1- Okay, it is true that I can't make a definitive prediction about the future any more than a Marxist can – even though past history supports my claim.
Yes, past history based on material conditions which may or may not hold and may or may not be determinative of social progress in the future.
2- Granted. What model of 'un-flawed' Marxism do you advocate?
Didn't I explain above I'm not a Marxist? I agree with large parts of Marx's analysis of capitalism and class struggle, but disagree with his conclusions-- specifically I regard the concept of an entirely stateless and egalitarian society and a completely organic, self-regulating economy to be as utopian as free-market capitalist theory.
But if I had to choose one model of more or less orthodox Marxism to go with I suppose I'd choose some variety of Council Communism/Left Communism, or maybe DeLeonism.
And why hasn't it materialized yet?
Well, for one thing Leninism basically hijacked the entire socialist movement for over 70 years because people latched on to the one model that had been proven viable for seizing state power, and other alternative models fell by the wayside, but without getting into the historical specifics, I'll just answer your question more generally by saying for the same reason fossil fuels have not yet been replaced as our primary source of energy-- both the necessary conditions and general strength of will are lacking at the moment.
3- No, I totally disagree. The distinction between all adults (consenting to form of a co-op model of trading based on pre-defined goals) and a society with its all forms of heterodoxy and diversities couldn't be more visible. I believe it is a simplification on your part here.
Yes, things get more complex the larger a system we're talking about, which is why I'm no longer an anarchist, as I believe some level of hierarchy is necessary for effective social specialization-- but that does not preclude the possibility of creating a much more democratic, egalitarian, and efficient system of ownership, production and distribution than capitalism. My basic point-- I don't believe in utopia, but we can do a hell of a lot better than what we got now-- to say otherwise is defeatism and/or a lack of imagination at best and ignorant Panglossian determinism at worst.
Futhermore, social relations are not only economic. Weber for example said that social inequality were a largely product of three dimensions; class,status and party. This is responding to what Marx, the father, said as well as others.
No they are not only economic, but specialized society does tend to operate by the "golden rule" (he who has the most gold rules), and has since ancient times. While by no means the only measure of social power, historically it has been the most consistent, and eliminating the vast disparities of wealth created by the engine of capitalism would significantly reduce the vast disparities of social power, and while not creating a classless utopia, would go a long way towards creating a more egalitarian and freer society*
*Presuming, of course, that what replaces capitalism is a robust system that actually empowers workers-- which is where the Leninist model completely fucked up-- it got rid of capitalism but replaced the capitalist class with an oppressive bureaucratic ruling class wielding coercive state power4- Nobody is talking about social stratification being good or bad. I simply am stating the reality of all human societies known to us throughout history; and predicting from that it is likely to continue, ergo at least a from of social inequality will continue to exist. I don't see that prediction particularly farfetched. So feel free to say it is good or bad and try to reduce it thereafter.
Marx and Marxists suggesting the end of social inequality under their governing or a classless society are being incredibly unrealistic.
And again, it's not at all unreasonable to believe a system could be constructed that is superior to the present system in terms of mitigating social inequality. Maybe to be an orthodox Marxist you need to believe in the complete elimination of social inequality, but the reality is that most of us on the radical left are simply doing what we can to improve things.
5- The comment wasn't directed at you, though I'd like to hear what opinion youre of, rather than what you're not.
I favor
(1) an international producers cartel for basic goods, services and resources, run along broadly syndicalist lines, with centralized goals and decentralized execution (ability of workers on the shop floor to self-manage and best decide how to meet central production goals)
(2) competitive workers co-ops in certain industries, with caps on capital conglomeration
(3) a limited and highly decentralized minarchist state to protect the rights of individuals from direct and immediate infringement by others
6- Again, like the case for Islam(s), it is very difficult to quote one form of marxist school of thought as a representitive of the rest i.e. Marx the person, his disciples in the socioligical context (Neo Maxists and Max Weber's followers) and Trotskyists in action.
Well, yeah, but what I'm saying is that I think you're overgeneralizing when you speak of how Marxists act and speak. It's obvious you understand it's a heterogeneous mix, but when you made the initial comment it certainly did sound as if you were treating them as
I'm very much sure that a Maxist sociologist said that racism, not pure xenophobia or supremacism, is the creation of Capitalism - not only a utilised tool by it. I've tried to recall the name and study but I couldn't. I will seach my notes and books and bring you the name or take it back.
I don't care what one sociologist said. In order for you to support your statement, you either need to show me that Marx himself said it or, at the very least, a plurality of Marxists believe it (which probably isn't possible to demonstrate, so best looking at what Marx himself said). And if Marx said racism was created by capitalism, then I'd say he's wrong. Capitalism, AT MOST, created modern institutional racist, though I would prefer the formulation that capitalism made institutional racism more robust and gave it new forms, while at the same time, actually broke down racial social barriers, especially in its later stages.
7- The comment wasn't directed at you personally although, in practice and given the variety of maxists, I can only take my personal encourters with maxists as relevant. The set of marxist ideas, as I said before, is fluffy and fancy, theoretically speaking.
If your experience with Marxists/Marxism, as you say, is primarily from academia, then that would explain your experience. I encountered and developed radical socialist ideas as a result of being active in labor union work, so most of the Marxists I encounter are of a much more practical and grounded variety.
Topic: Marxism derail