1AntonFletcher
Hey! New to the website, and loving it so far, was wondering if there is anyone still active who is studying radical history etc.
Can't wait to hear back! Many thanks,
Anthony :)
Can't wait to hear back! Many thanks,
Anthony :)
22wonderY
278 members; but last post was in 2016.
You might try starting a thread about a particular book or topic. You might get some response.
You might try starting a thread about a particular book or topic. You might get some response.
3inferno7
>1 AntonFletcher: I just found this as well, tbh I KNOW I will never be active, but if you would like to be friends then go ahead and maybe we can message too, Anthony :)
- B
- B
4Doug1943
Does anyone here follow the evolution of revolutionary Marxist groups?
Regardless of the merits, or otherwise, of their political views, these groups are interesting because they bring together highly committed, mostly intelligent, largely selfless people, aiming to make a huge change in society.
In the advanced countries, they have always been disappointed. Yet many of them soldier on. It would be interesting to see how they understand their situation, the reasons for their failure (so far), and the internal conflicts brought about by their failures.
Regardless of the merits, or otherwise, of their political views, these groups are interesting because they bring together highly committed, mostly intelligent, largely selfless people, aiming to make a huge change in society.
In the advanced countries, they have always been disappointed. Yet many of them soldier on. It would be interesting to see how they understand their situation, the reasons for their failure (so far), and the internal conflicts brought about by their failures.
5LolaWalser
Sweet of you to worry about the "internal conflicts" of Marxists. I for one only have trouble with the conflicts and failures of capitalism. Whither that trickle-down bliss that was to "lift all boats"?
Marxism, OTOH, is alive and well and living in Paris (even Paris, Texas) and everywhere else:
https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WorkReform/
https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/
https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Marxism/
etc. (this is just a few random searches, I haven't even touched on trade unionists, social democrats etc. The delicious part is that Reddit is an American site with an overwhelming American membership)
You could ask old Marxists:
https://www.youtube.com/@RichardDWolff
or you could ask some young Marxists:
https://www.youtube.com/@NovaraMedia
or read some of the ever-expanding pile of books written by young Marxists:
Hadas Thier
Jodi Dean
Malaika Jabali
Cory Doctorow
Kristen R. Ghodsee
Lea Ypi
China Mieville
etc.
Marxism, OTOH, is alive and well and living in Paris (even Paris, Texas) and everywhere else:
https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WorkReform/
https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/
https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Marxism/
etc. (this is just a few random searches, I haven't even touched on trade unionists, social democrats etc. The delicious part is that Reddit is an American site with an overwhelming American membership)
You could ask old Marxists:
https://www.youtube.com/@RichardDWolff
or you could ask some young Marxists:
https://www.youtube.com/@NovaraMedia
or read some of the ever-expanding pile of books written by young Marxists:
Hadas Thier
Jodi Dean
Malaika Jabali
Cory Doctorow
Kristen R. Ghodsee
Lea Ypi
China Mieville
etc.
6Doug1943
Whoa, thanks for this! Yes, there are many Marxist groups -- may their number (not numbers) grow!
I'm not sure all of your 'young Marxists' are that young. China Mieville, for example, is in his 50's.
Now, since you're obviously very knowledgeable about Marxist writers, can you recommend any books -- written since 1990 -- which defend socialism as an economic system? (By 'socialism' I mean a system in which there is no private ownership of the means of production and distribution. I include 'market socialism' in this definition.)
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union (and the conversion of the Chinese economy to one of private ownership), a near-consensus seems to have emerged on the Left that socialists must pursue their goals by supervising a market (ie capitalist) economy. Don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs -- just re-distribute the eggs.
But, presumably, there are still people who think that if the government took all of industry into public ownership, and ran the economy according to a national plan, we would see even greater economic prosperity than capitalism has brought us. If they've written books to defend this position, they would make interesting reading.
I'm not sure all of your 'young Marxists' are that young. China Mieville, for example, is in his 50's.
Now, since you're obviously very knowledgeable about Marxist writers, can you recommend any books -- written since 1990 -- which defend socialism as an economic system? (By 'socialism' I mean a system in which there is no private ownership of the means of production and distribution. I include 'market socialism' in this definition.)
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union (and the conversion of the Chinese economy to one of private ownership), a near-consensus seems to have emerged on the Left that socialists must pursue their goals by supervising a market (ie capitalist) economy. Don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs -- just re-distribute the eggs.
But, presumably, there are still people who think that if the government took all of industry into public ownership, and ran the economy according to a national plan, we would see even greater economic prosperity than capitalism has brought us. If they've written books to defend this position, they would make interesting reading.
7Doug1943
Some useful links for anyone interested in this topic:
Marx and Engels were full of praise for capitalism and the capitalist class, because of the astonishing growth of the forces of production -- the foundation of all other social progress -- that comes with the growth of capitalism. The relevant data can be found here: {https://humanprogress.org/datasets/ }
They thought that socialism would be an even greater step forward, because the growth of the forces of production would be accelerated when that growth was subject to rational planning. Of course, that didn't happen. Part of the explanation for the failure of socialism can be found here: { https://mises.org/library/book/economic-calculation-socialist-commonwealth }
For Marxist works in general (including those of Marx and Engels, see this admirable site: { https://www.marxists.org/admin/intro/index.htm }
For someone who is not very familiar with Marxism, and wants a good, readable introduction to it, I recommend this book, although it's very hard to find now, being almost a century old: Towards the Understanding of Karl Marx { https://www.amazon.com/Towards-Understanding-Karl-Marx-Interpretation/dp/1573928... } by the late Sidney Hook (written when he was a revolutionary Marxist). { https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Hook } (Of course, it's his own interpretation, which someone said was "What Marx would have written had he been a pupil of John Dewey.")
I have not read most of the books cited by Lola above, but the best case I've seen for socialism was written by an Australian, David McMullen { https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_McMullen }, entitled Bright Future: Abundance and Progress in the 21st Century . { https://www.amazon.com/Bright-Future-Abundance-Progress-Century/dp/0646468324/ } It didn't convince me, but I thought it was a good effort. (I may have been biassed because McMullen is one of those rare Marxists who actually believe in democracy.)
Marx and Engels were full of praise for capitalism and the capitalist class, because of the astonishing growth of the forces of production -- the foundation of all other social progress -- that comes with the growth of capitalism. The relevant data can be found here: {https://humanprogress.org/datasets/ }
They thought that socialism would be an even greater step forward, because the growth of the forces of production would be accelerated when that growth was subject to rational planning. Of course, that didn't happen. Part of the explanation for the failure of socialism can be found here: { https://mises.org/library/book/economic-calculation-socialist-commonwealth }
For Marxist works in general (including those of Marx and Engels, see this admirable site: { https://www.marxists.org/admin/intro/index.htm }
For someone who is not very familiar with Marxism, and wants a good, readable introduction to it, I recommend this book, although it's very hard to find now, being almost a century old: Towards the Understanding of Karl Marx { https://www.amazon.com/Towards-Understanding-Karl-Marx-Interpretation/dp/1573928... } by the late Sidney Hook (written when he was a revolutionary Marxist). { https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Hook } (Of course, it's his own interpretation, which someone said was "What Marx would have written had he been a pupil of John Dewey.")
I have not read most of the books cited by Lola above, but the best case I've seen for socialism was written by an Australian, David McMullen { https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_McMullen }, entitled Bright Future: Abundance and Progress in the 21st Century . { https://www.amazon.com/Bright-Future-Abundance-Progress-Century/dp/0646468324/ } It didn't convince me, but I thought it was a good effort. (I may have been biassed because McMullen is one of those rare Marxists who actually believe in democracy.)
8LolaWalser
>6 Doug1943:
Clicking on the authors I've listed will lead you to the list of their works on LT, from which you can make your choices as suits. For more, make https://versobooks.com your first stop. They have not just book descriptions but also blogs, interviews, essays, all helpful in pinpointing the desired topics.
Thomas Piketty and Branko Milanovic have both written bestsellers (and started a party, in Piketty's case) with a socialist programme. There are (possibly literally) a TON of-- recent, 21 century -- books about alternatives to capitalism. Here's just the first random find, on Amazon : After Capitalism by David Schweickart. When I looked for the touchstone, dozens of similar titles came up even here on this podunk liberal site.
Even the books that choose for the main theme to explicate capitalism (mostly to young people) by default include notions on alternatives, such as Hadas Thier's A People's Guide to Capitalism: An Introduction to Marxist Economics or Jabali's It's Not You, It's Capitalism: Why It's Time to Break Up and How to Move On or Bini Adamczak's Communism for kids.
>7 Doug1943:
Right (but also not really), Marx and Engels wrote enthusiastically about capitalism--BECAUSE its development grew the forces that would end it.
There's absolutely no reason to read the likes of Sidney Hook for an introduction to marxism, except for those (scholars, presumably) who are interested in the HISTORY of marxism. I would think that my reference post made clear that marxism is being explicated, written about, and used today, in the 21st century, by the 21st century people who have seen and lived things Sidney Hook did not.
Contrary to the right wing slanders, Marx never saw himself as a prophet, or his works as "recipes". Against both the absolute hostility of the pro-capitalists and the self-serving opportunism of Stalinism, Marx embodied a scientific principle, clearly discernible already in the Communist Manifesto. In short words, C or D may happen if A and B continues happening. Always follow reality and adjust the theory accordingly. A statistician might call it Bayesian inference: hypotheses get updated as novel data emerges.
Marx didn't live long enough to see, for example, the gathering of revolutionary working class forces in Tzarist Russia. But we know from the response to the Paris Commune that he was always always working, never ossifying in doctrine for doctrine's sake (that was the business of managers of the communist states during the Cold War).
Edited to add live link.
Clicking on the authors I've listed will lead you to the list of their works on LT, from which you can make your choices as suits. For more, make https://versobooks.com your first stop. They have not just book descriptions but also blogs, interviews, essays, all helpful in pinpointing the desired topics.
Thomas Piketty and Branko Milanovic have both written bestsellers (and started a party, in Piketty's case) with a socialist programme. There are (possibly literally) a TON of-- recent, 21 century -- books about alternatives to capitalism. Here's just the first random find, on Amazon : After Capitalism by David Schweickart. When I looked for the touchstone, dozens of similar titles came up even here on this podunk liberal site.
Even the books that choose for the main theme to explicate capitalism (mostly to young people) by default include notions on alternatives, such as Hadas Thier's A People's Guide to Capitalism: An Introduction to Marxist Economics or Jabali's It's Not You, It's Capitalism: Why It's Time to Break Up and How to Move On or Bini Adamczak's Communism for kids.
>7 Doug1943:
Right (but also not really), Marx and Engels wrote enthusiastically about capitalism--BECAUSE its development grew the forces that would end it.
There's absolutely no reason to read the likes of Sidney Hook for an introduction to marxism, except for those (scholars, presumably) who are interested in the HISTORY of marxism. I would think that my reference post made clear that marxism is being explicated, written about, and used today, in the 21st century, by the 21st century people who have seen and lived things Sidney Hook did not.
Contrary to the right wing slanders, Marx never saw himself as a prophet, or his works as "recipes". Against both the absolute hostility of the pro-capitalists and the self-serving opportunism of Stalinism, Marx embodied a scientific principle, clearly discernible already in the Communist Manifesto. In short words, C or D may happen if A and B continues happening. Always follow reality and adjust the theory accordingly. A statistician might call it Bayesian inference: hypotheses get updated as novel data emerges.
Marx didn't live long enough to see, for example, the gathering of revolutionary working class forces in Tzarist Russia. But we know from the response to the Paris Commune that he was always always working, never ossifying in doctrine for doctrine's sake (that was the business of managers of the communist states during the Cold War).
Edited to add live link.
9Doug1943
Okay, thanks for this. What I'm looking for is a defense of genuine socialism -- state ownership of the economy -- not attacks on capitalism which just imply that socialism would be better. (Those are easy enough: capitalism, to steal a phrase attributed to Churchill about democracy, is the worst system in the world, except for all the others.)
As for Marxism as a theory of history, I happen to think that historical materialism -- of 'some sort', as the late Christopher Hitchens said -- is valid. You don't have to be a Marxist to believe this. (For example, the great Thomas Babbington Macaulay put the English tradition of liberty and resisting absolute monarchy down to the English Channel, the role of which in making invasions very difficult, deprived English monarchs of an excuse for having a large standing army. Pure materialism. Laid out in greater detail in Prisoners of Geography)
And yes, Marx did not have a detailed 'blueprint' for socialism -- beyond the belief that state ownership would be superior to the market, something which was much more understandable in the middle of the 19th Century, when the number of commodities was orders of magnitude smaller than today.
Now, the provenly-wrong idea that the economy should be run by the government is confined to places where ideas being wrong don't matter, like the academy. No mass Leftist party seeking to improve the lives of its followers advocates it.
As for Marxism as a theory of history, I happen to think that historical materialism -- of 'some sort', as the late Christopher Hitchens said -- is valid. You don't have to be a Marxist to believe this. (For example, the great Thomas Babbington Macaulay put the English tradition of liberty and resisting absolute monarchy down to the English Channel, the role of which in making invasions very difficult, deprived English monarchs of an excuse for having a large standing army. Pure materialism. Laid out in greater detail in Prisoners of Geography)
And yes, Marx did not have a detailed 'blueprint' for socialism -- beyond the belief that state ownership would be superior to the market, something which was much more understandable in the middle of the 19th Century, when the number of commodities was orders of magnitude smaller than today.
Now, the provenly-wrong idea that the economy should be run by the government is confined to places where ideas being wrong don't matter, like the academy. No mass Leftist party seeking to improve the lives of its followers advocates it.
