Was the development of Marxist theory financed by the exploitation of the working classes?

[Boojatta]

Some people think that the wealth of Engels came from something other than the exploitation of the working class. What do you think? Were you surprised when you first noticed that Marxism is a theoretical superstructure that was tailored not to fit reality, but to soothe the conscience of Engels?

[FarLeftFist]

1. Marxism, as defined by Karl Marx

Has never been fully implemented anywhere ever. So whether it fits reality or not we may never know.

[joshcryer]

3. Incorrect, Lenin implemented the dictatorship of the proletariat as Marx envisioned.

Marx was simply wrong, as are todays Trotksyites.

[DefenseLawyer]

4. Cliffs Notes are awesome! n/t

[joshcryer]

6. Nah, I like to consider myself well read in the left-wing uprisings against the Russion Revolution.

It was becoming clear even then that the dictatorship, the one party rule, was not the right approach. Sadly the uprisings failed on several accords, because the people drank the koolaid. Orwell wrote all about it. :hi:

[DefenseLawyer]

9. If you think Lenin's Vanguard Party came from Marx

You need to read some more.

[joshcryer]

10. The vanguard was a direct interpretion of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Trotsky defended it.

[DefenseLawyer]

14. I don't know what "direct interpretation" even means.

But I don't think you've ever actually read Marx. Nothing Marx ever wrote suggested that the communist revolution could come from feudal, agrarian Russia.

[joshcryer]

16. Uh, the communist manifesto writes about the vanguard as the means to implement dictatorship of...

...the proletariat.

Have you not actually read the Communist Manifesto?

[DefenseLawyer]

31. That's the difference between actually reading something and reading "about" something

Yes, Marx uses the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" to describe the political control by the working class when communism emerges from capitalism. But if you actually read what he described, and not just the word "dictatorship" from some quick review of marxism on a website, you would see that Marx doesn't at all describe a "dictatorship" in the way you are using the term or in the way Lenin needed to in order to bring about revolution in Russia.

[readmoreoften]

20. He doesn't know what "direct interpretation" means either.

[joshcryer]

12. Here's Trotsky on the Dictatorship:

...

The dictatorship is necessary because it is a case, not of partial changes, but of the very existence of the bourgeoisie. No agreement is possible on this ground. Only force can be the deciding factor. The dictatorship of the proletariat does not exclude, of course, either separate agreements, or considerable concessions, especially in connection with the lower middle class and the peasantry. But the proletariat can only conclude these agreements after having gained possession of the apparatus of power, and having guaranteed to itself the possibility of independently deciding on which points to yield and on which to stand firm, in the interests of the general Socialist task.

Kautsky now repudiates the dictatorship of the proletariat at the very outset, as the “tyranny of the minority over the majority.” That is, he discerns in the revolutionary regime of the proletariat those very features by which the honest Socialists of all countries invariably describe the dictatorship of the exploiters, albeit masked by the forms of democracy.

...

In 1891, that is, not long before his death, Engels, as we just heard, obstinately defended the dictatorship of the proletariat as the only possible form of its control of the State. Kautsky himself more than once repeated this definition. Hence, by the way, we can see what an unworthy forgery is Kautsky’s present attempt to throw back the dictatorship of the proletariat at us as a purely Russian invention.

Who aims at the end cannot reject the means. The struggle must be carried on with such intensity as actually to guarantee the supremacy of the proletariat. If the Socialist revolution requires a dictatorship – ”the sole form in which the proletariat can achieve control of the State” – it follows that the dictatorship must be guaranteed at all cost.

To write a pamphlet about dictatorship one needs an ink-pot and a pile of paper, and possibly, in addition, a certain number of ideas in one’s head. But in order to establish and consolidate the dictatorship, one has to prevent the bourgeoisie from undermining the State power of the proletariat. Kautsky apparently thinks that this can be achieved by tearful pamphlets. But his own experience ought to have shown him that it is not sufficient to have lost all influence with the proletariat, to acquire influence with the bourgeoisie.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/terrcomm/ch02.htm

These are very fucking dangerous ideas and go against the libertarian socialists who actually want to implement a free and democratic socialism.

[readmoreoften]

21. OOOhhh. You can quote. You have no idea what you're talking about. No context.

Like, you know, for example, the fact that the "LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISTS" and "SOCIAL DEMOCRATS" like Bernstein, Kautsky, and the 2nd Internationalists destroyed socialism (and millions of lives) by supporting WWI. Of the socialists, only Lenin, Trotsky, and Luxemburg opposed it. (Funny how, once again, a "social democrat" is foaming at the mouth for imperialist invasion!) But, of course, you don't believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat. I guess capitalists are going to sing fucking kum-ba-ya with the working class and we'll be able to co-rule with them. That will never be anything other than dictatorship of the capitalist class, which we live under now.

You're a text book example of what happens when people read an article on marxists.org and think they understand world events when they're not out in the streets, in contact with international movements, and when they have no skin in the game.

[coalition_unwilling]

23. Don't forget Eugene Debs. He was put in prison here for opposing

World War I and U.S. participation in it as inimical to the interests of the working class.

BTW, the person to whom you were responding is on my Ignore list no doubt for some idiocy in the past. As such, I can only guess what you were responding to. But wanted to put in a plug for Debs.

[joshcryer]

26. Uh, neither Bernstein or Kautsky were libertarian socialiats.

And I am unaware of even one libertarian socialist who "supported WWI," every instance I know is anti WWI. I do know that libertarian socialists supported the Kronstadt Rebellion and Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War. I don't believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat because it's fucking authoritarianism.

It is amusing how you cite social democrats as examples of libertarian socialists, in order to box them in with imperialists. But, it's typical of Trotskyites, indeed, Trotsky himself was calling the Kronstadt rebellion the result of spooky imperialist forces.

That's the reason I don't support the fucking dictatorship of the proletariat, because it never moves two a classless society, in every example it has stuck around as some sort of necessity. That's why Cuba is still 50 years on still thinking of the party (OK, that's not true, they're becoming capitalists like Russia now).

[readmoreoften]

19. You like to think of yourself that way. But you really don't know what you're talking about.

In fact, you know so little about Lenin or Trotsky, that I don't think its really worth bothering to have a conversation with you. You just pretend you know about things and run with it. That's why you're a guy with an anarchist logo who is supporting an imperialist state's military intervention: because you're an arrogant hodgepodge of political misreading and contradiction.

[joshcryer]

27. What?

If libertarian socialists were relevant today (and weren't massacred by authoritarian leftists) then maybe we'd help like we did in the Spanish Civil War or Kronstadt. But we failed in both of those instances so it is perhaps futile to even dream of an instance where truly freedom loving socialists would extend their hand to help their fellow human beings fight against tyranny.

BTW, I posted the full link before, context is right there in the fucking article.

[struggle4progress]

13. Marx actually thought communism in Russia very unlikely: Russia, even at the time

of the Bolshevik revolution, was a largely agrarian state, with almost no industrial infra-structure; there was almost no proletariat-class

[joshcryer]

15. France and Germany were composed of artisans and peasants.

Marx's entire critique was hardly applicable even there.

Marx's exact implementation approach is class-dividing, it pits classes against one another, whereas other leftists of the era felt that it could be implemented without these divisive divisions.

[struggle4progress]

17. Marx is a complicated person, part philosopher, part economist, part political activist,

part propagandist, part Old Testament prophet. One of his genuine motivations is outrage at the wretched conditions of industrial workers, which he can document with iron logic from the driest of economic reports

The Marxian tradition has provided us with a fine analytical method, for understanding political tendencies and developments. The method works as follows: first, one attempts to sort out the various and most important economic slots that people can fill in a given society, as it is structured; then, one attempts to understand the ways in which the groups of people, who fill these different slots, have divergent material interests; next, one examines the ways they explain the society and their social ideals to themselves, explanations which will be muddled by old out-of-date ideas and historical traditions and various delusional mystifications and which can be clarified by critical thinking. After conducting such an analysis, one has some useful pragmatic information -- that is, one is able to understand the current situation, to anticipate something about future developments, and to plan political action for concrete objective accordingly

One need not be an economic determinist to apply this method fruitfully. Nor need one believe that such class-analysis is the only source of useful ideas. Nor need one believe that social class is the only cogent fact that one should consider in dealing with concrete and particular human beings

I find orthodox Marxist ideologues a tiresome lot, just as I find religious fundamentalists a tiresome lot. I do not conclude, from the fact that religious fundamentalists bore and tire me, that there are no helpful ideas in religion; similarly, I do not conclude, from the fact that orthodox Marxist ideologues bore and tire me, that there are no helpful ideas in the Marxian tradition

As a general rule, I am a Christian pacifist, with materialist leanings and egalitarian democratic ideals. I have little sympathy for dictatorships of any sort. My religion tells me I ought to strive for a radical love of people, even those who I think are objectively my enemies -- but it does not tell me I must shut my eyes to facts, such as exploitation of some people by others. Marx did not invent class struggle: he simply noticed it and thought about it carefully

http://rachsglobal10.wikispaces.com.nyud.net:8090/file/view/smallmill.gif/179806923/smallmill.gif

[coalition_unwilling]

24. When I read the supposedly mroe scientific Das Kapital many

years ago, I was struck by how often Marx had linguistic recourse to religious and quasi-religious language and themes. Granted, I was reading Kapital in translation and not in its original German. But I have to assume that the translators were adept at conveying Marx' meanings fairly faithfully.

I mention this becuase the Marxian quote that 'religion is the opiate of the masses' is often used to 'prove' Marx' hostility to religion. On the contrary, I think Marx intended his 'opiate of the masses' phrase to mean that the demands of industrial capitalism were so hard that the proletariat used religion as an opiate to help them self-medicate against the rampant exploitation happening then.

Not sure where that leaves us now, except that I often think of that alternative meaning when thinking about the Bible Belt and the appeal religion holds for people in it today.

[joshcryer]

29. I think there's a conflation here between Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto and...

...other works. Das Kapital is all well and good, the only real libertarian socialist critique of Das Kapital that you will find is that its language is unapproachable. No one can fault Marx's analysis, though from the libertarian socialist point of view there are far better works which explain the tyranny of capitalism. I do not slight Marx particularly his work on Das Kapital.

The Communist Manifesto, however, and other works by Marx can be (and were) a blueprint for an authoritarian implementation of socialism. Marx arguably left out a good bit of details toward actually creating communism, in the end.

[Boojatta]

5. I apologize for my word choice.

The words in the Original Post are potentially misleading and, although you aren't a mind reader, they don't express the idea that I had in mind.

By "fits reality", I intended to refer to the question of whether or not the intangible structure of reality that is dimly reflected in statistics conforms to the theoretical structure that is Marxism. I was talking about neither a hypothetical pure Marxist society, nor the sustained progress that might be hoped for in such a society when it comes to economic productivity, equity of economic distribution, actual policies of judicial institutions, actual functioning (or "dysfunctioning") of families and other parts of the social sphere, etc.

[joshcryer]

2. Yes, as developed.

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. Deeply stupid

That is all.

[Boojatta]

8. Who or what is or was "deeply stupid"?

[MadHound]

11. Marxist theory was, and is, a study of capitalism, what it does, and where it will lead

Nothing more, nothing less. I don't think that it was intended to soothe anybody's conscience.

The funny thing about the Marxist playbook is that both sides, socialists and capitalist, work out of it. One side is trying to better humanity at large, the other, trying to enrich themselves.

[readmoreoften]

22. +1

[readmoreoften]

18. Oh for the love of god. Who fucking cares? Marxism is a structural analysis of an economic system

not finger-wagging based on someone's personal morality claims or personal place within the economic system. Engels was born into wealth and subverted that wealth for the working class. The point of Marxism isn't that CAPITALISTS are born bad, so everyone born into a family of capitalists is inherently the problem. The point of Marxism is that the SYSTEM of capitalism is created from the exploitation of the working class and drives any capitalist to compete with other capitalists which destroys the low-level capitalists as well as the workers. There is no "shame" of birthplace in Marxism. No "moral righteousness" of the working class, only a special condition that the working class live under that can lead to the transformation of the system.

EVERYTHING UNDER CAPITAL COMES FROM EXPLOITATION OF THE WORKING CLASS. So do the conditions for this website, your computers, and everything else.

Nice try, though.

[coalition_unwilling]

25. I've been carrying on this argument in one form or another since

tbe early 80s when I was in college. Variations of the "Engels was rich" meme are "Marx was a freeloader" and other such absurdities. Frankly, I've gotten tired of refuting the Pharisees but I applaud your efforts here.

[howard112211]

28. LoL. This has to be one of the weirdest theories ever.

[joshcryer]

30. Not really, Kropotkin had similar things said about him.

Son of a prince, advocating socialism, etc.