No need to be overly idealistic about it. While I can appreciate the achievements of Marxism in the world, both as state-style Communism and the mixed-economies of European states, I can also recognize a variety of flaws within the philosophy itself. The whole dictatorship of the proles is overly idealistic and naturally becomes just a straight-up dictatorship with all its attendant problems. But at least they are dictators who tend to focus on infrastructure (N. Korea is a notable exception for a variety of reasons we could get into).
Like capitalism, it has been a mixed bag with good and bad elements. Why defend an ideal when we can work on improving and implementing a better system? Being a hardline Marxist in the modern world is like being a hardline Libertarian – it signifies that the individual in question is fundamentally out of touch with reality. Gotta get with the times man.
also pity, weakness, incompetence, mediocrity, greed for what others have (back to envy), substantial loss of personal vitality, and/or a lust for power over man, as opposed to over nature (i.e. power over man as a means to power over nature, i.e. power over those who DO HAVE power over nature).
of course theres always good old propaganda, the forced state conditioning of the weak-willed and ignorant, malleable masses.
merger with the collective also satisfies the internal empty void where an individual self-identity and sense of personal efficacy and power is lacking.
marxism can also satisfy the basic desire for hierarchies of power (e.g. submission and authority)… this aspect only comes in later, however, once the tyrannical and statist nature of collectivist systems, put into practice, becomes inescapable, as it always does (e.g. Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, the whole host of communized latin american countries).
The ideas of Karl Marx and the various political systems that have risen and fallen based in part on some of those ideas are very different things.
Before one can answer a question like “Why would anyone be a Marxist” one first has to agree on a definition of “Marxist.” As many others have pointed out, if you equate Marxism with the politics of the former Soviet Union, that would be dramatically different than Marxism equated with old China, etc. You could defined Marxist to mean one who holds to the original and historical understanding of Marx-as-Marx. Or you could define Marxism in terms of:
Western Marxism
Neo Marxism
Conflict Theory
Critical Theory
And so on. So keeping that in mind, I would suggest that the mere fact that specific political systems that developed their own interpretation based partially on Marx’s ideas failed does not really mean that discarding the entirety of Marx’s work (or work latter built from Marx’s thought) logically follows.
Particularly, Marx’s critique of capitalism is pretty spot on. What is less spot on are his ideas about an alternative. In sociology Marxian conflict theory is a very important, if historically dated theory. From its roots, very powerful theory has emerged, first from the Frankfurt School, and later from a wide array of critical theorists. Feminist critical theory includes some truly amazing work by some brilliant thinkers. Critical theory in general, offers powerful post-modern social criticism through a multi-dimensional framework of class, gender and context analysis.
So, “why would anyone be a Marxist?” Well, that really depends on what you mean by “be” a Marxist. There’s a lot of extremely valuable thought, and a whole history of progressive thinking starting from the foundation of Marx that continues to be highly relevant across a wide variety of disciplines today.
were not debating neomarxist critical theory here. of course, if we were, it would certainly change things. much of postmodernism rejects a great deal of what marx thought was true.
i believe the common, ordinary, average understanding of “marxist” is along the lines of “collectivist” or “communist” or rather, not necessarily these things EXACTLY, but within the locale of their philosophical premises… collectivist political ideology (along with its economic anti-Capitalist views). marx’s critiques of capitalism and modern economics of production and industry (“labor” relations, waste, etc) are central to the philosophical defense of communitarian and collective systems in general, within political economy. we can CERTAINLY separate marx’s (himself) theories from modern-day RESULTS of political-economic history, as well as separate them from the more enlightened and refined/extended implications and theories arising which use marxism as a BASE, a beginning. the freudo-marxist family of postmodernism comes to mind here, as using marx for a POINT OF DEPARTURE, a merger, if you will (Frankfurt school, anyone?).
so, i reference the common, ordinary and typical ILP understanding of the word “marxist”, but certainly, if we are to extend this line of reasoning out to further definitions and theories, the discussion would certainly turn in different directions, and the “why would anyone be a marxist” question itself would probably become pretty meaningless under a wider definition of “marxist”.
Unfortunately, I must dispute the notion that there is any one “ordinary and typical” understanding of the word “marxist.” And I realize that I’m new, but I must even be skeptical that there is a single “typical and unified” understanding of the word “marxist” at ILP - and if there is that seems disconcertingly reductionist.
well… youre new here. trust me, youll stop being surprised by the narrow-mindedness and one-dimensional thinking that is typical of ILP, particularly when it comes to social sciences and discussions about political-economic theory.