• "You have to give Marx and Engels credit for contributing some of the most powerful and erudite political analyses of our time and which still resonate today. Also I think it has to remembered that they were promoting a political treatise more than a socio-economic commentary; such things are only successful if you pull off a sense of total conviction and belief in your arguments...i.e. no, 'but on the other hands...' and I think even the most critical of Marx and Engels would give them credit for that. That purity of thought is what makes Marxism appealing and you are correct- ironically it makes it akin to a religion and demands of it's follows, an absolutist belief in its ethos. I think you are also correct in pointing out the flaws of Marxism; the rejection of [other :)] religions as a viable community force for good was a mistake, which personally, as a Christian Socialist, I believe was short-sighted and lead to future hidderance of the socialist cause. I would also dispute his view of socialism as a transitory state to communism, when it is a free-standing political ethos in its own right He was also hung up on class differences too much as the defining elements in society's structure; the role of elites and sub-elites which cross class distinctions are more important in my opinion. It's interesting you mention the 'classical Marxist' approach of allowing capitalism to eat itself in order to usher the 'new order.' It is this lazy nihilism that has crippled the Left for so long, until perhaps now, although it still pervades in those who gleefully want to see Wall street collapse,without having to lift a finger of their own to bring it about. I would very strongly dispute your last para though; socialism, not market economics, has achieved the advantages you outlined, which are being eroded now by unregulated market economics, that is doing little more than return us to the status quo of the early 20th century, i.e. that of making the rich richer"

  Skemster - 5 months ago

• " So, thanks, first of all for your considered and well written response. Apologies for the delay in offering my rebuttal. I've been very busy. Numerouno, I'd like to answer your points in reverse order. (I'll get to Skemster's response later in the day!) First of all I think that if you're going to assert that capitalism has lifted people out of poverty then you have some explaining to do. To begin with you have to explain why it is that under capitalism wealth has become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. You also have to explain why it is that more and more people are living below the poverty-line than ever before. And I'd argue that capitalism, rather than destroying class barriers has, in fact accentuated them to the point where the disparity between rich and poor has become blatantly obscene. With regard to the alleged teleological perspective of what you call 'classical Marxists', I'd suggest that there is little in the work of Marx to support the kind of vulgar materialism that such people seem to embrace. Indeed, Marx explicitly suggests that that the outcome of the class-struggle will either end in the establishment of socialism or the common ruin of the contending classes. This seems to me, at least, to imply that Marx did not think that the new society was in any way an historical inevitably. With all due respect I think that your comments about old Karl being unable to support his family are, at best, a little irrelevant. Seems to me that to criticise a man for his personal shortcomings represents an ad hominem attack. Do we condemn great writers because their pursuit of their gift results in a life of poverty when their contribution to humanity at large is so significant? Seems a little unfair to me. I don't think that Marx displayed any kind of idealism in his view of humanity, and I'd be interested in your reasons for thinking that he did. "

  Yoghourt - 5 months ago

This article has no eyewitness yet.