Karl Marx

[shankara]

What do people think of him? Was he responsible for the madness of Soviet Communism and Chinese Maoism? Or was his work misinterpreted or used by others with their own agenda?

My personal idea is that he was a person with some humanitarian feeling, he genuinely felt the suffering of the exploited labouring class in his times. His idea of "false consciousness", the notion that people believe things which are against their own interest, taking on the same ideology as their oppressor, makes a lot of sense to me. He also inspired Critical Theory, which despite having certain problems seems to me to be an important critique of the capitalist world order.

From "The Communist Manifesto" (with my highlighting):

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation…. The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society…. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind

 

[shankara]

Leninism was a right wing interpretation of Marx from the beginning.

That said all the anarchist thinkers had better analysis whether it’s Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin etc.

There is still some validity to his work but it’s better to look elsewhere.

Yeah I'm personally quite a fan of Bakunin, he seemed to have had some good ideas, and unlike Marx he was a man of action rather than an intellectual. Marx, or his interpreters, were totally anti-religious, while Bakunin said people can practise whatever religion they like. I also think his idea that a person who has committed some crime or broken some rule doesn't have to accept the punishment of the community, but if they choose not to then they cease to enjoy the protection of that community, somewhat like in the Norse practise of declaring people outlaws.

It's been a while since I read his stuff and I didn't go to deep into it, I'm sure he had a lot of other ideas.

Marx though did give a really good systematic analysis of the capitalist system and relations of exchange in a way that no other theorist really did. Though replacing such economic relations with state control isn't the best way? Perhaps better to think more locally, smaller communities?

 

[Wigi]

Marx and all ideologies related to him has caused millions of deaths.

 

[vancityeagle]

What do people think of him? Was he responsible for the madness of Soviet Communism and Chinese Maoism? Or was his work misinterpreted or used by others with their own agenda?

My personal idea is that he was a person with some humanitarian feeling, he genuinely felt the suffering of the exploited labouring class in his times. His idea of "false consciousness", the notion that people believe things which are against their own interest, taking on the same ideology as their oppressor, makes a lot of sense to me. He also inspired Critical Theory, which despite having certain problems seems to me to be an important critique of the capitalist world order.

From "The Communist Manifesto" (with my highlighting):

well coming from a forum that was full of right wing thinkers and ideology, I've seen a lot of negative things said about Marx.

I have not read any of his works, but am loosely familiar with his basic concepts which I believe do have merit. Of course criticizing the capitalist system has merit. Duh..

The right wingers claimed that Marx was a descendant of the Rothschilds, and linked to Freemasonry. I dont know if that is true, or simply disinformation, but I do suspect that Marx may have been trying to co-opt the workers movement.

 

[vancityeagle]

Marx and all ideologies related to him has caused millions of deaths.

yes I've heard this argument before.

so who gets the blame for the far higher death count of the ideology of capitalism ?

 

[Helioform]

Marx's historical materialism was really evil. He basically said that social and physical factors shaped society and not ideas. His view is in line with the ruling class manipulators who use physical events such as engineered crisis, as in Hegel's Dialectic, to basically create changes in society.

 

[illuminatimess]

Misconceptions of Marx‘s works, created by capitalistic ideas and propaganda.

You shouldn’t judge before having read his work. He was quite the opposite of what y’all all claim.

 

[shankara]

Marx and all ideologies related to him has caused millions of deaths.

That's kind of the big question for me - was it Marx, something inherent in Marx's teaching which was responsible? Or was it misinterpretation?

yes I've heard this argument before.

so who gets the blame for the far higher death count of the ideology of capitalism ?

I'm not convinced that capitalism is necessarily worse than communism. Stalin's purges and the "Great Leap Forward" genuinely did cause horrific amounts of death and suffering. The whole idea of total social control, as practiced by communist governments I find to be extremely disturbing. On the other hand, the suffering caused by capitalism is not negligible by any means, and it seems we are heading towards communist authoritarianism with capitalist economics. Like China, which is already there...

Marx's historical materialism was really evil. He basically said that social and physical factors shaped society and not ideas. His view is in line with the ruling class manipulators who use physical events such as engineered crisis, as in Hegel's Dialectic, to basically create changes in society.

I think he had a point in the sense that material factors definitely shouldn't be ignored as a part of the Dialectical process. But he went way too far with it, like many of his time and today, he wanted to reduce all existence to "matter" and deny any spiritual or conscious element. Hegel was wiser in this respect, but was a total reactionary politically.

 

[vancityeagle]

I'm not convinced that capitalism is necessarily worse than communism. Stalin's purges and the "Great Leap Forward" genuinely did cause horrific amounts of death and suffering.

even if we use the highly inflated figures attributed to "communism" it still is dwarfed by the untold amounts of death and suffering caused by capitalism. Every war is basically a war for capitalism. 20,000 kids supposedly starve to death every day, and that is all down to capitalism.

The whole idea of total social control, as practiced by communist governments I find to be extremely disturbing

.

that is a hallmark of totalitarianism, not communism. People often conflate the two.

On the other hand, the suffering caused by capitalism is not negligible by any means, and it seems we are heading towards communist authoritarianism with capitalist economics. Like China, which is already there...

what is communist authoritarianism with capitalist economics ?

That doesn't make any sense. Authoritarianism can't be communist and capitalist at the same time.

China is an authoritarian capitalist state whose economy is partially nationalized. It is a mixed economy that allows capitalism to flourish.[/QUOTE]

 

[shankara]

even if we use the highly inflated figures attributed to "communism" it still is dwarfed by the untold amounts of death and suffering caused by capitalism. Every war is basically a war for capitalism. 20,000 kids supposedly starve to death every day, and that is all down to capitalism.

You definitely have a point there, it's true in a sense that every person who dies of starvation is a casualty of capitalism. Nor should we ignore the horrific things done by the colonial powers, like King Leopold II in the Congo.

that is a hallmark of totalitarianism, not communism. People often conflate the two.

I'm not convinced that the totalitarian idea was totally absent in Marx. The debate so far as I understand comes down to whether "dictatorship of the proletariat" means dictatorship in the current sense of the term or in the Roman sense as a temporary assumption of total authority during a (short?) transitional period.

what is communist authoritarianism with capitalist economics ?

That doesn't make any sense. Authoritarianism can't be communist and capitalist at the same time.

China is an authoritarian capitalist state whose economy is partially nationalized. It is a mixed economy that allows capitalism to flourish.

The original inspiration for the Chinese model was certainly communist so far as I can see. But yes, I agree, it has become capitalist.

I guess one way of putting the major question about Marx would be this - did Marx inspire criticism against capitalism, and thus the continued existence of a revolutionary anti-capitalist voice in society? (i.e. Critical Theory etc.) Or would a better critique of capitalism have developed without the influence of Marx?

 

[Wigi]

You know it's always the same with ideologies, people supposedly misunderstood the messenger.

Lenin and Russian Communists misunderstood marx,
Hitler and the Nazis misunderstood Nietzsche
Radical ecologists and other malthusianists misinterpret Malthus.

I had a friend who told me how Marx knew it all and how his views were revolutionnary. Thing is, Capitalism works because it resonate with the selfish nature of mankind while Marx dreamed of an egalitarian utopia that is not reachable without authoritarianism simply because you can't avoid hierarchy in a community.

I think Communism and Capitalism are two face of the same coin under the banner of productivism.

 

[lightseeker]

As Helioform said, where Marx got his ideas was from Hegel, but he stripped out all spiritual aspects from Hegels work and made a philosophy of pure materialism. In Hegels work he describes an evolution of consciousness through history to a state of spiritual heights, a process of the transformations of humanitys consciousness from simple sensory perception to mental understanding leading to "absolute knowing" or full development of the consciousness in mankind(its hard to sum up his work but this is the basic idea). Marx did the same but he made it purely material, so an evolution throughout time leading to a world of material evenness. Where every person serves the good of the whole materially without any benefit individually- basically, an ant hill is a perfect representation of Marx's utopia.

The problem with his philosophy is that it strips humanity of the possiblity of spiritual evolution or any development beyond the material world. He stated very clearly that he believed spirituality of all kinds should be eliminated, and his followers carried this out. Of course there is the question, why would a descendant of 15 generations of rabbis want to eliminate religion. I'll let you decide, but just know that anti-semitism was punishable by death in the USSR (until Stalin changed that) and being a Christian was also punishable by death. I noticed Shankara you have Free Tibet in your signature, I assume you know Tibet was occupied by the communist Chinese in 1959 under the ideological aim of fiercely destroying their spirituality, and all aspects of their religion are outlawed (including reincarnation) and most of their spiritual authorities were murdered in cold blood

People always say that his ideas were misinterpreted, but you have to explain why cultures as different as Vietnam to Korea to the USSR to China to Cuba all looked the same during and after their revolution. You also have to ask why they need walls to keep people in.

It is because the crux of his philosophy that will GUARENTEE it is always a frightful horror, is that violence, mass killings, and bloodshed are a part of the ideology. He said you need to kill the borgeoisie, which means that in Cambodia anyone with a pair of glasses was executed on the killing fields. It lead to such widespread deaths in the 20th century that there's no way you can explain away his intents or the interpretations by the followers.

 

[shankara]

As Helioform said, where Marx got his ideas was from Hegel, but he stripped out all spiritual aspects from Hegels work and made a philosophy of pure materialism. In Hegels work he describes an evolution of consciousness through history to a state of spiritual heights, a process of the transformations of humanitys consciousness from simple sensory perception to mental understanding leading to "absolute knowing" or full development of the consciousness in mankind(its hard to sum up his work but this is the basic idea). Marx did the same but he made it purely material, so an evolution throughout time leading to a world of material evenness. Where every person serves the good of the whole materially without any benefit individually- basically, an ant hill is a perfect representation of Marx's utopia.

The problem with his philosophy is that it strips humanity of the possiblity of spiritual evolution or any development beyond the material world. He stated very clearly that he believed spirituality of all kinds should be eliminated, and his followers carried this out. Of course there is the question, why would a descendant of 15 generations of rabbis want to eliminate religion. I'll let you decide, but just know that anti-semitism was punishable by death in the USSR and being a Christian was also punishable by death. I noticed Shankara you have Free Tibet in your signature, I assume you know Tibet was occupied by the communist Chinese in 1959 under the ideological aim of fiercely destroying their spirituality, and all aspects of their religion are outlawed (including reincarnation) and most of their spiritual authorities were murdered in cold blood

People always say that his ideas were misinterpreted, but you have to explain why cultures as different as Vietnam to Korea to the USSR to China to Cuba all looked the same during and after their revolution. You also have to ask why they need walls to keep people in.

It is because the crux of his philosophy that will GUARENTEE it is always a frightful horror, is that violence, mass killings, and bloodshed are a part of the ideology. He said you need to kill the borgeoisie, which means that in Cambodia anyone with a pair of glasses was executed on the killing fields. It lead to such widespread deaths in the 20th century that there's no way you can explain away his intents or the interpretations by the followers.

I'll respond to this in more depth soon. Of course I'm aware of the horrors of communism, I'm in no way disputing that. But if you look at the part from "The Communist Manifesto" I posted, you see Marx refers to "heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor" as a positive trait of pre-capitalist society. So there's the whole thing about "the opium of the people", everyone knows the quote. Not everyone knows that the sentence before is "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions". I think perhaps Marx was somewhat more ambivalent about this than his followers. Perhaps. Or perhaps he had a real anti-religious agenda. Perhaps.

Also worth noting that the Dalai Lama has claimed to be a Marxist.

 

[lightseeker]

I'll respond to this in more depth soon. Of course I'm aware of the horrors of communism, I'm in no way disputing that. But if you look at the part from "The Communist Manifesto" I posted, you see Marx refers to "heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor" as a positive trait of pre-capitalist society. So there's the whole thing about "the opium of the people", everyone knows the quote. Not everyone knows that the sentence before is "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions". I think perhaps Marx was somewhat more ambivalent about this than his followers. Perhaps. Or perhaps he had a real anti-religious agenda. Perhaps.

Also worth noting that the Dalai Lama has claimed to be a Marxist.

But he finished that quote by saying " The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.....Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself." So he was saying that people find happiness in religion, but if the material world was arranged in a certain way, people would receive happiness purely from materialism and would abolish religion. They use religion only because the material world is not arranged properly.

And Lenin of course said "Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism " I know you are asking about Marx in particular but I don't think Lenin is misinterpreting. Why would people turn to religion if they are supposed to be content with the perfection of the material world proposed by Marxism?

For Marx, who proposes a material utopia, if religion were a part of that which is by nature beyond or against materialism, it would mean that the Marxist utopia could not fulfill all the criteria for mans life, which is not what he proposed.

So because he proposed a dialectical evolution and progression of humanity like Hegel, who saw mankinds consciousness evolving, Marx proposed that the people before him were "evolving" into throwing off religion and living purely for materiality.

 

[illuminatimess]

You know it's always the same with ideologies, people supposedly misunderstood the messenger.

Lenin and Russian Communists misunderstood marx,
Hitler and the Nazis misunderstood Nietzsche
Radical ecologists and other malthusianists misinterpret Malthus.

I had a friend who told me how Marx knew it all and how his views were revolutionnary. Thing is, Capitalism works because it resonate with the selfish nature of mankind while Marx dreamed of an egalitarian utopia that is not reachable without authoritarianism simply because you can't avoid hierarchy in a community.

I think Communism and Capitalism are two face of the same coin under the banner of productivism.

Nonetheless, Hitler didn’t misunderstand his American teachers

 

[Aero]

Marx and his interpreters sure seem to know a lot about the ruling class.

False-consciousness as a whole has some merit though. But I don't see how it fits with the conclusion of a working-class revolution. Unless of course, revolution means the working class is being pawned off on a different superstructure.

It's definitely fair to say, communism doesn't lead to some fantasy Utopia. If such a thing as Utopia is possible it will be when technology supersedes all human ideas and superstructures. Basically I'm saying humans can't get out of their own way until a machine teaches them how. I'm thinking a machine could teach in a purely universal way.

I think the machine-human relationship is worth exploring further. In modern terms, humans and machines are servants to each other. They are like frenemies. You know, we are too interconnected with machines on a personal level. Machines may be the logical conclusion to human's desire for autonomy.

 

[vancityeagle]

You know it's always the same with ideologies, people supposedly misunderstood the messenger.

Lenin and Russian Communists misunderstood marx,
Hitler and the Nazis misunderstood Nietzsche
Radical ecologists and other malthusianists misinterpret Malthus.

I had a friend who told me how Marx knew it all and how his views were revolutionnary. Thing is, Capitalism works because it resonate with the selfish nature of mankind while Marx dreamed of an egalitarian utopia that is not reachable without authoritarianism simply because you can't avoid hierarchy in a community.

I think Communism and Capitalism are two face of the same coin under the banner of productivism.

would you blame Jesus for all the crimes of the Church ?

Capitalism "works" because it is forced upon us by the elites, by the barrel of the gun. That basically is authoritarianism.

 

[illuminatimess]

Cuba is better post revolution than it was with Batista and the Mafia. Vietnam is far better post revolution than with the French or the military dictatorship of the South. Vietnam is probably the best country in the region.

That’s not saying they don’t have problems.
Marxism does open the door for authoritarianism, anything that still requires a state is going to do that, and the worst persecutors of Anarchists have always been state communists.

Still I think it’s better that the Russian Revolution happened, it’s better that the White Army lost. Had the whites won we’d all be under fascist rule. I know that’s ok with some commenters in this thread.

Ultimately Marx is valuable for class analysis and certain other things, and he isn’t the monster people want to caricature him as, but anarchists have always done it better and in the end it’s black > red.

Thank you. You said everything I just wanted to say

 

[vancityeagle]

As Helioform said, where Marx got his ideas was from Hegel, but he stripped out all spiritual aspects from Hegels work and made a philosophy of pure materialism. In Hegels work he describes an evolution of consciousness through history to a state of spiritual heights, a process of the transformations of humanitys consciousness from simple sensory perception to mental understanding leading to "absolute knowing" or full development of the consciousness in mankind(its hard to sum up his work but this is the basic idea). Marx did the same but he made it purely material, so an evolution throughout time leading to a world of material evenness. Where every person serves the good of the whole materially without any benefit individually- basically, an ant hill is a perfect representation of Marx's utopia.

I dont know why you are criticizing Marx's philosophy as being strictly "material" when the philosophy he opposes is completely about worshipping the Material. Capitalism couldn't get any more material.

The problem with his philosophy is that it strips humanity of the possiblity of spiritual evolution or any development beyond the material world

Nothing achieves this more so than capitalism. Christ said you cannot serve 2 masters, you cannot serve money and God. At least Marx is taking the emphasis away from serving money. He also said a rich man making it to heaven would be nearly impossible. The biggest impedement to spirituality IS CAPITALISM. Its not even close.

He stated very clearly that he believed spirituality of all kinds should be eliminated, and his followers carried this out.

I've never read Marx, I've only read of Marx, so I dont know if this is true or not. If it is true I dont agree with him. If it isn't true, its not surprising he would be lied about. And again I cannot state this enough. You literally could not do anything worse to damaging spirituality than promoting CAPITALISM, which Marx opposed.

Of course there is the question, why would a descendant of 15 generations of rabbis want to eliminate religion. I'll let you decide, but just know that anti-semitism was punishable by death in the USSR (until Stalin changed that)

I call BS on that, I've heard this many times. What is your source for that ?

and being a Christian was also punishable by death.

[/QUOTE]
that is definately BS.

I noticed Shankara you have Free Tibet in your signature, I assume you know Tibet was occupied by the communist Chinese in 1959 under the ideological aim of fiercely destroying their spirituality, and all aspects of their religion are outlawed (including reincarnation) and most of their spiritual authorities were murdered in cold blood

I'm pretty sure it was disputed territories, and not the need to "destroy their spirituality"

People always say that his ideas were misinterpreted, but you have to explain why cultures as different as Vietnam to Korea to the USSR to China to Cuba all looked the same during and after their revolution. You also have to ask why they need walls to keep people in.

They didn't look the same. Communist regimes even fought against each other over differences. China and USSR had a falling out. The socialist Republic of Yugoslavia also had a falling out with both China and USSR. They disagreed on many things, and were not carbon copies of each other. Not all communist countries had walls.

I

t is because the crux of his philosophy that will GUARENTEE it is always a frightful horror, is that violence, mass killings, and bloodshed are a part of the ideology. He said you need to kill the borgeoisie, which means that in Cambodia anyone with a pair of glasses was executed on the killing fields. It lead to such widespread deaths in the 20th century that there's no way you can explain away his intents or the interpretations by the followers.

sure if you want to believe so. Cambodia is a very bad example. Pol Pot was working with the CIA at that point and was used to attack another communist nation, Vietnam (who had just kicked the Americans out) So its just as easy to blame everything he did on the CIA. The large death toll attributed to Communism is largely made up, its ridiculously exaggerated. The numbers that reactionaries love to throw around have long been discredited.

Nothing has killed more people in the 20th century than wars for profit, and the aftermath of those wars.

 

[vancityeagle]

Cuba is better post revolution than it was with Batista and the Mafia. Vietnam is far better post revolution than with the French or the military dictatorship of the South. Vietnam is probably the best country in the region.

That’s not saying they don’t have problems.
Marxism does open the door for authoritarianism, anything that still requires a state is going to do that, and the worst persecutors of Anarchists have always been state communists.

Still I think it’s better that the Russian Revolution happened, it’s better that the White Army lost. Had the whites won we’d all be under fascist rule. I know that’s ok with some commenters in this thread.

Ultimately Marx is valuable for class analysis and certain other things, and he isn’t the monster people want to caricature him as, but anarchists have always done it better and in the end it’s black > red.

its my opinion that the fall of the USSR in 1991 was the restoration of Russia under "the whites" You would wonder why they have the same tri color flag, and why Putin is allied with a wannabe fascist like Trump.

Funny how when the Soviets were in power, the right wing accused the left wing in America of conspiring with Russia.

Now that things have changed the left wing accuse the right wing of conspiring with Russia. I think there may be something to this.

Yeah I'm glad the Russian Revolution happened, it changed a lot of things FOR THE GOOD.