Robinson is referencing Marxism here not entirely in the context of any particular Marxist theory (which it is clear he's never even considered reading), but at the broader orientation of people who identify as Marxists alongside Marxist organizations in it of themselves.
It is an indisputable fact that there are Marxist organizations that are hardly anything different than cults, this is especially true of trotskyist organizations. They wield no political power and they demand every single one of their members to give sizable percentages of their salaries to the organization which pays to support the political activities of their central committee members. This isn't to say they don't contribute in positive ways to their communities, but this can become cult like.
It's also unquestionable how correct Marx was about many of the flaws of capitalism, but I think it's worth questioning his view that socialism was inevitable (which is absolutely a form of magical thinking). And it's also worth noting how correct Lenin was about running left political organizations using democratic centralism for decision making.
but I think it’s worth questioning his view that socialism was inevitable (which is absolutely a form of magical thinking).
I get what you're saying here but it definitely wasn't "magical thinking."
All Marx said was that the inevitable tendency of capitalism was for more and more people to fall into the Proletariat, and for capital to consolidate as the rate of profit fell, all of which did absolutely happen.
He assumed that this would create strong conditions for socialism. What it did instead was create a century of calamity, which occasionally led to Socialism, and occasionally led to harsher reaction.
If you think about the transition from Feudalism to Liberalism, it too was inevitable, in a historical sense. But it would be easy to feel like, in 1840, like all the revolutions had failed and the monarchy would last forever. Then 1848 happened, and it still felt impossible. But 100 years later, it was basically gone in most places.
In our context, you can't ignore the protracted war capital fought since WW2 to fight contradictions and suppress socialism. FDR wasn't kidding when he said he saved capitalism. Bretton Woods was as much a Cold War effort as any coup or intervention.
And now we're clearly at the end of the road. For environmental reasons, ignoring everything else.
Whether that means Socialism or another century of calamity is yet to be seen.
Aristocracy still exists all over the world though, including in relatively developed countries from Brunei to Saudi Arabia. Liberalism wasn't inevitable just as socialism wasn't inevitable.
I still absolutely agree that it was material conditions that enabled such a change to occur but that isn't inherent to revolutionary change as theorized by Marx.
Aristocrats have been able to maintain power so long as their citizens view their actions as benevolent, the same is true of liberal democratic regimes who used levels of social democracy but also substantial propaganda to maintain the air of benevolence and greater good.
Additionally age demographics play a huge role in determining the likelihood of a popular insurrection and is a key material condition within any society seeking revolutonary change.
deleted by creator
I've personally never heard a better way to describe him.
Robinson is referencing Marxism here not entirely in the context of any particular Marxist theory (which it is clear he's never even considered reading), but at the broader orientation of people who identify as Marxists alongside Marxist organizations in it of themselves.
It is an indisputable fact that there are Marxist organizations that are hardly anything different than cults, this is especially true of trotskyist organizations. They wield no political power and they demand every single one of their members to give sizable percentages of their salaries to the organization which pays to support the political activities of their central committee members. This isn't to say they don't contribute in positive ways to their communities, but this can become cult like.
It's also unquestionable how correct Marx was about many of the flaws of capitalism, but I think it's worth questioning his view that socialism was inevitable (which is absolutely a form of magical thinking). And it's also worth noting how correct Lenin was about running left political organizations using democratic centralism for decision making.
I get what you're saying here but it definitely wasn't "magical thinking."
All Marx said was that the inevitable tendency of capitalism was for more and more people to fall into the Proletariat, and for capital to consolidate as the rate of profit fell, all of which did absolutely happen.
He assumed that this would create strong conditions for socialism. What it did instead was create a century of calamity, which occasionally led to Socialism, and occasionally led to harsher reaction.
If you think about the transition from Feudalism to Liberalism, it too was inevitable, in a historical sense. But it would be easy to feel like, in 1840, like all the revolutions had failed and the monarchy would last forever. Then 1848 happened, and it still felt impossible. But 100 years later, it was basically gone in most places.
In our context, you can't ignore the protracted war capital fought since WW2 to fight contradictions and suppress socialism. FDR wasn't kidding when he said he saved capitalism. Bretton Woods was as much a Cold War effort as any coup or intervention.
And now we're clearly at the end of the road. For environmental reasons, ignoring everything else.
Whether that means Socialism or another century of calamity is yet to be seen.
Aristocracy still exists all over the world though, including in relatively developed countries from Brunei to Saudi Arabia. Liberalism wasn't inevitable just as socialism wasn't inevitable.
I still absolutely agree that it was material conditions that enabled such a change to occur but that isn't inherent to revolutionary change as theorized by Marx.
Aristocrats have been able to maintain power so long as their citizens view their actions as benevolent, the same is true of liberal democratic regimes who used levels of social democracy but also substantial propaganda to maintain the air of benevolence and greater good.
Additionally age demographics play a huge role in determining the likelihood of a popular insurrection and is a key material condition within any society seeking revolutonary change.
hold up, which trot orgs do this. Solidarity and Salt, the two biggest, definitely do not.
They probably mean the ortho-trots.
I haven't seen one in 10 years so I can't really comment on them.