URGENT WARNING: Spam emails claiming to be Fascipedia are FRAUDULENT. We do NOT have mailing lists, send newsletters, or solicit funds ...ever. Report these scams to us immediately at admin@fascipedia.org.
Marxism: Difference between revisions
(Changed the origins section, too polemical in tone.) Tag: visualeditor |
m (Just added a few hyperlinks, FasciPedia doesn't like one staying on one page for too long for some reason.) Tag: visualeditor |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
=Cultural Marxism and its Relation to marxism= | =Cultural Marxism and its Relation to marxism= | ||
Full article: Cultural Marxism | ''Full article: [[Cultural Marxism]]'' | ||
The term | The term “[[cultural Marxism]]” has been used by some like [[Kevin MacDonald]] to describe critical theory/critical race theory. In a sense, the term “cultural Marxism” makes sense: many of those who came up with and acted on critical theory were Marxists. | ||
However, cultural Marxism is not to be confused with Marxism as simply a type of Marxism. For instance, “cultural Marxism” does not actually make use of class struggle and the other beliefs that come from Marxism, like how revolution only occurs in highly technologically advanced society, historical materialism revolving around economic class interests, et cetera. Rather, cultural Marxism is a synthesis of both Marxism and psychoanalysis in that it still retains the original goals of many Marxists, however social analysis is now conducted through a more cultural perspective rather than through Marxist class struggle and historical materialism in response to fascism. | However, cultural Marxism is not to be confused with Marxism as simply a type of Marxism. For instance, “cultural Marxism” does not actually make use of class struggle and the other beliefs that come from Marxism, like how revolution only occurs in highly technologically advanced society, historical materialism revolving around economic class interests, et cetera. Rather, cultural Marxism is a synthesis of both Marxism and psychoanalysis in that it still retains the original goals of many Marxists, however social analysis is now conducted through a more cultural perspective rather than through Marxist class struggle and historical materialism in response to fascism. | ||
Revision as of 21:09, 30 May 2022
Marxism is a philosophy that uses class warfare to achieve its ends. It originates from the works of 19th-century jewish "philosopher" Karl Marx. There are many branches of Marxism with subtle differences, but they are all identical in their core beliefs, and for all practical purposes, identical.
Orthodox Marxism in a Nutshell
In a nutshell, according to Marxist theory, modern society was divided into two classes (the bourgeoisie and the proletariat) and human history is driven by “the interplay between material productive forces and the relations of production”[1]. The bourgeoisie represents the relations of production while the proletariat represents the material productive forces, for it is the bourgeoisie that organizes the proletariat for the private profit of the bourgeoisie.
Since under capitalism, it is the bourgeoisie that rules society and that history and other aspects of society is nothing but the product of economic class interests, it stands to reason that Marxist theory postulates that there is no “objective morality”, but only class morality that benefits the ruling class. Since the ruling class is the bourgeoisie, therefore to Marxist theory, things like morality and religion are nothing but tools of the bourgeoisie and a form of class control designed to repress the proletariat.
Additionally, since Marxism assumes that the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are opposed to each other and capitalist society favours the bourgeoisie, therefore in capitalist society according to Marxist theory, the proletariat must be oppressed by capitalist society and the only way for the proletariat to achieve freedom would be to seize the means of production and to overthrow the bourgeoisie. According to Marxist theory, the cause of this is that only living labour like workers can create value, whereas “dead labour” like equipment and machines do not[2]. Since technological progression means that workers are needed less and less with the proportion of workers to capital/machines decreasing, the value generated must decrease and therefore the rate of profit will fall to zero as a result[3].
Problems with Orthodox Marxism
The first problem with orthodox Marxism is its theory of revolution. Since revolution happens when the rate of profit falls to zero, which in turn is caused by industrialization, therefore it stands to reason that according to Marxist theory, revolutions can only happen in highly industrialized states. Yet Russia, during the time of the October Revolution, was not an industrial state: if anything, it was more agricultural and was lagging in industrialization when compared to the other European powers. The same can be said for China when the Communists under Mao Zedong seized power from the Kuomintang; China then was a backwater country with barely any industry.
The second problem is the prediction of the falling rate of profit due to industrialization, which is due to the Marxist assumption that it is only living labour that produces value and not “dead labour” like machines. While it is true that without living labour like workers, no production of value is possible, yet without “dead labour” like factory equipment or machinery, the worker cannot be producing as much value as he did when compared to the worker using said “dead labour”. Therefore, while it is true that “dead labour” cannot generate any value by itself, “dead labour” can augment the abilities of “living labour” to improve productivity, which means value generated will actually increase, not decrease, which means the rate of profit will not fall to zero and the proletarian revolution in Marxist theory will not arrive. This interpretation is further backed when it is considered that even communist revolutions in the 20th century occurred not in industrial, but backwater and relatively primitive countries.
Cultural Marxism and its Relation to marxism
Full article: Cultural Marxism
The term “cultural Marxism” has been used by some like Kevin MacDonald to describe critical theory/critical race theory. In a sense, the term “cultural Marxism” makes sense: many of those who came up with and acted on critical theory were Marxists.
However, cultural Marxism is not to be confused with Marxism as simply a type of Marxism. For instance, “cultural Marxism” does not actually make use of class struggle and the other beliefs that come from Marxism, like how revolution only occurs in highly technologically advanced society, historical materialism revolving around economic class interests, et cetera. Rather, cultural Marxism is a synthesis of both Marxism and psychoanalysis in that it still retains the original goals of many Marxists, however social analysis is now conducted through a more cultural perspective rather than through Marxist class struggle and historical materialism in response to fascism.
A good example of this is the book The Authoritarian Personality, which essentially makes the argument that “authoritarianism” (a euphemism for fascism, evidenced by the use of the term “F scale”, F for fascism) is the result of traditional cultures, families and worldviews and therefore everything traditional are things to be avoided because they all lead to fascism and/or are signs of it, therefore said cultures, families and worldviews must also be avoided.