Yeah, those quotes certainly sound pretty underwhelming. She recognizes there’s a problem, but stops short of calling for establishment abolishment of capitalism.
I disagree on that interpretation. She’s clearly saying capitalism has failed and should be done away with. She isn’t arguing for socialism per se but her actual point (that ideology should not stand in for concrete action and material conditions) is well taken by someone who leans that way.
Without taking a position on what should replace capitalism it becomes just complaining in my opinion. Sure, lots of people agree capitalism is a failure, but the only known workable alternative is socialism. If she’s not advocating for that then she’s not really championing any actual solutions.
Marx famously said he did not know what would come after capitalism exactly or at least how a stateless/classless society would come about in its specifics. Epistemological humility is valuable here!
You’re referring to Marx discussing a far future society that grows out of socialism. Marx was pretty explicit regarding how he believed the transition from capitalism should be accomplished. We are in a situation where our biosphere is collapsing and if there is any hope of abolishing capitalism in time, then it has to be done using tools that have been shown to work.
Incorrect. There is nothing Marx about “communism growing out of socialism”. He only refers to “higher” and “lower” phases of communism. The idea that “socialism grows into communism” was a revision by Lenin to try and explain how the Russian agrian feudalism was suppose to go to communism while skipping industrial capitalism.
What Marx refers to as the lower phase of communism is precisely what’s understood to be socialism in the context of Marxism today. Meanwhile, your definition is itself incorrect. What Lenin refers to is the stage after the revolution where society transitions from capitalism towards a communist society. A great explanation of that can be found here;.
I’d be curious of your opinion on this video. I know the title will not make you happy but it extensively quotes Marx directly: https://youtu.be/rRXvQuE9xO4
It directly talks about Marx’s concept of higher and lower phase communism and how this differs from the Leninist revision.
It seems to me that the video agrees that both Marx and Lenin had the same general idea of what communism is and the path there. The critique at the end of the video largely focuses on Stalin and the attempts to establish socialism in one state. However, the video also acknowledges that it would be practically impossible to establish anything resembling communism while capitalism remains the dominant ideology in the world.
In my opinion the video outlines the basic ideas correctly, however it also fails to address an important point which is that Marx focused on theory first and foremost. He provided a critique of capitalism and ideas for how a communist society could work.
Lenin ran an actual revolution and focused on the practical aspects of the transition from capitalism. Lenin should be viewed as making the ideas of Marx concrete and bringing them into practice. As the video notes, Lenin very much agreed with Marx on the goals of communism.
In my view, using Marx as orthodoxy goes directly against the idea of dialectical thinking championed by Marx himself. Ideas have to be put into practice to have value, and then the learning from implementing ideas have to be reintegrated back into theory.
Given that, Marx cannot be seen as a higher authority than Lenin because Lenin actually did the work of putting the ideas into practice and evolved the theory based on the results.
It’s also worth noting that Lenin started out with many idealistic notions that he was eventually dissuaded of by reality. Lenin’s document on NEP is a great example of this.
For example, the video talks about Marx recognizing the dangers of centralized authority, yet it doesn’t address the fact that without such authority reactionary elements will fight to restore capitalism as we’ve seen happen time and again.
I think the video does some hair splitting regarding what is considered socialism and what is not. We can call the time of the dictatorship of the proletariat pre-socialism, or transitionary state, or whatever. What we choose to call it does not obviate the necessity of this stage. As long as capitalism remains the dominant ideology in the world, it’s hard to see how any society can transition past this stage.
This is the elephant in the room that people arguing against Lenin’s approach need to address. To date, we don’t have any examples of working alternatives for overthrowing capitalism. Perhaps different approaches are possible, but none have been demonstrated to work in practice.
So, while I agree there is much to be learned from USSR both in terms of its success and its mistakes, I don’t really see how a fundamentally different approach could be viable. I think that instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water, it’s more productive to focus on what aspects of USSR allowed for opportunism and its ultimate destruction.
Yeah, those quotes certainly sound pretty underwhelming. She recognizes there’s a problem, but stops short of calling for
establishmentabolishment of capitalism.I disagree on that interpretation. She’s clearly saying capitalism has failed and should be done away with. She isn’t arguing for socialism per se but her actual point (that ideology should not stand in for concrete action and material conditions) is well taken by someone who leans that way.
Without taking a position on what should replace capitalism it becomes just complaining in my opinion. Sure, lots of people agree capitalism is a failure, but the only known workable alternative is socialism. If she’s not advocating for that then she’s not really championing any actual solutions.
I think complaining isn’t too bad an option.
Marx famously said he did not know what would come after capitalism exactly or at least how a stateless/classless society would come about in its specifics. Epistemological humility is valuable here!
You’re referring to Marx discussing a far future society that grows out of socialism. Marx was pretty explicit regarding how he believed the transition from capitalism should be accomplished. We are in a situation where our biosphere is collapsing and if there is any hope of abolishing capitalism in time, then it has to be done using tools that have been shown to work.
Incorrect. There is nothing Marx about “communism growing out of socialism”. He only refers to “higher” and “lower” phases of communism. The idea that “socialism grows into communism” was a revision by Lenin to try and explain how the Russian agrian feudalism was suppose to go to communism while skipping industrial capitalism.
What Marx refers to as the lower phase of communism is precisely what’s understood to be socialism in the context of Marxism today. Meanwhile, your definition is itself incorrect. What Lenin refers to is the stage after the revolution where society transitions from capitalism towards a communist society. A great explanation of that can be found here;.
I’d be curious of your opinion on this video. I know the title will not make you happy but it extensively quotes Marx directly: https://youtu.be/rRXvQuE9xO4
It directly talks about Marx’s concept of higher and lower phase communism and how this differs from the Leninist revision.
It seems to me that the video agrees that both Marx and Lenin had the same general idea of what communism is and the path there. The critique at the end of the video largely focuses on Stalin and the attempts to establish socialism in one state. However, the video also acknowledges that it would be practically impossible to establish anything resembling communism while capitalism remains the dominant ideology in the world.
In my opinion the video outlines the basic ideas correctly, however it also fails to address an important point which is that Marx focused on theory first and foremost. He provided a critique of capitalism and ideas for how a communist society could work.
Lenin ran an actual revolution and focused on the practical aspects of the transition from capitalism. Lenin should be viewed as making the ideas of Marx concrete and bringing them into practice. As the video notes, Lenin very much agreed with Marx on the goals of communism.
In my view, using Marx as orthodoxy goes directly against the idea of dialectical thinking championed by Marx himself. Ideas have to be put into practice to have value, and then the learning from implementing ideas have to be reintegrated back into theory.
Given that, Marx cannot be seen as a higher authority than Lenin because Lenin actually did the work of putting the ideas into practice and evolved the theory based on the results.
It’s also worth noting that Lenin started out with many idealistic notions that he was eventually dissuaded of by reality. Lenin’s document on NEP is a great example of this.
For example, the video talks about Marx recognizing the dangers of centralized authority, yet it doesn’t address the fact that without such authority reactionary elements will fight to restore capitalism as we’ve seen happen time and again.
I think the video does some hair splitting regarding what is considered socialism and what is not. We can call the time of the dictatorship of the proletariat pre-socialism, or transitionary state, or whatever. What we choose to call it does not obviate the necessity of this stage. As long as capitalism remains the dominant ideology in the world, it’s hard to see how any society can transition past this stage.
This is the elephant in the room that people arguing against Lenin’s approach need to address. To date, we don’t have any examples of working alternatives for overthrowing capitalism. Perhaps different approaches are possible, but none have been demonstrated to work in practice.
So, while I agree there is much to be learned from USSR both in terms of its success and its mistakes, I don’t really see how a fundamentally different approach could be viable. I think that instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water, it’s more productive to focus on what aspects of USSR allowed for opportunism and its ultimate destruction.