I have some probably dumb questions to ask about marxism and wasn't sure where to go. Is there like a ask marxists or debate marxists forum? Anyway
What and how many branches of marxism want state socialism during the socialist transition period before Communism? I was under the impression that all (or most) leninists wanted state socialism during this period. I have since been told that Trotskyists don't want this. Is this correct if so what do they want instead? How does this all relate to vanguardism?
Furthermore how does marxism define a state? Is this different from how other groups define statehood?
I still don't fully grasp the difference between marxists and anarchists. I thought the difference was mainly that anarchists don't want a state, and encourage mutual aid. Now that I hear not all marxists want a state I am pretty confused.
"Marxist" usually means operating off Marx's analysis of class and capitalism -- people can have different ideas about how to address capitalism, while still working off the same underlying framework.
It was Marx who recognized 1) the workers are the class with revolutionary potential, and 2) a revolution would require a "dictatorship of the proletariat", a period in which political control is taken by the (former) working class in some form or another, in order to both build the new society and defend itself from counter-revolution.
He was not dogmatic about exactly what form this revolution would have, showing a capacity to reconsider aspects of his theory after the failure of the Paris Commune. From this real revolution he realized that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes," meaning that it is not sufficient to wrest political control while maintaining state institutions whose purpose is to reproduce capitalist class relations. The revolution requires a new workers' state which takes conscious steps toward a communist state.
By state Marxists broadly mean the institutions of the ruling class which maintain class relations and the dominance of the ruling class. It is related but distinct to government which can have administrative functions besides.
Furthermore how does marxism define a state? Is this different from how other groups define statehood?
I would say that Marxist-Leninists do define the state differently, as that which enforces class domination: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/State
By this definition, a stateless society can’t even be imagined until after the classes have withered away. But first we have to go through a phase where the state is controlled by the proletariat.From what I understand, Marxism is really more theoretical and non-proscriptive. That is, Marx provides a framework and a lens for analyzing society and potentially for how to make decisions, but doesn't give guidance on where one should actually go to or what that looks like. The different implementations that use Marxist analysis are the MLs or the MLMs, or even anarchists utilize class theory, dialectics, and Marx's fantastic capitalist analysis to guide decision making.
What, in particular, do you, OP, think a state is? Also, we are not debate perverts here, but we are willing to have discussions and disagreements.
A debate pervert is someone who worships debating in the 'marketplace of ideas' as an universally acceptable, and mandatory moral method to reach truth and consensus.
The general consensus of leftists on this forum is that debate is not a universal good, it is a contextual good. While there can be value in 'debating', most of the time a debate is simply a demonstration of rhetorical skill, not a pursuit or demonstration of the accuracy or truth of an argument. Basically, debating can be a good form of entertainment, but it is generally a demonstration of performance, not investigation.
Now the particular reasoning for this stance depends on the individual leftists. Most anarchists do not believe in universal public debate because some ideas should inherently not be debated (such as genocide or classicide). Most Marxists do not believe in universal debate in a public forum because your ideology primarily stems from your relationship to your material conditions, to put it simply, it is difficult to get someone to understand a truth when their paycheck requires them to believe the opposite.
Axiomatic qualms aside, there is also the problem of the knowledge gap. For example, professional debate clowns such as Destiny and Jordan Peterson have claimed to be able to 'debunk' Marxism, but then demonstrate that they don't even know basics such as the M-C-M cycle, the general calculation for LTV or even what 'materialism' is. How can you have a debate when you have to spend the whole time educating your supposed peer on the basics of what you are supposed to be disagreeing about?
All that said, we can then come to an idea of when a debate IS useful. Debates are useful as demonstrations of rhetorical skill and wit (as mentioned before), but they can also be useful as pursuit of truth if and only if the following qualifications are met.
- Terms and definitions are agreed on beforehand.
- Both the audience and the presenters are working from the same common body of work.
- Disagreements are rooted in good faith analysis of the previous two issues.
- Impartial moderation is present.
Additionally, if one is in a political party seeking power and you are asked to debate your position or explain yourself within the party apparatus, there is a moral obligation to do so to further the group interest. There is no such moral obligation here.
Most of the time, almost none of these four categories are present in online forum 'debates', which means that we (and you) do not actually owe each other anything in terms of moral obligation to seek truth through debate in these online discussions. Unlike if we were in an actual leftist political party, it is a privilege, not an obligation that we explain our reasoning and position to you.
A debate pervert is someone who worships debating in the ‘marketplace of ideas’ as an universally acceptable, and mandatory moral method to reach truth and consensus.
I agree on this point right here. The marketplace of ideas does have a use but it doesn't always give the technically correct or morally correct answer a lot of the time. Some of this is because people have fundamentally different morals. Insert something here about moral relativism and nihilism.
I have to say I do not know what the M-C-M cycle is either. I will have to do some research into that.
It's interesting you say terms and definitions have to be agreed upon before hand. I have had problems with this before where me and a friend who is an accelerationist found ourselves arguing about basic terminology with regards to marxism. I should point out since neither of us are committed marxists neither of us 100% understand all marxist ideologies (do most marxists even?). I think sometimes it can be tricky to determine if your definitions match up before hand as it's rarely something people think to check.
I am not sure it's possible for number 2 to ever fully happen. Nobody has read or researched exactly the same things as everybody else. I think debating can be a way to learn about new sources of information or ideas when done correctly. It forces you to deal with concepts you might not have seen before of fully understood before. I think there is a use for debate as an intellectual excercise and a way to understand broader perspectives especially when arguing from a position you don't believe in. Like I regularly defend ideologies I don't support, and attack ones I could support one day.
I think 3 and 4 are very rarely present in online debate, so I can understand why some people refuse to deal with it. I suppose this is the difference between comradely debates vs ones done with the public.
Unlike if we were in an actual leftist political party, it is a privilege, not an obligation that we explain our reasoning and position to you.
Can I ask if you are part of a party of tendancy?
If you agree on the first point then you will fit in fine around here. People are going to meme, that doesn't mean they want to debate the point.
Marxists do, for the most part, understand Marxism. There are some particularly online Marxists who I think have a more tenuous grasp on the subject and probably shouldn't be talking about it in public or attempting to be public luminaries, but most people who claim to be Marxist's grasp of the fundamentals (because they are supplementary to most people's lived experience as proletarians) is generally fine. That said, I am of the opinion that the Communist Manifesto should be ignored at least until you have a solid understanding of Engel's The German Ideology which is a treatise on materialism, and Marx's Capital and Critique of the Gotha Program, which are his more economic treatises, one a cumulative snapshot of capitalist economic operation, and the other a critique of the polices that would become social democracy. Also having a solid background on David Ricardo and Adam Smith will not hurt. Spouting propaganda without understanding the fundamentals of what you are propagandizing does not liberate anyone.
That said, there are significant disagreements in what the implications of all this Marxist analysis is, and (to quote Lenin) "What is to be done." with that knowledge, and that is where debate is possible.
As for your qualm with of number two, I firmly disagree. While it is impossible for everyone to exactly share a body of knowledge, having a common baseline textual understanding of what is going to be 'canon' to the debate is possible. A debate towards 'truth' should be about the disagreement about implications and proceeding steps of a process argued in front of a public that understands what came before, anything else is just obscurity and showboating, imo. If you cannot come to an agreement on what is canon, then you should not have a debate in order to discover truth, but instead pursue other methodologies to uncover what should be canon.
Right now, for example, we are not in a debate, we are in discussion clarifying what these rules are for a proper 'debate to truth'. If you were to present to me a foreign concept mid-debate like say 'But Robert's Rules of Order has been shown to minimize conflict by 26%' then I couldn't address the truth value of that statement at all appropriately, at best I could say "And 84% of statistics are made up." A horseshit statement from truth value, but rhetorically effective to an audience who is also not versed in that concept. But if you were to present that to me now, I could look up what specifically you are talking about and see if I had any disagreements with in being included, and if I disagree with the implications, finding a suitable example to present to you to demonstrate that, which is why both parties need to be following number three.
A good, useful debate takes preparation, work and coordination.
That being said there are plenty of people here that will have a bad debate with you, mostly to call you names and watch you get red, mad and banned because moderation is not impartial around here. That said, the preference is for discussion.
If you are 'debating in favor of a point of view you do not agree with for the sake of intellectual exercise', then you are a debate pervert, and I suggest you stop masturbating and actually engage with the world in a sincere and honest way. That is not intellectual excersise, it is the illusion of it. You can understand the point of view of an ideological opponent without ever arguing for it rhetorically and it doesn't Impress anyone around here. What you should really practice is meaning what you say and saying what you mean, otherwise you will end up like every other hollow liberal, arming the 'fascists for freedom' because you thought they were nice at the shared luncheon.
I am far too busy and remote for a specific party or tendency. At some point I will likely join the CPUSA (despite how shit most of their marketing strategy is) but mass politics is not my focus at the moment.
Marxists do, for the most part, understand Marxism. There are some particularly online Marxists who I think have a more tenuous grasp on the subject and probably shouldn't be talking about it in public or attempting to be public luminaries, but most people who claim to be Marxist's grasp of the fundamentals (because they are supplementary to most people's lived experience as proletarians) is generally fine. That said, I am of the opinion that the Communist Manifesto should be ignored at least until you have a solid understanding of Engel's The German Ideology which is a treatise on materialism, and Marx's Capital and Critique of the Gotham Program, which are his more economic treatises, one a cumulative snapshot of capitalist economic operation, and the other a critique of the polices that would become social democracy. Also having a solid background on David Ricardo and Adam Smith will not hurt. Spouting propaganda without understanding the fundamentals of what you are propagandizing does not liberate anyone.
Unfortunately some I have talked with do not have this level of an understanding sadly including on lemmy.
I was also talking about all of the branches of marxism. I don't think it's realistic to have everyone have a perfect understanding of every branch.
That being said there are plenty of people here that will have a bad debate with you, mostly to call you names and watch you get red, mad and banned because moderation is not impartial around here. That said, the preference is for discussion.
Yeah. This is a lot of online forums. I had heard hexbear was somewhat infamous for this kind of bad behavior. How true this is I do not know. This thread as well as the admin of my own server has given me some more faith in hexbear than I previously held.
If you are 'debating in favor of a point of view you do not agree with for the sake of intellectual exercise', then you are a debate pervert, and I suggest you stop masturbating and actually engage with the world in a sincere and honest way. That is not intellectual exercise, it is the illusion of it.
To me this sounds like it would lead to entrenched beliefs. I generally am not a fan of entrenched beliefs. Removing those is something I am working on. Can you suggest a better way? A more healthy way?
I also don't really have a solidified ideology to be honest about. My understanding of politics isn't advanced enough to have a truly informed option if that's truly something one can ever have. I largely identify as a solipsist so for me truth is rarely absolute and more often relative.
Again, these are debates that we can have amongst ourselves, but trying to pretend to include you is a detriment both to ourselves and to you. That said, I don't particularly care what random internet people have to say about Marx nor Marxism, I care about what particular communist parties have to say about Marx and Marxism, of which there are many profound disagreements, but that is for them to fight about. Imo, communism without a party is just liberalism with more steps, and thus we are all liberals here.
In defense of the people here, we rarely start the bad behavior, and when we do it is usually aimed at ourselves, which we jokingly call 'struggle sessions' after the Maoist term. But if you come in good faith, you will usually receive food faith in return.
I think you are kidding yourself if you think you are a sophilist, a sophilist wouldn't come onto a random forum to ask questions of others, hell a sophilist wouldn't explain anything to anyone without first being paid to do so, and this is a critique of the ideology as old as Socrates.
You cannot be 'against entrenched beliefs' when you have entrenched yourself against believing in something outside of your own ego. It's pretty simple, if you stand for nothing, you will eventually fall for anything. We all believe in something, you just have to consciously make a choice about what it is, and what it has the potential to become, and what that is worth to you. To quote Marx, religion is the opiate of the masses, the sigh of the oppressed, and the heart of a heartless world. It is a reflection of ourselves and the nature of our existence as it is, but not as it could be.
Sophilism, imo, is reactionary to those metaphysical claims, but it does not create anything out of that outside of it's own despair, a cry that because we cannot know the nature of the universal we cannot know the particular. I disagree. After all, we know ourselves in relationship to others, we only know ourselves in relationship to our real senses and existence, it is impossible to accurately imagine what we would be and think and feel without those.
That said, you can believe whatever you want in the West, your individual ideology doesn't matter at all in terms affecting those whose opinions actually matter, honestly you would be more wise to study what they think, so you can repeat it like the stochastic parrot you apparently think you are.
You don't know the difference between solipsists and sophists do you? It's okay to admit you don't know something rather than invent words that don't exist.
Lol fair enough. My apologies, I made some bad errors. I was definitely mixing up the terms for the Socrates comment, I forgot that solipsists aren't always sophists, though the two are deeply connected in my mind. Look, my point is that egocentrism is not great because it is a losing metaphysical battle against nihilism (and by that I don't mean will to power, I mean will to live). The fact of the matter is that you can't even be sure that your own perception of your mind is an illusion, you have to take a leap of faith somewhere or else you may as well commit yourself to starvation and destitution. The fact is that you haven't, so you should work to explore why that is.
I would do that before you decide to look into communism or socialism.
That being said, what do you think the state is? The original question I asked you oh so many posts ago.
That being said, what do you think the state is?
Honestly to me it essentially just means big centralized governments that run a country and have things like police, armies, civil servants, and so on. That and a badly used concept from computer science - no google a Chromebook isn't stateless it very much has state. If they try that again I will leave them in a right state.
The fact is that you haven't, so you should work to explore why that is.
Generally the same reason nihilistists, absurdists, and existentialists continue to exist. Heck even moral relativists (like most marxists I think) shouldn't technically have any reason to do anything by this line of reasoning. Humans are fickle creatures that don't need concrete, logical reasons to do anything. Heck logic and facts never provided a motivation to do anything ever, they provide the means and the method. If anything things like nihilism and solipsism can be used to point out how absurd trying to use logic to understand motivation is.
It is always interesting to me that for most people the state always has to be a large centralized entity.
Marxists and anarchists believe that the 'state' in political science terms is any entity that can legalize the use of violence as a method of compliance. And that can mean any number of things, including financial dispossession (though not terms such as emotional violence, as those are not quantifiable material (at least as of me writing this)), but usually is the backstopped with physical force and deprivation.
Marxists are not morally relativist, we just believe that moral calculation for action is not as easy as deontological statements or utilitarian calculations, mostly because we disagree that those standards are, in fact, universal or have been applied in a universal manner historically. Perhaps relativist is the right word, but I've always found "historically particular" or "morally contextual" to be a more useful terms. Marxists believe, much like Hegelians that people naturally seek to be liberated, just that morally we must seek to create the material.conditions that allow for freedom, and not assume that it will arise out of thin air. Saying Marxists don't have a reason to exist and act is an absurd statement. There is only this life, this world, this perception, so we must fight as best we can to improve our conditions within it. To live is to struggle.
As for your statement on nihilism and solipsism, that is correct, yet to assume meaninglessness is also logically fraught, and most absurdists, existentialists and nihilists are living the partially examined life, examining their lives and what makes it worth living and how to expand and share those things with others. Even the absurdist comic is compelled to post and make a fool of themselves. Even the ubermensch values the power of society to make their will reality. Even the existentialist can find solace in a Christian God. Even the nihilist doesn't say to themselves, I will kill myself on a coin flip, because it doesn't matter anyway.'
Humans are sensual rational beings. Not perfectly rational, and most of our rationality is post-hoc at best with imperfect information, but we absolutely have the capability for considered, effective, action. Perhaps someday we will use it. I'm not holding my breath, but there are good things coming.
I can't say I fully grasp the difference between debate and discussion. The concept for me are somewhat blurred.
A debate is for the opposed display of ideas with the idea that you will choose one or the other mutually exclusive paths, a discussion is a project that aims towards concession and collaboration of similar pathways. You can have a good discussion that leads to a debate, but a good debate doesn't end in discussion, but decision.
Edit: Also I want to make clear that I am talking about these concepts as methods to investigate truth, not as spectacle or entertainment. There are plenty of 'good' 'debates-as-spectacle' that end in truth-value pointless but entertaining discussion.
I have some probably dumb questions to ask about marxism and wasn’t sure where to go. Is there like a ask marxists or debate marxists forum? Anyway
You can post your questions on the "ask hexbear" and "ask lemmygrad" community.
What and how many branches of marxism want state socialism during the socialist transition period before Communism? I was under the impression that all (or most) leninists wanted state socialism during this period.
If by "state socialism" you mean "the revolution create a new state and uses it to protect the revolution" then Marxist-Leninists and "Maoists" want it.
I have since been told that Trotskyists don’t want this. Is this correct if so what do they want instead?
There isn't one specific thing all Trotskyists want, it's more of a customizable agglomerate of opinions centred around condemning everything the USSR or Stalin ever did and labelling every successful revolution revisionist while calling themselves Marxists. Trotskyists are what we call "ultras" (short for "ultra leftists"), they are dogmatists who think of Marxist political theory as an absolute checklist and will condemn every successful revolution for not achieving a to-the-letter identical system as was described in the books from the very second they came to power while, hilariously, often not having actually read the books and taking themselves part in the very historical and political revisionism they pretend to condemn.
How does this all relate to vanguardism?
Vanguardism is the idea that for a revolution to be successfull, there must be a political organisation harnessing popular drive for change and unify and guide it to form an actually pottent and organised movement with clear political goals so that it won't be easily crushed by the capitalist state(s) like often happen with spontaneous grassroot movements.
As for how it relate to your previous questions, it's in general the vanguard who create and take charge of the new proletarian state after the revolution.
Furthermore how does marxism define a state? Is this different from how other groups define statehood?
A state, to Marxists, is an instrument of class struggle, it is an ensemble of institutions with the purpose of keeping the dominated class under the authority of the ruling class through the use of it's monopoly on the lawful use of violence. Under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, like the United States, UK or France, the police and the legal framework is used to guaranty the right to private property for the ruling class and defeating and dispersing working class movements, this is why even peaceful protests for better wages or otherwise often face crushing police brutality that is never punished. Under capitalism you don't have the right to enjoy all the revenues your work generated, the legal institutions will make sure that you are forced to let your boss get a big cut out of it, thus guarantying the right to private property for him. Under a dictatorship of the proletariat on the other hand, the roles are reversed, the law enforcement this time guaranty that public property stay collectivised and that no one can extract surplus value from your work, they also keep the remnants of the bourgeoisie away from political power, with them often having to abandon their right to participate in the democratic process in exchange for their wealth. And of course, the bourgeoisie is also strictly forbidden to organise with the aim of re-establishing private property and capitalism.
It is different from how other groups define statehood in that other political frameworks ignore class struggle, to them, and to libertarians in particular, the state in and of itself is oppressive to everyone in general, they don't see that the reason the state we have in our liberal "democracies" is oppressive to most peoples is because it is welded by the bourgeoisie against everyone else, they see the state as it's own thing separated and isolated away from the broader society and think that even a state operated by the proletariat would necessarily oppress the proletariat.
I still don’t fully grasp the difference between marxists and anarchists. I thought the difference was mainly that anarchists don’t want a state, and encourage mutual aid. Now that I hear not all marxists want a state I am pretty confused.
Your initial thoughts were correct, the main difference between Marxists and Anarchists is that Marxists want a temporary proletarian state when Anarchists want to immediately abolish the state altogether. I don't know who told you that some Marxist don't want a state but that person was objectively wrong.
Some good answers here, and you pose good, fair questions. I would just add that left-ism is still quite a broad umbrella, we're united in the broad strokes of improving society somewhat, but nobody can give you a complete answer to your questions. Even the purest Marxist-Leninist spaces will have some wide divergences in thought, especially about what a vanguard or a socialist or communist country actually looks like.
My own personal cop-out supplement though, is it's good to think about these ideas, but it's impossible to be overly prescriptive about them. Revolution into socialism is a process that is long yet to be perfected, and will require ability to adapt.
I'd say the common definition of a state is an entity with a monopoly on violence within a particular geographic area, and this is not something Marxists generally disagree with as it's a surprisingly materialist understanding of power. The function of a state according to Marxism is to use this monopoly to enforce class relations, which is part of the reason that Leninists view the state as a tool for class struggle, as a socialist/communist state can enforce pro-worker class relations and eventually end the class distinction (this is why Lenin theorized the state would "wither away", because if there are no difference in classes there's nothing to enforce).
So to address your confusion between Marxists and Anarchists, both ultimately do not want the state because it is a coercive tool to enforce specifc class relations, but the Marxists view it as a neutral tool whereas anarchists view it as inherently oppressive and cannot be used positively. Some anarchists view that, rather than classes, the ultimate source of oppression is the state and that is why it must be abolished which is a break from the Marxist view as it either ignores class conflict or folds it into critique of the state.
