Marxism as I know it

What have I learned about Marxism so far? (consider this a review for my own sake, to see if I can remember what I read and present it in a concise way)

First of all, the philosophy of Marxism employs the dialect of Hegel but "turns it on its head." This is probably the trickiest part to understand. Hegel stated that reality is made up of ideas of things which are only really true when seen as integral parts of a process. Reality is a process of interrelated ideas which continue to change and progress towards something Hegel called the "absolute ideal." This "changing" and "progressing" is a phenomenon called "dialectic". Hegel's dialectic states that every idea is not simply that idea alone. Inherent or implicit in every idea or supposed truth is the exact opposite of that idea, or as Hegel called it, its antithesis. Every idea has this built in counter logic, which creates a conflict or "vitalizing principle" which causes an idea to evolve towards greater and greater truth. Ultimately, in principle, the end point of this steady march towards greater and greater truth is finally reality, or the "absolute ideal." The change that occurs when the thesis-or original idea-interacts with its inherent antithesis-its exact opposite-results in the new truer idea called the synthesis.

I find it somewhat difficult to provide an example of this, although dialectic is supposed to apply to any idea or thing. I'm am unclear if Hegel's dialectic applies to both subjective and objective ideas equally. Hegel's dialectic is easiest to understand when one thinks of advancements in human understanding through science. We used to think the earth was flat. Hegel says that because the statement "the earth is flat" is inseperable from its antithesis "the earth is not flat", that the idea, like all ideas, could never remain static, and that the vitalizing principle of the dialectic resulted in a more true discovery-the earth is round. For people like me who have only just been introduced to Hegel, its difficult to see how the dialectic is not faulty, but I'll give it a chance and keep reading.

Anyway, Marx was turned off by Hegel's view of reality. Marx thought that reality and truth were things that were grounded in material things, not something called the "absolute ideal" that exists so far off towards infinity that we can't reasonably hope to experience it. Marx thought "the absolute ideal" earily sounded like another word for God or supreme power, an ultimately unknowable thing. Marx believed that we can know the true nature of things. Indeed, everything our senses bring to our consciousness is absolute truth, not even a mere representation of the truth. Marx did not seperate what we experience through our senses as either true or false; instead, he said that there is only experienced reality or the unknown. For example, we may not be able to see or touch the internal makeup of a stone, but from that which we do see, we are able to see is true nature nonetheless.

Marx was greatly influenced by Hegel's dialectic but he had a problem with what he considered Hegel's "mysticism" or his refusal to see reality as not just idea but material as well. Marx still thought that Hegel's dialectic held true, for the most part. But Marx chose to modify-or "turn it on its head" so that it would apply to his own materialistic view of reality. Marx said that the dialectic was the force behind all change in nature. In his time he observed that there were always forces working in opposition to each other. For example, atoms are made up of protons and electrons. The ocean pushes against land and land holds back the ocean. The "exploiting" class-the group of people who own property and act to maintain the current mode of production (including forming a state)-is in opposition with the "exploited class", or those who are denied freedoms and are oppressed due to their lack of control over the mode of production.

I could produce a bit more on Marx, but I'm starting to recite some of the stuff I'm just beginning to read about and I don't have the best feel for it yet, so I won't go on much more.

Anyway, I was more excited when I was reading about the philosophy at the heart of Marxism. I'm having big problems with the aspect of Marxism I'm currently reading about-history and the state. Marx thought that everything in history and all that makes up society can be explained by a society's mode of production. Mode of production is not a simple thing. The term includes quite a lot, but it really seems as though Marx oversimplified things in a grotesque manner when he singled out the ownership of private property as being a defining factor in one particular mode of production, as if there are countless ways items can be produced and societies maintained which don't include private property in the formula. Of course, communism took this ignorant view of private property, adopted Marx's ideas, and basically did away with private property in practice. (atleast as far as I know).

That's all for now. Time for a bowl-of cereal that is.