Why Should Grassroots Liberals Consider Marxism?

[IndianaGreen]

Why Should Grassroots Liberals Consider Marxism?

By Holmes

Through my work in numerous organizations which represent the interests of oppressed communities I have realized that, while many of my fellow activist's values are rooted in Marxism, they do not believe themselves to be Marxists. Most of the other people in such organizations identify as liberal when asked to identify their political stance, yet they do not agree with the values of that ideology when its values are laid bare. Most activists are at odds with capitalism, yet identify with liberalism because they have either been labeled liberal by others, or because they identify with the immediate aims of liberal politicians.

This observation has led me to examine how I, as a Marxist, might best engage both those who may identify as liberal and liberalism (the ideology).

Both grassroots "liberals" and proponents of Marxism agree that the current political system of the United States is a formal democracy – that is, that the political system is supposed to treat everyone equally under the law. Both camps also agree that this idea does not actually mean that individuals in our society are treated as equals, and that, in reality, the wealthy are able to secure themselves preferential treatment.

For example, the person who can afford a better lawyer in the court of law is often able to secure a decision more favorable to them, one who runs a major corporation can secure government support for their business better than an independent shop owner, and that the very decisions of our government are more focused on the concerns of those who run certain industries before they consider the concerns of everyday workers.

Modern liberals even understand, as Marxists do, the effect original appropriation has on people of different ethnic backgrounds. For example, it is agreed that African Americans are disproportionately represented among the poor because they entered our capitalist economy at the bottom. In short, both liberals and Marxists agree that it "takes money to make money."

Liberalism and Marxism, the ideologies, differ significantly in their goals (and I suspect that many modern "liberals" are more likely to adhere to Marxist ideology, instead of liberalism).

Liberalism shares the concerns that Marxism does in regard to our democracy's failure to treat everyone equally under the law. However, it is important that people understand liberal ideology desires only that our economic system allow "equal opportunity." Liberalism would like to ameliorate the effect of original appropriation, and do away with discrimination, while also continuing to allow private ownership of industry.

For any member of a group currently discriminated against in the US political arena, liberal ideology ought to appear lacking. Sure, ending discrimination based on one's race/sex/religion/sexual orientation is good, but what about everyone who remains working for others when such discrimination is done away with? Are they to remain without power? Capitalism requires the majority of people to be such workers. What happens to those workers' rights to equality?

Again: liberal ideology ends when everyone is equally able to achieve economic mobility, moving from one class to another. It cannot get rid of class, as capitalism requires a working class.

Liberalism, as a capitalist ideology, does not care to end the existence of class stratification.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/9138/

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. Holmes.

:think:

[orpupilofnature57]

2. Jefferson vs Hamilton ,,Liberal.

[Confusious]

3. Why replace one failed ideology

with another failed ideology?

Why not identify what works, what doesn't, and use the best?

adhering to ideology is a path for failure.

[Andronex]

4. Marxism was never supposed to be dogma.

It was an attempt to scientifically explain the evolution of human civilization and progress towards a more democratic future, and as a tool it is useful, some would say essential to explain the situation were in. Marx himself did change his mind on a number of issues, and if he were alive today, I'm sure his outlook would somewhat different.

Problem is people like to put labels on things, it's much easier than thinking, they hear the word Marxism and already they know all about it, communism is like the soviet gulags don't you know. In reality the "soviets" which was the democratic grass root mass movement of that period and the Marxist ideological foundation of the revolutionary state was quickly made symbolic and later abolished by the "communist" leadership.

[Democrats_win]

5. America isn't even close to addressing the issues of class and "original appropriation."

Americans are hooked in "affluenza." That's all they want but as unemployment rises, we see that even that is out of reach. As tent cities rise, we may see change but who knows what that will look like.