Hacker News Reader

Comment by randomsearch | Hacker News Reader

Might be a little off topic, but I’d really appreciate it if someone could explain why highly educated people describe themselves as Marxists.

I’m quite left-leaning in my views, and I agree with many of the criticisms levelled at capitalism, but I don’t see why people support Marxism.

Two main arguments:

1. Hasn’t Marxism had its chance? Yes, it wasn’t “real Marxism” in a sense, but why would you think it’d turn out different if tried again? We have to consider the reality of the world we live in.

2. How many precedents are there for a complete upheaval of the economic system on that scale that have worked? I’m aware of some of the history, but I can’t think of a change that large which worked.

How do modern Marxists answer those concerns? From the outside it looks like they’re ignoring history or the reality of human behaviour.

View on HN

> Hasn’t Marxism had its chance?

No, the two closest things to Marxism that have been tried as alternatives to 19th century capitalism are modern mixed economies (fairly successful in practical terms) and Leninism and it's derivatives (mostly horrible in both practical and moral terms).

Both are pretty different than Marxism on fairly fundamental levels. (The first incorporates many elements of the Marxist program, including it's fundamental prerequisites, but abandons — or at least delays, as the long term arc of the modern mixed economies might be interpreted as a kind of “evolutionary Marxism” with periodic setbacks — key others; the second likewise cherry picks from Marxism, but also abandons the fundamental prerequisites.)

> but why would you think it’d turn out different if tried again?

Well, because it wouldn't be “again”, Marxism is fundamentally different than anything that has been tried before, and the nearest approximations to Marxism that have been tried have widely divergent results.

> How many precedents are there for a complete upheaval of the economic system on that scale that have worked?

The displacement of the dominant feudal economic system with capitalism and the displacement of the original system named capitalism with modern mixed economies (often called “capitalism” and retaining some key features, but distinctly different) are at or, in the former case, beyond the scale of the replacement of modern mixed economies with Marxist ones, and both were reasonably successful.

I disagree with your response, for the reasons I already outlined in my question, but thanks for the reply. I see where you’re coming from. Don’t want to start an argument, but I promise to read more along these lines to see if someone else can convince me you’re right.

Why are you saying that "capitalism with modern mixed economies" doesn't qualify as capitalism? To my knowledge, it's capitalism through and through, and I say this going from the ways in which Marx described the capitalist mode of production.

I also think there's some issue with using "Marxism" to refer to some kind of programme rather than the critique of political economy from the writings of Marx and Engels. This kind of usage lets you get away with saying that a "mixed economy" is something even close to Marxism.

Marx described Communism, with a lower and upper stage. There's not much more to it than that, unless like the Leninists you call the lower stage as "Socialism". Either way, Badiou has a pretty good overview of historical Communist societies (well, as close as one could get) such as the Paris and Shanghai communes. But I wholly disagree with GP's idea that Marx has had his chance. He most certainly hasn't, and it's becoming clearer every passing day.

> Why are you saying that "capitalism with modern mixed economies" doesn't qualify as capitalism?

I'm saying the 19th century system for which the name “capitalism” was coined was replaced basically everywhere with modern mixed economies which are a different but related system; the two share some features just as 19th Century capitalism and feudalism share some features, but they aren't the same system.

> To my knowledge, it's capitalism through and through

It's not; as many people, not least advocates of reversion to (or at least toward) the 19th Century system for which “capitalism” was coined, have noted, modern mixed economies compromise in fairly significant ways the property relations which both defenders of capitalism and it's opponents (including the ones that coined the term “capitalism” for that which they opposed) define as central to capitalism.

> I also think there's some issue with using "Marxism" to refer to some kind of programme rather than the critique of political economy from the writings of Marx and Engels.

That may be valid on some level, but even if so it's purely semantic pedantry that has no bearing on the substance of the discussion; Marx and Engels laid out a program as well as a critique of capitalism, and when we are talking about concrete economic systems that can be tried out, the program is relevant, the critique is not (it is merely the oriel motivating rationale for the concrete program.) A critique can be believed, but not instantiated.

So, if you want to mentally replace “Marxism” with “the concrete program Marx and Engels proposed to address the Marxist critique of capitalism” throughout the discussion, feel free. But don't expect the usage to catch on when the distinction between the Marxist critique and the Marxist program is generally clear from context such that no additional clarity of meaning would be succeed from making the restriction you propose to the use of “Marxism” even if I've were to agree that their is on done level a basis for that restriction.

> This kind of usage lets you get away with saying that a "mixed economy" is something even close to Marxism.

I didn't say it was close to Marxism, I said it was one of the two closest things to Marxism that had been tried (both of which are directly attributable to Marxist influence mitigated by other forces); in fact, my point was expressly that neither of those two things was close enough to Marxism to draw substantive conclusions about Marxism from either, or even both considered together.

I'd say that capitalism shares the features of wage labour being the predominant way of making a living, mostly private ownership of means of production, the production of things with value (exchange value to be prioritised over use-value) , as in generalised commodity production, and accumulation of capital affording greater amounts of power. These seem to apply (more or less) to the world today; sure, you can point at finance capitalism, the shrinking of manual labour industries, the general ownership of more than one's labour-time, the price of oil being "incongruent" with labour theories of value, whatever. But if you don't want to call it capitalism, then you don't have to - though the experts on both sides of the coin seem to want to do so (and those I'm most sympathetic to in the Frankfurt School) - it doesn't change the reality of what's being faced.

At best, I think the only reformulation required would be to put an adjective on the front of "capitalism". Or we could talk in terms of the Spectacle, the culture industry, "the economy", ideological state apparatuses etc. But no matter what, it is economy, and thus in fundamental contradiction to Communism, the end of economy.

I was trying to get at using "Communism" or "Socialism" for their program, rather than "Marxism", which to me is the critique of political economy and out of which necessarily flows Communism.

> Hasn’t Marxism had its chance?

Marx said "I will not write recipes for the kitchen of the future". As Marx refused to create a "Marxism" for someone to implement, how can Marxism have been tried? It's a question asked by someone who knows little to nothing of him. It's like someone new to computers asking which programming language to learn. There is no answer as it is a naive question. The answer is any or all languages, and they should be studying algorithms and data structures and programming language principles, not the specific mechanism for counting how many characters are in a string in a particular language.

> how many precedents are there for a complete upheaval of the economic system

The upheaval around the time of behavioral modernity. The transition from hunter-gatherer to agriculture. From imperial Rome latifundias to feudalism. From feudalism to capitalism. Then the stirrings of post-capitalist systems from the Paris Commune top now. So that's quite a few changes over the past millennia.

Also Marx said these systems are not overthrown, they self-destruct. Kind of like the Great Depression - due to the internal logic of capitalism, companies will shut, evictions will rise, unemployment will skyrocket, and no internal mechanism of capitalism will have a solution to this.

The economic collapse has been delayed but it is still coming. The time will come where simply issuing more and more unbacked currency will stop working.

Marxism is widely identified as the intellectual underpinning of Communism, but Marx's philosophy has been hugely influential beyond just that particular economic model. For example, Feminism is often said to be rooted in Marxism, so it's arguable that many of those who identify as Feminists are also Marxists-by-proxy.

As is often the case in philosophy, Marx was brilliant in critique, but lacking in his prescription. Philosophy tends to be great at asking questions, but not so much at answering them.

I suspect many intellectuals who call themselves Marxists identify with Marx's critique — which arguably still stands and a brilliant and revolutionary body of thought — but not with some of its eventual realizations.

> For example, Feminism is often said to be rooted in Marxism

There is both a branch of feminism that is Marxist in the strict sense, and there is the school of feminist critical theory that utilizes parallel structure to (and is largely inspired by) Marxist critical theory, swapping out the central conflict of class for one of gender, but feminism in the broad sense is not inspired by or related to Marxism, and the idea that it is is mostly one of the anti-feminist Right in the West, used to attach the negative emotional charge of Marxism with the general population to feminism.

Thanks zukzuk. Matches the sibling comment. This sounds reasonable - believing it’s a good lens to view the world through. I’m certain there’s value in that, don’t know if I agree it’s the best lens, but you’ve answered my question well.

You're conflating Marxism with soviet-style socialism. Marxism in academia typically refers to an analysis framework where social dynamics are understood as a conflict between members of different social classes.

Ah, so they are simply saying that they think the Marxist viewpoint represents a good understanding of the world, rather than agreeing with communism as the best system? Is that correct? Thanks.

> communism as the best system

Marx said capitalism due to its nature would lead to a cycle of wealth inequality, overproduction, debt bubbles and financial crises, and that these would get worse over time. Capitalism would collapse due to this and be replaced not by communism but socialism.

Communism would be the system that comes after socialism.

Some highly educated people describe themselves as Marxists beacuse they believe, with or without caveats, that Marx's critique of political economy, contained within it Marx's sociology and philosophy, come very close to a critique of the modern state of things, i.e the current mode of production, which most would identify as capitalism.

I'll address each argument.

1. As I've already responded to dragonwriter, it's incorrect to say that "Marxism" is a set of goals to be acheived or a kind of economy or a mode of production or a mode of social organisation. Marxism is simply the critique of political economy, and from that critique emerges the idea of Communism. As to the question, a lot of work has been done in Marxist (and post-Marxist) circles since about the 1950s, you may have heard of the Frankfurt School, for instance. Alain Badiou, a contemporary French philosopher, has written a book called "The Communist Hypothesis" in which he attempts to "rescue" Communism, not merely as a "less-bad" alternative to capitalism (even considering the track record in history) but as the only alternative. He uses the example of approaches to proving a hypothesis, in which each iteration the lessons learned from the previous attempt are modified. This is directly relatable to history - consider the evolution of Leninism after the Paris Commune, or Maoism after Leninism.

2. Capitalism is the greatest precedent, and feudalism too before it. Though it's worth noting that not only is Communism the "upheaval" of an economic system, it is as Gilles Dauve but it: "the end of economy". Arguably, capitalism really has worked; Marx would be the last to claim that capitalism hasn't ushered in massive prosperity and progress.

These are just my responses, but there is a whole host of diversity within modern (post 1930s) Marxist thought that stretches to this day, with various responses to your questions, obviously not so condensed. The Frankfurt School was critical of both Western capitalism and Soviet-style communism, while furthering the Marxist critique to a mass-media world. The left-communists champion a return to Marx himself rather than trying to re-formulate critique for the modern world.

But I want to disspell the idea that modern Marxists are ignorant of history or human behaviour; Marxism is relatively popular in both sociology and some history departments.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com