Spinoff from Political Definitions

[Edric O]

This was originally part of the Political Definitions thread, but it got so off-topic that I decided to split the two.

however, private property is by all means enough to define "Marxism" for that was his first and foremost tenent of communism.

You mean common (or public) property.

And if you think that's enough to define Marxism... then you just prove your ignorance of Marxism yet again. I suggest browsing around this website and reading some of the most important works they have available.

I really should make a topic explaining Marxism, but that would involve a rather lengthy article and I'm too busy for it right now. In a month's time, however, I will have more spare time in which to write this.

For now, suffice to say that "common property" is a vital concept for Marxism, Anarchism, Marxism-Leninism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, and every other type of Socialist/Communist philosophy/ideology that ever existed...

Oh, and don't equate "Marxism" with "communism". Communism is a social system. Marxism is a political ideology. Think of the relationship between "conservativism" and "capitalism". Capitalism is the system and conservativism is the ideology.

i agree with all of Nema's points.  they are the true definitions of the words.  communism by definition means that all property is owned by the community, not individually.

Of course. But not every system in which all property is owned by the community is automatically "communism". In other words, Nema's definition is too inclusive. He needs to narrow it down.

[Caid Ivik]

Anarcho-syndicalism? That's a small widerspruch, you know...

[Edric O]

Well, it was rather popular around the end of the 19th century, and I just gave it as an example.

[emprworm]

You mean common (or public) property.

And if you think that's enough to define Marxism... then you just prove your ignorance of Marxism yet again. I suggest browsing around this website and reading some of the most important works they have available.

[Edric O]

God, what an idiot.

Of course the abolition of private property is an important aspect of Marxism. And at the time the Communist Manifesto was written, perhaps Karl Marx believed that his entire philosophy could be summed up in that single sentence. But Marxism has grown a lot since then.

Let me ask YOU a question, Emprworm: Have you read anything by Marx besides the Communist Manifesto?

Did you ever happen to stumble upon a list of Marx's works, and look at the years in which they were written? If you had, then you would have noticed that the Communist Manifesto was one of his earliest works. It was among the FIRST things he ever published.

The Communist Manifesto is not a summary of Marxism. It is a DRAFT of Marxism, a draft that was expanded later.

Oh, and if you had bothered to follow the link I gave you, you would have noticed that the website is a library of Marxist writings. And that many of its administrators are North American.

Edit: By the way, Emprworm, mind your language. Any garbage will be removed.

[emprworm]

show me any evidence at all from KARL MARX that demonstrates a change in his primary philosophy that abolishment of private property is NOT the fundamental tenent of his view of communism.

[Edric O]

The abolishment of private property IS the fundamental tenent of his view of communism. But it is not the ONLY tenet. And reducing Marxism to "the abolishment of private property" is not only a ridiculous over-simplification, but it also ignores every part of Marxism that does not deal directly with communism. Such as Historical Materialism and the Labour Theory of Value.

Perhaps, in your infinite wisdom, you would care to explain to us Historical Materialism and thus prove that you have read more than the Manifesto, o wise one?

[Wolf]

We're drifting off the more pressing matter, I think, which is to come up with a working definition for capitalism. At this time, I think we should address how competition, private property, and government action interact with the system we define as capitalism. Is capitalism like an anti-communism, where government plays little role (but for a different reason)? For example.

[emprworm]

The abolishment of private property IS the fundamental tenent of his view of communism. But it is not the ONLY tenet. And reducing Marxism to "the abolishment of private property" is not only a ridiculous over-simplification, but it also ignores every part of Marxism that does not deal directly with communism. Such as Historical Materialism and the Labour Theory of Value.

Perhaps, in your infinite wisdom, you would care to explain to us Historical Materialism and thus prove that you have read more than the Manifesto, o wise one?

Marx himself summarized communism as the abolishment of private property.  until you show me marx saying otherwise, its nothing but hot air.

[Wolf]

Communism is as much Marx as capitalism is as much Smith. We can't look at the end all and be all of communism without considering Trotsky, or Lenin. And we can't look at the end all and be all of capitalism without looking at Keynes, or Nash.

[emprworm]

im talking about MARXISM this whole time.

[Wolf]

I know, but, Emprworm, you stated that Marxism was the first and foremost tenent of communism, and with posts like this;

show me any evidence at all from KARL MARX that demonstrates a change in his primary philosophy that abolishment of private property is NOT the fundamental tenent of his view of communism.

... you certainly seem to imply that Marxism equates with, if not completely dominates, the view of communism. Am I reading you wrong? I apologize if I am.

[Edric O]

im talking about MARXISM this whole time.  Marxism as defined by karl marx.  people can change what they think Marxism is, but only karl marx has the authority to declare what his own views are.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Marxism isn't restricted to Karl Marx any more than Liberalism is restricted to Adam Smith, or Conservativism to Thomas Hobbes (speaking of which, notice how the meaning of "liberalism" - and the meaning of "conservativism", for that matter - changed over time).

Marxism does not mean "what Marx said". Karl Marx was the creator of Marxism, but many other people added to the ideology after his death (and even during his life - see his good friend Friedrich Engels, for example).

But anyway, this is besides the point. About that quote your were asking for, it shouldn't be too hard to find one. I'll go look.

Oh, and you didn't answer my question:

Perhaps, in your infinite wisdom, you would care to explain to us Historical Materialism and thus prove that you have read more than the Manifesto, o wise one?

[Wolf]

Yes... I was about to say, didn't you switch Smith and Hobbes there, for a minute?

Therefore, would a classical conservative be a modern liberal? Curious thought.

Furthermore, I would like to restate what I said earlier about stating what is the end-all and be-all of communism. It certainly seems as if Emprworm is indirectly saying that communism is exactly how Marx defined it. If we admit that his view of Marxism is correct, he goes on to say that this view of Marxism is the key tenet of communism, and therefore, communism is how he says it is for all practical intents and purposes. At least, this is how it seems to me. If I am wrong, I apologize to Emprworm, as I feel it is somewhat rude to so viciously analyze one's possible arguments, rather than what was explicitly stated.

[Edric O]

Now, going back to the issue of finding a definition for capitalism, this is the one I use:

Capitalism is the economic system based on wage labour in the context of a market economy, and in which the majority of the means of production are privately owned.

[emprworm]

If Edric finds it fit to take the ideologies of karl marx, change them around, and then try to say "this is Marxism" fine.  People do that all the time to every philosophy in existence.

what is true, pure Marxism?  That which was taught by karl marx.

and central to Marxism is the abolishment of private property.

thats all there is to it.

[Wolf]

I think Edric's definition of capitalism makes sense, but do you think we should say something about a preferred lack of government regulation, and prevalent competition?

[Edric O]

If Edric finds it fit to take the ideologies of karl marx, change them around, and then try to say "this is Marxism" fine.  People do that all the time to every philosophy in existence.

The ideology of Karl Marx is the ideology of Karl Marx. However, Marxism is a set of ideas and principles developed by Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Rosa Luxembourg, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and many, many others.

what is true, pure Marxism?  That which was taught by karl marx.

Perhaps this is difficult for your rigid, rock-like brain to understand, but philosophies and ideologies evolve and develop over time. If you insist on limiting "Marxism" to the works of just one man, then please tell me what name you wish to give to the ideology that evolved and developed in the past 150 years through the works of all the OTHER men and women who identified themselves as Marxists.

and central to Marxism is the abolishment of private property.

Central to Marxism is the Labour Theory of Value, Dialectical Materialism, Historical Materialism, Proletarian Revolutionary principles and support for Democracy, Socialism and Communism.

I bet you don't even know what most of those things MEAN, let alone which ones of them deal with the abolishment of private property.

[Wolf]

First, I think the word is abolition. Second, I think Edric, being our resident expert on communism, should be allowed to come up with his own short, succinct, definition on communism. If we don't like it, we can edit it. If it becomes an outrageous issue, we can put up a poll if we want. That's democratic. I think we can all agree that that's a system we like to use...

[emprworm]

please tell me what name you wish to give to the ideology that evolved and developed in the past 150 years through the works of all the OTHER men and women who identified themselves as Marxists.

phonies?

Something like that for sure.

[Wolf]

I thought you said that Karl Marx would only deal with a definition of Marxism, not communism?

and to wolfwiz, if I'm going to go with a definition of communism, I prefer the definition given by Karl Marx himself, over that of Edric.

Before, I recall saying something like... "Communism is as much Marx as capitalism is as much Smith. We can't look at the end all and be all of communism without considering Trotsky, or Lenin. And we can't look at the end all and be all of capitalism without looking at Keynes, or Nash." And getting smacked down for it.

[emprworm]

but surely you would agree, that Karl Marx has at least some authority when it comes to defining communism???

Are you saying that Karl Marx has no business defining communism?

Karl Marx's definition of communism depends upon the abolition of private property.  This is Marx's philosophy of communism.

to be a communist does NOT mean you embrace this philosophy.  To be a Marxist DOES, however.

[Wolf]

Sure, Marx has a good deal of authority when it comes to defining communism. But he is not the end-all and be-all of communism. We must expand the definition of communism to include not just the abolition of private property (if indeed communism is such a thing, I am no expert on it) but to include also other key aspects of the doctrine as well. Is it not the abolition of government and monetary-based economics that is also key to communism as well? Again, we must consider more than Marx if we are to define what is communism. Surely, one man cannot come up the essential definition of the doctrine all by himself!

[Edric O]

phonies?

Something like that for sure.  Anyone who calls themselves a "marxist" yet denies that the abolishment of private property is a core necessity, is not a marxist, but a fake.  a wolf in sheeps clothing, if you will.

Why do I feel a distinct pain in my forehead, as the one resulting from banging my head against an impenetrable wall of stupidity?

Let me spell it out for you: NO MARXIST DENIES THAT THE ABOLITION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IS A CORE NECESSITY FOR COMMUNISM. After all, the very definition of communism involves the lack of private property.

But communism needs MORE than the abolition of private property, and Marxism deals with MORE than just communism.

Or, in other words, your definition isn't wrong. It's just horribly incomplete. Do you understand now?

[Wolf]

That's basically what I said last page. Too bad no one listened to me :P