17 minutes ago, exchemist said:

That, again, was not always so, though I expect it may be today. There was a time when many on the Left seemed determined to fit the world into their ideology, regardless of the evidence. At that time it was the centre-Right where one found the pragmatists, interested in what worked rather than ideology.

What time was that? Speaking as a Marxist, other than Stalin's suppression of genetics and promotion of Lamarckism, I don't find any examples of the left being terribly irrational. Perhaps I don't know enough despite being a history buff. :)

Just now, Otto Kretschmer said:

What time was that? Speaking as a Marxist, other than Stalin's suppression of genetics and promotion of Lamarckism, I don't find any examples of the left being terribly irrational. Perhaps I don't know enough despite being a history buff. :)

The Marxists of the 1970s, when I was an undergraduate, were the classic exemplars of the rigid ideologues I am talking about. It was obvious that all the countries that had embraced Marxism were autocratic police states and economic failures, yet as each example was exposed they flitted dutifully to the next, until that too was shown to be awful. Russia, China, Cuba, even Albania, all had their turn as the hoped-for Marxist paradise. The Marxist students were mainly to be found in the humanities at my university.

I remember my mother, teaching English at a school with a Marxist head of department, telling me of visiting Stratford-upon-Avon. As the coach wound its way through pretty English villages, this guy gloomily remarked with a sigh:”Somehow I don’t think there ever will be a revolution in this country.” The amount of cant and delusional bullshit around on the Left at that time was phenomenal.

Edited June 3Jun 3 by exchemist

6 hours ago, exchemist said:

The Marxists of the 1970s, when I was an undergraduate, were the classic exemplars of the rigid ideologues I am talking about. It was obvious that all the countries that had embraced Marxism were autocratic police states and economic failures, yet as each example was exposed they flitted dutifully to the next, until that too was shown to be awful.

Yep, I remember lefty Susan Sontag heaping scorn on the Marxists back then, getting booed by the ideologues for saying this in a famous speech...

Communism is Fascism—successful Fascism, if you will. What we have called Fascism is, rather, the form of tyranny that can be overthrown—that has, largely, failed. I repeat: not only is Fascism (and overt military rule) the probable destiny of all Communist societies—especially when their populations are moved to revolt—but Communism is in itself a variant, the most successful variant, of Fascism.

Communism has nothing to do with Fascism. They aim to achieve completely different goals (a highly egalitarian society versus an extremely elitist one) and they have completely different philosophical underpinnings. You're conflating Fascism with authoritarianism/one party rule which you shouldn't be doing (the phrase "left wing Fascist" comes from this misunderstanding of Fascism)

Sontag wasn't conflating. She was saying fascism is where communist societies end up. They start out quite differently. But if you look at communist societies, they devolve towards what is the dictionary definition of fascism:

Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by dictatorial rule, suppression of opposition, militarism, and subordination of individual interests to the perceived interests of the nation. It rejects liberal democratic values, individualism, pluralism, and humanism.

Don't misunderstand me, the original views of Karl Marx are not at all fascist, except in the sense that he saw one path towards the egalitarian worker's paradise as through "dictatorship of the proletariat." He wasn't saying that should be a permanent state of governance. But ideologies get corrupted by people besotted by power and who lust for total control.

Clearer, now?

26 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Sontag wasn't conflating. She was saying fascism is where communist societies end up. They start out quite differently. But if you look at communist societies, they devolve towards what is the dictionary definition of fascism:

Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by dictatorial rule, suppression of opposition, militarism, and subordination of individual interests to the perceived interests of the nation. It rejects liberal democratic values, individualism, pluralism, and humanism.

Don't misunderstand me, the original views of Karl Marx are not at all fascist, except in the sense that he saw one path towards the egalitarian worker's paradise as through "dictatorship of the proletariat." He wasn't saying that should be a permanent state of governance. But ideologies get corrupted by people besotted by power and who lust for total control.

Clearer, now?

Quite. The common feature is a political ideology that maintains it knows better what is good for people than the people know for themselves. So it imposes a system on society and uses coercion to achieve conformity. All Marxist states have done this, without exception. The means of coercion used naturally end up similar to those used by far right dictators. And thus the system often leads to similar cults of personality around an all powerful leader: Stalin, Mao, Enver Hoxha, Tito, Fidel Castro, Kim Il Sung……..

It is quite ridiculous for any Marxist today to ignore or deny the historical tendency of the ideology to breed such characters. There has never been a Marxist state that was also a liberal democracy.

Any modern expression of Marxism needs to face its past and convince people of what it would do differently to prevent repetition. And I, for one, will take a lot of convincing.

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

Sontag wasn't conflating. She was saying fascism is where communist societies end up. They start out quite differently. But if you look at communist societies, they devolve towards what is the dictionary definition of fascism:

Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by dictatorial rule, suppression of opposition, militarism, and subordination of individual interests to the perceived interests of the nation. It rejects liberal democratic values, individualism, pluralism, and humanism.

Don't misunderstand me, the original views of Karl Marx are not at all fascist, except in the sense that he saw one path towards the egalitarian worker's paradise as through "dictatorship of the proletariat." He wasn't saying that should be a permanent state of governance. But ideologies get corrupted by people besotted by power and who lust for total control.

Clearer, now?

Another crucial difference is that all Fascism is reactionary, i.e. it attempts to not just freeze the socioeconomic order that exists, but to actually roll it back to an earlier stage... you know, those good ol' days when men were real men, women knew their real place and so on. It's difficult to claim popular mandate when Olaf Scholz had an approval rating of 15% with the entire German government hovering around 25%.

This being said, Marxism is compatible with liberal democracy - see Rosa Luxemburg's thought (Luxemburgism)

Edited June 4Jun 4 by Otto Kretschmer

54 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Another crucial difference is that all Fascism is reactionary, i.e. it attempts to not just freeze the socioeconomic order that exists, but to actually roll it back to an earlier stage... you know, those good ol' days when men were real men, women knew their real place and so on. It's difficult to claim popular mandate when Olaf Scholz had an approval rating of 15% with the entire German government hovering around 25%.

This being said, Marxism is compatible with liberal democracy - see Rosa Luxemburg's thought (Luxemburgism)

It never has been historically, though.

9 minutes ago, exchemist said:

It never has been historically, though.

The future is unknown as they say. 😼

If you rolled the clock back to 1875 AD USA (150 years ago), the fruits of liberal democracy wouldn't exactly make you smile - wealth inequality that would make today's US blush with envy, majority of the population working 12 hours per day for poverty wages, no pensions, public healthcare, sick leaves or vacations, minimal workplace safety regulations, child labor. Women with no right to vote, pursue higher education and with few employment opportunities. Private companies running their own towns and Pinkertons dispersing labor demonstrations. And that was at a time when US had already been a democracy for 100 years and UK for 200.

Enter the Gilded Age.

Edited June 4Jun 4 by Otto Kretschmer

6 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

The future is unknown as they say. 😼

If you rolled the clock back to 1875 AD USA (150 years ago), the fruits of liberal democracy wouldn't exactly make you smile - wealth inequality that would make today's US blush with envy, majority of the population working 12 hours per day for poverty wages, no pensions, public healthcare, sick leaves or vacations, minimal workplace safety regulations, child labor. Women with no right to vote, pursue higher education and with few employment opportunities. Private companies running their own towns and Pinkertons dispersing labor demonstrations. And that was at a time when US had already been a democracy for 100 years and UK for 200.

Enter the Gilded Age.

Yes but we are in 2025 now. Appealing to the world of 150 years ago is of limited relevance in arguing what, if anything, Marxism has to offer us today.

Such things as workers rights, health and safety at work laws, universal suffrage etc were not won for us by Marxists but by left of centre political parties, working within a parliamentary democracy.

39 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Yes but we are in 2025 now. Appealing to the world of 150 years ago is of limited relevance in arguing what, if anything, Marxism has to offer us today.

Such things as workers rights, health and safety at work laws, universal suffrage etc were not won for us by Marxists but by left of centre political parties, working within a parliamentary democracy.

Sometimes one cannot expect things to work right away or work on the first try - US constitution (with all it's amazing personal liberties) was adopted in 1787 and the US did not even have universal male suffrage until 1867 and women's suffrage until 1919. That is longer than the existence of the USSR.

And even western historians admit that the October Revolution was a major reason why things like the New Deal and European Social Democracy came into power.

Edited June 4Jun 4 by Otto Kretschmer

6 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Sometimes one cannot expect things to work right away or work on the first try - US constitution (with all it's amazing personal liberties) was adopted in 1787 and the US did not even have universal male suffrage until 1867 and women's suffrage until 1919. That is longer than the existence of the USSR.

And even western historians admit that the October Revolution was a major reason why things like the New Deal and European Social Democracy came into power.

This still offers no argument for what Marxism has to offer us today, let alone any reason to suppose it would not lead, once again, to a one party police state that oppresses the people, as it has every time in history up to now.

Because that, like it or not, is the historical “baggage” that Marxism carries. If you think it can be adopted in a liberal democracy, it will have to persuade the people to choose it voluntarily. For that, its dreadful historical record will have to be convincingly addressed.

29 minutes ago, exchemist said:

This still offers no argument for what Marxism has to offer us today, let alone any reason to suppose it would not lead, once again, to a one party police state that oppresses the people, as it has every time in history up to now.

Because that, like it or not, is the historical “baggage” that Marxism carries. If you think it can be adopted in a liberal democracy, it will have to persuade the people to choose it voluntarily. For that, its dreadful historical record will have to be convincingly addressed.

Social Democracy (which is what most people mean by "left wing" or "progressive" politics) is a symptomatic treatment. It elimiantes the symptoms of unequality to some degree but not the root causes - the capitalists still posess massive material advantage over the working class and (even more crucially), their material interests are still opposite to material interests of the workers. So even if Social Democracy can bring benefits in the short term, in the long term the capitalists will do everything they can to undermine it and roll back all the elaborate social safety nets - for the US bourgeoisie even Keynesism was too much to swallow. Thus, the working class would constantly need to fight for the things they already have.

Not to mention the fact that the whole western "welfare state" is enabled by massive exploitation of labor and natural resources in the Global South (the Unequal Exchange).

Just now, Otto Kretschmer said:

Social Democracy (which is what most people mean by "left wing" or "progressive" politics) is a symptomatic treatment. It elimiantes the symptoms of unequality to some degree but not the root causes - the capitalists still posess massive material advantage over the working class and (even more crucially), their material interests are still opposite to material interests of the workers. So even if Social Democracy can bring benefits in the short term, in the long term the capitalists will do everything they can to undermine it and roll back all the elaborate social safety nets - for the US bourgeoisie even Keynesism was too much to swallow. Thus, the working class would constantly need to fight for the things they already have.

Not to mention the fact that the whole western "welfare state" is enabled by massive exploitation of labor and natural resources in the Global South (the Unequal Exchange).

I think it's about time you started arguing from scientifically accredited facts rahter than valueless journalistic soundbites.

On 4/29/2025 at 11:10 PM, studiot said:

So far as I can see anyone who thinks that you can only lean left or right is being very unscientific and not thinking rationally.

Pity this ended up as a joke as it was meant to be serious.

Interesting chat, and the pitfalls of Marxism and socialist democracy both point towards the problems Bakunin saw in all forms of statism. What Bakunin had in mind was probably too utopian to really implement, even in a simpler era, and such a benign anarchy would now create a vacuum for large global corporations to fill in. IOW, Bakuninists could never overthrow capitalists whose companies would become quasi states that would crush all the grassroots group and revolutions. Anarchy of the workers would collapse into anarchy of the corporations, like a regression to warring fiefdoms.

1 hour ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Social Democracy (which is what most people mean by "left wing" or "progressive" politics) is a symptomatic treatment. It elimiantes the symptoms of unequality to some degree but not the root causes - the capitalists still posess massive material advantage over the working class and (even more crucially), their material interests are still opposite to material interests of the workers. So even if Social Democracy can bring benefits in the short term, in the long term the capitalists will do everything they can to undermine it and roll back all the elaborate social safety nets - for the US bourgeoisie even Keynesism was too much to swallow. Thus, the working class would constantly need to fight for the things they already have.

Not to mention the fact that the whole western "welfare state" is enabled by massive exploitation of labor and natural resources in the Global South (the Unequal Exchange).

Nice sermon, but again, nothing here to suggest a practical political programme that could be implemented without coercion of the people. It reminds me of the ideologically rigid speeches I used to hear at university in the 1970s.

I’m sorry but I don’t see anything here that can take a 2025 liberal democratic society forward.

Edited June 4Jun 4 by exchemist

Which part of my previous reply is a "sermon" and what precisely do you disagree with?

On 4/29/2025 at 4:21 PM, TheVat said:

This doesn't seem like a difficult question for anyone not in a coma the past decade.

Hint: which end of the ideological spectrum is fond of science denial and crackpot conspiracy theories. Guess correctly and you may win a tinfoil hat, an intestinal UV lamp, a can of cooking lard, some turmeric vaccine, and a boxcar of carbon neutral coal!

The thing is, there are plenty on the left who believe in healing crystals, psychics, astrology and the like.

They just tend to not be the elected officials, at the higher echelons at least.

15 hours ago, swansont said:

The thing is, there are plenty on the left who believe in healing crystals, psychics, astrology and the like.

They just tend to not be the elected officials, at the higher echelons at least.

Thinking further on this, I would differentiate between goofball ideas that don't much affect public policy and bad science ideas that do. Perhaps the Left tends more towards the former and the Right the latter. So the Right positions are more visible and arouse stronger protest. People will march about climate and environment or vaccinating, but not so much about healing crystals or fines for Virgos who are overly critical. If congresswoman Ocasio Cortez hangs crystals in her house, we aren't going to hear about it.

Edited June 5Jun 5 by TheVat
Add

20 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Which part of my previous reply is a "sermon" and what precisely do you disagree with?

All of it is a sermon, moralising about the political condition of the world, in the abstract.

My objection to so much of this Marxist stuff is one gets these sermons about how bad everything allegedly is but, as I have already pointed out, no practical political programme. Most importantly, there is no hint as to how any of the ideas can be put into practice by democratic choice at the ballot box. What would a Marxist candidate party’s manifesto look like?

If, as you claim, Marxism can be compatible with democracy, there needs to be some engagement with that issue, especially in view of Marxism’s bad historical record wherever it has been tried. Historically, the route to a Marxist government has been violent revolution, followed by a one party state - and coercion of the population by secret police. Those of us old enough to remember the Soviet Bloc and Maoist China will need a lot of convincing that this particular leopard has changed its spots.

Edited June 5Jun 5 by exchemist

47 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Yes but we are in 2025 now. Appealing to the world of 150 years ago is of limited relevance in arguing what, if anything, Marxism has to offer us today.

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

Nice sermon, but again, nothing here to suggest a practical political programme that could be implemented without coercion of the people. It reminds me of the ideologically rigid speeches I used to hear at university in the 1970s.

I’m sorry but I don’t see anything here that can take a 2025 liberal democratic society forward.

Marxism is not simply a political program and arguably its philosophical influence ins more relevant in modern times. What is still relevant are the criticisms of capitalism and class struggles, though it is less frequently referred as that outside academic discourse, I suspect. But undeniably Marxist influence are part of modern economic system (mostly implicitly) if only to more or less successfully soften issues identified from Marxist frameworks. Social justice and related issues are often developed under frameworks that at least superficially appear Marxist.

Some of the developments seem to me analogous to the development of Darwin's theories, though it is outside my expertise to really be certain.

On 6/4/2025 at 5:47 PM, exchemist said:

Yes but we are in 2025 now. Appealing to the world of 150 years ago is of limited relevance in arguing what, if anything, Marxism has to offer us today.

Such things as workers rights, health and safety at work laws, universal suffrage etc were not won for us by Marxists but by left of centre political parties, working within a parliamentary democracy.

Marxism is more of a predictor of revolution, if democracy can't limit or arrest the economic race to the bottom; still seems relevant today.

18 hours ago, exchemist said:

All of it is a sermon, moralising about the political condition of the world, in the abstract.

Isn't that how a sermon works?

It tells a story about why 'X' is bad, and it should be avoided.

19 hours ago, exchemist said:

My objection to so much of this Marxist stuff is one gets these sermons about how bad everything allegedly is but, as I have already pointed out, no practical political programme. Most importantly, there is no hint as to how any of the ideas can be put into practice by democratic choice at the ballot box. What would a Marxist candidate party’s manifesto look like?

If, as you claim, Marxism can be compatible with democracy, there needs to be some engagement with that issue, especially in view of Marxism’s bad historical record wherever it has been tried. Historically, the route to a Marxist government has been violent revolution, followed by a one party state - and coercion of the population by secret police. Those of us old enough to remember the Soviet Bloc and Maoist China will need a lot of convincing that this particular leopard has changed its spots.

There is no manifesto, that works for everyone whatever ism one follows.

We could start by trying to avoid the revolution that fixed the leopard's spot.

6 hours ago, CharonY said:

Marxism is not simply a political program and arguably its philosophical influence ins more relevant in modern times. What is still relevant are the criticisms of capitalism and class struggles, though it is less frequently referred as that outside academic discourse, I suspect. But undeniably Marxist influence are part of modern economic system (mostly implicitly) if only to more or less successfully soften issues identified from Marxist frameworks. Social justice and related issues are often developed under frameworks that at least superficially appear Marxist.

Some of the developments seem to me analogous to the development of Darwin's theories, though it is outside my expertise to really be certain.

Yes that’s a fair point, certainly. However in the 1970s, the period I was referring to in which Marxism was so popular among humanities students, it was seen as a political programme, to be implemented by overthrow of the establishment in some way. If today it is merely seen as one lens, or axis, through which to view and analyse economics, that would allay the concerns of those like me that remember all the Marxist-inspired dictatorships of that earlier era.

As it happens I think it is fairly unhelpful, in that it proposes an irreconcilable antagonism between capital and labour that strikes me - from my experience working in a European oil and gas major - as a bit antediluvian and simplistic. But it is true that some modern corporations like Amazon do seem to fit that analysis.

9 hours ago, CharonY said:

Marxism is not simply a political program and arguably its philosophical influence ins more relevant in modern times. What is still relevant are the criticisms of capitalism and class struggles, though it is less frequently referred as that outside academic discourse, I suspect. But undeniably Marxist influence are part of modern economic system (mostly implicitly) if only to more or less successfully soften issues identified from Marxist frameworks. Social justice and related issues are often developed under frameworks that at least superficially appear Marxist.

Some of the developments seem to me analogous to the development of Darwin's theories, though it is outside my expertise to really be certain.

To elaborate on what you've just written - class struggle is far from an abstract term. It results from the very nature of capitalism - in order to extract surplus value (needed for the next capital cycle) the capitalists need to pay their workers less than the total value of the goods/services their produce. This creates a conflict with workers who want to keep as much of that value for themselves as possible. Thus, no true centre-left compromise between labor and capital will ever be possible.

Edited June 6Jun 6 by Otto Kretschmer

22 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Thus, no true centre-left compromise between labor and capital will ever be possible.

It could be if terms like "price gouging" and "unacceptable profit margin" were well defined and discouraged but that is regulation, anathema to the capitalist who will want to squeeze every dime they can from any transaction.