As per the request of several people in the Low Political Content Thread, here is the Marxism discussion thread. Use to discuss all type of Marxism and other forms of lefty political philosophy, political economy, sociology, revolutionary theory, cultural theory, economics and whatever else you can think of. Please try and keep the discussion constructive and purposeful, the quickest way to ruin this thread will be a bunch of "all Marxists want to send us to the Gulag", or "LOL ObaMarx" type posts.

anyone got ideas on why so many terrorist groups claim to be following marxist philosphy ?


yes there are loads .

official IRA ,farc , shining path , november17 , red army faction just to name a few .

Probably because they view anyone who isn't keen on their ideology as "enemy combatants" so they feel justified in killing them. After all, they tend to view everything through the lens of class warfare derived from their dialectical concept of history.

As I said in the other thread I am just starting Popper's section on Marx and I find it very interesting. I've also listened to David Harvey's Podcast series which I enjoyed. I'll have more time next week to post some quotes from poppers book, but I find the general ideas of Marx (as discussed by Popper) to be very similar in some respects to Hayek. The part Popper is talking about now is Marx's view of how society shapes our view and how the individual lacks the knowledge to change society but when grouped together in classes they can effect large changes in society.

I always get the feeling that there is a lot of good stuff in Marx, but a lot of bad stuff also. The one time I tried to read Capital I couldnt make it past the first chapter. The thought of reading 700+ pages of outdated economics wasnt that appealing, even though theres probably 200 pages worth of great philosophy somewhere in there.

in your opinion are they truely following marxist ideals or just skewing it to suit their own agendas ?

No.

Much of it is due to Marxism having a massive weight of literature on colonial exploitation and imperialism. Many of those terrorist groups are from nations which have been oppressed by other countries, so Marxism is a natural fit for them to find ideological backing for their struggle.

Marx and Engels wrote a lot about Ireland and India, as well as other colonies. Initially they viewed imperialism as a good thing as it was speeding up the backwards colonies towards capitalism, and thus towards socialism and communism. Later on in their lives they came to believe that socialist revolution was not happening where they predicted it would (the most advanced industrial countries) because of the riches of the colonies which allowed the workers of the imperial country to be bought off with higher wages to keep them from rebelling. So rather than speeding up the world towards communist revolution they felt imperialism was actually ******ing it. They came to support revolution in the colonies - revolution in the colonies could be exported to the 'mother country', socialist revolution in Ireland could lead to the workers in England rising up in solidarity with them.

Of course they found that the chauvinism of the British workers often stopped them from any sort of solidarity with the Irish workers, the idea that "workers have no country" and are internationalist in outlook is one of the most badly overlooked aspects of Marx and Engels theory imo.

If you want to read more about this just read the stuff Marx and Engels wrote on India and Ireland.

The other terrorist groups from non-colonial countries I'd say is more because Marxism offers a self-contained theory for explaining the world. It offers an explanation of the world and the problems it faces, and offers a bright, utopian, liberated future. I don't necessarily think Marxism inspires terrorism, it just offers an ideological justification for those radicals who are dissatisfied with the state of the world and seek to radically change it.

Well if by "truly following Marxist ideals" you mean "how Marx would have handled a given situation" idk.

I think it is more telling of the psychology that people can potentially develop by viewing the world through such materialist conception of history more than anything.

You realize nothing you said really contradicts what I said, right?

I don't really agree with this - "Probably because they view anyone who isn't keen on their ideology as "enemy combatants" so they feel justified in killing them." I don't really think this has a lot to do with Marxism, especially when it comes to national liberation movements like the Marxist branch of the IRA etc. I don't think it explains why the adopt Marxism at all really.

Another point which I forgot to mention wrt the sort of groups - Marxism can (well used to be, not so much any more) be a very effective tool in rallying people to your banner. National liberation movements often used it to attract more people to support them. The worldwide Marxist movement had a lot of pull with working people throughout much of the 20th Century.

i mean he came up with the labor theory of value...what else needs to be said. has marx actually contributed anything relevant to modern economics? (serious question)

It's a kinda pointless question anyway. "The real Marx" is not a helpful concept at all. Marx is a contradictory, sometimes incoherent and incomplete writer. There are many different strains to his thought, so people can look into his work and find almost any "Marx" they want really.

[QUOTE=Montius;17032574]Well if by "truly following Marxist ideals" you mean "how Marx would have handled a given situation" idk.

what i mean is did karl marx advocate using terrorism as a means to an end , or was he just preaching revolutionary BS ?

No he didn't. The LTV was used by mainstream historians long, long before Marx. Most historians employed some form of the LTV at the time...

Um... a lot more?

There is also a helluva lot more to Marx than simply economics.

not in my name , have you any decent links on marx that i could check out preferably something on his Irish and Indian thinking , or will i just have to goto the library ?

ok, so he was a proponent of the labor theory of value, which is the entire theoretical basis for marxist economics and the concept of class/capitalist exploitation. either way its blatantly wrong.

as for his philosophy, etc, i don't really know much so i'll bow out.

It may not have anything to do with Marxism in of itself (I never claimed it did), but it certainly has to do with the manner in which terrorist organizations adopt and implement the ideology and/or why some Marxist groups turn into terrorist organizations.

No doubt. This goes back to the whole "us" (the poor and oppressed class/proles) against "them" (capitalist/wealthy/bourgeois) and the subsequent mentality of categorizing "them" as enemy combatants.

This is certainly a reasoning why some Marxist groups turn into terrorist organizations, which is what I thought martymc1 was asking about.

Do you want to discuss why it's blatantly wrong, or do you want to just make assertions and (presumably) an argument from authority?

I realize that. Which is exactly why I said the "idk" part.

Not to my knowledge.

This is certainly a reasoning why some Marxist groups turn into terrorist organizations, which is what I thought martymc1 was asking about.

imo those groups would have come to being without having marxist leanings , and not the other way round , imo they are terrorist /freedom fighters 1st and marxist a weak 2nd.
ie being a marxist group and then turning to terrorism makes no sense to me , but being a terrorist group and turning to marxism does make some sense .

it totally ignores scarcity and marginal considerations. i'm not trying to be an *******, but its a lot to explain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility

micro 101 blows marx out of the water.

Most (all?) of the groups you mentioned were Marxist organizations first before they turned to political action that made them "terrorist organizations" so idk how you can claim that.

btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critici...heory_of_value

well i know for fact that the official IRA were part of the IRA who in fact waged a terrorist war on the british during the early 20th century and they broke away from the main IRA some decades later claiming they were now a marxist group . (google cathal goulding faction )

the rest the groups i mentioned i do not really know too much about their history , but it makes way more sense to me that they were in fact terrorist groups that tried to incorporate marxism into their agendas . see below .

Marxism can (well used to be, not so much any more) be a very effective tool in rallying people to your banner. National liberation movements often used it to attract more people to support them. The worldwide Marxist movement had a lot of pull with working people throughout much of the 20th Century.

I'm not sure that either of these lines lead to any interesting or meaningful discussion of Marx.

I don't have a great understanding of Marx. Is this accurate?

Let's say I have a job making gizmos. I make a gizmo that sells for $20 and my boss pays me $8 for my labor to make it. Marx would say the difference ($12) was stolen by my boss who is exploiting me?

that's my interpretation.