to us moderns.
Huh? No, Marxism is a framework. I even reject certain aspects of Marx's analysis of history. The framework and relationships he outlines I've found to be monumentally useful in making sense of history.
not all of history is the history of class struggle, but some of it is.
The dictatorship of the proletariat just means a situation where the interests of the proletariat are pushed by the state.
What we live in now is called a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, but it's not literally a dictatorship. In the same manner, the dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't need to be an actual dictatorship either.
If you're a marxist historian, I'm going to assume you're an economic reductionist, i.e., the economic factors are always the ones that drive other factors.
Why do you maintain such a framework? I've never seen a good economically driven analysis for say, why the Arab-Israeli conflict continues to go on. After all, the differences between the two contending parties aren't really economic ones, they exist, but are hardly the points of contention.
why has it failed every single time its been put into practice?
> I've never seen a good economically driven analysis for say, why the Arab-Israeli conflict continues to go on.
Well, the Arab-Israeli conflict is a fairly straight forward imperialist conflict. It could be resolved by the creation of a federalist state, or a United Kingdom a-la Austria-Hungary or the UK, but instead both parties are vying for supremacy over the other. It's clear why: If you have a state, you have more power. It's much better to be the king in your land than to be the peasant in someone else's.
In general, though, not every historical happening can be described through an economic lens. Indeed, much of the political development of a society happens independently of economic happenings (but at the same time they are very intertwined and just as often play in to one another.)
The Marxist says that the political system's characteristics are pretty much determined by the characteristics of the economic system and really not much more. And I think that's absolutely right; The French Revolution, Meiji Restoration, Russia Revolution, and Chinese Civil War prove this. Each one of those revolutions were caused by massive breaks in the economic development and the political development of these societies. Post-revolution, each of these societies did away with the remaining feudal elements of their political system and replaced them with ones more suited for capitalism.
Why has what failed? Marxism is a method of analysis, and I'd say it's a pretty damn good one.
If you're wondering why "communism" has failed everywhere it's been tried, consider this: Russia, China, and Vietnam all sought to bring about socialism, which is public ownership of the means of production.
However, you can't really do this if you haven't developed an industrial capitalist society. Each of these societies then decided to create an industrialist capitalist society first, and each of them was extremely successful in doing so.
cont'd
Very few places have tried to bring about socialism. Many have set out to do it, only to find that the conditions aren't quite right yet. Today, however, we're seeing instances of successful socialism pop up in places with lots of conflict: Rojava and Chiapas. So to say that communism or socialism or whatever is a failure is a really poor analysis.
>In general, though, not every historical happening can be described through an economic lens. Indeed, much of the political development of a society happens independently of economic happenings (but at the same time they are very intertwined and just as often play in to one another.)
Pardon my ignorance, but I thought this statement was incompatible with a marxist framework of history, which states as one of its starting points that ALL of history and societal development is economically motivated.
> And I think that's absolutely right; The French Revolution, Meiji Restoration, Russia Revolution, and Chinese Civil War prove this. Each one of those revolutions were caused by massive breaks in the economic development and the political development of these societies. Post-revolution, each of these societies did away with the remaining feudal elements of their political system and replaced them with ones more suited for capitalism.
But what about all the surrounding conflicts that did not eliminate "feudal" elements, or even affect them when you had new groups taking over? The overthrow of the Qing dynasty and the rise of the first republic of China/Warlordism did nothing to advance capitalism. Similarly, you can point to the rise of the Barakzai dynasty in Afghanistan in the 19th century, or the partitions of Poland, or the decolonialization in South America. Conflict, violent overthrow, and no real economic change.
Furthermore, the examples cited as such always seem to be either "Feudalism" to Capitalism, or from Capitalism to Socialism. Economic models in say, Western Europe didn't change a whole lot from AD 400-1000, certainly not as much as it has changed from 1400-2000. Yet you had massive political change, from a decaying imperial model to roving warlordism to classical feudalism, while the underlying economic structure remained primarily agricultural and people squabbled over the best way to rule and administrate such.
What does Marx mean by 'contradictions of capitalism'? How can true contradictions exist?
>which states as one of its starting points that ALL of history and societal development is economically motivated.
I'm pretty sure the statement is more along the lines of every historical development is shaped by the economic structure, not motivated by it. And that's pretty much true. The reason why, say the Burgundian Inheritance happened was because of the way the political system worked and at the core of their political system was the manorial serf relation (which was beginning to decline by that time). But marxist history doesn't say "x event was directly caused by x economic pressure" because not every historical event admits to such a description. I'm sure Hobsbawm would agree.
>But what about all the surrounding conflicts that did not eliminate "feudal" elements, or even affect them when you had new groups taking over?
See above.
>The overthrow of the Qing dynasty and the rise of the first republic of China/Warlordism did nothing to advance capitalism.
I actually really strongly disagree. The overthrow of the Qing enabled the Nationalists to go on and cement their rule and being the Nanjing Decade, the first major stride for capitalism. The Qing had actively been fighting against that, the Nationalists encouraged such a transition.
> Economic models in say, Western Europe didn't change a whole lot from AD 400-1000
I completely disagree here. Much of central and all of Eastern Europe did not use the manorial system by 400, and yet by 1000 the feudal manorial system stretched from Galicia to at least Warsaw.
One easy one to point out is the situation where the laborer wants to live and feed his family and the capitalist wants to make a profit (this is a very simplified description). Their interests are antithetical and this conflict is central to the functioning of capitalism.
Hey, Did marx actually hate capitalism?
I don't think so. He understood it's place in history and appreciated it's advancements while simultaneously being disgusted by it's excesses and what he perceived to be inhumanity. I'd has he had a nuanced view of it as a mode of production.
Is it economic determinism or economic condition? Which one is it? How do the two assumptions differ from one another?
Why does the western world suffer your existence?
How long do you think it will be until you are driven out?
Yes hi. What do you think about Keynes' general criticism of Marxism that it falls short because it is inherently dependable on time-units, and the time-cycle fluctuates with different production periods?
Please don't ask me to define terms because if you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't be talking about it.
Thanks!
What do you feel about cultural marxism?
Doesn't exist. SJW stuff is generally exclusive with Marxism. Tumblr types care very little about class struggle.
>SJW stuff is generally exclusive with Marxism.
Wrong. It's definitely not the case in the US. they're intersectionists with Trotkyists and even with Antifa sometiems.
The fact you think you're special enough to need a Q&A just for being a marxist on an anime focused imageboard makes me wonder if this whole thread isn't just well disguised bait.
Nice ideology.
How do you reconcile the LTV with reality¿
What evidence is there that class exists?
How can these classes be defined?
Who the FUCK is this kstew posting autist.
What do you mean?
What problems do you have with LTV
Prove how labour inputs corrolate to competitive market prices.
Can't get a theory of prices from it.
"b-but values and prices are completely separate!"
Sounds quite spooky for a materialist
What kind of political system do you advocate?
Do you have an opinion on Georgism? Please don't link me to the letter to Engels, I have seen it.
>decided to create an industrialist capitalist society first, and each of them was extremely successful in doing so.
What is there to make us think that Marxist socialism is workable at all then? It seems to not be able to compete with capitalism. I think there is truth to some elements of Marxist analysis, but not in the assertion that socialism will lead to an unprecedented development of productive forces. It doesn't seem to be able to keep up with the pace set by market societies.
Not him, but I don't see how it can compete with marginal utility theory. LTV needs an account of utility to operate (mud pies), MUT offers a complete account in and of itself.
Marx never cared about the common man. He just liked Marxism because he knew if it was achieved in his own day he would be the Emperor of Mankind.
Given soviet power, Marx would have probably exterminated slavs, blacks, jews and many other groups.
t. Cletus
Primitive Communism has been proven wrong, and Hegel philosophy led to practically every shitty ideology since.
Still I will defend Marx by saying most people who rave on about it have never bothered to read or study it. It's really telling that many people resort to character assassinations and ad-hominems about Marx and other far leftist thinkers and not actually attacking the merit of the ideas and arguments.
As far as I can remember, you take the Prices of Production which is cost of production (constant capital + variable capital + surplus value) + average rate of profit (surplus value/constant capital+variable capital)
constant cap = production inputs and means of production
variable cap = labour etc.
The market price fluctuates around the Prices of Production allowing for fluctuations of supply and demand.
Some heterodox economists have done statistical analysis that show the Prices of Production are close to the observed market prices. I am out of my depth at that level but there is empirical proof for LTV.
answer this
>marxist historian
*tips*
Marxist "historian" is code word for apply the ridiculous debunked idea of dialectical materialism to everything and in the end blame White men
>Why do we pretend as if Marx hated capitalism, even though he fucking loved it and considered it to be beneficial to society at large? The first few pages of the Communist Manifesto is some of the biggest defense of capitalism you can read in all of 19th century.
Because the whole point of both the Manifesto and Kapital is that Capitalism is at its nature exploitative and self-destructive.Capitalism does not have to do with benefits/disadvantages, it is the next step in Capital ownership after feudalism.
>Why do we act like Marx was the original critic of capitalism, even though the right wing/reaction criticized it as an inhumane system and liberal bullshit decades before Marxism was a thing?
The right wing did not criticize capitalism at that time at least), reactionary ideologies like that of Burke and de Maistre focused on defending Monarchism against the bourgeois enlightenment revolution. Most monarchists embraced mercantilism beforehand, and after the revolution, they embraced European colonialism. So no they never really criticized Capitalism.
>Why is it commonly ignored, even by Marxists themselves, that the internationalist nature of Marxism has roots primarily in Jewish interests?
Internationalism which aims at worker solidarity with the aims of overthrowing private ownership and Capital is in the interest of Jews?
LOL
>Primitive Communism has been proven wrong
How so? I think it is a well established fact in both history and anthropology that private land ownership began in Mesopotamia/Ancient Egypt.
>It seems to not be able to compete with capitalism.
You misunderstood me. The revolutionaries of previous realized that they couldn't yet achieve socialism from their feudal societies, so they settled for capitalism.
In the present, I full believe socialism can compete with capitalism.
I don't understand the question.
Because capitalism has some inherent contradictions that seem to lend itself towards an eventual progression to another mode of production.
Socialists would (and did exist) without Marx, which I think is fairly telling about the relationship between socialism and capitalism.
>Primitive Communism has been proven wrong
It didn't look 100% the way Marx outlined it, and that's because of the lack of sources in his time compared to now. But hunter-gatherers were mostly egalitarian and shared their resources depending on need.
>dialectical materialism
Is shit.
Hobsbawm is a genius and you've never read him
>Cosmopolitan people
usually profit ofg internationalism
>LOL
Ok buddy. Yeah, its really LOL.
>Thinks Traditionalist Catholic critiques of liberalism and capitalism didn't exist
Read about Distributism.
When you say socialism, do you refer to a planned economy?
/thread
Problem is that this is true of every economist