You cite, in your closing commentary, what you say are some of Marx and Engels shortcomings or errors, but you say not a word about Lenin, who addressed many of the issues you raised at the end and who further refined the materialist understanding and continuing investigation of historical materialism. Marx understood the situation when he explained that he was "no Marxist." That is, he knew the project had a lot more developing to be done. And Lenin has made the most headway in that project.
Excellent piece. I'll add: I was delighted when I discovered Marx wrote his thesis as a discussion on Democtritus and Epicureanism (I believe favoring Epicurus). Epicurianism I think could claim to be the original materialist analysis and world view. While Epicureanism is I believe very useful, it absolutely lacks the historical and political analysis of Marx. It is a shame it took so long for Marx to come along, and I believe fully add the political/historical dimension to Epicurean materialist thought.
A fine and concise summary. In as much as Marx and Engels considered themselves scientific socialists in the sense that their theories were open to modification in light of changing circumstances you have done a service in drawing our attention to the lacunae and limited perspectives of what is a fundamentally sound general analysis of the capitalist mode of production.
Given the strength of the CCP, I'm thinking there is at least something potentially that separates China from the other two that doesn't really allow painting with the same brush.
Bob I agree that they are of course three distinct national political formations. On party names I will add the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) was pretty damn un-communist and revisionist, saying preposterous things like "communism is 20th Centry Americanism" and generally functioning as a very anti-revolutionary force during the 1960s and 1970s
Agreed about the U.S. CP in its later stages it was almost an appendage of the Dems. As I followed Fidel's led movement in the 50's I saw how utterly conservative the CP could be. I'll always give the Russian CP muchos kudos for all their good works, in particular creating the 1st attempt at a socialist state, the defeat of the Nazis and their support of revolutionary movements. As for today the little I can gather suggests that the Russian cp may be more nationalist than socialist. What I was initially trying to convey is that the Chinese CP gives me the most hope about the potential of carrying on Marxism. Time will tell....
Well, Mao was overthrown and the capitalist roaders did exactly what he warned: turned China into a major capitalist-imperialist state. It's perhaps the most underestimated historical development of the last half century. My God the cheap labor power that was harnessed to the ecocidal death trip known as the global capitalist mode of production and its holy rate of profit. What a boon that was to not so late capitalism as it entered its lethal neoliberal era! Surely you have read about the Chinese workers who have to have suicide nets placed beneath their windows in industrial dormitories. Nothing bad that can rightly be said about the Cultural Revolution can come close to remotely matching the disastrous nature of the great capitalist counterrevolution in China.
Hard to take seriously when the author misquotes Marx early in the article., by taking what he said completely out of context. What actually happened was French Marxists gathered together in the ealry days of the International to put together a party program for France, and sent the draft to Marx for comment. His reply: "If this is Marxism, then I'm not a Marxist." Gives a considerably different meaning when added to what the author cited, doesn't it?
You must be a curmudgeon on the downside of existence to get you undies tied so tightly in a bunch over such a miniscule piece of empirical quibbling! LOL. Stop and think for a second about how utterly insignificant your comment is to the thrust of this essay. And by the way it doesn't change a thing. Yes, he was thinking of the fucked up republican-socialistic French of the time. Big deal!
Paul has done an excellent job and offered valuable insights for those of us who are hardly familiar with Marxism.
You cite, in your closing commentary, what you say are some of Marx and Engels shortcomings or errors, but you say not a word about Lenin, who addressed many of the issues you raised at the end and who further refined the materialist understanding and continuing investigation of historical materialism. Marx understood the situation when he explained that he was "no Marxist." That is, he knew the project had a lot more developing to be done. And Lenin has made the most headway in that project.
Excellent piece. I'll add: I was delighted when I discovered Marx wrote his thesis as a discussion on Democtritus and Epicureanism (I believe favoring Epicurus). Epicurianism I think could claim to be the original materialist analysis and world view. While Epicureanism is I believe very useful, it absolutely lacks the historical and political analysis of Marx. It is a shame it took so long for Marx to come along, and I believe fully add the political/historical dimension to Epicurean materialist thought.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/09/20.htm
Thanks, Paul, for your excellent essay which led me to the Marx article linked above. Hope to keep learning from you.
A fine and concise summary. In as much as Marx and Engels considered themselves scientific socialists in the sense that their theories were open to modification in light of changing circumstances you have done a service in drawing our attention to the lacunae and limited perspectives of what is a fundamentally sound general analysis of the capitalist mode of production.
Street smarts and Marx smarts combined for an excellent analysis once again. Shall pass it on. Thank you!
I must disagree with your seemingly equating China with the U.S. and Russia.
Meaning that you think Xi's China is a socialist nation...or perhaps something else worthy of praise?
Given the strength of the CCP, I'm thinking there is at least something potentially that separates China from the other two that doesn't really allow painting with the same brush.
Bob I agree that they are of course three distinct national political formations. On party names I will add the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) was pretty damn un-communist and revisionist, saying preposterous things like "communism is 20th Centry Americanism" and generally functioning as a very anti-revolutionary force during the 1960s and 1970s
Agreed about the U.S. CP in its later stages it was almost an appendage of the Dems. As I followed Fidel's led movement in the 50's I saw how utterly conservative the CP could be. I'll always give the Russian CP muchos kudos for all their good works, in particular creating the 1st attempt at a socialist state, the defeat of the Nazis and their support of revolutionary movements. As for today the little I can gather suggests that the Russian cp may be more nationalist than socialist. What I was initially trying to convey is that the Chinese CP gives me the most hope about the potential of carrying on Marxism. Time will tell....
Well, Mao was overthrown and the capitalist roaders did exactly what he warned: turned China into a major capitalist-imperialist state. It's perhaps the most underestimated historical development of the last half century. My God the cheap labor power that was harnessed to the ecocidal death trip known as the global capitalist mode of production and its holy rate of profit. What a boon that was to not so late capitalism as it entered its lethal neoliberal era! Surely you have read about the Chinese workers who have to have suicide nets placed beneath their windows in industrial dormitories. Nothing bad that can rightly be said about the Cultural Revolution can come close to remotely matching the disastrous nature of the great capitalist counterrevolution in China.
Hard to take seriously when the author misquotes Marx early in the article., by taking what he said completely out of context. What actually happened was French Marxists gathered together in the ealry days of the International to put together a party program for France, and sent the draft to Marx for comment. His reply: "If this is Marxism, then I'm not a Marxist." Gives a considerably different meaning when added to what the author cited, doesn't it?
You must be a curmudgeon on the downside of existence to get you undies tied so tightly in a bunch over such a miniscule piece of empirical quibbling! LOL. Stop and think for a second about how utterly insignificant your comment is to the thrust of this essay. And by the way it doesn't change a thing. Yes, he was thinking of the fucked up republican-socialistic French of the time. Big deal!