andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
> That's a problem, innit? But it's not an objection to my view. It's just a description of our situation. Certainly the social theory by itself cannot change the world, only interpret it. Certainly our task to change the world. There'[s a disconnect. But I didn't create it. It's there for all to see.
It seems to me the question of the "relevance" of marxism is a derivative question, not directly resolvable. Let's see if we can make it a bit more amenable to discussion.
Part A.
We still live under capitalism.
If that statement is false, then indeed Marxism is dead, not just as a movement but as a theory.
Capitalism is still inherently (a) exploitative and (b) endlessly expansive.
If that statement is false, then indeed Marxism is dead, not just as a movement but as a theory.
The exploited have a _tendency_, not _usually_ manifested but inevitably manifested intermittently, to resist exploitation.
If that statement is false, then indeed Marxism is dead, not just as a movement but as a theory.
The success of such resistance is not certain, perhaps not even probable, but given the nature of human social relations, its success is _possible_, at some point in the future.
If that statement is false, then indeed Marxism is dead, not just as a movement but as a theory.
Part B
But if the statements above are true statements, then working class movements (working class meaning all those who do not exist on surplus value extracted from workers) will continuously appear, no matter how many times crushed. (I.E., Orwell's dystopia is as unrealistic as Parecon's utopia.)
Those movements will take on a roughly anti-capitalist thrust.
The proposition Know your Enemy remains valid under all circumstances.
Such movements will then need a theory that explains the dynamic of their enemy, capitalism.
Part C
Marxism may or may not be dead as a movement, but the proposition that it is dead cannot be usefully asserted.
Carrol