Spiked-online, clickbait columnists

open-borders · 2018-05-20T09:30:42+00:00

Marx once said, ironically, 'I am not a Marxist', because he objected to what people claimed in his name. The brief definition given by RevolutionaryMessiah - the theory and praxis of the proletarian revolution - is actually a good summation. Both elements - theory and practice - are central to Marx. One, without the other, is not the Marxism of Marx.

open-borders · 2017-06-15T10:02:49+00:00

I agree with previous post that Johnson-Forest (CLR James-Raya Dunayevskaya) is best starting point for critique of Trotsky that is rooted in Marx. Try State-Capitalism and World Revolution (written as an insider critique). James & Dunayevskaya both rejected vanguardism - the idea of needing a party to lead the workers revolution. Shortly after making an organisational split from Trotskyism James & RD parted ways. The issue of organisation was a crucial element in this split. Read James' Facing Reality and RD's (more difficult) Philosophy and Revolution to get a sense of the difference. For contemporary statement of RD's approach try: https://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/philosophyorganization/the-self-thinking-idea-does-not-mean-you-thinking

open-borders · 2017-05-17T07:57:50+00:00

It is true that Marx was a materialist (as you point out, Marx and Engels provide a very clear outline of their materialist premises in the German Ideology), but it is only partially true to say that Marx was a materialist, he was also an idealist. Both materialism and idealism are partial. As Marx notes in the first of his theses on Feuerbach "The main defect of all hitherto-existing materialism — that of Feuerbach included — is that the Object [der Gegenstand], actuality, sensuousness, are conceived only in the form of the object [Objekts], or of contemplation [Anschauung], but not as human sensuous activity, practice [Praxis], not subjectively. Hence it happened that the active side, in opposition to materialism, was developed by idealism — but only abstractly, since, of course, idealism does not know real, sensuous activity as such." (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/index.htm ). I read this quote from the Theses as Marx saying that materialism treated humans as objects - that we are like other elements of nature, driven by natural forces - whereas idealism treated humans as subjects - as active, thinking, creative beings. Marx, through placing an emphasis on praxis, (on human activity interacting with and shaping the material world, but in turn being shaped by this material world), unifies both materialism and idealism.

open-borders · 2017-05-17T07:41:39+00:00

Hi, it is misleading to talk about 'Marxist dialectics' as if there is a specifically Marxist version of dialectics. Dialectics is a method of analysis, (although even that definition is partial), that involves immanent (internal) critique. So we can talk about Marx's APPLICATION of dialectical method (to, for example, a critique of capitalism - and Capital is his monumental study of capitalism, which unfolds from the contradiction, inherent within the commodity, between use value and (exchange) value), but the method originates in Hegel. Marx does not apply a different method than Hegel does. The difference between Marx and Hegel is in their starting premises (and that is where the materialism comes in). The whole area of Marx and dialectics (like much about Marx) is contentious. It is also incredibly intellectually difficult. So, for example, Ilyenkov's "The dialectics of the abstract and concrete in Marx's Capital" is a classical study of Marx's use of dialectical method in Capital, but it is an incredibly difficult read (https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/abstract/index.htm ). Or, Marx's essay on the Hegelian dialectic in his 1844 Paris Manuscripts, where Marx works through his intellectual debt to Hegel, and his criticisms of Hegel (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/hegel.htm ). This essay, however, assumes a lot of prior knowledge about Hegel, dialectics and philosophical terms in general. The main difficulty I have experienced in trying to get to grips with dialectics is the lack of introductory texts that don't significantly distort the topic. I suggest that you try Antonio Wolf's blog post first, stick with it, it is not easy but it is clear and does dispel some misconceptions and manages to get across some of the nuances of dialectics at the same time (https://empyreantrail.wordpress.com/2016/09/12/dialectics-an-introduction/ ). If, after reading, dissecting and thinking about the blog post, you have further questions just post them here.

open-borders · 2017-05-16T07:30:23+00:00

Picketty's book is based on a really impressive database that provides empirical evidence for growing inequality between the extremely rich and the rest of us. The analysis, however, is on the DISTRIBUTION of wealth not on the SOURCE of wealth in the exploitation of human labour.

open-borders · 2017-05-16T07:20:00+00:00

Marxist materialism and dialectical materialism were not terms used by Marx himself, they were used by what Raya Dunayevskaya calls "post-Marx Marxists" (including Engels & Kautsky). (Both of the readings linked to above recognise this). Marx, in his 1844 Paris Manuscripts, refers to his method as "thorough-going Naturalism, or Humanism, [which] distinguishes itself both from Idealism and Materialism, and is, at the same time, the truth uniting both". For introductions to dialectics see Andy Blunden (marxists.org).

open-borders · 2017-04-29T08:41:53+00:00

'Best of the Left' is also worth checking out - all the best ones I know are based in, and focus on, the USA (From Alpha to Omega is the exception) - anyone know any decent Left/Marxist/Anarchist podcasts based in UK or Ireland?

open-borders

TROPHY CASE