How Many People Know That Marx...

[4588686]

 

 

Yes, common knowledge that he was a democratic socialist, never a marxist-socialist or communist.

 

 

Democratic Socialism is as much a derivative of 'Marxist-Socialism' as Leninism is.  Arguably more so since it came to force in Germany via Karl Kautsky who had a much stronger claim to being a rightful 'disciple' of Marx than Lenin or Stalin did.  You're trying to create clear boundaries where none exist.  Marx was not a completely consistent theoretician.  

[John Ryan]

My understanding is that Orwell was a democratic socialist, a different animal from a communist. But certainly reconcilable. 

 

It depends what you mean by "communism". With the advent of the Soviet Union and Marxist Leninism, many Marxists who would have previously considered themselves communists, began to use other terms to distinguish themselves from Leninism. Social Democracy became a common label, used by Kautsky. Eventually, however, social democracy became associated with a third-way ideology in Europe. Communism, Anarchism and Socialism are quite interchangeable in many contexts. Orwell could be labeled equally, a communist, an anarchist, or a socialist. 

 

In a letter to the Tribune, George Orwell wrote: 

 

Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also"…. It was Marx who brought it to life. And ever since he did so the motives of politicians, priests, judges, moralists and millionaires have been under the deepest suspicion–which, of course, is why they hate him so much.

[Benedictus]

Orwell was actually a staunch communist himself! Orwell believed that the answer to 1984 was real communism.

 

Karl Marx does believe in the abolition of private property, by which he understands to be the primary "means of production". Marx believed that modernity and industrialism had destroyed idyllic peasant life. There was no going back, and we do not really want to go back, for we should have to give up all the gains of modernity. That being said, I do not imagine Marx would have a problem with a person growing vegetables on their land, or a kid setting up a lemonade stand. Marx's criticism of capitalism is that it exploits the labor power of others. So long as you do the labor yourself, I cannot envision Marx condemning it.

 

 

Tell that to all the Latin American faithful and Latin American Jesuit Priests who are both staunch communists and staunch Catholics. I do not accept the Church's condemnation of socialism in its encyclicals, because all it does is condemn vulgar representations of communism/socialism. Condemning boogeyman socialism is not the same as real socialism, which was actually practiced in the New Testament Church.

 

Yes, I'd agree with this also. Of course people favouring Capitalism use those encyclicals to spin the issues to their advantage. But with the growth of the church in Latin America, and the shrinking elsewhere, I wonder what impact and relationship socialist ideas will have on the church. It seems fairly clear, and this is seen in the Popes change of focus, that there will definitely be a reordering of attention towards the issues of poverty and social action. The US and Europe led the agendas for the worldwide church up until this point, mostly focusing on doctrine and secularization. I sense this will faze slightly into the background as other priorities come into play. It may well change things a great deal if their are more Cardinals appointed from wider afield in the future. The balance at the moment is unfair. The recent visit of Gustavo Gutierrez to the Vatican and reports that the Pope is closely connected with the concerns of Liberation theology are maybe other signs of a shift.
 

[Winchester]

 

It depends what you mean by "communism". With the advent of the Soviet Union and Marxist Leninism, many Marxists who would have previously considered themselves communists, began to use other terms to distinguish themselves from Leninism. Social Democracy became a common label, used by Kautsky. Eventually, however, social democracy became associated with a third-way ideology in Europe. Communism, Anarchism and Socialism are quite interchangeable in many contexts. Orwell could be labeled equally, a communist, an anarchist, or a socialist. 

 

In a letter to the Tribune, George Orwell wrote: 

 

Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also"…. It was Marx who brought it to life. And ever since he did so the motives of politicians, priests, judges, moralists and millionaires have been under the deepest suspicion–which, of course, is why they hate him so much.

 

 

Fair enough.

[NotreDame]

Then why ask if he was being sarcastic? Why not simply show the contradictory evidence that Orwell didn't support communism? Unless your evidence is that he wrote a satire on totalitarianism employing communist rhetoric in order to maintain hierarchy that communists reject. 

 

My understanding is that Orwell was a democratic socialist, a different animal from a communist. But certainly reconcilable. 

 

I said it because it's ridiculous enough on it's face to deserve the question.  Orwell identified as a democratic socialist.  This is distinct and separate from Marxism. 

 

Democratic Socialism is as much a derivative of 'Marxist-Socialism' as Leninism is.  Arguably more so since it came to force in Germany via Karl Kautsky who had a much stronger claim to being a rightful 'disciple' of Marx than Lenin or Stalin did.  You're trying to create clear boundaries where none exist.  Marx was not a completely consistent theoretician.  

 

Democratic socialism was not a derivative of marxism.  In Britain it was formalized largely by the Fabian society which was independent of marxism and later became the independent labour party, where most identifying themselves as "democratic socialists" resided.

 

 

It depends what you mean by "communism". With the advent of the Soviet Union and Marxist Leninism, many Marxists who would have previously considered themselves communists, began to use other terms to distinguish themselves from Leninism. Social Democracy became a common label, used by Kautsky. Eventually, however, social democracy became associated with a third-way ideology in Europe. Communism, Anarchism and Socialism are quite interchangeable in many contexts. Orwell could be labeled equally, a communist, an anarchist, or a socialist. 

 

In a letter to the Tribune, George Orwell wrote: 

 

Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also"…. It was Marx who brought it to life. And ever since he did so the motives of politicians, priests, judges, moralists and millionaires have been under the deepest suspicion–which, of course, is why they hate him so much.

 

 

Kautsy's use of the term democratic socialism had nothing to do w/ disowning leninism, which didn't exist at the time...

 

Orwell never quite developed a distinct politically ideology - at least not one he professed - and I think his writing (and his readers) have benefited from that.  However, there's no reason he'd be called anything but what he called himself:  a democratic socialist. 

 

Frankly, we've now seen you try to paint Marx as a fan of private property and Orwell as a communist.  Is there anything you wont' turn on it's head to make Marxism look good?

[4588686]

I said it because it's ridiculous enough on it's face to deserve the question.  Orwell identified as a democratic socialist.  This is distinct and separate from Marxism. 

 

 

Democratic socialism was not a derivative of marxism.  In Britain it was formalized largely by the Fabian society which was independent of marxism and later became the independent labour party, where most identifying themselves as "democratic socialists" resided.

 

 

Kautsy's use of the term democratic socialism had nothing to do w/ disowning leninism, which didn't exist at the time...

 

Orwell never quite developed a distinct politically ideology - at least not one he professed - and I think his writing (and his readers) have benefited from that.  However, there's no reason he'd be called anything but what he called himself:  a democratic socialist. 

 

Frankly, we've now seen you try to paint Marx as a fan of private property and Orwell as a communist.  Is there anything you wont' turn on it's head to make Marxism look good?

 

Kautsky exchanged numerous polemics with Lenin and Trotsky.  His polemics with Lenin continued after the Bolsheviks had attained power and Lenin's political vision had been implemented in the USSR.  So you're just flatly wrong about that.  No ambiguity. 

[4588686]

I also think you are confusing the Social Democrats with Democratic Socialism.  

[4588686]

Not that the two aren't related and don't share many common sources.

[Socrates]

I don't believe he's promoted the statist versions of socialism or communism. I understand that Marx believed the state would be necessary for a transition (like many believed the One Ring would be needed to defeat Sauron), but even that error is far different from arguing in favor of those animals.

 

Interestingly, old Karl himself acknowledged the necessity of a despotic state to bring about Communism's goals.

 

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

 

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

 

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

 

Of course, under Communism, the despotic attacks against property rights and economically untenable measures remain, while the promised stateless utopia never arrives.

 

The absurd lie of Marxism involves getting people to subjugate to a despotic state and economic disaster in return for the promise of freedom from state despotism and economic utopia in the indefinite future.

 

It's tragic that so many fell for this lie.

 

If you read Marx, it's clear he wasn't just all about peace'n'luv.

[Winchester]

Interestingly, old Karl himself acknowledged the necessity of a despotic state to bring about Communism's goals.

 

 

That's what I said.

[Winchester]

I said it because it's ridiculous enough on it's its face to deserve the question.  Orwell identified as a democratic socialist.  This is distinct and separate from Marxism. 

 

 

 

I get that you would ask a question, it just makes no sense to chalk it up (sarcastically) to sarcasm. Unless you believe that all forms of communism are totalitarian in nature. I suppose if one equated the USSR to communism (there was absolutely nothing communist in the USSR, since the property of the state was never owned by the people but instead by the members of the state who had power (just like the US)), you might see an opportunity for sarcasm.

 

Since Marx essentially argued for the means of production to be communally owned through cooperation among individuals, he was quite close to democratic socialism. Socialists share the same class conflict outlook as communists. It's not enough of a decision to warrant your employment of sarcastically inquiring about sarcasm.

[John Ryan]

I also think you are confusing the Social Democrats with Democratic Socialism.  

 

At the fin-de-siècle the terms were probably interchangeable. However, "social democracy" has become associated with third way movements in Europe and "democratic socialism" for those who want revolutionary change brought about through democratic procedures.

 

Interestingly, old Karl himself acknowledged the necessity of a despotic state to bring about Communism's goals.

 

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

 

Of course, under Communism, the despotic attacks against property rights and economically untenable measures remain, while the promised stateless utopia never arrives.

 

The absurd lie of Marxism involves getting people to subjugate to a despotic state and economic disaster in return for the promise of freedom from state despotism and economic utopia in the indefinite future.

 

It's tragic that so many fell for this lie.

 

If you read Marx, it's clear he wasn't just all about peace'n'luv.

 

I reject your logic because you have equated all socialist governmental activity with "despotism", which ends up being nothing but a vulgar slur. Marx never envisioned a despotic government, where a single individual or some sort of junta controlled the masses. Marx envisioned a revolution where the masses of proletarians take control of the government in a form of radical democracy and begin the transition to socialism.

 

You can assert that a democratic government abolishing private property is inherently despotic, but you can only expect people who already believe in a right to the private ownership of the means of production to agree with you. Socialists do not believe in capitalist private property and therefore understand its abolition as liberation for the masses. 

Edited June 27, 2014 by John Ryan

[Socrates]

That's what I said.

 

And I confirmed it.  Marx acknowledged that not only would the implementation of Communism involve a powerful state (even if it was supposed to be temporary), but that it would need to take "despotic" actions against property rights.

 

Our resident Commies would have us believe that a "real" Communist state would be some gentle benign thing that would be respectful of property rights, though Marx's own words prove this false. 

 

 

Since Marx essentially argued for the means of production to be communally owned through cooperation among individuals, he was quite close to democratic socialism. 

 

Any state could be said to involve "cooperation among individuals" (recalls Barney Frank's inane remark that "government is simply the name we give to things we choose to do together")

 

Even in Marx's theory, Communism involves a state (which he defined as "the proletariat organized as the ruling class") taking violent action against "the bourgeois."

 

Tyranny by any other name . . . 

[Socrates]

I reject your logic because you have equated all socialist governmental activity with "despotism", which ends up being nothing but a vulgar slur. Marx never envisioned a despotic government, where a single individual or some sort of junta controlled the masses. Marx envisioned a revolution where the masses of proletarians take control of the government in a form of radical democracy and begin the transition to socialism.

 

You can assert that a democratic government abolishing private property is inherently despotic, but you can only expect people who already believe in a right to the private ownership of the means of production to agree with you. Socialists do not believe in capitalist private property and therefore understand its abolition as liberation for the masses. 

 

I reject your illogic.

Marx himself said that the implementation of Communism would involve the state making "despotic inroads on the rights of property."  (Marx's own words.  And if that is a bad translation, feel free to link me to a better one.  I pulled that off a Marxist site.)

 

And I would argue that any state which can forcibly redistribute property as being in fact despotic, no matter how benignly you try to spin this. It in effect gives the state absolute power over everyone's possessions.

 

Appealing to the idol of "Democracy" does not change this.  Democracy and despotism are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  A majority can easily decide to violate the rights of the minority.  (Or as someone, I believe Ben Franklin, put it, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.")

Presumably, the "bourgeois" have no say in how the Communist state forcibly re-organizes and re-distributes property.

 

Marx advocated one group of people ("the proletariat") committing violence against another group of people ("the bourgeois.")

 

 

You can assert that a Communist government abolishing private property is inherently righteous but you can only expect people who already believe in the rightness of the Communist state to agree with you. Non-socialists believe in the right to private property, and therefore understand its forcible abolition as state tyranny over all. 

 

 

 

[Winchester]

 

 

 

Any state could be said to involve "cooperation among individuals" (recalls Barney Frank's inane remark that "government is simply the name we give to things we choose to do together")

 

 

If you include "Do this or I throw you in a cage" as "cooperation", then I suppose you're right.