Marxism according to the BBC
- This topic has 10 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-48807575/marxism-what-does-it-mean-and-is-it-an-insult
A poor 5 minute representation.
Actually, the BBC one wasn’t as bad as I thought it was going to be. Pity, though, that they chose to interview a Trotskyist who didn’t know that for Marx “socialism” and “communism” meant the same, i.e. what she meant by “communism”.
I don’t think calling Corbyn and the Labour Party “Marxist” is going to work with the public in general (if only because most people don’t know much about Marx and those that do know this to be ridiculous) but it might with the audience aimed at, i.e. the membership of the Tory Party who are going to elect the new Prime Minister. For instance, the one who had a letter in last Friday’s Times who openly called Corbyn a “communist”. That’s what the mean but daren’t say it because if they did they’d really get pilloried.
There might even be a good side to this, with some people asking “who is this Karl Marx they keep talking about?”
Many years have passed and still there are so many peoples who do not know, or do not understand the whole body of ideas of Marx and Engels including the so called socialists-communists and left-wingers. They want to turn Marx into a social democrat, a nationalist, or a reformer of capitalism. Marx and Engels were revolutionary socialists-c0mmunists. When the emerge of the so called democratic socialists the confusion and the distortion is getting worst, and this man Richard Wolf has read Marx and Engels but he is also distorting them
Marcos wrote: “…the whole body of ideas of Marx and Engels…”
The problem with this formulation, Marcos, is that there isn’t a ‘whole body of ideas’, which were produced by these two different thinkers.
Marx and Engels said many things which conflict with each other (and both sometimes said things which actually conflicted with what each had said earlier). There never was a ‘unity’ to their thoughts, which is a myth propagated by Leninists, to allow the political method of ‘name addition to the divinity’ to be employed: first, ‘Marx-Engels’, then ‘Marx-Engels-Lenin’, then ‘Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin’, etc. It’s simply a political method to allow the political ideas of the last-named to have a spurious legitimacy. And yes, Engels was the originator of the policy.
The 21st century proletariat has to clear up these issues, to our satisfaction. The mere repetition of the myth of a ‘whole body’ didn’t work last century, and it’s never going to work now, with an even better educated proletariat.
‘Marx-Engels’, the unified being, never existed.
L Bird, you only show up when we mention Engels, then the whole world can fall apart and you never show up. You are not telling me anything new. Engels made more contributions than you but you have not made any contributions
If I have to make a selection between you and Engels, I stay with Engles because he dedicated his whole life to the cause of the working class
Just struck me Birdy boy, this whole hatred of Engles, it isn’t [art of that Manchester Liverpool thing, is it?
It’s always a sure sign that one has hit a weak spot in a political belief, when the defenders of that belief, rather than defend that belief with argument, turn to personal attacks upon the critical questioner: that is, they attack the messenger, rather than the message.
I’ve made the mistake in the past of responding on a personal level, but even I’ve learned that it’s better to continue to focus upon the political message, rather than be side-tracked into a personalised spat, after which I’m accused of being a ‘troll’, and the party members, who originate that form of debate, are left alone by the moderators, whilst I am censured or even banned. I should make it plain, too, that I’m not just talking here about the SPGB here, but also the ICC and LibCom (all on the net), and the SWP, in real life. Because of this confirmatory history of similar political responses to critical questions about the Marx-Engels relationship (and its consequences: materialism, matter, science, and lack of democratic methods), I’m forced to conclude not only that my critical questions can’t be answered by those who prioritise Engels’ ideas, but also that this ‘personalisation’ of the debate is a necessary political response within the community who call themselves ‘Materialists’. I’m sure that anyone who knows of the history of any ‘Materialists’ who have gained power will know that this ‘personalisation’ leads to ‘confessions’ by those guilty of questioning the ‘Marx-Engels-X’ relationship (‘X’ of course, being the current unquestionable leader who has access to ‘what matter says’).
So, to continue the political debate:
Marcos wrote: “…I stay with Engles because he dedicated his whole life to the cause of the working class”
This is untrue, Marcos – Engels was fascinated with Bourgeois Science and its central concept, ‘matter’, which is why his erroneous ideas were so useful for those ‘thinkers’ determined to prevent workers’ democratic control of social production, starting with Kautsky, Plekhanov and Bernstein. None of these first-generation thinkers understood Marx, and if they had, clearly wouldn’t have touched his ideas with a barge-pole. Engels was the originator of the ‘Marxism’ which you follow, which is why when confronted with Marx’s key concepts of ‘democratic social production’ and ‘critique’ you are at a loss to make a political response.
Bijou Drains wrote: “…this whole hatred of Engles…”
There is no ‘hatred’ of Engels on the part of Marxists, BD. We just know that he and Marx wrote very different things, based upon very different ideologies, concepts and theories, and that Engels was very confused about the relationship between ‘matter’ and ‘social production’. For Marx, ‘matter’ was a social product, not something that pre-existed the human creation of it. On Engels’ part, he both agreed and disagreed with Marx, in different parts of his writings, because he had no clear understanding of Marx’s basic philosophical views, which had been fundamentally formed by his social upbringing within German Idealism. Put simply, Marx effected the unity of idealism and materialism (a task being attempted by many Idealists of Marx’s generation), whereas Engels remained in the ideological world of 18<sup>th</sup> century materialism. Of course, it was Einstein’s work in the early 20<sup>th</sup> century which confirmed Marx’s views about social production, and completely undermined the current ‘science’ of the bourgeoisie, which Engels had so unfortunately (and uncomprehendingly) espoused.
Bijou Drains wrote: “L Bird mate, it was a joke 😆”
Yeah, I know. And I know that you’ve got a sense of humour, which I share.
But, if there’s one thing I’ve learned from posting on the internet, there’s always a reader or a moderator who hasn’t! 😆
So, I’ll keep my responses to the strictly academic side of the debate/humour continuum, and tender my apologies up front right now to those who find any levity in this post to be insulting.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.