The Paradox of Marx and Modern Applications of Theory

[Lord Thesaurian]

I know, I know... there have already been plenty of discussions about Marx and Communism, but hear me out. I am not well-versed in Marxist theory, and the generalities I am familiar with present many dichotomies I am constantly seeking to reconcile if not highlight as flaws. As I understand things, Marx seems primarily concerned with the abolition of hierarchy and sees socialism as the next step to achieving that goal; if I understand correctly. He is a materialist who does not believe in rights, so what then, is his empirical justification for the "scientific" assertion that labor is the property of the laborer? In Das Kapital, if I remember correctly, Marx explains why the various forms of socialism are "superior" to capitalism and yet inferior to his dream of anarcho-syndicalist paradise; which is oddly referred to, in my experience, as global socialism (a misnomer, since socialism essentially involves state ownership of the means of production, no?). I also have reservations about his conveniently linear view of economics and labor as it relates to supply, demand, commodities, etc, but I won't venture into that labyrinth here.

So, if rights do not exist and yet the laborer has a right to his labor as property, and the "empirical" if not "ethical" solution involves returning nonexistent property rights to the "workers," how in the world did Marx seek to construct this anarchic workers' paradise post-revolution? Understanding the fact that Marx did not have the luxury of modern observers to see that Communism has failed - despite the self-loathing enthusiasm of its supporters - his projection still seems very obviously flawed even in theory. If I understand correctly, Marx envisioned a world where each laborer is somehow free, despite having no real rights and no autonomy or individual status. In this post-revolution model, this laborer "owns" his labor, despite the nonexistence of rights and autonomy, and the fact that the fruits of his labor belong to the communal state - which doesn't exist since the idea of "states" was "overthrown." The evil Middle Class, "Bourgeois," has been destroyed. Now comes the meat of the issue: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Here again we see the summation of the previous issues and arguably the largest one of all: Who or what distributes the goods? If distributed by a superior collective or individual, the "divide" between the laborer and the fruits of his labor is recreated and the "global revolution" only replaced one hierarchy with another. If distributed by a vote of all the laborers, then the model looks more like Rousseau's notions of popular sovereignty and social contract, thus acknowledging the existence of rights and the individual.

Hence it seems the end result of Marxist theory is paradoxical and impracticable at best, and deceptively tyrannical and misanthropic at worst. Again, Marx did not have the luxury of seeing his theories applied, but the modern experience raises even greater arguments against communism, as per the unspeakable atrocities and unsustainability of the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cuba, etc. It seems the only point at which Marx was correct was where he describes socialism, especially social democracy, as a convenient transition to Communism. Indeed, the modern experiments in social democracy have proven unsustainable; excepting, for the time being, the Nordic model, thanks to Germanic work ethic and values. In short, why am I among a minority of people to whom socialism and socialist variants are a certain failure?

Also, it would seem the collapse of Rome and the proceeding Dark Ages was indeed a societal devolution which conflicts with the teleological model, unless the current and prevailing Germanic system of the West subsequent of the Dark Ages is seen as superior to the Classical Model. The latter would be of great convenience to thinkers of Hegel's philosophical cadre. Is that the case with Marx and Hegel? What about the fact that centuries of priceless knowledge was lost to the pestilence and chaos of the Dark Ages; knowledge only rediscovered by academics of the Renaissance and Enlightenment willing to defy papal and feudal society? Does that not represent societal devolution?

It would seem that successful human society, permanently sustainable and aware of the idea that Man is an end in himself, would have to be founded upon some concept of philosophical and consequently legal rights. I would argue there is no "magic formula" for success as Marx suggests, since Man is a wonderfully selfish creature with ability to Reason and choose independently. I am, of course, of the outdated belief that Man is an end in himself, that the pursuit of happiness through productive achievement is His ideal occupation, and the Reason is the absolute guide and product of the Mind. Because of this, I do not agree with the belief that Man is a beast driven by passions in a universe driven by some metaphysical nonentity which some of the so-called Enlightenment figures dubbed "Reason" as a thinly veiled name for "god." I believe history is driven and chosen by individuals. Hence I cannot see the logic behind the easily ethnocentric view that history is some kind of inevitable succession; much less that the "next step" in this inevitable process involves the advent of a paradoxically communal-anarchic worker's paradise founded on unimaginable bloodshed and pursuant of a recycled, secularized feudal reality.

Phew, well, that's basically the most general summary what troubles me about Marx and that general end of the socioeconomic and political spectrum. In case you haven't noticed, I obsess over this stuff far too much; in regards to which I am prone to Clausewitzian fits of philosophizing.....

[King Gambrinus]

The sad reality about Karl Marx is that he is not a visionary but a reactionary. The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital were written in a time where there was no such thing as a middle class you speak of. Instead, about 90% of the population were proletarians, who relied on their salaries to live, and who were therefore controlled by their paymasters, the "bourgeoisie" elite. Democracy was a bit of a joke those days too...

So to put Marx's work into a modern perspective is pretty useless. His tit-bits of philosophical thought are fairly interesting though, and although I'm not a materialist, I can see that materialist history is not a fallacy. But Hegel is pretty much the founder of these ideas, Marx again reacted to them.

Nowadays, in Western society, the oppressed class probably lies in the middle class, since they rely heavily on their salary, they sell their labour if you want. The oppressing class dictates their wages and levels of employment, and essentially rips them and the consumer (the same person) off.

You should also remember that Marx is still a bit of a humanist. I don't like these modern trotskyists who claim the "1% are evil". For Marx its almost like a natural process of human nature (its almost Nietzchist in the sense that you have superior and inferior humans) but that it needs to be stopped via a Revolution.

Also, it would seem the collapse of Rome and the proceeding Dark Ages was indeed a societal devolution which conflicts with the teleological model, unless the current and prevailing Germanic system of the West subsequent of the Dark Ages is seen as superior to the Classical Model. The latter would be of great convenience to thinkers of Hegel's philosophical cadre. Is that the case with Marx and Hegel? What about the fact that centuries of priceless knowledge was lost to the pestilence and chaos of the Dark Ages; knowledge only rediscovered by academics of the Renaissance and Enlightenment willing to defy papal and feudal society? Does that not represent societal devolution?

You're looking at this from the wrong perspective. The way I interpret Hegel's historical analysis is that any event in History is unavoidable and therefore necessary for human advancement. So even like World Wars and stuff like that is a "good" thing in history because events shape humans as much as humans shape events.

It would seem that successful human society, permanently sustainable and aware of the idea that Man is an end in himself, would have to be founded upon some concept of philosophical and consequently legal rights. I would argue there is no "magic formula" for success as Marx suggests, since Man is a wonderfully selfish creature with ability to Reason and choose independently. I am, of course, of the outdated belief that Man is an end in himself, that the pursuit of happiness through productive achievement is His ideal occupation, and the Reason is the absolute guide and product of the Mind. Because of this, I do not agree with the belief that Man is a beast driven by passions in a universe driven by some metaphysical nonentity which some of the so-called Enlightenment figures dubbed "Reason" as a thinly veiled name for "god." I believe history is driven and chosen by individuals. Hence I cannot see the logic behind the easily ethnocentric view that history is some kind of inevitable succession; much less that the "next step" in this inevitable process involves the advent of a paradoxically communal-anarchic worker's paradise founded on unimaginable bloodshed and pursuant of a recycled, secularized feudal reality.

This explains why you are anti-Collectivist and anti-Hegellist. My view is an individual can have his name remembered in History, but he cannot change history alone. He needs the tools to do so.

Phew, well, that's basically the most general summary what troubles me about Marx and that general end of the socioeconomic and political spectrum. In case you haven't noticed, I obsess over this stuff far too much; in regards to which I am prone to Clausewitzian fits of philosophizing.....

I'm prone to the same!

[Lord Thesaurian]

The sad reality about Karl Marx is that he is not a visionary but a reactionary. The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital were written in a time where there was no such thing as a middle class you speak of. Instead, about 90% of the population were proletarians, who relied on their salaries to live, and who were therefore controlled by their paymasters, the "bourgeoisie" elite. Democracy was a bit of a joke those days too...

Actually, "Bourgeois(ie)" specifically refers to the property-owning middle class, the "burghers." This means shopkeepers, independent tradesmen, small and medium-sized businesses, etc. These people, who Marx himself denotes as the vanquishers of feudalism and the progenitors of the modern world, are the primary enemy of Communism, as per the Communist Manifesto.

Nowadays, in Western society, the oppressed class probably lies in the middle class, since they rely heavily on their salary, they sell their labour if you want. The oppressing class dictates their wages and levels of employment, and essentially rips them and the consumer (the same person) off.

True, but the middle class also carries the bulk of productive and tax burden in Western society; from the machinations of the elites who seek to rule them and the ignorant poor who seek to rob them and are empowered to do so by those elites.

You should also remember that Marx is still a bit of a humanist. I don't like these modern trotskyists who claim the "1% are evil". For Marx its almost like a natural process of human nature (its almost Nietzchist in the sense that you have superior and inferior humans) but that it needs to be stopped via a Revolution.

Yes, Marx seems to share Hegel's teleological view of history. Hegel seems to be nothing more than a German ethnocentrist who wrote the story of how God "Reason" metaphysically ordained Germanic society as the natural "perfection" of all previous ones. Marx seems even less justified in arbitrarily calling history a series of revolutions leading inevitably toward communist paradise, and yet calling on the "Workers of the World [to] Unite" in order to affect that final revolution; arguably an admittance of the flawed nature of teleological historical philosophy in and of itself.

You're looking at this from the wrong perspective. The way I interpret Hegel's historical analysis is that any event in History is unavoidable and therefore necessary for human advancement. So even like World Wars and stuff like that is a "good" thing in history because events shape humans as much as humans shape events.

Again, Hegel was indisputably outdated, if only in his belief that history thus far was a linear socio-ethnic evolution from "Orientalism" to Classical Rome and Greece to the "Germanic" model. He has his admirers in thinkers like Fukuyama, but frankly I haven't found anything but comedy in such philosophies. Mankind does not possess a hive mind and no empirical proof of the metaphysical exists, hence the only "scientific" conclusion is that individuals shape history. Sure, actions of these individuals impact and influence other individuals, but at all critical levels, history is a relationship between individuals.

This explains why you are anti-Collectivist and anti-Hegellist. My view is an individual can have his name remembered in History, but he cannot change history alone. He needs the tools to do so.

Perhaps; provided by other individuals. As I said, no hive mind exists in mankind, so action and reaction are mathematical sums, differences, products, etc of individual actions, obscured by the unpredictability of individual choice. There exists no proof that history is predestined or that Reason exists outside of the Mind, and all proof that the Individual interacts with other Individuals as the basis of sociology and history. Those who view Man as a collective are those who are to rule or be ruled, but that does not change the fact that Man is in fact an Individual and cannot Reason collectively.

[King Gambrinus]

Actually, "Bourgeois(ie)" specifically refers to the property-owning middle class, the "burghers." This means shopkeepers, independent tradesmen, small and medium-sized businesses, etc. These people, who Marx himself denotes as the vanquishers of feudalism and the progenitors of the modern world, are the primary enemy of Communism, as per the Communist Manifesto.

But Marx would probably tell you were he alive today that small businesses and tradesmen are part of the oppressed class. This idea that Marx has an obsession with the proletariat is wrong. He has an obsession with protecting people from exploitation and ending the class divisions. So to say they are the primary enemy of Communism is, in my opinion, wrong. Yes, they advocate a system that goes against Communism, but they can be victims of oppression too.

True, but the middle class also carries the bulk of productive and tax burden in Western society; from the machinations of the elites who seek to rule them and the ignorant poor who seek to rob them and are empowered to do so by those elites.

The difference is the "ignorant poor" live in relative misery to the rich and ruling classes, and are in that situation because of poor education and little motivation to do well in a society where rules are dictated by a ruling class. The abolition of such class denotations would stop any of these accusations from happening.

Marx seems even less justified in arbitrarily calling history a series of revolutions leading inevitably toward communist paradise, and yet calling on the "Workers of the World [to] Unite" in order to affect that final revolution; arguably an admittance of the flawed nature of teleological historical philosophy in and of itself.

I don't see how trying to stop the historical cycle is a bad thing. While Hegel just accepts history, Marx actually wants to end History. Since for him History consists essentially of the conflicts of men as well as their relations, so to end the conflict you must end History and vice-versa.

Again, Hegel was indisputably outdated, if only in his belief that history thus far was a linear socio-ethnic evolution from "Orientalism" to Classical Rome and Greece to the "Germanic" model. He has his admirers in thinkers like Fukuyama, but frankly I haven't found anything but comedy in such philosophies. Mankind does not possess a hive mind and no empirical proof of the metaphysical exists, hence the only "scientific" conclusion is that individuals shape history. Sure, actions of these individuals impact and influence other individuals, but at all critical levels, history is a relationship between individuals.

Perhaps; provided by other individuals. As I said, no hive mind exists in mankind, so action and reaction are mathematical sums, differences, products, etc of individual actions, obscured by the unpredictability of individual choice. There exists no proof that history is predestined or that Reason exists outside of the Mind, and all proof that the Individual interacts with other Individuals as the basis of sociology and history. Those who view Man as a collective are those who are to rule or be ruled, but that does not change the fact that Man is in fact an Individual and cannot Reason collectively.

But if you say History is the relationship between individuals, I say the relationship between individuals is what we call Society or Community or Mankind. Those relationships between individuals are the metaphysical in all of this. It's not a question of "finding" the hive mind. It's already there : the creation of civilizations, the will to make friends, "Good Morning Comrade", exploitation etc...

If Man could not reason collectively, it would be constantly in a chaotic mess. Individualism would probably mean the extinction of the human race. Every single aspect of our society is built by a collective. What makes us recognise currency for example? Or the recognition of land as a product?

[Squiggle]

The real question is why we bother to discuss the idiotic ramblings and disproved theories of a long dead man.

edit: hell he even stole his theory of class struggle from classical liberalism [which has a far better explanation of class struggle].

[Dr. Croccer]

Sorry for sounding condescending, but I have not seen so much speculation contained in one single thread in a very long time.

Because it's about trying to disprove Marxist absurdo logic with Liberal absurdo logic. When a discussion is based on nonexistent philosophical notions, it's inherently an impossible one. You can't objectively judge something with subjective arguments.

Marx wasn't an idiot nor were his writings idiotic. Pretty much the only people who say this haven't read anything by him. He clearly was an intelligent man and many of his writings are quite truthful (especially those on the American Civil War show that he had a firm grasp of social sciences and he made many accurate predictions on the subject) and he constantly updated his work when new information came to light.

The fact is that his main prediction of rising tensions between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie would lead to social revolution was hardly an irrational one back in the 1840s, when the bourgeoisie in many countries had firmly established itself as part of the elite and wasn't very willing to extend their Liberal rights to the majority of the population. Governments were just as unwilling and any attempt at reform was met with force, as can be seen in the 1848 revolts. At the time, it seemed unlikely that the establishment was going to change, and that the only possible outcome was an escalation of violence and radicalisation until violent revolution would erupt. The problem was that this quickly changed when governments buckled and made democratic concessions. Revolution was no longer the only way for social conditions to improve, and more and more radicals moved to moderate Socialist parties who were willing to cooperate in the democratic process. Marxism became increasingly a fringe movement headed by radicals who were united mainly in their refusal to acknowledge the new realities which made their ideology obsolete.

The failure of Marxism has less to do with its content than the inherent problems with an absolute ideology, that it is made for one moment and has enough safeguards in place to prevent change to cause it to stagnate and become irrelevant.

People should treat ideologies like hypotheses, to be discarded when it becomes evident that they're incorrect, rather than as quasi-religions with archaic notions that simply don't work. Marxism is a case in point of what happens when the latter occurs.

[Diamat]

Fair enough. Please explain to me why Marx uses "rights of ownership," which is essentially property rights, as a cornerstone of his "materialist" base theory (along with socialist conceptions of social justice), while simultaneously condemning "rights" as an abstraction of the superstructure and thus nonessential to his theory?

And for the record, I speculate because I am here to ask questions; questions elaborated in previous posts. I only count 3-4 main questions in the OP. Doesn't seem too demanding...

In short: because these rights are themselves based in the real, material life of individuals. They don't come prior to man. They are based on Marx's observation of man's interaction with nature, an interaction which, in the capitalist system, results in a loss of self. According to Marx, these rights are still historical products. Our understanding of not having certain rights does not come out of nowhere. On the contrary, such a realization is firmly rooted in man's material life experience. The reason why he criticizes bourgeois rights is because they serve the bourgeoisie. They serve class exploitation. The what you call "rights" Marx advocated serve all of mankind. The realization of these "rights" comes out of historical necessity.

Understand that this is not a defense of Marx, but simply an explanation. In order for you to start to understand Marx, you have to, as exemplified by Dr. Groccer, first understand the historical context of Marx's writings, and second, you have to understand the philosophical methodology he implemented to frame his arguments. Things will start to make a lot more sense then, but not in that Marx was absolutely right, but in that he was a historical product of his time. Take from Marx what you think applies to today, test it empirically, discard what is inapplicable, and modify what can be modified. To reject Marx wholly or to uphold him wholly is pure dogmatism.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Because it's about trying to disprove Marxist absurdo logic with Liberal absurdo logic. When a discussion is based on nonexistent philosophical notions, it's inherently an impossible one. You can't objectively judge something with subjective arguments.

Marx wasn't an idiot nor were his writings idiotic. Pretty much the only people who say this haven't read anything by him. He clearly was an intelligent man and many of his writings are quite truthful (especially those on the American Civil War show that he had a firm grasp of social sciences and he made many accurate predictions on the subject) and he constantly updated his work when new information came to light.

The fact is that his main prediction of rising tensions between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie would lead to social revolution was hardly an irrational one back in the 1840s, when the bourgeoisie in many countries had firmly established itself as part of the elite and wasn't very willing to extend their Liberal rights to the majority of the population. Governments were just as unwilling and any attempt at reform was met with force, as can be seen in the 1848 revolts. At the time, it seemed unlikely that the establishment was going to change, and that the only possible outcome was an escalation of violence and radicalisation until violent revolution would erupt. The problem was that this quickly changed when governments buckled and made democratic concessions. Revolution was no longer the only way for social conditions to improve, and more and more radicals moved to moderate Socialist parties who were willing to cooperate in the democratic process. Marxism became increasingly a fringe movement headed by radicals who were united mainly in their refusal to acknowledge the new realities which made their ideology obsolete.

The failure of Marxism has less to do with its content than the inherent problems with an absolute ideology, that it is made for one moment and has enough safeguards in place to prevent change to cause it to stagnate and become irrelevant.

People should treat ideologies like hypotheses, to be discarded when it becomes evident that they're incorrect, rather than as quasi-religions with archaic notions that simply don't work. Marxism is a case in point of what happens when the latter occurs.

I rarely see such good comments here about Marx. Well done.

[King Gambrinus]

People should treat ideologies like hypotheses, to be discarded when it becomes evident that they're incorrect, rather than as quasi-religions with archaic notions that simply don't work. Marxism is a case in point of what happens when the latter occurs.

Exactly. +rep.


The fall of Marxism is because of people begin following Marx by the book, just like the religious fundies follow their texts by the book. Ironically, that's the exact thing Marx was fighting against and his idea of freedom is to rid ourselves from absolutist and totalitarian ideologies used to dominate man by using, as he put brilliantly, the weapons that these ideologies and ways of life provided.

Prime example of this is Marxist-Leninism.

[Lord Thesaurian]

People should treat ideologies like hypotheses, to be discarded when it becomes evident that they're incorrect, rather than as quasi-religions with archaic notions that simply don't work. Marxism is a case in point of what happens when the latter occurs.

But Marx wasn't just a bookish philosopher who made some uncanny observations on some subjects and incorrect ones on others. He was a prolific intellectual and activist who actively sought to use his writings and lectures to rouse individuals (ironically) to take the lead in violently implementing the kind of "class consciousness" and proletarian revolt that he wrote about. His ideas directly influenced individuals and who schools of thought and obviously gave rise to many of the most controversial and violent regimes in history. Either this was because of a complete misunderstanding of Marx's views, or because of a chillingly accurate application of them.

I've read Marx's Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital, 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, and other excerpts. Given the seemingly obvious dichotomies in his most fundamental theories, I have inquired accordingly as to why, if Marx and early Marxists were merely well-intentioned "philosophers," these dichotomies were not more widely noted before attempted implementation. Given the fact that Marx's ideas have, correctly or incorrectly, been infamously practiced throughout the 20th century and today with infamously grim results, I do not believe one can write him off as a historical relic when millions of living people still claim to profess and practice his ideas.

In short: because these rights are themselves based in the real, material life of individuals. They don't come prior to man. They are based on Marx's observation of man's interaction with nature,

Up to here, this sounds like a textbook definition of precisely the Enlightenment concept of natural rights that Marx seemed so ready to dismiss as irrelevant. The right to Property is an especially fundamental natural right that Marx wants to dismiss and yet includes in his base theory. He seems to say that the "workers" have a right to their labor as property, as ownership, while simultaneously saying that the concept of property is a bourgeois means of oppression.

an interaction which, in the capitalist system, results in a loss of self.

But didn't the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and accompanying economic concepts which came to be known as capitalism bring greater liberty and sense of self to more people than ever before?

According to Marx, these rights are still historical products. Our understanding of not having certain rights does not come out of nowhere. On the contrary, such a realization is firmly rooted in man's material life experience.

That is precisely the justification for the concept of natural rights that Marx wishes to dismiss. Natural rights are philosophical theories based on how to facilitate and maintain successful relations between men. The rights that the supporters of natural rights endorse are seen as of natural consequence to Man's existence. The only arbitrary concept of rights that I know of is the more socialistic and modern concept of "human rights."

The reason why he criticizes bourgeois rights is because they serve the bourgeoisie. They serve class exploitation. The what you call "rights" Marx advocated serve all of mankind. The realization of these "rights" comes out of historical necessity.

How exactly does Marx's concept of rights - the very idea of which he dismissed as nonessential - differ from "bourgeois" or Enlightenment concepts of natural rights?

Understand that this is not a defense of Marx, but simply an explanation. In order for you to start to understand Marx, you have to, as exemplified by Dr. Groccer, first understand the historical context of Marx's writings, and second, you have to understand the philosophical methodology he implemented to frame his arguments. Things will start to make a lot more sense then, but not in that Marx was absolutely right, but in that he was a historical product of his time. Take from Marx what you think applies to today, test it empirically, discard what is inapplicable, and modify what can be modified. To reject Marx wholly or to uphold him wholly is pure dogmatism.

I seek neither to vilify nor to enshrine Marx, but to ask the questions heretofore mentioned. Marx, as I said, was not merely a passive intellectual with a penchant for writing books and essays. He was an activist who sought to arouse individuals to lead in the violent implementation of his ideas.

I suppose that leads into another question I mentioned. If Marx considered "world communism" an inevitable result of his teleological series of class struggles, why did he dedicate his life trying to motivate individuals to take the lead in implementing a revolution that would lead to that next stage? Seems to directly conflict with his Hegelian premise and anti-individualist conceptions of "class consciousness"....

[yupper]

How exactly does Marx's concept of rights - the very idea of which he dismissed as nonessential - differ from "bourgeois" or Enlightenment concepts of natural rights?

The article is rather dated, but then again, this is an old debate.

https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/inde...view/5582/2480

[Diamat]

Up to here, this sounds like a textbook definition of precisely the Enlightenment concept of natural rights that Marx seemed so ready to dismiss as irrelevant. The right to Property is an especially fundamental natural right that Marx wants to dismiss and yet includes in his base theory. He seems to say that the "workers" have a right to their labor as property, as ownership, while simultaneously saying that the concept of property is a bourgeois means of oppression.

But didn't the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and accompanying economic concepts which came to be known as capitalism bring greater liberty and sense of self to more people than ever before?

That is precisely the justification for the concept of natural rights that Marx wishes to dismiss. Natural rights are philosophical theories based on how to facilitate and maintain successful relations between men. The rights that the supporters of natural rights endorse are seen as of natural consequence to Man's existence. The only arbitrary concept of rights that I know of is the more socialistic and modern concept of "human rights."

How exactly does Marx's concept of rights - the very idea of which he dismissed as nonessential - differ from "bourgeois" or Enlightenment concepts of natural rights?

I hereby declare a revolution against zebra-posting. It usually leads diverting from the main idea. Hence, I will phrase in whole and remain with the core point of discussion.

First of all, no, it is not the same as natural rights. Natural rights are timeless. People are led to believe that these rights are natural, just like people are led to believe that capitalism is the system that makes best use of man's natural tendencies. Marx rejected these notions on the grounds that they are historical products. Thus, their truths are relative.

Also, the sort of liberty and individualism found in capitalism is not comparable to what Marx advocated. To him, these notions were again mere illusions, making you think that you are a free individual even though you are not. Avoid using your own understanding of what freedom, self, individuality, etc., mean. Most likely, your own understanding of these is incompatible with Marx's. You have to understand Marx through his lens, not your own.

I would also recommend you attempt to come to an understanding of Marx's philosophy, which usually isn't discussed much in comparison to his economic claims. Then you will come to a more advanced understanding of what Marx may have thought about such things as where ideas come from. This will then give you the necessary background to understand how he framed his various claims.

[Platon]

How about a simple intro to Marxism for those who are interested here

[Lord Thesaurian]

I would also recommend you attempt to come to an understanding of Marx's philosophy, which usually isn't discussed much in comparison to his economic claims. Then you will come to a more advanced understanding of what Marx may have thought about such things as where ideas come from. This will then give you the necessary background to understand how he framed his various claims.

Well, I've previously addressed my concerns with the foundations of his philosophy and the seeming logical dichotomies therein. He was a "materialist" who campaigned for subjective ideals, a committed Hegelian who considered his facile "insight" unique (indeed, his explanation of history in his Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy is almost a quote from Hegel's Introduction to the Philosophy of History, and Marx uses this historical philosophy as a foundation of his theories), and an anti-Semitic Jew (to complete the paradox) whose ideas have inspired the slaughter of millions. Hence I don't think its rationally acceptable to write him off as a bookish, congenial old man who had some surprisingly good ideas and some not so good ones when there are people alive today who call themselves "Marxists." "Marxists" ought to be able to directly explain the questions previously raised about the writings of their sociopolitical forefather, don't you think?

I realize I'm no expert on Marx and I will certainly continue research, but it doesn't seem too difficult for those who do know alot about Marx or call themselves Marxists to address the questions I raised.

It seems curious, on a side note, that these titans of what has become communism and Marxist theory, such as Marx himself, Engels, and Lenin, hailed from affluent "bourgeois" society. They certainly didn't know much, at least from personal experience, about these "proletarian workers" they enshrined. The following has no practical application here, but I feel compelled to say it, nonetheless: As someone whose family lives just below the poverty line and who has worked many a summer with "proletarians," I can honestly say that I and these same "proletarians" appreciate the social mobility and opportunity capitalism provides. I cherish the opportunity of advancement over the guarantee of comfort, and I think many from similar background to myself would agree. History, too, will show that the "working class" wasn't too inclined to work once they realized the fruits of their labor were going to be redistributed from a communal pot (so much for "ownership of labor...") I realize I probably just destroyed any possibility of salvaging a debate in this thread with these subjective sentiments, but please ignore them outside of a subjective and observational context.

[Claudius Gothicus]

People should treat ideologies like hypotheses, to be discarded when it becomes evident that they're incorrect, rather than as quasi-religions with archaic notions that simply don't work. Marxism is a case in point of what happens when the latter occurs.

Marx's works always lacked a good theory of the Modern State. In fact, lacking a sound and logically ''fool-proof'' theory of the State was what killed Orthodox Marxism in the first place.

The problem is that States are not Instruments of the Ruling Class. Consider Marx's christallized version of the State as an ''Instrument of Ruling Classes'' and then consider Weber's theory: ''an administrative framework designed to instrument the Legitimate Monopoly on Violence''... the dynamic nature of Weber's ''Abstract'' approach makes it much more predictive and explanatory answer to such a ''complex'' question as ''What's the State?''

[dogukan]

I know, I know... there have already been plenty of discussions about Marx and Communism, but hear me out. I am not well-versed in Marxist theory, and the generalities I am familiar with present many dichotomies I am constantly seeking to reconcile if not highlight as flaws. As I understand things, Marx seems primarily concerned with the abolition of hierarchy and sees socialism as the next step to achieving that goal; if I understand correctly. He is a materialist who does not believe in rights, so what then, is his empirical justification for the "scientific" assertion that labor is the property of the laborer? In Das Kapital, if I remember correctly, Marx explains why the various forms of socialism are "superior" to capitalism and yet inferior to his dream of anarcho-syndicalist paradise; which is oddly referred to, in my experience, as global socialism (a misnomer, since socialism essentially involves state ownership of the means of production, no?). I also have reservations about his conveniently linear view of economics and labor as it relates to supply, demand, commodities, etc, but I won't venture into that labyrinth here.

Before all, you have to keep in mind that Marxism, and theories of the 19th century scholar Marx is not the same thing. Marxism is the phiolosophy, dialectical materialism, a way of perceiving things. Those theories are analysis he made back in his day which holds truth to an extend.

So, if rights do not exist and yet the laborer has a right to his labor as property, and the "empirical" if not "ethical" solution involves returning nonexistent property rights to the "workers," how in the world did Marx seek to construct this anarchic workers' paradise post-revolution? Understanding the fact that Marx did not have the luxury of modern observers to see that Communism has failed - despite the self-loathing enthusiasm of its supporters - his projection still seems very obviously flawed even in theory. If I understand correctly, Marx envisioned a world where each laborer is somehow free, despite having no real rights and no autonomy or individual status. In this post-revolution model, this laborer "owns" his labor, despite the nonexistence of rights and autonomy, and the fact that the fruits of his labor belong to the communal state - which doesn't exist since the idea of "states" was "overthrown." The evil Middle Class, "Bourgeois," has been destroyed. Now comes the meat of the issue: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Here again we see the summation of the previous issues and arguably the largest one of all: Who or what distributes the goods? If distributed by a superior collective or individual, the "divide" between the laborer and the fruits of his labor is recreated and the "global revolution" only replaced one hierarchy with another. If distributed by a vote of all the laborers, then the model looks more like Rousseau's notions of popular sovereignty and social contract, thus acknowledging the existence of rights and the individual.

From a materialist perspectives, institutions are reliant production relations. It does not necessariy mean they should not be there. It means, the main factor in deciding how they will be is going to be production relations and class struggles.
I have not read Das Kapital, I did not even read Marx himself a lot. But as far as I understand Marxism, we can not talk of any communism that had been established. And the forms of socialism in history are not "socialism" either in it's full sense. They are shots at getting to communism which have failed for various debatable reasons.

Also, as a Marxist, I do not put a lot of effort into imagining what the "next stage" will look like. As I believe it is the class relations that will decide the fate of what things will look like inevitably.

Hence it seems the end result of Marxist theory is paradoxical and impracticable at best, and deceptively tyrannical and misanthropic at worst. Again, Marx did not have the luxury of seeing his theories applied, but the modern experience raises even greater arguments against communism, as per the unspeakable atrocities and unsustainability of the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cuba, etc. It seems the only point at which Marx was correct was where he describes socialism, especially social democracy, as a convenient transition to Communism.

Does Marx describe Social Democracy as a convenient transition to Communism?
And those examples are not communism, but that is a whole other debate.

Indeed, the modern experiments in social democracy have proven unsustainable; excepting, for the time being, the Nordic model, thanks to Germanic work ethic and values. In short, why am I among a minority of people to whom socialism and socialist variants are a certain failure?

Thanks to German work ethic and values?
Thats how you explain the Nordic Model?

Also, it would seem the collapse of Rome and the proceeding Dark Ages was indeed a societal devolution which conflicts with the teleological model, unless the current and prevailing Germanic system of the West subsequent of the Dark Ages is seen as superior to the Classical Model.

But that is a very big generalization. Where and when are we talking about? There were differently structured societies in classical era.

The latter would be of great convenience to thinkers of Hegel's philosophical cadre. Is that the case with Marx and Hegel? What about the fact that centuries of priceless knowledge was lost to the pestilence and chaos of the Dark Ages; knowledge only rediscovered by academics of the Renaissance and Enlightenment willing to defy papal and feudal society? Does that not represent societal devolution?

It might. You have to be more spesific.

It would seem that successful human society, permanently sustainable and aware of the idea that Man is an end in himself, would have to be founded upon some concept of philosophical and consequently legal rights. I would argue there is no "magic formula" for success as Marx suggests, since Man is a wonderfully selfish creature with ability to Reason and choose independently. I am, of course, of the outdated belief that Man is an end in himself, that the pursuit of happiness through productive achievement is His ideal occupation, and the Reason is the absolute guide and product of the Mind. Because of this, I do not agree with the belief that Man is a beast driven by passions in a universe driven by some metaphysical nonentity which some of the so-called Enlightenment figures dubbed "Reason" as a thinly veiled name for "god." I believe history is driven and chosen by individuals. Hence I cannot see the logic behind the easily ethnocentric view that history is some kind of inevitable succession; much less that the "next step" in this inevitable process involves the advent of a paradoxically communal-anarchic worker's paradise founded on unimaginable bloodshed and pursuant of a recycled, secularized feudal reality.

I am not sure if that is dialectical materialism or at least how Marxism approaches to things.



And yes friend, individuals do shape history, but what Marxism deals with is, what shapes individuals.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Before all, you have to keep in mind that Marxism, and theories of the 19th century scholar Marx is not the same thing. Marxism is the phiolosophy, dialectical materialism, a way of perceiving things. Those theories are analysis he made back in his day which holds truth to an extend.

Marxism is the application of Marx's ideas, is it not? Marxists often argue that Marx's ideas have never been implemented "correctly," but I find that convenient nonsense. It seems the only key component of Marx's ideas that hasn't been implemented is global revolution.

From a materialist perspectives, institutions are reliant production relations. It does not necessariy mean they should not be there. It means, the main factor in deciding how they will be is going to be production relations and class struggles.

Marx's primary argument rests on a question of ownership; the idea that the "workers" are oppressed because the bourgeois "steal" the workers' labor. That is an argument with inherent concepts of social justice and rights, yet Marx claims such things are pipe dreams and irrelevant to his argument. A puzzling dichotomy indeed, no?

I have not read Das Kapital, I did not even read Marx himself a lot. But as far as I understand Marxism, we can not talk of any communism that had been established. And the forms of socialism in history are not "socialism" either in it's full sense. They are shots at getting to communism which have failed for various debatable reasons.

If communism exists only in the hypothetical post-revolution model, then it cannot be taken seriously, because this means it is nothing more than anti-establishment rage like anarchism; hence "communism" and "Marxism" are mere tools of those who wish to rule others.

Also, as a Marxist, I do not put a lot of effort into imagining what the "next stage" will look like. As I believe it is the class relations that will decide the fate of what things will look like inevitably.

But said "next stage" will involve the annihilation of all non-proletarian "classes," will it not? This is why Marx is difficult for me to understand as anything other than a misanthrope. He has only vague ideas about solutions, but has plenty of ideas about destruction. Hierarchy cannot be destroyed, and man is not a robot who will someday learn to act as a cog in a great machine of equality. Thus I hardly see how this great "workers' paradise" is inevitable.

It is the concept of trade - from the basic, like coinage, to the more macroeconomic ideas like laissez-faire capitalism - which liberates mankind. The only way to achieve relative equality is through self interest; to view one's fellow men as an autonomous trader, as an end in himself with the existential right to Life, Liberty, and Property. Those men who say Man must act out of anything other than self-interest are those who seek to rule.

Does Marx describe Social Democracy as a convenient transition to Communism?
And those examples are not communism, but that is a whole other debate.

I realize these are not communism, but Marx refers to them as well-intentioned failures and a transition to his "perfected" model of communism.

Thanks to German work ethic and values?
Thats how you explain the Nordic Model?

Not specifically. The Nordic Model works only because markets are kept strong through minimal government intervention and bureaucracy, which helps maintain wealth creation and union wages. Also key are the comparatively extremely high tax rates which finance the large safety nets. There also does not seem to be nearly as great a problem with entitlement fraud, and this, I argued, is cultural; I am not educated enough to draw conclusions in that regard.

In Germany, the social safety net seems to be very well managed. Perhaps I am stereotyping, but I speculate that this could be due in part to German cultural discipline.

In the US, the opposite is the case. Increasing government intervention in the markets which obstruct productivity and confidence, exponentially increasing entitlement costs despite comparatively low taxes, comparatively high incidence of fraud, and increasing discoveries of political corruption.

I could forgo my philosophical reservations and submit to the Nordic Model, but that would minimizing if not eradicating fraud and political corruption, dramatically raising taxes, and somehow relinquishing the hold of Big Finance on the government. Because this is virtually impossible, I argue the only real solution is, in short, to shrink the total size of government and break the Federal Reserve System which funnels the productivity of the American people into the coffers of the government and its Wall Street financiers.

But that is a very big generalization. Where and when are we talking about? There were differently structured societies in classical era.

I am speaking, as I believe I mentioned, of the fall of Rome; specifically of the West. The historical record will show a dismal disparity between the fallen West and the glorious East. I would argue that represents a societal devolution in the West into the Dark Ages. Such societal devolution conflicts with the teleological view of Hegel that history is constantly improving. Hegel saw Germanic society as the ideal, hence the Dark Age could be considered beneficial because it brought "superior" Germanic society to Europe. Abandoning such an ethnocentric notion, it does appear Western society experienced severe setbacks at the onset of and during the Dark Ages, arguably disproving Hegel's (and Marx's) theory, which in fact was the convenient justification used by European colonialists; ie that European society is superior to all others.

I am not sure if that is dialectical materialism or at least how Marxism approaches to things.

That is, as I said, a teleological view of history. Marx uses it in his justification that history is a series of revolutions inevitably leading to a given point; a point he then argues is the collapse of bourgeois society and the advent of "workers' paradise."

And yes friend, individuals do shape history, but what Marxism deals with is, what shapes individuals

Perhaps; provided by other individuals. No hive mind exists in mankind, so action and reaction are mathematical sums, differences, products, etc of individual actions, obscured by the unpredictability of individual choice. There exists no proof that history is predestined or that Reason exists outside of the Mind, and all proof that the Individual interacts with other Individuals as the basis of sociology and history. Those who view Man as a collective are those who are to rule or be ruled, but that does not change the fact that Man is in fact an Individual and cannot Reason collectively.

But Marx would probably tell you were he alive today that small businesses and tradesmen are part of the oppressed class.

You argue on speculation, and your above notion would be contrary to what he wrote. He did mention that some in the lower middle class would probably join in the proletarian revolution, but the objective is to destroy the "bourgeois" middle class.

This idea that Marx has an obsession with the proletariat is wrong. He has an obsession with protecting people from exploitation and ending the class divisions. So to say they are the primary enemy of Communism is, in my opinion, wrong. Yes, they advocate a system that goes against Communism, but they can be victims of oppression too.

The entire Communist Manifesto is dedicated to arousing the "proletariat" to revolution against their "bourgeois" middle class oppressors. Everything he wrote in this regard, from Communism and the Augsburg Allgemeine Zeitung to Strategy and Tactics of the Class Struggle, had to do with "labor relations" and the "struggle" of the Proletariat, whose moral enemy is the ruling "Bourgeois," the middle class.

The difference is the "ignorant poor" live in relative misery to the rich and ruling classes, and are in that situation because of poor education and little motivation to do well in a society where rules are dictated by a ruling class. The abolition of such class denotations would stop any of these accusations from happening.

That is certainly false. Capitalism afforded all mankind greater prosperity than ever before, as Marx himself noted. The contention is that, somehow, by slaughtering the majority of mankind in a global revolution, this hive mind proletariat concept of Marx's will inevitably and consequently exist in a classless paradise where men are robots living as selfless cogs in a machine. I laid out my critique of this in the OP. I would argue "classes" no longer exist in the static capacity that Marx argues upon, because capitalism has provided universal social mobility; ie the very poor can become very rich and vice-versa; and the abstract notions of class that do exist, like intrinsic and political superiors, are an inherent part of human civilization. I laid out an argument as to why Marx's ideas inherently preserve permanent classes in the OP.

I don't see how trying to stop the historical cycle is a bad thing. While Hegel just accepts history, Marx actually wants to end History. Since for him History consists essentially of the conflicts of men as well as their relations, so to end the conflict you must end History and vice-versa.

Here you either are accepting Hegelian or Nietzschian prerequisites; perhaps both. I have numerous counters to both, some of which are in the OP and my response to your earlier post. Please elaborate on your inferences that history is an inevitable succession, cycle, or both.

But if you say History is the relationship between individuals, I say the relationship between individuals is what we call Society or Community or Mankind. Those relationships between individuals are the metaphysical in all of this. It's not a question of "finding" the hive mind. It's already there : the creation of civilizations, the will to make friends, "Good Morning Comrade", exploitation etc...

As no proof of the metaphysical exists, you'll have to explain your invocation of the idea here. I've already explained my opinions on this. No hive mind exists, and all evidence points to the fact that human interaction is based on individual interaction. The only obscure point in this is the power of choice, but that is a mystery of the Mind, not metaphysics.

If Man could not reason collectively, it would be constantly in a chaotic mess. Individualism would probably mean the extinction of the human race. Every single aspect of our society is built by a collective. What makes us recognise currency for example? Or the recognition of land as a product?

I'm afraid I don't understand you at all here. Please explain, starting with your justification of how Man is able to reason collectively.

[dogukan]

Marxism is the application of Marx's ideas, is it not? Marxists often argue that Marx's ideas have never been implemented "correctly," but I find that convenient nonsense. It seems the only key component of Marx's ideas that hasn't been implemented is global revolution.

But Marx's ideas have changes throughout his life as well. It is not a static set of thought. There are some basic things that reflects his view of the society, but you can't base every criticism on his ideas from 19th century. Nor you should expect them to be totally accurate. Heck even scholars today can not be totally accurate nor be sure of their thoughts. Or at least, I do not know of a social theory application that is universal truth that will never change.

Marxism is a philosophy, it is a school of thought, and many Marxists throughout history came out with different direct applications of theory. Ranging from revolutionaries to Social democrats in the area of politics, or the dependency thinkers of economy...Materialist thinking goes back to even before ancient Greece. Marxism is an arm of it, which had many other arms come out from it.

Marx theories are based on his materialist analysis of 19th century, which holds truth to a great extend. None can dismis his additions to field of sociology. His concepts are today used as concepts that are taken for granted by non-Marxists to a great extend.

Marx's primary argument rests on a question of ownership; the idea that the "workers" are oppressed because the bourgeois "steal" the workers' labor. That is an argument with inherent concepts of social justice and rights, yet Marx claims such things are pipe dreams and irrelevant to his argument. A puzzling dichotomy indeed, no?

You have to keep in mind that theoretical framework is not the same with politically motivated works written. Sure he has written his rhetoric in the way you described, which might look even childish an un-scholarly when we think of it now. But he was involved n politics where there are power struggles directly in one's life.
His theories goes even deeper than that. And the dialectical materialist philosophy is something beyond mere politics and economic theories.

If communism exists only in the hypothetical post-revolution model, then it cannot be taken seriously, because this means it is nothing more than anti-establishment rage like anarchism; hence "communism" and "Marxism" are mere tools of those who wish to rule others.

Communism is hypothetical. It is not exactly a set of rules you apply. It is a state of nature. It is, from a materialist perspective,lack of private ownership over means of production,hence the lack of classes, hence states. There is no clear definition on how it would be organized or what it would be looked like. But you realize the main ideas: That is to get rid of the conflict of interests within society.

Use of the concepts communism or socialism in our history by people who struggled in the arena of power, politics does not change accuracies in the materialist analysis of history.
Nor means those people are what "Marxism" is.


But said "next stage" will involve the annihilation of all non-proletarian "classes," will it not? This is why Marx is difficult for me to understand as anything other than a misanthrope. He has only vague ideas about solutions, but has plenty of ideas about destruction. Hierarchy cannot be destroyed, and man is not a robot who will someday learn to act as a cog in a great machine of equality. Thus I hardly see how this great "workers' paradise" is inevitable.

It is the concept of trade - from the basic, like coinage, to the more macroeconomic ideas like laissez-faire capitalism - which liberates mankind. The only way to achieve relative equality is through self interest; to view one's fellow men as an autonomous trader, as an end in himself with the existential right to Life, Liberty, and Property. Those men who say Man must act out of anything other than self-interest are those who seek to rule.

That is not a Marxist way of looking things though. That is how many people interpret Marxism in pop culture today. I call them "Che T-shirt" people Marxism is not necessarily against capitalism or the bourgouise class. And in the same way Marxism CAN be against SOCIALISM itself if it was there somewhere. Marxism is philosophy of change, of criticisms, of things that gets rotten in whatever society we are in. It deals with progress and dynamics of change for a better future. In the case of our history, it turned out to be classes that change history. The conflicts between upper and lower or among class itself that shapes our society. And what makes classes is the relation to means of production.

I am not anti-capitalism myself.

I realize these are not communism, but Marx refers to them as well-intentioned failures and a transition to his "perfected" model of communism.

I dont think Marx's model of communism is anymore credible than mine. Especially given the fact that he lived in a society with different dynamics, 200 years before me. I am sure, as a dialectical thinker, he would appreciate the change. Because dialectics is about CHANGE.

Not specifically. The Nordic Model works only because markets are kept strong through minimal government intervention and bureaucracy, which helps maintain wealth creation and union wages. Also key are the comparatively extremely high tax rates which finance the large safety nets. There also does not seem to be nearly as great a problem with entitlement fraud, and this, I argued, is cultural; I am not educated enough to draw conclusions in that regard.

I see your point. But you should read more on the issue for the formation of Nordic System which is indeed very unique and successful. The recent articles I have read, none of them even mentioned the German work ethic. BUT there does seem to be a correlation in Protestant church administiration which kept statistics and increased literacy to a great amount.

Other factors include the initial conditions of feudal strucure, class relations, already close income levels, late industrialization(and the effect of the landed peasent plus working class organizations in politics. AND the collaboration of middle classes in the state formation in late 19th early 20th century. Domestic institutions, which can include Protestant work ethic and the perception of the state in Nordic countries: which is, state=people, which is very close to socialist thinking) There can be many more but it is not just about German work ethic.

In Germany, the social safety net seems to be very well managed. Perhaps I am stereotyping, but I speculate that this could be due in part to German cultural discipline.

Or many other things

In the US, the opposite is the case. Increasing government intervention in the markets which obstruct productivity and confidence, exponentially increasing entitlement costs despite comparatively low taxes, comparatively high incidence of fraud, and increasing discoveries of political corruption.

If we go further we'll jump into another arguement which is not as relevant to this as you think.

I could forgo my philosophical reservations and submit to the Nordic Model, but that would minimizing if not eradicating fraud and political corruption, dramatically raising taxes, and somehow relinquishing the hold of Big Finance on the government. Because this is virtually impossible, I argue the only real solution is, in short, to shrink the total size of government and break the Federal Reserve System which funnels the productivity of the American people into the coffers of the government and its Wall Street financiers.

This is a whole different debate. And it is much more micro compared to the concepts we are talking about. Mind you, everybody has different opinions on this, including scholars who gave their life into this arguement.

I am speaking, as I believe I mentioned, of the fall of Rome; specifically of the West. The historical record will show a dismal disparity between the fallen West and the glorious East. I would argue that represents a societal devolution in the West into the Dark Ages. Such societal devolution conflicts with the teleological view of Hegel that history is constantly improving. Hegel saw Germanic society as the ideal, hence the Dark Age could be considered beneficial because it brought "superior" Germanic society to Europe. Abandoning such an ethnocentric notion, it does appear Western society experienced severe setbacks at the onset of and during the Dark Ages, arguably disproving Hegel's (and Marx's) theory, which in fact was the convenient justification used by European colonialists; ie that European society is superior to all others.

-i ll be back to this-

That is, as I said, a teleological view of history. Marx uses it in his justification that history is a series of revolutions inevitably leading to a given point; a point he then argues is the collapse of bourgeois society and the advent of "workers' paradise."

I have elaborated this above

Perhaps; provided by other individuals. No hive mind exists in mankind, so action and reaction are mathematical sums, differences, products, etc of individual actions, obscured by the unpredictability of individual choice. There exists no proof that history is predestined or that Reason exists outside of the Mind, and all proof that the Individual interacts with other Individuals as the basis of sociology and history. Those who view Man as a collective are those who are to rule or be ruled, but that does not change the fact that Man is in fact an Individual and cannot Reason collectively.

There are a lot of assumptions here for you argument. AND a lot of wrong assumptions regarding Marxism.

[Lord Thesaurian]

But Marx's ideas have changes throughout his life as well. It is not a static set of thought. There are some basic things that reflects his view of the society, but you can't base every criticism on his ideas from 19th century. Nor you should expect them to be totally accurate. Heck even scholars today can not be totally accurate nor be sure of their thoughts. Or at least, I do not know of a social theory application that is universal truth that will never change.

I realize Marx was affected by the conventions of his time, but if Marx's ideas were merely nonspecific speculation, can the ideas and applications others have added over the years really be called "Marxism" if in fact many of the more specific and modern details are later additions and not necessarily the work of Marx himself?

Marxism is a philosophy, it is a school of thought, and many Marxists throughout history came out with different direct applications of theory. Ranging from revolutionaries to Social democrats in the area of politics, or the dependency thinkers of economy...Materialist thinking goes back to even before ancient Greece. Marxism is an arm of it, which had many other arms come out from it.

Marx theories are based on his materialist analysis of 19th century, which holds truth to a great extend. None can dismis his additions to field of sociology. His concepts are today used as concepts that are taken for granted by non-Marxists to a great extend.

I suppose one could call Marxism a variation on materialism, though I've already inquired after the elements of what he calls the material "base" that seem to be dependent upon some concept of rights and social justice even though Marx considers these things non-essential constructs of the superstructure. Perhaps I should clarify my purpose here. I seek not to prove that "Marxism" or "communism" "doesn't work." I seek mainly to question what appear to be obvious dichotomies within the Marx's basic theoretical outline, summarily detailed in his Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy against the backdrop of works like the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, that cause me to wonder why anyone but a power-hungry misanthrope would ever take him seriously.

You have to keep in mind that theoretical framework is not the same with politically motivated works written. Sure he has written his rhetoric in the way you described, which might look even childish an un-scholarly when we think of it now. But he was involved n politics where there are power struggles directly in one's life.
His theories goes even deeper than that. And the dialectical materialist philosophy is something beyond mere politics and economic theories.

True. Marx seemed fascinated with these ideas of materialism, teleology, and class struggle and wrote at length about the role these things played in key events of his time, like The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Again, what concerns me most is the apparent duplicities within the foundation of his theories.

Communism is hypothetical. It is not exactly a set of rules you apply. It is a state of nature. It is, from a materialist perspective,lack of private ownership over means of production,hence the lack of classes, hence states. There is no clear definition on how it would be organized or what it would be looked like. But you realize the main ideas: That is to get rid of the conflict of interests within society.

It is precisely this undefined Marxist state of nature which concerns me. As a materialist, Marx criticizes thinkers of the Enlightenment for attempting to project theoretical models outside the state of nature and based on rights. Yet the abstractions of men like Rousseau and Hobbes appear positively scientific compared to what I see as Marx's glaring paradoxes which I outlined in the OP.

Even beyond what I perceive as flaws in Marx's foundational ideas about the base and superstructure, there is the question of the "next stage," post-revolution. Marx makes not the slightest hint about how exactly this next stage will simply materialize or how the surviving proletariat is to simply "evolve" into a beehive-like mechanism. Marx also seems to commit similar convenient deductions to Rousseau; this idea that no one ones anything and no state exists and yet an inherent society of communal production and distribution exists. Marx also doesn't seem to mind that his "state of nature" directly conflicts with human nature (The Soviets tried to bridge this gap for him with their concept of the "New Man"). I believe I outlined these in the OP.

In short, Marx calls himself a "materialist" and "scientist" whilst appearing to base the means of his theories in proletarian property rights and social justice, and the ends in complete abstraction. How could a man such as this ever been taken seriously? He seems to have this much in common with Rousseau as well. Rousseau was enshrined as a hero by Revolutionary France and his writings and ideas were said to have heavily influenced societies the world over, yet key elements of Rousseau's theories were ignored by men who claimed to adore him. Could this be the case with Marx; ie a case of romanticized identity?

Use of the concepts communism or socialism in our history by people who struggled in the arena of power, politics does not change accuracies in the materialist analysis of history.
Nor means those people are what "Marxism" is.

Precisely. That's why it seems Marx cannot be taken seriously. As I said, his means are based in proletarian property rights and social justice, and the ends in complete abstraction, and he speaks volumes on destruction but almost nothing on solutions.

That is not a Marxist way of looking things though. That is how many people interpret Marxism in pop culture today. I call them "Che T-shirt" people Marxism is not necessarily against capitalism or the bourgouise class. And in the same way Marxism CAN be against SOCIALISM itself if it was there somewhere. Marxism is philosophy of change, of criticisms, of things that gets rotten in whatever society we are in. It deals with progress and dynamics of change for a better future. In the case of our history, it turned out to be classes that change history. The conflicts between upper and lower or among class itself that shapes our society. And what makes classes is the relation to means of production.

I am not anti-capitalism myself.

I realize Marx saw capitalism as "outdated" rather than "evil" in his writings of theory, however he seems to be come viciously anti-establishment in works like the Communist Manifesto and addresses to labor and trade unions. As I said, he seems very passionate about destroying "Bourgeois" society and "liberating" the proletariat. The first of these components seems to conflict with his "scientific" and detached, teleological view of history. If world communism is the natural "next stage," why organize rallies, lectures, manifestos, and the like in order to motivate individual people to take the lead in affecting that change? Seems to vindicate my view individuals drive history, however one would call it.

The second component, "liberation" of the proletariat and returning the "right of ownership (property rights, no?)" to the "workers," seems heavily based in some concept of rights and social justice. These are serious dichotomies indeed. The more I read Marx, the more he seems to be nothing more than an anarchist who doesn't want to admit it.

I dont think Marx's model of communism is anymore credible than mine. Especially given the fact that he lived in a society with different dynamics, 200 years before me. I am sure, as a dialectical thinker, he would appreciate the change. Because dialectics is about CHANGE.

Right. The Fabian socialists seem to have taken up the mantle of Marx, and instead of pushing for violent revolution, wish to facilitate peaceful "progress" to world socialism over time. Seeing how the modern world does appear to be heading in this direction toward the creation of a global Leviathan, perhaps Marx has been thoroughly disproven on three main counts, in addition to those previously mentioned; one, individuals are affecting this change and no evidence would suggest it is an arbitrary occurrence, two, it is a gradual change, not violent revolution, and three, the end result will probably be a world government, not anarcho-syndicalist utopia.

I see your point. But you should read more on the issue for the formation of Nordic System which is indeed very unique and successful. The recent articles I have read, none of them even mentioned the German work ethic. BUT there does seem to be a correlation in Protestant church administiration which kept statistics and increased literacy to a great amount.

True. I detest the Roman Church and have respect for Protestantism's role in the Enlightenment and dismantlement of feudal society. I would explore Protestantism's role in western society here, but do not wish to be mired in the line between religious assumption and scientific theory, hence I settled for the umbrella term of "German culture." I use the term "German culture" because the German states seemed the ideal place for organized opposition against Rome to take place. The area was never conquered by the Romans and had been in tense relations with the Vatican since the days of Barbarossa. Hence it seems natural that a "Protest" against Papal Rome sprung up in the German States amidst weakness and corruption in the Vatican and spread like wildfire. I realize it is a misnomer to describe this effect as "German culture," but as I said, I did not want to open the possibility of a socio-religious discussion.

There are a lot of assumptions here for you argument. AND a lot of wrong assumptions regarding Marxism.

Do explain.

[dogukan]

I realize Marx was affected by the conventions of his time, but if Marx's ideas were merely nonspecific speculation, can the ideas and applications others have added over the years really be called "Marxism" if in fact many of the more specific and modern details are later additions and not necessarily the work of Marx himself?

If I am not mistaken, Marxism is not necessarily works of Marx. Or at least his direct criticisms on policymaking.
Marxism is dialectical materialism. Which is a way of perceiving the world, everything, not just politics.
It is a study of human interaction with material world and its products in the framework of change and interconnectedness.

I suppose one could call Marxism a variation on materialism, though I've already inquired after the elements of what he calls the material "base" that seem to be dependent upon some concept of rights and social justice even though Marx considers these things non-essential constructs of the superstructure.

I am not sure what you mean, but nowadays I am very interested in institutions and Marxism linkage. Because institutionalism is a very strong stance in development economics these days, and I can see a very clear correlation to that with Marxist approach.

Perhaps I should clarify my purpose here. I seek not to prove that "Marxism" or "communism" "doesn't work."

Marxism is not communism. You are still not distinguishing these things which will lead you to wrong assumptions.

I seek mainly to question what appear to be obvious dichotomies within the Marx's basic theoretical outline, summarily detailed in his Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy against the backdrop of works like the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, that cause me to wonder why anyone but a power-hungry misanthrope would ever take him seriously.

You can understand and learn a lot of how things work from those. But I dont think there would be a point in taking those and applying just like that. I dont think Marx himself would agree with that.

As Diamat keeps mentioning, you have to get a grasp of the contexts first.

Again, what concerns me most is the apparent duplicities within the foundation of his theories.

I am not sure I understand what exactly you are referring to.

It is precisely this undefined Marxist state of nature which concerns me. As a materialist, Marx criticizes thinkers of the Enlightenment for attempting to project theoretical models outside the state of nature and based on rights. Yet the abstractions of men like Rousseau and Hobbes appear positively scientific compared to what I see as Marx's glaring paradoxes which I outlined in the OP.

I will repeat: You have to distinguish the philosophy as an approach to things and Marx's obsolete criticism/expectations by todays standards. There is still a lot to learn from his criticisms in the 19th, but you can not directly apply them to today obviously. The dynamics have change, although there are similarities to that day as well.

Even beyond what I perceive as flaws in Marx's foundational ideas about the base and superstructure, there is the question of the "next stage," post-revolution. Marx makes not the slightest hint about how exactly this next stage will simply materialize or how the surviving proletariat is to simply "evolve" into a beehive-like mechanism. Marx also seems to commit similar convenient deductions to Rousseau; this idea that no one ones anything and no state exists and yet an inherent society of communal production and distribution exists.

Interpretations on how things can be can vary greatly. There are many factors that can effect formation of a changing system. Marxism is tehre as long as you explain how things will be from materialist links. Marxism, as far as I understood, is not about bringing socialism. Its about finding out the dynamics.
A Marxist scholar can sit today, criticize the system, come out with newer dynamics based on materialist thinking and interpret his own solutions.

Marx also doesn't seem to mind that his "state of nature" directly conflicts with human nature

I need elaboration.
Marxism does not really deal with human nature. Human nature IS SHAPED by our own products, materialization of what we created.

In short, Marx calls himself a "materialist" and "scientist" whilst appearing to base the means of his theories in proletarian property rights and social justice, and the ends in complete abstraction. How could a man such as this ever been taken seriously? He seems to have this much in common with Rousseau as well. Rousseau was enshrined as a hero by Revolutionary France and his writings and ideas were said to have heavily influenced societies the world over, yet key elements of Rousseau's theories were ignored by men who claimed to adore him. Could this be the case with Marx; ie a case of romanticized identity?

Marx's writings regarding social justice is part of the political-social context of THAT DAY. His approach in reaching those however is still valid today. Which is free from his ideas. It is a philosophy.

You see Marxism as a romantic radical revolutionary dream to bring socialism. Thats not what it is about.

Precisely. That's why it seems Marx cannot be taken seriously. As I said, his means are based in proletarian property rights and social justice, and the ends in complete abstraction, and he speaks volumes on destruction but almost nothing on solutions.

Again context: But, for the sake of the arguement, within the context of the 19th century social conflicts, Marx believed social institutions are a product of human relations with means of production. The social systems, economy and politics was shaped by this. It is not necesarrily going to be looking same everywhere, however there is a strong correlation on how things are based on substructure.
Example: Even today, you can see in developing world where politics are dominated by bourgouise elite of the society that levels of exploitation are high, inequality/gini levels high and poverty a big issue. This can be in Malaysia or Brazil or 19th century UK.
Even though they are not identical, and there had been changing dynamics, there is a correlation based on the substructure;which is a result of production relations.(and that is what makes this a materialist analysis)

So in his day, Marx saw this, and for the sake of change to a better society, he had written his writings in a language where politics can be legitimized. So his analysis was scientific in that sense, but you can not go to working class people and tell about these philosophies exactly.

I realize Marx saw capitalism as "outdated" rather than "evil" in his writings of theory, however he seems to be come viciously anti-establishment in works like the Communist Manifesto and addresses to labor and trade unions. As I said, he seems very passionate about destroying "Bourgeois" society and "liberating" the proletariat. The first of these components seems to conflict with his "scientific" and detached, teleological view of history. If world communism is the natural "next stage," why organize rallies, lectures, manifestos, and the like in order to motivate individual people to take the lead in affecting that change? Seems to vindicate my view individuals drive history, however one would call it.

Just like above, this is a political context. It is not universally applicable. It was at that time, in the heat of the moment he had written these.

The second component, "liberation" of the proletariat and returning the "right of ownership (property rights, no?)" to the "workers," seems heavily based in some concept of rights and social justice. These are serious dichotomies indeed. The more I read Marx, the more he seems to be nothing more than an anarchist who doesn't want to admit it.

If we pull this to a more scientific analysis. What he meant was that, if the substructure changes to a pro-working class interests, the new superstructure to be built on this would be more applicable to a broader population, hence less conflicts and a better society. The superstructure includes all the rights and justices.

Do explain.

I have repeated this in what I have written above. The context, the philosophy-the methodology, Marx's analysis in his day. Distinguish these for a better argument.
The best way to argue against Marxism is arguing though philosophy, which includes challenging the materialist and dialectical philosophies. It does not go through saying "Marx was wrong about revolution or a paradise proletariat dictatorship never got established"

[Squiggle]

Wow. You dont even know what individualism is.