The idea of ​​the disappearance of the State arises as an ideal in Kant (as a cosmopolitan society) and explicitly in Fichte. Every state that serves what it claims to serve ends in the suppression of the state.... — gikehef947

That sounds very interesting, but I don't think it explains how the state "withers away". As we've already seen, the state can't assume an administrative function and at the same disappear. And even if it did disappear, how will society function without a state? Can we imagine a society without a state? I don't think so. Sounds a bit too fanciful in my opinion. And that's a major flaw. What was the purpose of Marxist revolution if we don't even know what the objective was?

To be clear, I would not call myself "a Marxist", — boethius

Well, you may not be a Marxist in theory, but from your comments you may still be a Marxist in the context of this discussion, given that you seem to be defending the position of Marxism. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it's useful to know from the start who is on which side in order to facilitate understanding and debate.

And since you're saying that Marx didn't develop a theory that would be called here a philosophy, with which I tend to agree, it may be worthwhile mentioning the fact that according to critics his system isn't a science or scientific either.

For example, Walicki points out that "Marx was possibly the most extreme utopian" because he didn't support his views by "any scientific arguments whatsoever".

May I ask if you have read Walicki at all, or are you only familiar with pro-Marxist literature?

Personally, I think it is important to consider the views of the critics as well, lest we should end up with a biased, pro-Marxist approach that tends to either overlook or dismiss all the inconsistencies of Marxist theory.

And, of course, there are other Marxist concepts as well, such as "classless society" that would need to be looked into in order to get a better picture.

What is meant by "classless society"? How does it fit in with the concept of "dictatorship of the proletariat"? Has it ever been achieved in any socialist state? Etc.

I still can't find the thread, I don't know what they've done with it.

To be clear, I wouldn't say Marx develops what we would here call "a philosophy" at all, as he never really addresses the question of "why get involved in politics" in the first place. — boethius

That's very interesting because on the other thread I was attacked for questioning whether Marxism is a philosophy and not something else.

However, on this topic, I completely agree concepts are used inconsistently. — boethius

Well, you have no choice but to agree given that the statements are there, black on white. I would recommend you read the articles I suggested because the authors make some very interesting and very strong, in fact irrefutable arguments, in support of their findings.

It may well be the case that, as you say, "when a thinker writes thousands of pages and a phrase only appears once, it's also safe to say it doesn't matter much and shouldn't be used to come to any conclusions that are not obviously supported by the major published works".

However, what happens when the thinker doesn't address the issue anywhere else or when the major published works do not support any alternative conclusion?

As for it "not mattering much", I beg to differ. These are concepts that are central to Marxist theory.

How can you advocate revolution and write thousands of pages justifying it and "forget" to clarify what the actual goal of the revolution consists of, apart from vague statements about "freedom", "equality" and the like? And even these are controversial because on closer scrutiny there are some glaring inconsistencies even there.

Let's not forget that Marx spent most of his life thinking, talking and writing. He had nothing else to do for many years and he believed to be one of the best thinkers on earth. How do we explain these curious holes in his theories?

Edit: If you offer to take someone on a journey and fail to tell them where you're taking them and what's going to happen to them once they arrive at the destination, then this raises some very important and highly justified questions about your offer, does it not?

If we are talking about politics then we must talk about rhetorical ploys. It is important to see how much political rhetoric informs our views of politics. — Fooloso4

I think it's the other way around. Rhetoric is an expression of political thought. Rhetoric may well inform our views of politics but it doesn't originate in our views. Therefore we need to look at its place of origin which is politics and politics is at least partly rooted in psychology.

Historically, these terms are not fixed. The center shifts and with it those who are on either side. Depending on the issue conservatives may be just as determined to change the established order as the liberals. — Fooloso4

The center doesn't shift of its own accord. It shifts further and further to the left under pressure from the left.

When conservatives are determined to "change the established order", the established order tends to be an order established either under pressure from the left opposition or under the rule of the left. In which case, the conservatives more often than not see change as a reversal of leftist policies and a return to the more conservative status quo ante.

The change aimed at by the conservatives is not the same as the change pursued by the left, though the two may partially overlap at times. This is an important distinction to make if you want to understand what my original question meant.

Another related key concept is the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

As already noted, Marxist theory has it that capitalism must progress to socialism and socialism to communism. Marx himself stressed that the socialist state, i.e. the transition phase from capitalism to communism, cannot be anything else than "the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat" (Critique of the Gotha Programme).

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels defined the proletarian movement as “the movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority”.

However, there was no “immense proletarian majority”. Germany in the mid-1800s was still two-thirds rural and the urban industrial workers whom Marx and Engels referred to as “proletariat” were a very small minority. Making proletarians the ruling class would have been an undemocratic endeavor.

This was precisely why the vast majority of the population rejected Marx's revolution, because they didn't feel that it represented their interests. The same happened in the Russian Revolution of 1917. The vast majority, farmers, etc. did not participate and the revolution had to be carried out by a handful of revolutionary intellectuals in collaboration with radicalized workers (another minority) and elements of the military.

"In politics, the term Left derives from the French Revolution as the political groups opposed to the royal veto privilege (Montagnard and Jacobin deputies from the Third Estate) generally sat to the left of the presiding member's chair in parliament while the ones in favour of the royal veto privilege sat on its right."

Wikipedia, Left-wing politics

"The Left Opposition was a faction within the Russian Communist Party (b) from 1923 to 1927 headed de facto by Leon Trotsky. The Left Opposition formed as part of the power struggle within the party leadership that began with the Soviet founder Vladimir Lenin 's illness and intensified with his death in January 1924."

Wikipedia, Left opposition

Yes, that is true but I that does not describe most who consider themselves on the left. Some on the right/conservatives/Republicans will label them "leftists", but that is a rhetorical ploy. — Fooloso4

I'm not talking about "rhetorical ploys".

Historically, liberals were opposed to the ruling conservatives, and socialists to the ruling liberals or conservatives. That's why in historical terms the left stands for opposition to the established order. This is confirmed by the Wikipedia articles quoted above.

Yeah, that's the theory that holds as much truth as, "I'll always love you." — synthesis

You might be right there and it looks like you aren't the only one who thinks so. But I think it's only fair to hear how Marxists see the matter. Just out of curiosity if nothing else.

Well, obviously Lenin and others had their own interpretation of Marxist concepts.

However, according to some analysts like Andrzej Walicki (Marxism and the Leap to the Kingdom of Freedom) both Marx and his successors like Lenin often use concepts inconsistently and the authors I quoted above, Adamiack and Bender, are of the same opinion. Have you read any of them?

If we look at Marx and Engels' own statements, it becomes clear that this is indeed the case.

For example, it is said that “the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the state dies (or withers) away" (Anti-Dühring).

But the state can't wither away if is assumes an administrative role, can it?

Also, I'm not sure that Marx really saw the Paris Commune as an example of socialist revolution. His statements on the Commune seem to be inconsistent. That's what makes it so hard to establish what he actually meant by some concepts that are so central to Marxist thought.

The problem with that definition is that to a greater or lesser degree the status quo is the result of the work of the left, and so, to that extent opposing the status quo would mean opposing themselves. — Fooloso4

Well, some leftists believe in "permanent revolution" so opposing what they stood for previously wouldn't be out of character.

Plus, @frank's definition isn't any better, in so far as he has one at all which I haven't seen yet.

Maybe you're misunderstanding what I'm specifically I'm targeting here — Maw

The psychological analysis of political thought and behavior is a legitimate line of inquiry. It may be inconvenient to some for political reasons but that's their problem.

Troll — frank

You must be talking about yourself given that this is a thread that I started.

By the way the "claims" you're talking about are not mine, they are from Psychology Today and other scientific publications. See the URL links I posted.

Leftism is not defined as an opposition to the status quo. — frank

The term "left" derives from opposition groups in the French Revolution and has been historically used to designate opposition movements. See Wikipedia articles above.

If you believe this to be the "wrong" definition, what is the "right" one? Why is that so difficult to answer?

This existential meaninglessness is directly linked to the current dominance of science as an epistemological mode and the notion that science has undermined beliefs about reality, beliefs which (true or false) provided an ultimate meaning. — emancipate

Correct. Science itself seems to have no definite "truth", just provisional theories that can be replaced with new ones any time.

Not only that, but scientific perspectives are often useless in the context of everyday life.

For example, in the scientific view the earth goes around the sun, but in everyday experience it is the sun that goes around the earth.

As another example, science has it that the human body consists of small particles of energy, or, in medical terms, of blood, bones, muscle and other tissues. But this is not how we look at ourselves and our fellow humans in daily life.

I could go on and on but this is why a less scientific, more "human" view of things is necessary in order to halt the accelerating trend toward dehumanizing society and culture.

Theory has it that capitalism progresses to socialism and socialism to communism.

It seems that the state acquires a prominent position in the socialist phase, but it isn't clear what function it has or what happens to it in the communist phase.

While that is an interesting line of inquiry, it does not displace the central role of politics which is giving more power to some at the expense of others. People with privileges want to keep them. Those deprived of them want more equality. — Valentinus

That's exactly what highlights the problem of political power and its impact on society

In politics, the term Left derives from the French Revolution as the political groups opposed to the royal veto privilege (Montagnard and Jacobin deputies from the Third Estate) generally sat to the left of the presiding member's chair in parliament while the ones in favour of the royal veto privilege sat on its right.

Wikipedia, Left-wing politics

The Left Opposition was a faction within the Russian Communist Party (b) from 1923 to 1927 headed de facto by Leon Trotsky. The Left Opposition formed as part of the power struggle within the party leadership that began with the Soviet founder Vladimir Lenin 's illness and intensified with his death in January 1924.

Wikipedia, Left opposition

I don't know anything about Chinese Philosophy, I think you're confusing me with someone else.

the left, wherever it appears, represents a fusion if diverse agendas arising out of contemporary circumstances. — frank

I never said it's just the left that should be described or analyzed psychologically.

However, by definition, the left represents opposition to the status quo. That's how it got its name, from the opposition sitting on the left in the French parliament.

And opposition means fusion of opposing forces and conflict that historically manifests itself as revolutionary movements.

I’ve only skimmed your posts ... — praxis

So you haven't read the article or my posts. Just what I thought.

Well, you're accusing me of not referring to particular Marxist concepts when I obviously did and do refer to them.

When you're stressing Marx's attention to economics and its relation to philosophy you probably mean economics as a prop to a philosophy that wouldn't otherwise stand on its own feet.

And you still haven't addressed Marxist concepts like "withering away of the state" presumably because you know that they don't stand up to scrutiny.

Marx may have been a philosophical thinker but that doesn't make Marxism a philosophy. These are two totally different issues.

It sounds like you're upset because I dared criticize Marxism. But you failed to address my points on Marxian concepts like "withering away of the state" which I find rather strange from someone who is so knowledgeable about Marx's teachings.

Well, I thought essays by serious historians like Adamiack's "The Withering Away of the State" and Bender's "The Ambiguities of Marx's concepts" were serious critique?

Or are we not allowed any criticism of Marx and Marxism?

The descriptions of Marx are from serious historians like Isaiah Berlin and others. The authors don't necessarily agree with them on all points, but they do mention them as part of a balanced presentation of historical fact. This cannot in any way be construed as ad hominem. Statements regarding a person's character are admissible in a court of law.

Anyway, that was not even my main argument. My main argument is that Marxism does not sound like a philosophy. Even Wikipedia doesn't call it "philosophy".

Do you think that many are struggling with finding deeper meaning, or are you suggesting something else? — Jack Cummins

There is a lot of anger and frustration in the current climate of the pandemic and its material and psychological impact. As shown in one of my other posts, there is some evidence that this is being exploited by political groups and even foreign powers.

More generally, the decline of religion has created a spiritual vacuum that many attempt to fill by turning to activism for all sorts of causes that only serves to polarize and fragmentize society, exacerbating the underlying problems that remain unaddressed.

So, yes, a return to "saner" times, or at least some form of refocusing and reorienting ourselves seems strongly advisable. And this is where the study of Platonic philosophy, for example, may be useful. Particularly helpful would be for philosophy to be presented in a concise, easily understandable form and balanced by some form of practical application. Practice and theory or, in Christian terms ora et labora, "prayer and work".

I don't think reading pro-Marx literature can solve the problem. On the contrary, critical works must be considered. Engels was the head of the pro-Marx propaganda campaign started during Marx's lifetime and carried on after his death. He is definitely not a reliable source. It's just like Communist Party propaganda in communist states.

"Marx and Engels were philosophers"

Yes, but that's the Marxist view of the issue. I was looking for a more non-partisan perspective. IMO that's the only way to develop an objective critique of Marxism.

The Buddhist world was always populated by gods (and demons, yaksas, various other supernatural beings.) But the dogma makes it clear that the Buddha is 'teacher of gods and men'. — Wayfarer

Correct. The evidence stretching from Buddhist texts to religious art strongly suggests that supernatural beings were a not unimportant element of Buddhism. At the same time, Buddha was the supreme spiritual authority. This doesn't elevate him to the status of "God" as in other religions but it would be wrong to say that "Buddhism is not a religion because it doesn't believe in supernatural beings".

“The Psychology of Politics: How does psychology make sense of the madness of politics?”

By Lisa J Cohen, Psychology Today

“The extensive media coverage of politicians' lives provides ample opportunity for clinicians to make inferences about politicians' psychological traits. Notably, the conclusions that different clinicians draw are quite similar. One of the most common traits that clinicians talk about is that of narcissism […] Interestingly, attitudes toward the 5 categories of moral concerns[1] may also influence political beliefs. In other words, political conservatives and liberals may emphasize different categories of moral instincts from one another […] This study helps us understand why people with equally strong moral convictions may vehemently disagree on political issues such as abortion, capital punishment and flag burning.

1. Harm/care, Ingroup/loyalty, Authority/respect, Purity/sanctity, and Fairness/reciprocity.

So, politics does have something to do with psychology after all, But it takes a "philosophy forum" to deny it ...

Here's another interesting piece from Live Science;

Firstborn Siblings Are More Conservative, New Study Finds

And, of course, we all know how the media has been branding its political opponent Donald Trump as suffering from some "narcissistic personality disorder".

Well, as I say, we can't all be perfect. But have you read the article I referred to in my other post? I believe it confirms much of what I was saying.

“The Psychology of Politics: How does psychology make sense of the madness of politics?” It's from Psychology Today.

And many people follow a tradition or therapy mode for many years without any changes or results. — Tom Storm

Without doubt.

Today we live more in our heads than our bodies because we have so many words. Imagine having a very, very small vocabulary without words such as "concept", "psychology", "extraterrestrial". What if we had no word for "spirit" or "god" of "demons". Without words for the supernatural, there would be nothing to believe except the raw world and our own feelings. — Athena

I agree. But as we can see from the way people can be emotionally manipulated and mobilized for political purposes such as in rallies and mass demonstrations, perhaps the "raw world and our own feelings" is still very much with us, only perhaps hidden under a veneer of "civilization" and "progress".

This can be done in many ways and none of them need to cater in truth or ultimate reality. — Tom Storm

Religious, philosophical and spiritual systems in general have many layers of psychological and spiritual experience or attainment. Nobody can force "truth" or "ultimate reality" down your throat. It's for the individual "seeker" to decide how much or how little they want to take from a system. Plus, in a proper tradition there would be qualified and experienced teachers or spiritual guides - similar to psychotherapists - who would help you along the path or advise you as to what the best course of action is for you personally. But some Westerners are trying to guide themselves on the basis of what they find in books or online and in my experience this is the wrong approach.

Then maybe you can stop the others from constantly mentioning the book, too. Thanks.

The psycologization of politics is a cancer. — StreetlightX

That was exactly my point. Society is being politicized and politics is being psychologized. If it carries on like this we'll end up with a society in which half the population are "paranoid schizophrenics" or "psychopaths" and the other half psychiatrists, a bit like in the Soviet Union.

As I said, I didn't mean to upset you. I've only been on here a few days not many years like yourself. I thought you were part of the hit squad that was labeling, attacking, and trying to ban me from the forum for starting the discussion. And I don't think "Marxist" is an insult. On the contrary, as Marxists are knowledgeable people like Marx, Lenin and Mao, I was trying to pay you a compliment. I didn't know much about Marxism before joining this forum but now I'm learning quite a lot. I quite like the impeccable and skillful manner in which you're presenting your arguments and I thought I must learn something from you while I can

This is from the Visuddhimagga, a central text of Theravada Buddhism:

"One who wants to develop the recollection of deities should possess
the special qualities of faith, etc., evoked by means of the noble path,
and he should go into solitary retreat and recollect his own special quali-
ties of faith, etc., with deities standing as witnesses, as follows:
'There are deities of the Realm of the Four Kings (devacatu-
maharajika), there are deities of the Realm of the Thirty-three (deva
tavatimsa), there are the deities who are Gone to Divine Bliss (yama)...."

Obviously, there was widespread belief in deities.

I'm neither a Buddhist nor a Hindu, I just remember reading about deities in Buddhist texts when I was doing some research on philosophy. At the time, I was a bit surprised myself as I had thought there were no gods in Buddhism. We all learn something new every day ....