Why I left marxism.
Yes, it is true, I used to be a damn commie. Now you all know.
But i am not anymore. When i was a marxist i thought i would be that forever, i had found my niche, the place i could save the world. Everything seemed so good in that philosophy. There was the belief that society could be changed to something better, by humans for humans, the struggle and intensity for it, and a thorough critique of the society we are in now; the capitalist one.
So why did I end up leaving that?
I will here try to put down some reasons for having given up on the marxist life.
1: I have always been a spiritual person.
One of the things that dragged me to marxist ideas, was that the practicioners of the ideology seemed so open to alternative ideas. Even though marxist ontology rejects every metaphysical idea. And as such they did not reject me being spiritual, but they always questioned it. I often remember sitting at meetings about Marxism and Religion, being asked tons of questions, and getting to know that the meeting was held for me, so I could learn the real deal about religion. Now, this all seemed quite brainwashing and not so open to me. So that is a more personal reason, which probably lies as the core reason for my leaving marxism.
2: Marxist ontology.
Marxist ontology, is an ontology that is based on purely matter. There is no metaphysics or Gejst (Spirit, but more undefined in a sense, more abstract) in marxism, just pure matter. The world is viewed in the Newtonian mainframe, societies are viewed as being societies, consisting of human beings, but humans as belonging to a class, never as a human in itself. Which leads to next point.
3. The consequense of the ontology of marxism and the view on the ‘self’.
The marxist view of a self, is that a self is determined by ones surroundings, such as ones family background, environment, etc etc.. Now, this to me sounded all good, and it lies close to the buddhist view on the “self†(not that i am really a buddhist, but i am inspired by buddhism), they also say that ones self is determined by the surroundings. But there is a difference in each their ways of viewing the self. In buddhist ontology, there is a Nothingness, which in some ways can be seen to have a certain creative inspiration on the self. That instance is not there in marxism, which means it is, in this view of the self, much easier to manipulate people, since all the self is determined by the surroundings, and therefore no chance of a sudden change.
4. The consequense of the ontology and the idea of Utopia.
What the marxist ideology has done is nothing else than putting the idea of a utopia in “the sky†or spirit, into a matter based time; they put the idea into the future, and they gave a so called scientific explanation for the coming of Utopia on earth in the future. This they do in theories of organising the working class, capitalisms inevitable downfall, etc etc etc. But the problem is that it is not sure if what they say will really happen. And even Marx questions the next step after the revolution, if i remember my “Das Kapital†correct. Only followers of Marx’s ideas are “sure†of the next step. In this context it is a belief, a religion. After a revolution, anything can happen. There is no certainty that a socialist society followed by the communist society will happen. Russia is a good example of that. And then of course a good marxist will give arguments for why it went wrong, which in this case only supports my point, that anything can happen after the revolution.
This is where a class ideology comes in handy, since it will not, in theory, be one man with the power, but the whole class. Which is their general argument against dictatorship as it is seen in nazism and fascism. Even though in practise, it is a few people in the party that determines the way things go around in the party
.
5. Total-logic and reality tunnels.
One other thing that really dragged me to becoming a damn commie, was that they often had seminars and meetings, where everything from Shakespeare, to ancient greeks, to modern states of affaire etc etc etc were talked about. It seemed like marxists could talk about everything in the whole world. But did they really?
They could talk about everything, yes. But not in many ways. They always did in the same logic. Shakespeare always got put in the context of a class society, peasants and kings, greeks wit slaves and kings etc etc.
The total logic nature of marxism makes it a very seductive ideology if one wants knowledge and changing the world. It seems both instances are there. But it is a dogma, a harsh one, and it is a strong reality tunnel in that sense.
This point, i first found out after having left though. Getting out of that reality tunnel made me see the very encompassing nature of it.
6. Good mentality as the true means of doing any good to the world.
This will be the last point before the summing up.
I have always, as part of being a spiritual person, had the vision that to change anything at all one must be a good person and spreading good vibes (, maaaan ;)). This seemed to lack with marxists. Alot of the people are good people. But there is something very unsolidaric and inhuman in the way they practised their life-ideology. First of; they could only have real friends who were good objects to help pushing forward the revolution. So, only good revolutionary objects were interesting, fuck if they are humans or not. Second of; Alot of them had no clue of general respect. They could visit peoples houses and leave a mess; this is a very personal point, but to me an important one, how can anything good come out of a bunch of people with that little respect?
I think these two sub-points is also what made me annoyed enough to leave them in the end.
Now for summing up.
This is not to reject all Marx’s ideas, i am still inspired by some of his ideas. I think his critique of capitalism, and his theory of alienation is valid ideas to investigate, among a few others.... for me at least. It is more, that i dont believe that the people practising his ideas, and overdo his ideas, are very valid persons to change anything, i dont think any dogmas are usefull for decent changes.
One thing that has been very clear to me, during my life experiment, is that change can come about in oneself alone, without having the class and everything around one to change. I practise more mystical ways for self-development and tries to spread good vibes where i go, and talk to people i meet.
Whether i believe in a revolution or not, i dont know. Does it matter? I think if a big change will come about, i will be ready to go with it in any means possible. But i do not think it will be a marxist change. I agree with Foucault that marxism didnt bring that much new into modernity. (Modernity in the sense as Horkheimer and Adorno puts it, starting when the greeks went from the so-called mythos to logos and philosophised... whether that was really a change from mythos to logos or not just a mere change from one mythos to another is another discussion... i tend to like the latter explanation best... look for Raimundo Panikkar about that theory; he put it forth first.)
Foucault points to Nietszche as being where the new ideas that will bring forth a big mental change of mentality, episteme as Foucault calls it, is.
But today we have alot of serious ideas on the use of certain techniques to alter consciousness, that follows a bit in the mystical and philosophical traditions of east and west, which in this sense is interesting to point to. Except that this too seems to attract alot of people, that doesnt really have a critical mindset; and are seduced by terms like, cosmic consciousness, consciousness expantion, the seemingly merging between east and west in these ideas, technoshamanism etc etc. It is good that people read this, but i sometimes feel i want a more strong background from many of the people that are attracted to these ideas. I often hear them talk too highly and uncritical about all this, which can be damaging for any real change. Because this too, is being like a sheep and dogmatic.
So where i am at now, can probably best be explained by me having no philosophical standpoint; other than knowing myself as best as i can, get inspirations from many great traditions, and researching them with a critical mind, which fits well with the academic training i have started.
I could continue writing down thoughts on this subject matter, but this is too long already.
If it gets necessary I will expand on points and add more. :)
-Satori
nice essay, satori, my reply will be briefer...first, it sounds like you walked the path til you couldn't no more so nobody can really fault you...second, i think paths walked young teach us discipline and focus but then often we leave for something more our own...third, i liked marx's means of production idea, that is, he who owns means of production is the one with the power...that's what made me get my computer all bitched up for making books and magazines from start to finish, including printing and binding tools...now nobody keeps me from doing it or limits me, just the cost of materials...lastly, many walking the entheogenic 'path' could use some more grounding than they have, so it is not escape from but...liberation of themselves from theirs and society's shackles...
thanks for that, i enjoyed it a lot :)
...
Yes, thank you Satori
You seem to have gathered alot of knowledge of these ways and come to the natural point of questioning and noticing that the people, humans, cant really portray the essence of the meaning , especially when it entitles power, so this weakness does not appeal to you, no doubt ;) it's the ever lasting , existance between the spirit and the materialistic points, were communism tends more toward the materialsitic factors for change and survival, well it's great to see you've strong roots, that enable you see right through.
thanks for sharing that, it's even greater that you've found an inner part of yourself through this and you will surely find an intriguing and growing passion to come
Satori shed's a new skin...
Cheers White Shadow
Ditto that ;)
Thanks for you input people :)
And to the question byrooon posted as to what i will become next, that he has removed (why that byrooon?); Next up is being an old fart.
thanx for sharing your story........we need some aspects of communal living to survive, but capitalism is currently sweeping all ideologies aside....probably not in the long run however...
I commend your reasoning; I've often felt very similar about Marxism. Parts of it always rubbed me the wrong way, and you really hit the nail on the head as to why.
I'm a political science major, and not suprislingly, Marx is often a four - letter word on campus, if you catch my meaning. :P
Notwithstanding, I remained fascinated with some of his critiques, particularly in the realm of international relationships. His critisisms of the class structure remain salient when you look at what has always happened and continues to happen despite the bright and shiny human rights jurisprudece coming out of the EU. Soverignty in the post - industrial societies is being pooled, the nationalisms of the past, at least in the first world are not nearly as imporntant as they used to be. Nonetheless, the consumer class continues to increase its demand for a cornucopia of goods while the 3rd world's economies remain export - oriented, leaving them without the means of subsistence. So, Marx's arguements are valid in this context. Capitalism continues to opress the proletariat, but the proletariat is no longer in the first world, but in the third.
----
Since this is the Mountian, I suppose I should say something about the spiritual aspects. I totally agree with you there too; It seems rational to me that one could espouse the classist virtues of the Marxist doctrine while persuing a different ontological perspective. In fact, just as protestentism was tacitly responsible for our American work ethic, so too could a deeply spritiual / metaphyiscal ethos inspire the communist one. For example, one of the selling points could be that of a metaphysical view of a collective spiritual / moral unconcious which supports a unitarian view of collective ownership of industry (One mind, One Body Politic.)
....
(//http://www.calhoungolf.com/two%20cents%20pix.jpg)
Besides, Communism turns you into a pussy. (//http://www.rathergood.com/laibach/) (wait a sec for it to load, and you need the flash plugin if you don't have it.)
i am just curious, what is different now? personally, i mean . do you have insight into what changes occur when you made the decision to change? just interested in the thought web thats all. thanks for the questions, gog.
I am a bit confused on how you mean your question...
Do you mean, what has happened during the year since i wrote these thoughts down? or what happened when i said "NO!" to Marx?
I think the essays says most of that, but of course insight has changed during the year. So I would like to know excactly what you mean... :)