"Contemporary Marxism"

[Volkov]

I have been approached by people calling themselves "Contemporary Marxists" on other forums, of whom make absurd statements, such as how capitalism has existed for 5000 years, how they have read more Marx than me, and yet judging by their posts, they clearly do not even understand basic concepts.  Some of their ideas include nonviolent revolution (desirable but at least not immediately attainable), giving the Proletariat absoultey no political power, and how they are smarter because some of them have degrees in philosphy.

They mentioned some authors, one by the name of Deluze or something like that, of whom are of such a movement.  Do any of you know about this rubbish?  Is there any commentary by Genuine Marxists on this issue that I can get somewhere?  I have been looking around, and I have not been able to find anything as of yet.

[Monster]

Sounds more like intellectual exercises to me... these people ought to get a job or something.. I wouldn't bother too much with these guys anyways, start a revolution instead ;)

[roodzwijntje]

You must mean Gilles Deleuze. He's a so-called post-structuralist, post-modernist and "deconstructivist". I had to study the chap in some literary courses some years ago. He's not a Marxist at all but is from the Academia. Belongs to the same brand of intellectuals like Jacques Derrida. Crap!!

[Red Student]

Originally posted by Volkov
..., such as how capitalism has existed for 5000 years, ....

class society existed for 5000 years, not capitalism.
see: Chapter IX: Barbarism and Civilization

And Engels footnote for 1888 English Edition of the C.M.

That is, all written history. In 1847, the pre-history of society, the social organisation existing previous to recorded history, all but unknown. Since then, August von Haxthausen (1792-1866) discovered common ownership of land in Russia, Georg Ludwig von Maurer proved it to be the social foundation from which all Teutonic races started in history, and, by and by, village communities were found to be, or to have been, the primitive form of society everywhere from India to Ireland. The inner organisation of this primitive communistic society was laid bare, in its typical form, by Lewis Henry Morgan's (1818-1861) crowning discovery of the true nature of the gens and its relation to the tribe. With the dissolution of the primeval communities, society begins to be differentiated into separate and finally antagonistic classes. I have attempted to retrace this dissolution in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, second edition, Stuttgart, 1886.

Some of their ideas include nonviolent revolution giving the Proletariat absoultey no political power

A revolution to what then? What is it that they want? Stalinism?
from The State: an Instrument for the Exploitation of the Oppressed Class

The maintenance of the special public power standing above society requires taxes and state loans.

and how they are smarter because some of them have degrees in philosphy.

Anti-Schelling
Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
The Holy Family The German Ideology
The Poverty of Philosophy
Anti-Dühring
Materialism and Empirio-Criticism
The State and Revolution
What Is To Be Done?
The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky
Their Morals and Ours

All the above works are critique and polemics against "philosophers", if you are going to argue with every two-bits philosophy student (actually they study the history of philosophy) then keep in mind Trotsky's words:

“On the way here, I read for the first time Marx’s pamphlet, ’Herr Vogt.’ To refute some dozen slanders by Karl Vogt, Marx wrote a two-hundred-page book, in small type, marshalling documents and the evidence of witnesses and analyzing direct and circumstantial evidence. . . . If we had begun to refute the Stalin slanders on the same scale, we should probably have to publish an encyclopaedia of a thousand volumes.”

I have been looking around, and I have not been able to find anything as of yet.

I am not sure what do you want exactly, but I found the following two books very helpful:
Bolshevism: the Road to Revolution
History of Philosophy

[Volkov]

Originally posted by roodzwijntje
You must mean Gilles Deleuze. He's a so-called post-structuralist, post-modernist and "deconstructivist". I had to study the chap in some literary courses some years ago. He's not a Marxist at all but is from the Academia. Belongs to the same brand of intellectuals like Jacques Derrida. Crap!!

Yeah, that must be him, given that an opponent (the one who also supports Deluze) also made reference to Derrida to "prove" his point.  They keep ranting about how they are credible due to them being in academia.  I keep pointing out the class interests of the Bourgeois in regards to academics.  Are the academics not in the monopoly of the Capitalists?  

Red Student, I shall look into that when I have time.  I cannot believe the utter nonsense of these "academics."

As for their points about nonviolent revolution, they claim that exploiting the Bourgeois would be a "Capitalist element" (and the revolution does not exploit the Borugeois, but rather deprives them the right to exploit us!!!!!).

[roodzwijntje]

Well, given some exceptions (the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu was not bad, and here in Belgium we had an infamous academic, Jaap Kruithof, who always cursed the bourgeois), I'd say: beware of academics. They typically live in an ivory tower and have no real idea what the working class feels and experiences. Their main problem is that they lack the PRAXIS. Theory without practice is pointless.
As for the group you are talking about Volkov, I wonder why even from their point of view they insist on calling themselves Marxists. Usually these postmodern twats are radically opposed to Marxism and even the thought that human beings are able to change society.

[Daymare17]

What is postmodernism anyway? I've always wondered...

[roodzwijntje]

Wikipedia on postmodernism :

Postmodernism is a term applied to a variety of artistic, architectural, philosophical, and cultural movements that are said to arise after and in reaction to modernism.

The term and its use have a wide variety of different meanings in different disciplines, and the existence of post-modernism as a coherent set of ideas is often debated. The most commonly cited area of disagreement comes from disagreements over what the basis for knowledge and political philosophy should have.

Modernism is usually said to frame itself as the culmination of the Enlightenment's quest for an authoritatively-rational aesthetics, ethics, and knowledge. In contrast postmodernism is usually held to be concerned with how the authority of those would-be-ideals, sometimes called metanarratives, are subverted through fragmentation, consumerism, and deconstruction. This dichotomy is somewhat problematic, since it ignores the strong emphasis on irrationalism and fragmentation within modernism. For this reason postmodernism can equally be seen as a development of aspects of modernism while rejecting others, in particular the emphasis on authenticity. Jean-François Lyotard famously described postmodernism as an "incredulity toward metanarratives" (Lyotard, 1984). Postmodernism attacks the notions of monolithic universals and encourages fractured, fluid and multiple perspectives and is marked by an increasing importance in the ideas from the Sociology of knowledge.

A related term is postmodernity, which refers to the state of things after modernity. This includes a focus on the sociological, technological, and other conditions that distinguish the Modern Age from what is thought to have arisen thereafter. Postmodernism, on the other hand, denotes intellectual, cultural, artistic, academic, and philosophical responses to the condition of postmodernity. Another related term is postmodern, an adjective used to describe either a condition of, or a response to, postmodernity. For example, one may refer to postmodern architecture, postmodern literature, postmodern culture, postmodern music and postmodern philosophy. Postmodernism is a term applied to a variety of artistic, architectural, philosophical, and cultural movements that are said to arise after and in reaction to modernism.

I must admit that this Deleuze probably is no real post-modernist and is to be placed in the same tradition of Habermas and Jameson, cf. Wikipedia again:

As noted above (see History of postmodernism), some theorists such as Habermas even argue that the supposed distinction between the 'modern' and the 'postmodern' does not exist at all, but that the latter is really no more than a development within a larger, still-current, 'modern' framework. Many who make this argument are left academics with Marxist leanings, such as Terry Eagleton, Fredric Jameson, and David Harvey, who are concerned that postmodernism's undermining of Enlightenment values makes a progressive cultural politics difficult, if not impossible. How can we effect any change in people's poor living conditions, in inequality and injustice, if we don't accept the validity of underlying universals such as the 'real world' and 'justice' in the first place? How is any progress to be made through a philosophy so profoundly skeptical of the very notion of progress, and of unified perspectives? The postmodern vision of a tolerant, pluralist society in which every political ideology is perceived to be as valid, or as redundant, as the other; may ultimately encourage individuals to lead lives of a rather disastrous apathetic quietism. This reasoning leads Habermas to compare postmodernism with conservatism and the preservation of the status quo.

So post-modernism is a reactionary trend, translated politically that we live in "the best of all possible worlds" and that no real progress is possible. I'm not sure who this Deleuze was again, I think I confuse him with another guy.

[Volkov]

I have been looking, and these lunatics are annoying;  they keep accusing me of "circular logic," and one of them keeps trying to boil down my argument to a simple syllogism that does not even cover most of what I am saying.  She keeps asserting that I must explain what I feel about Marxism, independent of citing any Marx.  Uh, is it not Marx, that must help her, given that she does not have any understanding of the topic?  She claims to have passed a class on Marxism (and her not understanding the topic is yet more proof that she is under the influence of Bourgeois academia).  She keeps accusing me of begging the question.  :rolleyes:  And I once considered entering philosophy as my major.  Given the nonsense these guys put forth, I am so very glad that I did not take philosophy as my major.:)

[roodzwijntje]

Volkov, why don't you simply ignore these people? These kind of academics are useless so you 'd better focus on more important things in my opinion.

[Volkov]

Originally posted by roodzwijntje
Volkov, why don't you simply ignore these people? These kind of academics are useless so you 'd better focus on more important things in my opinion.

I have just started to do that.:)  They are just like broken records;  they keep repeating the same crap over and over again.  I guess that they get red-faced when a amateur Marxist like myself destroys their arguments.

[turnoviseous]

Hey comrades,

I am giving you something to read:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ot/zizek1.htm


This guy is a profesor on one of Slovenian Universities of Philosophy where one of comrades is studying.

I dont know if it is totally related to the subject of contemporary Marxism, but I have found it an interesting reading. He brings up some interesting points. He for example recognizes the difference between Leninism and Stalinism and some other things as well, which do not seem to be understood by most of the university profesors nowadays.

Tell me what you think if you have time to read it.


P.S: maybe this post would be more appropriate for the philosophy section.


comradely,

Luka

[petrel]

Isn't a problem with Zizek his being influenced by postmodernism and pseudo-scientific Freudian Lacanism?

[turnoviseous]

Originally posted by petrel
Isn't a problem with Zizek his being influenced by postmodernism and pseudo-scientific Freudian Lacanism?

I totally agree with that indeed! However, not that I found out anything actually new, I still found it interesting reading.

[Daymare17]

I read part of a book by Zizek. It was quite good. It's like he's in a transition between the usual anti-Leninist professor and a real Marxist. I think he's quite searching. Your comrade should lend him RiR or something.

What's Freudian Lacanism?