How relevant is the Marxist theory in the twenty first century?

[Brian]

This is a question which was sent to me on Quora and I replied to:  https://www.quora.com/How-relevant-is-the-Marxist-theory-in-the-twenty-first-century/answer/Brian-Johnson-429 

Would appreciate users opinion on this forum regarding this subject.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

This is a question which was sent to me on Quora and I replied to:  https://www.quora.com/How-relevant-is-the-Marxist-theory-in-the-twenty-first-century/answer/Brian-Johnson-429 Would appreciate users opinion on this forum regarding this subject.

The first step would be to define 'Marxist'.It must be obvious, given our exchanges over the last few years, that there has been an ongoing debate since the late 19th century about whether 'Marxism' is anything to do with Marx's views about democratic socialism, or has been simply a re-run of elitist politics and philosophy (ruling class ideas about nature and humanity), which has its orgins in Engels' misunderstanding of Marx's views.That is, what most thinkers since the late 19th century have called 'Marxism' is actually 'Engelsism'. Any reading of Kautsky, Plekhanov or Lenin, shows that their views were elitist, and anti-proletarian power.As I've also pointed out, this problem predates the Leninist view of 'Marxism' and the Bolshevik Revolution, so predates the foundation of the SPGB. Thus, the SPGB itself is contaminated by this 'Engelsism' (which is synomymous with 'Materialism' or 'Physicalism').That's one user's considered political opinion, Brian.

[Young Master Smeet]

Lbirds point is sage, what part of 'Marxist theory' do we mean?There is the factual analysis, the evidence Marx used, and which may well be superceded (including the human behaviours he detailed).  There is the analytical framework (which was shared in parts with others), and the deductive analysis based on the two.I'd say that if Darwin can be summed up by the great contribuition : "speciation arrives through decent with modification through natural selection" then Marx' great contribution is 'exploitation occurs in the difference between the value of labour poiwer and the value of labour performed.'  The deductive conlclusion of that is that waged labour is inherently exploitative, and that profits of capitalists and the compensation of labour are inversely proportional to one another. All else is just useful philosophy and sociology, but disprove that statement, then Marx is rendered redundant.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Lbirds point is sage, what part of 'Marxist theory' do we mean?… All else is just useful philosophy and sociology, but disprove that statement, then Marx is rendered redundant.

But that's the point being argued, YMS.Is Marx just 'philosophy and sociology' (ie. the humanities, 'soft science'), or is Marx relevant to 'physics, maths, logic, philosophy, sociology, etc.', (ie. all science, whether defined as 'hard' or 'soft')?If 'Marxism' is Engels' 'Materialism', then Marx is indeed 'rendered redundant' for the 21st century.But if 'Marxism' is concerned with all social production (ie. also including so-called 'academic knowledge'), then Marx is still relevant.As a Marxist and a Democratic Communist, I'd argue that the class conscious proletariat has to democratise academia – that is, all education classes become democratically controlled, all positions of power (professors, etc.) are elected, and even 'truth' is regarded as a social product, which is produced for socio-historical purposes for specific groups in society.All this 'democracy' is, of course, anathaema to the ideology which Engels unwittingly espoused, which is suited to an elite group. 'Materialism' is a ruling class, bourgeois ideology.The only 'physical' that we can have is the 'physical-for-us'. We must have the power to determine our theories and practices, and our interests and purposes, which inform our social production.Only a society can determine 'physical' – it is not in the power of isolated biological individuals to determine whether something is 'physical' or not, by their 'biological senses'. That view is simply 'the free market' installed into physics.Power is social, not individual.

[Anonymous]

Would it be open to me to truthfully describe myself as a professor even though I didn't get through the 11-plus? Can't see myself getting elected as one. Between you and me I tell anyone who will listen I am a  professor. Not many people know this but if you mince about calling yourself doctor you can get into bother with the authorities, but you are quite free to call yourself Professor. Professor Jimmy Edwards. Professor Stanley Unwin ( my favourite). Professor of Microcalifragilistics, Robert Andrews.

[LBird]

Bob Andrews wrote:

Would it be open to me to truthfully describe myself as a professor even though I didn't get through the 11-plus? Can't see myself getting elected as one. 

Depends upon which ideology, those doing the 'voting', were employing, Bob.If it's a Fascist plebiscite, and you already personally have the social power to determine 'truth', then perhaps you would be.

Bob Andrews wrote:

Between you and me I tell anyone who will listen I am a  professor. …Professor of Microcalifragilistics, Robert Andrews.

If El Presidente, the most glorious Robert Andrews, says so… Welcome to the thread, Professor Andrews!

[Anonymous]

All of a sudden, fascism looks very attractive. Do I have to have 'social power' ( whatever that is )? After all, as things stand I just call myself Professor and everyone has to put up with it.

[LBird]

Bob Andrews wrote:

All of a sudden, fascism looks very attractive. Do I have to have 'social power' ( whatever that is )? After all, as things stand I just call myself Professor and everyone has to put up with it.

Well, Marx warned where 'materialism' would lead to, politically. Professors, just like you, who really believe that they know better than any 'society' of seven billion others.Apparently, according to a professor, 'everyone has to put up with it'. The bourgeois elite "I/Me/Myself" principle, as advocated by the 'Free Market', which doesn't recognise 'social power'.And to think that Brian and YMS were wondering whether Marx was still relevant in the 21st century.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

Is Marx just 'philosophy and sociology' (ie. the humanities, 'soft science'), or is Marx relevant to 'physics, maths, logic, philosophy, sociology, etc.', (ie. all science, whether defined as 'hard' or 'soft')?

To clarify what I was arguing, those elements of Marx' writings about philosophy, sociology, etc. were largely adaptations or syntheses of other writers, so Marx is not essential to those debates, Marx' most significant original contribution was the theory of exploitation: Marxism does not hang by it's philosophy of science (though Marx' writings on the subject are certainly interesting) but by the theory of exploitation, and all the derived extrapolations therefrom.Unless I am wrong, and there is a specific innovation of Marx' in those philosophies.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

Is Marx just 'philosophy and sociology' (ie. the humanities, 'soft science'), or is Marx relevant to 'physics, maths, logic, philosophy, sociology, etc.', (ie. all science, whether defined as 'hard' or 'soft')?

To clarify what I was arguing, those elements of Marx' writings about philosophy, sociology, etc. were largely adaptations or syntheses of other writers, so Marx is not essential to those debates, Marx' most significant original contribution was the theory of exploitation: Marxism does not hang by it's philosophy of science (though Marx' writings on the subject are certainly interesting) but by the theory of exploitation, and all the derived extrapolations therefrom.Unless I am wrong, and there is a specific innovation of Marx' in those philosophies.

[my bold]Thanks for the clarification, YMS, because I was a little unsure if I had got the correct gist of what you were saying.To further clarify, I've bolded what I think is the heart of your post:1. Marx is largely derivative (except for economic 'exploitation');2. Outside of 'exploitation', his views on 'science' are 'not essential'.This is an opinion that I do not share.I regard Marx's views on 'exploitation' to be fundamentally related to his views about social production, and its socio-historical nature. By 'social production', I think Marx included all 'science', and the social production of 'nature-for-us'. I think that his ideas were revolutionary (ie., not simply derivative of earlier ones, but fundamentally new).It seems that, from your perspective, that if 'exploitation' (as you'd define it) were removed, then Marx's views would be superfluous to society. To put it in context of this thread, if 'exploitation' were removed during the 21st century, then Marx would become an irrelevance.From my perspective, 'social production' will carry on forever (it being a 'natural' condition of humanity, according to Marx), and so Marx's views, which are much wider than 'exploitation', would continue to be relevant, to physics, maths, logic, etc., because these are all social products, and change (as can the concept of 'matter': we don't have to employ it, there are alternatives).Again, to clarify, I think Marx is concerned with the power of social production (politics in all modes of production), whereas you seem to restrict Marx to 'exploitation' (economics in class-based modes of production).If asked to label our conflicting views of Marx, I'd call yours 'materialist' (in the 18th century, pre-Marx sense), and label mine 'social productionist' (Marx's 'new materialism', or, better as an explanation, 'idealism-materialism').

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

This is a question which was sent to me on Quora and I replied to:  https://www.quora.com/How-relevant-is-the-Marxist-theory-in-the-twenty-first-century/answer/Brian-Johnson-429 Would appreciate users opinion on this forum regarding this subject.

The first step would be to define 'Marxist'.It must be obvious, given our exchanges over the last few years, that there has been an ongoing debate since the late 19th century about whether 'Marxism' is anything to do with Marx's views about democratic socialism, or has been simply a re-run of elitist politics and philosophy (ruling class ideas about nature and humanity), which has its orgins in Engels' misunderstanding of Marx's views.That is, what most thinkers since the late 19th century have called 'Marxism' is actually 'Engelsism'. Any reading of Kautsky, Plekhanov or Lenin, shows that their views were elitist, and anti-proletarian power.As I've also pointed out, this problem predates the Leninist view of 'Marxism' and the Bolshevik Revolution, so predates the foundation of the SPGB. Thus, the SPGB itself is contaminated by this 'Engelsism' (which is synomymous with 'Materialism' or 'Physicalism').That's one user's considered political opinion, Brian.

Oh dear in your eagerness to advertise your pet[ty] hobby horse you lost track of the fact that the question is asking "How" and not 'Is the Marxist theory relevant in the 21st Century?'  For just this once could you please stay on track by focusing on how Marxist theory is relevant in the 21st Century rather than doing yet another deliberate Off-topic distraction?For instance the "How" is deductible by ascertaining that the Marxist theory is very relevant in the twenty first century not just for its alternative outlook on the capitalist mode of production but also for the provision of a methodology that systematically induces us to investigate the revolutionary process associated with social evolution so we become aware of the past, the present and the future.You claim to be a democratic Marxist so is it too much to ask for you exhibit your democratic credentials by responding to the question and not your personal theory on democratic outcomes?

[moderator1]

Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[Anonymous]

One more evidence that this forum is always out of the track and trolls will continue doing that. To  L Bird you will give him a recipe for Italian food and he will end cooking Chinese food. The question is: What relevant is the Marxist theory to the 21st century? We must stick to that question

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

Oh dear in your eagerness to advertise your pet[ty] hobby horse you lost track of the fact that the question is asking "How" and not 'Is the Marxist theory relevant in the 21st Century?'  For just this once could you please stay on track by focusing on how Marxist theory is relevant in the 21st Century rather than doing yet another deliberate Off-topic distraction?For instance the "How" is deductible by ascertaining that the Marxist theory is very relevant in the twenty first century not just for its alternative outlook on the capitalist mode of production but also for the provision of a methodology that systematically induces us to investigate the revolutionary process associated with social evolution so we become aware of the past, the present and the future.You claim to be a democratic Marxist so is it too much to ask for you exhibit your democratic credentials by responding to the question and not your personal theory on democratic outcomes?

If you can't answer 'what' it is that you're trying to discuss, Brian, you're going to have great difficulty getting anyone to answer the 'how'.

[Brian]

Marcos wrote:

One more evidence that this forum is always out of the track and trolls will continue doing that. To  L Bird you will give him a recipe for Italian food and he will end cooking Chinese food. The question is: What relevant is the Marxist theory to the 21st century? We must stick to that question

You are incorrect.  Indeed you are calling the kettle the black for just like LBird you have intentionally turned the question around by changing the key word "How".  Whereas he turned it to 'is' you have turned it to "What".Yes we must stick to the context of the question otherwise we'll end up going down a very familiar route which I'm determined not to tread.  Also may I remind you that you post is Off-topic and not relevant to the thread.

[Author]

Posts