Marxism in discussion

[october_lost]

I thought Marxism was about workers and political action, but why does it always seem threads on discussing is ideas always become so obscure and always bring on board a dozen or so intellectuals, many of whom most people have never heard of?

Does this sort of talk ghettoise the left, I certainly think so....

 

[Ryazan]

Working class people do read Marx, but not the type who have become workers through the prism of some radical class analysis.

 

[Hanfstaengl]

I like marxism when it is applied to our own decision making. What would Marx have done about something we are in the position to change?

 

[Ryazan]

Had a drink. Or three.

 

[october_lost]

Working class people do read Marx, but not the type who have become workers through the prism of some radical class analysis.

So Marx is defunct?

 

[Pickman's model]

So Marx is defunct?

he is an ex-philosopher.

 

[General Ludd]

I thought Marxism was about workers and political action, but why does it always seem threads on discussing is ideas always become so obscure and always bring on board a dozen or so intellectuals, many of whom most people have never heard of?

Threads on Marxism on this forum normally consist of people who know a lot about the subject arguing with each other, in which situation references to the work of others is both inevitable and desirable. There aren't really many "I know nothing about Marxism, could you please explain this, this and this to me please" threads. If there were and they quickly ended up as most threads on Marxism currently do that would be a problem, but I don't think that is the case.

 

[118118]

There aren't really many "I know nothing about Marxism, could you please explain this, this and this to me please" threads. If there were and they quickly ended up as most threads on Marxism currently do that would be a problem, but I don't think that is the case.

I asked what economic relation is! And no-one replied

 

[october_lost]

Threads on Marxism on this forum normally consist of people who know a lot about the subject arguing with each other, in which situation references to the work of others is both inevitable and desirable. There aren't really many "I know nothing about Marxism, could you please explain this, this and this to me please" threads. If there were and they quickly ended up as most threads on Marxism currently do that would be a problem, but I don't think that is the case.

I disagree, I think when we talk about politics, especially if its working class politics, we shouldnt use language which isnt accessible to the vast majority of people. Unfortuantely Marxists are in a class of their own when it comes to limiting the participation of others....

 

[Pickman's model]

I disagree, I think when we talk about politics, especially if its working class politics, we shouldnt use language which isnt accessible to the vast majority of people. Unfortuantely Marxists are in a class of their own when it comes to limiting the participation of others....

that's a load of dialectix!

 

[General Ludd]

I disagree, I think when we talk about politics, especially if its working class politics, we shouldnt use language which isnt accessible to the vast majority of people.

Surely it depends on who we're talking about politics to. The concept of dialetics certainly isn't understood by most people but you certainly wouldn't want to replace every occurence of the word dialetic with an explanation of what dialetic means in easily understood language, it'd make posts on the subject ten times the length they are now.

There are lots of things that, whilst they're certainly not too 'difficult' for everyone to understand, can't be understood without an investment of significant quantities of time and energy, and so can't be discussed in a manner that anyone could understand.

 

[Pilgrim]

I disagree, I think when we talk about politics, especially if its working class politics, we shouldnt use language which isnt accessible to the vast majority of people. Unfortuantely Marxists are in a class of their own when it comes to limiting the participation of others....

I must admit, it certainly puts me off, having to wade through reams of jargon I've never heard, from books I've probably never read, by intellectuals I've probably never heard of.

The thing that really pisses me off is that I see and hear people going on about how we should be outward-looking and relevent to the world today, and then there appear threads about some obscure individual or sect from decades ago, which often descends into the jargon-quoting pseud-fest I refer to earlier.

I look at threads like that and think 'How in the name of Satan's Trousers can what happened at Kronstadt be relevent to UK politics in 2005?' Interesting to Anarchists/Leninists perhaps, but I doubt the average man or woman in the street even knows where Kronstadt IS, much less cares what went on there in 1921. And even to a lot of Anarchists, Kronstadt is largely yet another lesson in why we should never trust Marxist-Leninists and Trots.

 

[General Ludd]

I look at threads like that and think 'How in the name of Satan's Trousers can what happened at Kronstadt be relevent to UK politics in 2005?'

Why should topics that aren't 'relevant' be excluded from discussion? I post on bulletin boards for pleasure and education, not to convert the masses.

 

[Pickman's model]

Why should topics that aren't 'relevant' be excluded from discussion? I post on bulletin boards for pleasure and education, not to convert the masses.

do you?