this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
13 points (93.3% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
63 readers
1 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
hi, you are correct in an interpretation - my understanding is that the way marxists tend to analyse subjects is through how the broader system in general functions.
Trying to think of an example i probably would say something like, the story of the scorpion and the frog, while some would interpret that the fault of the drowning of the pair was due to the venom in the scorpion's stinger or the individual scorpion.
mean while the marxist would interpret that it was in the inherent nature of the scorpian to doom them, and from their interactions at the beginning of the conversation the dominos began to fall. the last domino in the chain being the perishing of both. (or you could go even further and say new life would spawn from the remains)
i think we are at a misunderstanding, the story of the frog and the scorpion was not a interpretation of the ukraine war, but an attempt of how marxists analyse systems that spawn results such as wars.
it was to help be an abstract explanation of a way of thinking, and not suppose to be a 1 to 1 representation of the war.
it could be interpreted that a principle of Marxism is to question everything, it is a way of thinking critically, it results in people developing multiple different understandings, and while there is "truth" in everything, arguably only one understanding is "correct".
A way that the multiple interpretations can be understood is akin to the fractured groups that call themselves the followers of Christ (ALTHOUGH MARXISM IS NOT A RELIGION, it is a way of thinking critically).
There exist the Jehovah witnesses, roman Catholics, and protestants. their opinions differ so greatly in the interpretation of the bible to warrant breaking off from each other to form a new group but would still unify with each other under the symbol of the cross under existential threat (or seeking community in place hostile to christians).
We as Marxists, have different interpretations - while there exists only one "correct" answer, and of course we like any other group that have existed for atleast a century have those who call themselves Marxists but whose deeds would be considered abhorrent by the majority of "principled" marxists.
I would say from my limited readings that the main directive of the marxists is to liberate the workers of the world from the injustices of capitalism, how to get there is another story.
tl;dr people read marx, people think, people have thoughts, only one thought "right", which thought right????