tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4413130168723738166.post4187733501788516988..comments2024-02-26T00:59:26.907-08:00Comments on Ana the Imp: What is Marxism?Anastasia F-Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01284602529524462457noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4413130168723738166.post-16835581000599284882010-03-10T15:33:23.750-08:002010-03-10T15:33:23.750-08:00Oh, yes, Harry, and all that followed, including P...Oh, yes, Harry, and all that followed, including Pol Pot.Anastasia F-Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01284602529524462457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4413130168723738166.post-4847121718550213372010-03-10T06:26:34.925-08:002010-03-10T06:26:34.925-08:00Hi Ana,
Interesting explanation about Marxism and ...Hi Ana,<br />Interesting explanation about Marxism and its "derivatives" i.e. Leninism, Stalinism etc.<br />Perhaps you should also add Maoism now Chinese Communism which is the driving force of capitalism in China for the last two decades.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05949573308782388848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4413130168723738166.post-38400574877478066682010-03-10T03:31:12.959-08:002010-03-10T03:31:12.959-08:00Leninism is a form of Marxism, though clearly adap...Leninism is a form of Marxism, though clearly adapted to Russian conditions, and Lenin's own political style. The problem is, Rob, that one gets into really tough territory when one attempts to define what authentic Marxism is or is not. Is late Engels, with all of that heavy determinism, Marxism? Is Kautsky, with his dull instrumentalism, Marxism? And on and on and on. Lenin at least turned the dead theory into a living political practice, a horryfying one from my prespective, but still living. It's dead now, at least I sincerely hope it is.Anastasia F-Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01284602529524462457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4413130168723738166.post-53306064157976742162010-03-10T02:00:42.980-08:002010-03-10T02:00:42.980-08:00Two points: firstly Leninism was not "in no w...Two points: firstly Leninism was not "in no way" correspondent with Marxism. It was very different I'll admit. But what Lenin argued was that the period in between the February and October revolutions was the beginining of the age of Capitalism. He modified the theory to suggest that Russia could speed up the change and development. This was not without logic for before WW1 Russia was the China of it's day i.e. it was the fastest growing economy in the world and was rapidly catching up. Lenin could easily extrapolate from this and other lessons to conclude that change did not necessarily have to occur at a set pace. <br /><br />However Lenin's actions were not necessarily at odds with those put forward by Marx for Marx never said whether the revolution had to be 'top-down' or 'bottom-up'. The one thing Marx did say was that there would have to be a 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' before a truly Communist state could come into being. Lenin was well aware that he was not creating a Communist state. What he thought he was doing was preparing Russia for it. The logic was both Marx's own and also that of Nihilism, which was prominent in many of the circles Lenin moved within.<br /><br />Secondly, practically no theory is without merit. The society we live in today is neither Capitalism nor Communism. It is a mixture of the two; a mixture of collectivism and individualism; of liberal freedoms and socially provided goods; of state owned companies and privately owned companies. The ideas of Marx live on today, they have just been analysed and diluted to be absorbed in country's organically growing political and economic systems.<br /><br />Rob (www.thebigqs.co.uk)Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01228913083942950523noreply@blogger.com