Is Marxism on the Rise?

[Helmut-WK]

Marx wrote quite a lot (he even gave the first coherent description of the Rhenian dialect), so what he "really" said is up to a point a matter of exegesis (or selection from his writings).

The theory he promoted had severe flaws and needed a revision just by the end of the 19th century. The classical "revisionists" lead the was to democratic socialism, fiercely combated by the leftist. The other famous revision is Marxism-Leninism. Besides a theory on imperialism (which is not that bad), Lenin stressed the need for the revolution to be led by a centralized party. Trotsky called this "dictatorship over the proletariat" in contrast to the "dictatorship of the proletariate", which in Marx's thinking was a dictatorship of a huge majority over a small, but dangerous minority.

Later Trotsky helped Lenin to establish this dictatorship over the proletariat, and what happened to him under Stalin seems to me like a just retribution.

I don't think Marxism-Leninism is on the rise. It is other forms of Marxism that gain some influence in certain circles.

 

[FireDragon76]

Marxist philosophy certainly seems to be in a very active and fruitful phase. New currents of thought being worked out like the emerging Organic Marxist school that presents a constructive post modern take on Marxism combining Marxist theory with ideas from process philosophy, traditional Chinese thought (Daoist, Confucian, Mohist) and environmentalim. Overall I notice a move away from the authoritarian communism of the Soviet era and towards democracy and direct local control. Less orthodox dogmatism and more experimentation with new ideas coupled with fresh reexaminations of the writtings of Marx. Not so down on religion either.

I could see that happening. A good example would be Hans-George Moeller of Carefree Wandering on Youtube.

Marx claimed "man makes religion" to exploit laborers. So then, religion (allegedly) reflects that exploitation.

Not really. That's too crass and careless a reading of Marx. Marx was mostly borrowing from Feuerbach, who saw religion as humanity writ onto a cosmic scale, and the proper locus of humanity's spiritual strivings as humanity itself. Marx's own addition was seeing religion as the sigh of the oppressed, dreaming of a better world or escape from suffering.

 

[Helmut-WK]

Not really. That's too crass and careless a reading of Marx. Marx was mostly borrowing from Feuerbach, who saw religion as humanity writ onto a cosmic scale, and the proper locus of humanity's spiritual strivings as humanity itself. Marx's own addition was seeing religion as the sigh of the oppressed, dreaming of a better world or escape from suffering.

Let me add: It was Lenin who changed the "opium of the people" into "opium for the people", the escape from suffering into an instrument of the oppressor. That has to do with the different functions of religion, i.e. the many "sects" in Elberfeld (now Wuppertal) or in England, and the state church in Russia.

 

[FireDragon76]

Let me add: It was Lenin who changed the "opium of the people" into "opium for the people", the escape from suffering into an instrument of the oppressor. That has to do with the different functions of religion, i.e. the many "sects" in Elberfeld (now Wuppertal) or in England, and the state church in Russia.

Very true.

It is often unknown (to American audiences) that Marx in his younger years was a Protestant Christian. He was not unsympathetic to religious aspirations.

 

[Helmut-WK]

It is often unknown (to American audiences) that Marx in his younger years was a Protestant Christian. He was not unsympathetic to religious aspirations.

That time, almost everybody was a Christian by name.

The personal convictions of the young Karl Marx are unknown. There are school essays - it was expected that the pupil expressed what he has been told, i.e. the religious view of his teacher. AFAIK there is no text by Marx that showed a genuine sympathy for religion.
I once read that the father of Karl Marx was a converted Jew and a very liberal protestant (Kulturprotestant). This classification is somewhat fuzzy, for the movement of "cultural protestantism" was somewhat later.

 

[FireDragon76]

That time, almost everybody was a Christian by name.

The personal convictions of the young Karl Marx are unknown. There are school essays - it was expected that the pupil expressed what he has been told, i.e. the religious view of his teacher. AFAIK there is no text by Marx that showed a genuine sympathy for religion.
I once read that the father of Karl Marx was a converted Jew and a very liberal protestant (Kulturprotestant). This classification is somewhat fuzzy, for the movement of "cultural protestantism" was somewhat later.

Marx had a religious phase as a young teenager and seems to have been sincere about his beliefs, but after coming into contacts with radical thought, he dropped the belief and started criticizing the concept of God.

It is my understanding there was no shortage of this sort of thing in Germany among academic circles and in radical literature.

 

[Helmut-WK]

Marx had a religious phase as a young teenager and seems to have been sincere about his beliefs

There is no hard evidence for it. His essays as a pupil were expected to show what he has been taught, not his personal convictions (R.Wurmbrand, who wrote on Marx and Satan, overlooked this). The early writings (the unfinished drama Oulanem, and poems) show a hatred of God and anything that is good.

„Welten selber stark zerstören,
Weil ich keine schaffen kann,
Weil sie meinem Ruf nicht hören,“
»Empfindungen«, by Karl Marx
Karl Marx – sein Weg in den Kommunismus – Ludwig von Mises Institut Deutschland
Note: I do not condone the general train of thoughts on this website.

»… to destroy worlds strongly, / because I cannot create ones / because they don't listen [obey?] to me.« (my translation)

but after coming into contacts with radical thought, he dropped the belief and started criticizing the concept of God.

Before Marx became a leftist, he was rather reactionary atheist. Do you mean right-wing radicals?

 

[lismore]

Possibly the writings of Groucho Marx would be of more value than those of Karl Marx. God Bless

 

[Erik Nelson]

Lenin stressed the need for the revolution to be led by a centralized party. Trotsky called this "dictatorship over the proletariat" in contrast to the "dictatorship of the proletariat", which in Marx's thinking was a dictatorship of a huge majority over a small, but dangerous minority.

Julius Caesar was the first dictator of the proletariat. He walked the streets and alleys of Rome, presenting himself as a champion of their cause, who would ram their reforms through the opposition of the wealthy patrician senators, and who promised the poor bread and games.

Julius Caesar and his close confidants are analogous to Joseph Stalin and his exclusive Bolshevik "vanguard" party.

Julius Caesar was a despot, who succeeded where Hannibal, Xerxes and Darius had failed, in imperializing Greek democracies and the Roman Republic (along with surrounding barbarians).

(Perhaps the Roman plebes felt so oppressed by their patricians for so many centuries that they wanted to make others suffer as they had for centuries more.)

Very ironic that Marxism acknowledges capitalism is two steps less bad than Roman imperial slavery (Roman imperial slavery was defeated by barbarian feudal serfdom which gave rise to bourgeois capitalist employment) yet literally advocates for a revolving return back around to Roman imperial slave-based demagoguery (monarchial emperors claiming dictatorial powers for some purported proletarian purposes).

(2000 years of collective (if ineptly imperfect) western resistance to the despotism of Roman imperialism ("4th beast of Daniel") Marxism seeks to tear down, for a re-turn to mass slavery (gulags), proscription list (enemies of the people arrests), arbitrary dictatorial powers.)

 

[Helmut-WK]

Julius Caesar was the first dictator of the proletariat.

The situation was so different that this is only a play with words. No real parallel. A dictator in Roman terminology was a leader in case of (usually military) emergency, traditionally for one year only.
Caesar can be compared to Napoleon, but not to Lenin, there are too many differences.

He walked the streets and alleys of Rome, presenting himself as a champion of their cause, who would ram their reforms through the opposition of the wealthy patrician senators, and who promised the poor bread and games.

Sounds like Trump (SCNR). The populares were the populists in that time.

Julius Caesar was a despot, who succeeded where Hannibal, Xerxes and Darius had failed, in imperializing Greek democracies and the Roman Republic (along with surrounding barbarians).

The Greek democracies were subjected by Alexander, too. It was not Caesar who conquered them, Corinth was destroyed in 146 BC (and later rebuilt as a Roman colony). And both Alexander and the Romans left more or less autonomy to the Greek cities (varying between different poleis).

(Perhaps the Roman plebes felt so oppressed by their patricians for so many centuries that they wanted to make others suffer as they had for centuries more.)

There have been violent crashes between plebs an patricians in the century before Caesar. The Gracchi, Marius vs. Sulla. So Caesar vs. Pompey was rather the continuation.

Very ironic that Marxism acknowledges capitalism is two steps less bad than Roman imperial slavery (Roman imperial slavery was defeated by barbarian feudal serfdom which gave rise to bourgeois capitalist employment) yet literally advocates for a revolving return back around to Roman imperial slave-based demagoguery (monarchial emperors claiming dictatorial powers for some purported proletarian purposes).

The dictatorship and slavery were two quite different topics. The Roman slavery existed already in times of the republic. And while you may term Caesar a man with purported »proletarian« purposes, Octavian (who turned the personal dictatorship into a monarchy as the Augustus, after he has won the civil war) was definitely no such person.

You mix up things and produce a totally wrong picture.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Caesar can be compared to Napoleon, but not to Lenin

Caesar, Napoleon, Stalin...
All dictators purporting to represent the proletariat

All promise "the withering away of the state" once proletarian power is secure... As if those who hate Republican Bourgeoisie would ever relinquish power like Cincinnatus or George Washington

There [had] been violent crashes between plebs an patricians in the century before Caesar. The Gracchi, Marius vs. Sulla. So Caesar vs. Pompey was rather the continuation.

Yes, only Caesar the dictator succeeded where the Gracchi brothers failed, which allegedly justifies dictatorship

The dictatorship and slavery were two quite different topics. The Roman slavery existed already in times of the republic.

Yes, so the dictatorship of the proletariat of imperial Rome did not stop, and only expanded, slavery

you may term Caesar a man with purported »proletarian« purposes, Octavian (who turned the personal dictatorship into a monarchy as the Augustus, after he has won the civil war) was definitely no such person.

Augustus was the second Caesar, and the emperors only became more and more despotic with time, gradually dropping more and more of the relics of the Republic (principate --> dominate)

 

[Erik Nelson]

Parenti [presents Caesar] as a form of people’s power:

"Without too much overreaching, we might say [Caesar’s] reign can be called a dictatorship of the proletarii [the poor propertyless citizens of Rome], an instance of ruling autocratically against plutocracy on behalf of the citizenry’s substantive interests"

International Socialist Review -- People's history of ancient Rome

 

[Helmut-WK]

Caesar, Napoleon, Stalin...
All dictators purporting to represent the proletariat

Do you have any evidence that Caesar ever mentioned the proletariat? There is only little connection from him to the proletarians.
A connection between Napoleon I. and proletariat was made post-hum by Karl Marx. Are you a Marxist, or why do you take on that story?

All promise "the withering away of the state" once proletarian power is secure...

No. Caesar did not promise that. I can't remember that Napoleon ever promised it. Both promised to make the unstable state secure, thats rather the opposite! Even Stalin did not promise the state would wither away - this was a promise he inherited from Marx, but AFAIK he never repeated it.

Yes, only Caesar the dictator succeeded where the Gracchi brothers failed, which allegedly justifies dictatorship

You mix up things. The dictatorship came as a result of the civil war between Caesar and Pompey. And this war started because Caesar refused to dismiss the army he had used to conquer Gaul - contrary to this command he lead his troops to Rome and became dictator, fighting against the Senate and Pompey.

Proletarians had nothing to do with that, they were simply neglected from both sides. Well, some of them joined the army (and thus got involved onto the civil war, the ones on the winning side were given land as veterans), that's all.

Augustus was the second Caesar,

Again, after another civil war, after which no-one wanted more violence, so they bowed down to the winning Octavian and gave them the honoring title Augustus (which can be translated as "illustrious one" or "sublime").

Almost nothing of what you say stands on close scrutiny.

 

[Helmut-WK]

Parenti [presents Caesar] as a form of people’s power:

Marxist propaganda. I do not swallow it.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Caesar... Napoleon... Both promised to make the unstable state secure...
Stalin... this was a promise he inherited from Marx...

Yes, they promised their emergency powers would wither away with the emergency, once everything was secured... But that never happens

Again, after another civil war, after which no-one wanted more violence, so they bowed down to the winning Octavian and gave them the honoring title Augustus (which can be translated as "illustrious one" or "sublime").

Yes, "Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus", the second emperor of imperial Rome

 

[Astrid]

I hope so.

How would you describe the principles and goals of Marxism?

 

[Astrid]

Marx claimed "man makes religion" to exploit laborers. So then, religion (allegedly) reflects that exploitation.

And so, if Christianity bedrugs laborers under Capitalism today, then pre-Christian religion bedrugged laborers under the pre-Capitalist mode of production -- namely, slavery, as was widely practiced in the pre-Christian pagan Roman empire as well as the wider Classical era world of those days.

If Capitalism is (even slightly) less bad then slavery, then "even Marxists" would have to agree, that Christianity is (at least slightly) less bad than paganry?

What did Marx mean by “ opiate of the masses”?

 

[Helmut-WK]

Yes, they promised their emergency powers would wither away with the emergency, once everything was secured... But that never happens

Any evidence for that? AFAIK none of them did so. May be Stalin did (I'm not sure), but AFAIR Caesar and Napoleon rather promised to keep the republic running, defend it against foreign (and inner) enemies.

 

[Helmut-WK]

What did Marx mean by “ opiate of the masses”?

He meant that the masses in their despair of their fate, sought relief in religion, like a opium-eater who wants to escape reality.
It was Lenin, not Marx, who said »Opium for the people«, i.e. the ruling class uses religion as a tool to put the masses down (like the UK put China down with opium trade).

These views are related to the different experiences of Marx (Germany) and Lenin (Russia).

EDIT: Several typos

 

[Astrid]

He meant that the masses in their despair of their fate, sought relief in religion, like a opium-eater that wants to escape reality.
It was Lenin, not Marx, who said »Opium for the people«, i.e. the ruling class uses religion as a tool to put the masses down (like thee UK put China down with opium trade).

These views are related to the different experiences of Marx (Germany) and Lenin (Russia).

EDIT: Added missing quote sign

I’m not true commie, regsrdless of my address