demystifier

On inevitablity of Communism:

Marx/Engels didn't see communism as inevitable. Most Communists/Socialists in history haven't see it as such, and most now don't see it as such. Some do, but they are in the far minority. Generally, this notion is put on this camp because of a phrase lifted from the end of the communist manifesto where Marx talks about the fall of capitalism and the rise of the workers as being "equally inevitable". This was a highly rhetorical ending to a piece of political propaganda meant to gain people to a cause, not Marxist social theory. Even earlier in the Manifesto (second paragraph), Marx lays out a general idea of "a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes" (i.e. socialism or barbarism). Taking a wider view of Marx/Engels writings at a whole (especially more theorectical writings), it makes more sense to see the "equally inevitable" statement as being meant to gain people to a cause, not as what they really theoretically thought about economics. Does this mean they were "playing politics" as well as writing ideas....yes, but why should this surprise anyone?

On "metaphysics" of Marxism:

Could you please point these out? I've never heard of this. What do you mean?

Tom Sawyer

I think communism is an ideology and religions are ideologies. So the reason they are so similar is that they are both subsets of ideologies, not that one is a subset of the other.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

I would be very interested in reading any examples of mysiticsm in Marxism/Leninism. I have read that Marxist/Leninist Communism was mystical, or had prominent mystical elements, but I would love some verification.

(Yes, I plan to get around to reading Marx, one of these days...)

Keith.

August Spies

Keith Russell: You should go read his economic manuscripts of his early days. Quick read and deals with his more enduring ideas (alienation and such)

demystifier

I wonder if some of the people who charge Marxist writings to be mystical are really meaning that some of the points of Marxist writings are highly abstract, and that the people charging them to be mystical interpret them as such because they are more familar and in agreement with conceptions of naive realism and some of its philosophically-linked ideologies (objectivism, some varieties of libertarianism, etc) that are popular in the freethought/secular community.

I could be off here, but I've probably read around 500 pages of Marx, and I don't recall any genuine mysticism in it. Many concepts are abstract and require more than a surface-level understanding of reality before they themselves can be understood, but this is common for economic and social theory.

Of course, I could be wrong. Can anyone show or explain what they mean by such mysticism?

Wiploc

Paul, welcome to the II boards!
crc

Silent Acorns

Just some ideas that crystallized while I was reading this thread:

I think it's important to point out that there are two types of communism: Theoretical Communism (TC) and Applied Communism (AC). Karl Marx and other theorists tried to formulate the ideal socio-economic system, while it was Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. who actually tried to implement their ideas. Anyone who has ever tried to apply complex theoretical ideas to practical problems will know that theory usually leaves something to be desired. For example, we have an excellent understanding of fluid mechanics and thermodynamics but we are still generations away from reliable weather prediction.

The TCs formulated their ideas in the 19th century in an environment where Religious and Capitalist power were strongly allied (if not literally united). The TCs naturally concluded that to attain their ideal world, both of these powers must be overthrown. Nothing about the economic theories behind communism necessitated atheism, but they did require the dismantling of church power.

Now put yourself in Lenin's shoes for a moment. You have the power of the Tsar absolutely linked with the power of the Orthodox Church (the two reinforced each other's power and legitimacy). Obviously, the Tsar had to go and he had three basic choices with the Church: destroy it utterly, let it remain independent, or replace it with something else that he (or the party) controlled. Clearly, he couldn't trust the Church not to fight against him, so it too had to go. He obviously chose the third option.

It should be obvious to most people here that you can't turn a superstitious theist into a rational atheist overnight, let alone 200 million of them. The instant Lenin decided to become a doer, not just a thinker, he was forced to make these sorts of decisions. I'm not an expert in Soviet history, so I don't know how it was all done, but eventually a "cult of Lenin" replaced the "cult of Christ". In such a form, the differences between Communism and Religion become paper thin.

In practice, it seems that it is very difficult (if not impossible) to establish a radically new economic order without destroying all the old order's institutions, especially if you are surrounded by powerful forces that embrace the old order. As such, it becomes tempting to start adopting some of the more useful methods of the old order, if only in self defense. And once you start, it's hard to turn back.

In summary, I believe that Theoretical Communism's atheism lies in the political realities in 19th century Europe, while the "Religion" of Applied Communism lies in the political realities in 20th century Russia, China, etc.

Gunnaheave

Most of what i would have to say has alreaedy been handled by the other posters, but I would want to emphasize one point: a philosophical outlook is not necessarily 'successful,' just because it has a number of nominal adherents, not even if they become politically powerful. One can seriously question the committment of 'communist nations' to Marxist thought and communist ideals. The formation of 'communist' states might very well be said to have little to do with Marxism itself, and still less to do with atheism as such.

More importantly, political hegemoiny simply isn't the measure of a successful philosophy. When I state that I am an atheist myself, I do not see myself as advocating a political agenda as such, and I would hardly regard it as an essential component of that atheism to spread it around the globe.

demystifier

Hey Charlie, nice to see a familiar face. This should be a fun place for discussion....

Speaking of, I do still want to be shown those mystical elements of Marxism.....could someone who was talking about them please point them out?

I've never come across any like that, but I've only read 10% of the Marx stuff (the old guy didn't know how to shut up :P), and maybe there is some really weird mystical stuff I've never been exposed to.

Neilium

... except for the part about Marxism being a materialist philosophy.

I'm not so sure Lenin made the decision to deify himself. My understanding was the choice was made for him after his death.

-Neil