What exactly is Marxism?

Marxism, despite the belief of many of its opponents, is not synonymous with socialism or communism (although they are all overlapping ideas) and is certainly not to be seen as "disproven" by the actions and results of societies that have been labeled as communist, such as the USSR.

To dissect this first let's distinguish what Marxism isn't. While related, Marxism is not socialism. Broadly, socialism is a range of theories that share the common idea of the means of production being democratically controlled by the community. Within the context of Marxism, socialism also has a more specific definition as a theoretical period in history that would act as the transition period between capitalism and communism.

Marxism, again while they are related concepts, is not the same as communism. Communism is similar to socialism in that in it the means of production are commonly owned, but it goes further than that, being a society that is classless, moneyless, and stateless.

Many misconceptions of communism come from the idea that it is authoritarian, which couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, the majority of anarchists also consider themselves to be communists (and often Marxists as well). It is due to the unfortunate results of governments that have labeled themselves as communist that this conception has been created. Clearly, labeling a government as communist is inherently contradictory when communism must be stateless. At most governments can hold communist ideals, aiming towards communism with socialist policies. In reality though, this has often not been the case in governments labeled as such. I and most Marxists are no apologist for the actions of states such as the USSR. The USSR may have originally had socialist aims, but due to the many disadvantageous situations around it, devolved into not the means of production being commonly owned, but in state capitalism. The situation surrounding the USSR has been explained better by many others many other times however, so on that subject I will leave an excerpt that summarizes it well and get back to my original goal in this post of defining Marxism.

While clearly not a primary source, in my opinion Wikipedia summarizes what Marxism is aptly: "Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that analyzes class relations and societal conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and a dialectical view of social transformation." Essentially, Marxist theory is a way of analyzing the history of oppression and class struggle and from this concludes that anti-capitalism and socialist politics are imperative. According to Lenin, the three tenets of Marxism are materialist philosophy, critique of political economy, and socialist politics.

What then is materialist philosophy? Marx makes use of dialectical materialism to analyze our world, and from that developed his theory of historical materialism. Dialectics is the process of examining seeming contradictions to find the truth. Materialism, contrasting with the idealism of liberalism, puts matter before thought in its interpretation of the world, concluding that the outside world shapes our thought (this does not however mean that they denied the existence of that outside of the material world, Marxism is not inherently against things such as religion despite popular belief). Together, Marx applied dialectical materialism to the history of human development, creating the theory of historical materialism.

Historical materialism examines the history of human development by way of the social relations of production, or the relationships in which humans must enter in order to survive. Society, according to Marx has gone through different modes of production throughout history, in which the means of production have been divided in different ways into social classes, meaning some classes of people benefit from the fruits of others labor. Society has moved from various systems through the emergence of new classes that seize the means of production. Then this class conflict leads to a new social stage through revolution. A great example of this is the transition from feudalism to capitalism from the rise of the merchant class that usurped the monarch's control over the labor of their serfs.

Marx looks at the course of history so far and from there concludes that it is possible for the proletariat, or working class, to seize the means of production themselves to advance to socialism, and then eventually communism. He is not a determinist however, and does not view historical materialism as a formula in which communism is inevitable, simply that it is one of many potential transitions from our modern capitalism and that in order to ensure the betterment of humanity, we must work forward with those ideals in mind.

Liberalism is not Leftism

One thing many political discussions on US politics suffer from that results in many confused arguments and political stances is the conflation of leftism with liberalism and the Democratic party, and the conflation of right-wing politics with conservatism and the Republican party. None of these things are synonymous, and while some of them may share some overlap, none of the other terms share any overlap with leftism. Democrats and Republicans have extremely similar political views and are both moderate right wing American political parties. Liberalism and conservatism are only two political ideologies and do not even come close to describing the whole of possible political views. Both tend either to be moderate or right-leaning, and in fact often overlap, especially in their support of the state and capitalism. Notably, neo-liberalism was a political position staunchly held by conservatives such as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan due to its laissez-faire policy.

While the "political compass" is simplistic and not to be looked at as a guide for examining all political beliefs, this chart may be helpful in beginning to provide a visual for mainstream American politics.

Why is it so important to understand that liberalism and conservatism do not together make the whole of viable political stances? I believe it is important because with modern liberalism often positioning itself as progressive, with small modifications to society that do not upset the fabric of capitalism and other systems of oppression at large, people lose sight of the potential for real material change. Moderate ideologies such as liberalism are useless for that change. The concept of being a “moderate” is extremely variable depending on the political atmosphere of ones contemporary society and has never lead to change for the better, as prioritizes its own relative concept of “neutrality” even in the face of injustice and oppression. For example, George Washington could be considered a moderate in his time and yet he owned slaves. Consider the quote from holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel “We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented”, or anti-Apartheid activist Desmond Tutu "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor"

Liberalism pacifies its citizens by disapproving of any attempt at real change, demonizing radical activists in their time only to take credit for the changes they made after the fact, erasing the role of radicals in history. A great example of this is in the modern liberal portrayal of Martin Luther King Jr., who in actuality said “I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

Neither liberalism nor conservatism, Democrats nor Republicans, can help make meaningful change in fighting the current uprising of fascism and the Alt-Right around the world. This is shown both through historical precedent (read about the rise of the Nazi party in 1930s Germany), and through critical thought. 

Remember, the right to free speech ensures the government cannot infringe on ones beliefs, but that in no way means that ones beliefs cannot be wrong or dismissed by other people. It is our responsibility as humans to speak out against bigotry and that which harms vulnerable members of our society and to give people such as fascists no place where they feel comfortable publicly espousing and attempting to normalize their ideology.