[Genteel Death]

Originally Posted by jonathan

By and large, I consider myself to be Marxist (or Marxian): somewhere in between. I feel like I have some authority to answer this, but it is like Glice said, there isn't going to be a stock Marxist answer for this and so I think if I'm going to take a stab at this, I need to lmake some things clear.

Curious. How much of Marx have you read to feel like you have some authority on the subject? Also, what have you read by Marx? You say that there isn't a stock answer for symbol guy's question, yet you remain vague as to why that is, just like Glice's reply. The typical answer you'll get from a ''party as science'' Marxist is that the more immediate worry for a communist is to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, and as I explained earlier a communist system would be one where production at its maximum potential is active and healthy. Regulations and central/local posts would still need to exist in order to maintain a fine-tuned working/living environment for all. A problem the Bolsheviks found themselves facing the day after the revolution was the distribution of milk. A problem it was, and a solution was found.

Marxism is NOT TELELOLOGICAL. Marx (the man) made a point of not speculating too heavily on the intricacies of a utopian society. He does lay out ten or so short term demands, and I think if you have a look they're pretty difficult to disagree with. The reason for this is because he is attempting a practical philosophy of materialism relying exclusively on historical evolution, which essentially means you take whatever the situation and try to make it into something better. So my understanding of Marx puts secondary the idea of a utopian society and instead is used precisely as a critical tool. At the same time, it is important to have a general idea in mind of what exactly you are trying to shape from the mess we inherent from history. Thus...

Good point. Marxism is not teleological or dogmatic...then what is it? It is science, a science that serves the purpose of emancipating the working class. Marx isn’t ''attempting a practical philosophy of materialism’’, he is offering an effective solution and a clear explanation to a practical problem concerning humans' method of production and distribution. He does it through the dialectics of historical materialism because he believes there lies the answer to the proletariat’s struggle. I agree that Marxism is a critical tool, one that serves the purpose of magnifying the inequality in the distribution of wealth. Not too sure what you mean with ‘’ not speculating too heavily on the intricacies of a utopian society.’’ For a Marxist a communist society is not a utopian one, because a utopian society implies that it’s marred by impracticality and unrealistic organisation, thus negating the very purpose of communism.

I haven't got the time now to read the rest of your post, but will do it later.