Philosophyball Wiki

Marxism

(Redirected from Orthodox Marxism)


This page is about Marxist philosophy. For Political Marxism, see the Polcompball Page

Marxism, or more formally, Orthodox Marxism is a term for the philosophical theories of Karl Marx advocating for the overthrow of capitalism, by the proletariat. It views history, as being driven by class struggle. He believes that after the overthrow of capitalism, there will be a period of control by the dictatorship of the proletariat, before communism, a classless, stateless, moneyless society.


"Communism is not for us a state of affairs to be established, an ideal to which reality must conform. What we call communism is a real movement to abolish the existing condition. The conditions of this movement arise from existing premises."

– Karl Marx

Philosophical Beliefs edit

  Dialectical Materialism edit

Dialectical Materialism is a theory created by Marx to study the universe. It was inspired by both french Materialism, and German dialects. Dialectical Materialism studies the contradictions in society, contradiction being the unity of opposites, an example being the contradiction of captialism of socialised labour, but privitased appropation of that labour. However Dialectical Materialism, differs form the dialectics of Hegel, which is idealistic, while Dialectical Materialism holds that the universe is made of matter, and driven by such.

  Historical Materialism edit

Historical Materialism is a method of analyzing and interpreting history based on the material conditions and economic relationships that exist within a society. According to the theory, the driving force behind historical change is the development of the productive forces, which refers to the combination of technology, resources, and human labor available to a society. The productive forces determine the material conditions of society, such as the means of production (tools, machinery, land) and the relations of production (ownership and control of these means).

Historical materialism argues that the way in which the means of production are owned and controlled gives rise to different social classes. These classes have conflicting interests and engage in class struggle, which shapes the course of history. For example, feudalism emerged when the means of production were controlled by feudal lords, who exploited serfs. Capitalism, on the other hand, emerged when the bourgeoisie (capitalist class) gained control of the means of production and exploited the proletariat (working class). As societies evolve, historical materialism suggests that contradictions within the existing social order become intensified, leading to social revolution. This revolution brings about a new mode of production and a new social order. For Marx, the ultimate goal of historical development was the establishment of communism, a classless society where the means of production are collectively owned and everyone's needs are met.

Social Alienation edit

Alienation is a concept associated with Marx's work, highlighting a problematic separation between a subject and an object that belong together. It involves social ills where individuals or groups are separated from entities that should be connected. The theories of alienation identify specific separations as important, explain why they are problematic, and offer insights into the extent and prognosis of alienation. Marx's ideas on alienation were influenced by Feuerbach's critique of religion, which argued that worshiping God diverted humans from realizing their own powers and led to separation from their "species essence." Marx saw religion as a response to alienation in material life and believed it would wither away once human material life was emancipated.

Alienation in work was a major focus for Marx, who identified four dimensions of alienated labor in capitalist society: separation from the product, from the productive activity, from others, and from one's own human nature. Marx saw work as a potential source of creativity and fulfillment, rejecting the view that work is a necessary evil. He considered self-realization through work as essential to human flourishing. Marx believed that alienation flowed from capitalist social relations rather than technological advances and criticized the separation-based liberal rights of political emancipation, which hindered genuine human emancipation and the formation of meaningful community. While many questions remain about Marx's account of alienation, it is clear that it is intricately connected to his ideas of human nature, labor, and the need for meaningful relationships.

Commodity Fetishism edit

Commodity fetishism is a concept introduced by Karl Marx to explain how social relationships among people are distorted in the context of production and exchange. It refers to the tendency to perceive economic value as inherent to commodities rather than recognizing it as arising from the labor and human relations involved in their production. Marx argued that in the marketplace, social relations among individuals are represented as relationships among objects, obscuring the underlying social dynamics. He likened commodity fetishism to religious worship, where products of human creation take on a life of their own and appear as autonomous entities with inherent value. The theory of commodity fetishism originated from Marx's exploration of religious superstition and the beliefs of political economists. He used the concept to critique the reification of economic abstractions and to highlight the need for a deeper understanding of the social relations inherent in the production and exchange of goods.

Political Beliefs edit

The Proletariat and The Bourgeoisie edit

The Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie, were terms marx used to describe classes in captialism. The Bourgeoisie, are the people who own the Means of production, Land, Labour or capital used to make products, and the proletariat, people who sell their labour power to the Bourgeoisie to make a profit. They own no means of production. Marx believed that the contradiction between the Bourgeoisie and the proletariat, would evauntually lead to the fall of captialism, where the proletariat would overthrow the capitalist class, and estalish a peroid of a dicatorship of the proletariat. This dicatorship would not be the conventional kind of one man controlling everything, but where the workers control society and the MOP.

  Anti-Liberalism edit

Marxism’s critique of liberalism, differes from the reactionary critique of liberalism. Marx’s critique of liberalism, Boil down to the fact that he thought of it as idealistic, focusing on big ideas and values, and that it supported capitalism, and uses its idealism to Justify it. Marxism, unlike reactionaryism, doesn't dislike Liberalism because they want to move back from it, but rather they want to move forward from. However, Marxism is positive about early radical liberals of the 18th century, seeing them as progressive forces.

Commodity edit

Marx defines a commodity as an external object that satisfies human needs and possesses use-value. In an exchange, commodities are traded based on their equal value. Commodity exchange involves two types of value: use-value and exchange-value. Use-value refers to the usefulness of a commodity to the receiver, while exchange-value relates to its value in the exchange process. The value of a commodity is determined by the labor invested in its production. In capitalism, labor is treated as a commodity. The capitalist buys the labor power of workers, and they produce commodities. The capitalist is primarily concerned with the exchange-value of the produced commodities, as they aim to sell them for profit.

Surplus-Value edit

The capitalist's main focus lies in generating surplus-value rather than the use-value or exchange-value of commodities. Surplus-value is created when the value of commodities exceeds what is necessary to meet human needs. This surplus translates into profit, which is reinvested to produce even larger surpluses. While a surplus may lead to the fulfillment of more human needs, this is not the primary concern of capital. Its sole objective is the continuous accumulation of profit and capital growth.

Marx identifies these laws of the capitalist system as the root cause of its most significant injustices. Capital is indifferent to human needs and disregards human suffering. The atrocities of industrialization stemmed not primarily from the cruelty of individual capitalists but from the amoral pursuit of profit. Marx believed that the only solution to this problem was the overthrow of the capitalist mode of production and its replacement with a socialist system that prioritizes meeting human needs over profit-seeking.

Capital edit

Capital serves as the fundamental tool of capitalist production, with money playing a crucial role in its functioning. Money is generated through the sale of commodities and is then used to acquire more commodities. These newly acquired commodities are subsequently sold at a profit. According to Marx, the circulation of money as capital is an end in itself, as the increase in value occurs solely within this continuous cycle. The movement of capital knows no bounds, perpetuating the process indefinitely.

The objective of capital is to amass more capital through a process known as capital accumulation. Commodities hold value for capital only if their sale yields a profit. Furthermore, capital accumulation can be intensified through practices such as lending money at interest or investing in the stock market, which offer even more direct avenues for generating profits.

Modes of Production edit

The mode of production refers to the dominant structure of production within a society, encompassing both the means of production and the relationships that exist in the production process. The means of production include technological advancements, tools, raw materials, and available labor. Meanwhile, the relations of production determine individuals' roles and positions in the production process. In a capitalist society, capitalists own the factories, tools, and resources, and they employ laborers who are paid wages while the capitalists retain the majority of the profits.

The mode of production is not only an economic system but also a social system, shaping the overall structure of a society. Marx emphasizes that the mode of production is not a fixed or inherent characteristic but is contingent on historical development. He identified capitalism as the most recent mode of production, succeeding feudalism. Feudalism involved predominantly agricultural production on land owned by aristocrats, who demanded labor and loyalty from peasants. In return, peasants were granted the right to survive and the protection of their feudal lords. Although Marx's analysis of feudalism is abstract, it illustrates the reciprocal relationship between the mode of production and the societal framework.

Class Struggle edit

The prevailing mode of production in a society gives rise to distinct social classes based on their positions in the production process. A class is characterized by shared interests and behaviors related to their role in production. In capitalism, the two primary classes are the bourgeoisie (owners) and the proletariat (workers). The bourgeoisie owns the means of production and can hire and exploit the labor power of the proletariat. The proletariat, lacking control over the means of production, must sell their labor to the bourgeoisie in order to survive.

The relationship between these classes is marked by conflict. Their interests are fundamentally opposed. The bourgeoisie seeks to maximize labor and profit, while the workers strive for reduced working hours and higher wages. Ideally, workers would also have a say in the direction of production. For Marx, class struggle is the driving force of historical development. The balance of power between classes determines the structure of society and the nature of production. Marx predicted that capitalism would ultimately lead to its own demise. By intensifying the contradictions within the system, the working class would eventually triumph in the class struggle and overthrow capitalism. Only then could the immense productive capacity and technological advancements of industrial society be harnessed to truly meet human needs.

Variants edit

  Conflict Theory edit

Conflict Theory is a sociological theory which regards society as a conflict between the ruling classes and the ruled classes.

  Marxian Economics edit

Marxian Economics or Marxianism is a school of economic thought based on the work of Marx. Marxian economics focuses on the role of labor in the development of an economy and is critical of the classical approach to wages and productivity developed by   Adam Smith.

  Marxist Humanism edit

Marxist Humanism is an international body of thought and political action rooted in a Humanist interpretation of the works of Marxism. It’s primarily focused on analyzing how class society alienates individuals from their humanity.


  Marxist Theology edit

Marxist Theology functions like a civil religion, building upon intrinsic principles such as class conflict, work, simultaneous mass consciousness of the contradictions of capitalism, and post-revolution reorganization of society, etc.

  Parametric Determinism edit

Parametric Determinism stands firm on the idea that with the right equations and initial data, the future is set. Whether it’s the trajectory of a planet or the path of a raindrop, everything can be predicted if you just know the parameters and Parametric Determinism is a variant of   Historical Materialism developed by Ernst Mandel.

  Philosophical Materialism edit

Philosophical Materialism is a form of dialectical materialism devised by Spanish philosopher Gustavo Bueno, which he called "materialism of the encounter" (materialismo del encuentro) or "metaphysical materialism." Bueno's materialism is based on the idea that reality is composed of material particles, but he emphasizes the importance of the organization and structure of matter, rather than the particles themselves. Aditionally, Bueno's materialism rejects other postulates from Marx's epistemology such as the inevitability of class struggle or the necessity of pairing class analysis with praxis.

  Sorelianism edit

Sorelianism is a political philosophy based upon the political and philosophical beliefs of the French revolutionary syndicalist Georges Sorel. It is a Marxian philosophy mainly concerned with the psychological and ethical implications of socialism as a revolutionary science capable of producing genuine action in a time of capitalist decadence, and against the decomposition of itself by Blanquist and bourgeois positivism.

Sorel first began to engage in political activity in the 1890s, where he declared himself to be a Marxist and at first aligned himself with reformist tendencies, before shifting towards the revolutionary syndicalist movement. By 1910 however, he would grow disillusioned and would take a sidestep from politics up until World War I, during which a certain scandal involving him working with a journal secretly run by reactionaries would end up souring his name for decades[4]; his lack of party affiliation would prevent any sort of mass defense of his name from accusations of proto-Fascism and reaction from manifesting. Still, he would make a massive impact on the socialist movement, influencing communists, fascists, and anarchists all alike.

Myths edit

Sorel’s conception of the myth came about as a way of taping into the psychological components of revolutions, such as why would a person willingly sacrifice themselves for the sake of a rebellion’s success. His answer was that all movements possessed an expression of their own will to action, this expression is what Sorel labeled as a “myth”. Sorel uses the Christian apocalyptic myth, as well as Marx’s myth of the catastrophic collapse of capitalism, to explain what exactly a myth is. He then constraints it with utopias. Myths, unlike utopias, do not attempt to create some abstract ideal to be imagined. Rather, they are the purest form of propagandized action, the opposite of idealist fantasies.

Reinterpretation of Marxism edit

Sorel emphasized the ethical aspect of Marxism, seeing it as valuable for analyzing history and transforming society. However, he criticized what he saw as the rigid and mechanistic parts of Marxist theory. He believed that many interpretations of Marx's ideas were unfaithful to Marx's original intentions. Sorel pointed out that Marx did not view human psychology as solely determined by economic factors, and he acknowledged Marx's recognition of the importance of non-economic aspects like law, religion, and art in shaping society. Sorel believed that great philosophies, including Marxism, needed to be rooted in art and religion.

Sorel noted Marx's evolution in thought, recognizing Marx's synthesis of ideas from both Blanquism and Proudhonism. He supported the idea that Marxism underwent a crisis in the late 19th century, particularly during the founding of major socialist parties in France. Sorel argued that the blending of Blanquism and positivism in Marxism led to its decomposition in a similar vein to Lenin’s criticisms in Materialism and Empirocriticism, seeing positivism as an crypto-idealist abstraction of reality, and so argues for a return to Marx, for a return to social analysis as actively engaged with the reality it bases itself in, in a subversion of the reigning rationalism of bourgeois society.

Ethics of the Producers edit

Sorel believed that conflict was closely linked to freedom. He was inspired by liberal institutions and the pluralistic ideas of William James, rejecting the imitation of military structures and promoting a type of individualism he likened to the "American spirit." He admired the American ethos, which he saw as driven by a sense of liberty.

He criticized totalitarian movements for their rigid organization, advocating instead for a more decentralized approach. Sorel saw the myth of the general strike as a unifying force for syndicalism, providing a sense of purpose and authority. While Nietzsche's Übermensch celebrated individual greatness, Sorel contrasted this with what he called "apocalyptic myths" or the independent spirit of the American settler, which he believed did not suppress individual freedom.

Rather than centralized control, Sorel favored a balanced approach inspired by Proudhon, emphasizing care for the vulnerable and a commitment to family bonds as part of a warrior ethic. He believed that this, along with a strong work ethic, would lead to true freedom.

Social Peace edit

In Reflections on Violence, Sorel analyzes how the bourgeois socialism of the French socialist movement had successfully pacified society, but only to the bourgeoisie’s benefit. He argues that the bourgeoisie will happily allow itself to be weakened politically to bring itself a sense of stability and prosperity. This was a complete reverse of the old master ethics of the captains of industry, best expressed in the American national spirit and in the ruthless ethic of the English bourgeoisie which existed during the time of Marx. To him, this was a catastrophic development because it would completely dissolve the contradiction of class interests, turning both classes decadent and weak, and completely disrupting civilization’s processes. What he argues is that the proletariat must act as the revolutionary class for itself in a time where revolution seems impossible, as a way of saving itself from incorporation and decadence in the democratic system. Sorel sees revolutionary violence by the proletariat therefore as the the only option for restoring class war to its breaking point, and as the heroic soon-to-become savior of civilization.

Reformism and Syndicalism edit

This theoretical approach led to a somewhat voluntaristic version of Marxism. While he disagreed with the idea that capitalism would inevitably collapse, and rejected the notion of predetermined historical laws because he believed in the power of human action to shape society, he was also cautious about supporting insurrectionary tactics. Instead, he emphasized the importance of the institutional development of the working class and the role of unions in creating new social relations beyond capitalism.

He argued that reducing unions to mere resistance groups would hinder the progress of the working class, leaving it vulnerable to the influence of bourgeois leaders and preventing it from shaping its own future. He believed that the working class needed to become conscious of its own interests and develop its own distinct identity. Initially, he believed that participating in parliamentary democracy was the best way to achieve these goals. However, his views shifted in the early 20th century, partly due to the success of the republican party in the 1902 French elections and his analysis of the emergence of welfare capitalism. He began to see prolonged engagement in bourgeois politics as detrimental to the revolutionary potential of the working class.

Instead, he proposed a strategy of intense social conflict, known as the "grève prolétarienne" or proletarian strike, to revitalize the revolutionary spirit of the working class. He believed that such conflicts would highlight the class divide and prevent the bourgeoisie from weakening its own power.

  Lev Gumilev Thought edit

Lev Gumilev was Soviet and Russian scientist, writer, historian, ethnologist and philosopher, mostly known for his Passionate Theory of Ethogenesis. Gumilev's views went far beyond scientific concepts. Gumilev's concept didn't meet with the support of the scientific community either in the USSR or abroad.

Passionate Theory of Ethogenesis edit

Passionate Theory of Ethogenesis describes an ethnos as a "biosocial organism", the emergence of an ethnos (ethnogenesis) as a result of the combined impact of cosmic energies and the landscape, as a geographically determined process. The theory belongs to primordialism, goes back to the neo-Romantic concept of the people as the unity of blood and soil. Gumilev used the Greek word "ethnos" instead of the more common Latin word "nation" as a less politicized one. The term "ethnos" was both universal, neutral, and purely scientific.

Gumilev's theory of ethnogenesis considers an ethnos as a complex system, a complex of relations between an ethnos and the biosphere of the Earth, passing through a number of stages of development. One of the key elements is considered to be the hypothesis of passionate tremors, which, from the author's point of view, cause rare and short-term cosmic influences that cause genetic micromutations, increased absorption by people of the biochemical energy of living matter from the surrounding environment. Passionarity is described as a characteristic of behavior and is expressed, according to the author, in the appearance of an excess of this energy in people, which manifests itself in people's ability to overstrain and an increased craving for activities that act contrary to the instinct of individual and species self-preservation. Thanks to passionate personalities, groups of people capture and develop new territories, create new patterns of behavior, which eventually leads to the formation of an ethnic group.

Eurasianism edit

Despite the fact that Gumilev was self-proclaimed "eurasianist", according to many modern researchers, despite some commonality, the views of Gumilev and the Eurasians differed on fundamental issues. The main points of discrepancy are as follows:

  • Eurasians included all the peoples of the Soviet Union in the "Eurasian nation" or "multi-ethnic personality", and Gumilev counted at least seven superethnoses in the USSR.
  • Gumilev practically did not touch on the political views of Eurasians and their state-legal theory. The question of the state system and the form of government was of little interest to him at all.
  • Gumilev, who criticized the West a lot and willingly (especially in the last years of his life), did not criticize liberal democracy, nor the market economy, nor the rule of law. From his point of view, excessive borrowing of Western achievements is bad only because Russia is simply not ready to accept them. He believed that the Russian superethnos was 500 years "younger" than the Romano-German one.
  • Gumilev did not join the Eurasian criticism of Catholicism, and completely ignored the theological issues that so preoccupied Eurasians.

Thus, Gumilev can be considered a Eurasian in the literal sense of the word — a supporter of the Russian-Turkic-Mongolian brotherhood. For Gumilev, Eurasianism was not a political ideology, but rather a way of thinking.

Criticism edit

Related philosophies:   Austrian School

"... That is to say, in order to achieve his change, Marx relied on a very particular interpretation of the world. Therefore, this statement obviously does not hold water. He gives the impression that philosophy has been rejected, yet the latter part of the sentence presupposes an unspoken need for philosophy."

–   Martin Heidegger, On Marx's "Changing the World" theory, 1969

Criticism of Marxism or just Anti-Marxism is a criticism of   Karl Marx and his philosophy.

  Vekhovtsy edit

Vekhovtsy is philosophical and socio-political movement in early 20th-century Russia. It was named after the publication "Vekhi" in 1909, initiated by Mikhail Gershenzon. Authors of "Vekhi" included former Marxists like Nikolai Berdyaev, Sergei Bulgakov, Pyotr Struve, and Semyon Frank. They embraced Christian religiosity, critiquing Marxism for its narrow focus on economics and failure to address deeper questions of human existence.

The movement produced several collections, starting with "Problems of Idealism" in 1902 and concluding with "From the Depths" in 1918. These collections encapsulated the essence of Vekhovstvo's ideas and perspectives. The Vekhi philosophers urged the educated class, blaming them for the unrest of 1905–1907, to reject collectivism, populism, nihilism, and political radicalism. Instead, they advocated for recognizing individual independence and personal responsibility, grounded in universal Christian values.

Personality edit

Marxism will usually be portrayed as an amalgamation of Communist archetypes, and of the personality of Karl Marx himself. He will also occasionally be seen educating people on Philosphy.

How to Draw edit

WIP

Relationships edit

Proletariat edit

  •   Marxist Feminism - The patriarchy was the first class distinction.
  •   Leninism - Thank you for expanding upon my ideas, and creating the first successful proletarian revolution.
  •   Materialism - The driving force of history is the material relationships between individuals.
  •   Aristotelianism - Aristotle and Greek philosophy was very important for my ideological development in my youth.

  Lumpenproletariat edit

  •   Hegelianism - One of my greatest teachers who taught me dialectics, but the idealism and abstract tendencies of yours need to go.
  •   Darwinism - I like how your evolution theory is materialist, but why aren't you a fan of scientific socialism? I sent you many things and I thought you'd appreciate them!
  •   Stirnerism - Saint Max, a petit bourgeois individualist, but at least he helped me get out of Young Hegelianism.
  •   Žižekianism - Thank you for studying me, and lecturing others about me, but what is up with your Utopianism? And what do you mean you are more of a Hegelian than a Marxist?

Bourgeoisie edit

  •   Bakuninism - Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution?
  •   Proudhonism - Bourgeois socialist. Your “dialectics” of political economy are pure nonsense, it is not enough to remove the perceived “bad” of capitalism.
  •   Philosophy - “Feuerbach’s great achievement is the proof that philosophy is nothing else but religion rendered into thought and expounded by thought, i.e., another form and manner of existence of the estrangement of the essence of man; hence equally to be condemned"
  •   Utilitarianism - "As a general rule, articles of utility become commodities, only because they are products of the labour of private individuals or groups of individuals who carry on their work independently of each other. The sum total of the labour of all these private individuals forms the aggregate labour of society. Since the producers do not come into social contact with each other until they exchange their products, the specific social character of each producer’s labour does not show itself except in the act of exchange. In other words, the labour of the individual asserts itself as a part of the labour of society, only by means of the relations which the act of exchange establishes directly between the products, and indirectly, through them, between the producers. To the latter, therefore, the relations connecting the labour of one individual with that of the rest appear, not as direct social relations between individuals at work, but as what they really are, material relations between persons and social relations between things." [5]
  •   Egalitarianism - “As between one country, one province and even one place and another, living conditions will always evince a certain inequality which may be reduced to a minimum but never wholly eliminated. The living conditions of Alpine dwellers will always be different from those of the plainsmen.”

Quotes edit

Further Information edit

Karl Marx (Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy)

  Literature edit

Young Marx

Young Engels

  Wikipedia edit

Gallery edit

Portraits edit

References edit

  1. ↑ See Louis Althusser's remarks on "Marxist philosophy" in an interview in his later years.
  2. ↑ "Marxism is less the completion of the Calvinist-project than a critique of capitalism, which it reproaches with having liberated things without rigor, without any other end, without any other law than chance ­ and private interest."
  3. ↑ https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch09.htm
  4. ↑ https://libcom.org/article/georges-sorel-larry-portis
  5. ↑ Capital Volume One, Section 4

Navigation edit


Retrieved from "https://philosophyball.miraheze.org/wiki/Marxism?oldid=63182"