Marxism

[Prestwich_Blue]

Like in football, systems by themselves do not offer any answers. It's how people work within the system that counts and human nature dictates that some people will always seek to gain advantage in some way or that they know best. That's as true of Marxism as it is of Capitalism or any other political, economic or social system.

Marx & Engels were philosophers not politicians.

Incidentally, how many people know that most of the work on the Communist Manifesto was done in Chethams Library? Therefore Manchester, which gave its name to the Free Trade school of economics, also effectively spawned Communism as well.

 

[blueish swede]

It always strikes me as odd that those who defend Capitalism do so by focussing on how success equates amassing wealth and resources rather than how that wealth is used once it has been amassed. I can't think of another area of human endeavour where that is an accepted and reasonable yardstick.

To continue the analogy: it's like judging a footballer on how often they get the ball passed to them rather than what they do with the ball once they have it.

 

[SWP's back]

It always strikes me as odd that those who defend Capitalism do so by focussing on how success equates amassing wealth and resources rather than how that wealth is used once it has been amassed. I can't think of another area of human endeavour where that is an accepted and reasonable yardstick.

To continue the analogy: it's like judging a footballer on how often they get the ball passed to them rather than what they do with the ball once they have it.

No it isn't.

 

[whp.blue]

It always strikes me as odd that those who defend Capitalism do so by focussing on how success equates amassing wealth and resources rather than how that wealth is used once it has been amassed. I can't think of another area of human endeavour where that is an accepted and reasonable yardstick.

To continue the analogy: it's like judging a footballer on how often they get the ball passed to them rather than what they do with the ball once they have it.

.

That is pure unadulterated drivel
I am a capitalist by your definition: I attempt to amass wealth not for the sake of it but because with it I enhance my life and the life of my family it also enhances the life of my employees.

 

[Silva_Spell]

The problem with the teachings of Marx is that so few actually understand them and quickly confuse what they actually are with totalitarianist Soviet Union.


Marxism is democrat.

It inevitably leads to totalitarianism because it is fundamentally flawed. The labour theory of value is pure BS and Marxism overestimates how malleable human beings are, leaning too far on a Blank Slate/Pavlovian view. These two factors, as well as others, combine to create totalitarianism. In many ways, totalitarianism is a necessary tool for it to even begin its journey towards its unreachable goals.

 

[che_don_john]

The problem with the teachings of Marx is that so few actually understand them and quickly confuse what they actually are with totalitarianist Soviet Union.

Indeed. Marxism is so diverse that it is beyond being just a mere ideology, it's almost a discipline. It's very easy and reasonable to be completely supportive or interested in some aspects and detest others, such is its range.

For example, from a politico-economic perspective I've very little time for it. But I have a lot of time for cultural Marxism and various off-shoot movements, such as Situationalism. You could easily teach a degree in Marxism, and there is something for everyone.

Some of my favourite misconceptions are:

- Marx wasn't necessarily a Marxist (in the same way the Christ wasn't a Christian). Rather, he gave an account of how he saw 'stages of history' developing, remarked on things he thought would be inevitable, and gave some thoughts on what he thought would be best. In many ways he was more of a historian and a commentator than a philosopher prescribing a doctrine. I'm sure he'd turn in his grave at some of the things purported by self-proclaimed Marxists.
- He was not anti-capitalist. In fact, he was rather pro-capitalist, and praised capitalism as the means through which scientific exploration and endeavours are best achieved. He just felt that it would inevitably be replaced.

 

[neilsonblue]

There is some truth in that. Marx the historian and economist eclipses Marx the political philosopher. His most lasting legacy is his brilliant analysis of capitalism. He knew exactly how it worked (both he and Engels should, after all) and predicted its development. Capitalism's subsequent flexibility, much of it prompted by the desire to thwart the communist critique, has allowed the former to mutate in such a way as to blunt its own worst excesses and even create a greater sense of loyalty and false consciousness among those who should, in theory, have been the shock troops of revolution, at least in those countries where communism was most likely to find an enthusiastic audience.
I would agree that Marx's view of the dialectic in material terms is one of the most interesting concepts. In historical terms, the world is still in the early stages of capitalism. Any future crisis in capitalism will be on a global scale. Marx looked at capitalism through a lens that was focused on the experience of early industrial England and Germany.

 

[Seosa]

What is often forgotten is that Marxism is a key representation of Social Science. The goal of Communism is in itself a scientific achievement, though of course it has never truly been achieved as of yet.

A great problem today is that the working classes, particularly in England & Britain in my opinion, don't fully identify with Socialism & Marxism because the wrong people have taken hold of 'the ownership' of Socialism so to speak, which in turn has driven many working classes to radical alternatives, such as racism, religion, etc.

 

[neilsonblue]

And this false consciousness, according to Marxists, has been cultivated by the capitalist ruling class. The proletariat are compliant due to the encouragement of jingoism/empire and the false sense of social and racial superiority that convinces some of the working class that they are above others in the hierarchy. This distracts the working class from its misery (and potential unity) and perpetuates capitalist control.

 

[CelesteItis]

What about people who are inveterate capitalists? Would their ideals be forever suppressed in a Marxist world? If so, it cannot be described as anything other than an affront to freedom of thought and expression.

You dont get Marx do you pal.

Once Marxism has completed all its stages, the final stage is one where material gain becomes irrelevant and personal freedom becomes optimal. At the final stage Government ceases to exist. The people are free from all oppression, they are self reliant and totally free.

By understanding the above you can see why Marx saw statist Socialism as the biggest danger to Communism as people become over reliant on the state and do not seek to move to the next level. The paradox is that Socialism is needed to begin with.

You are about right Sir.

With the addition that both the capitalist and stalinist propaganda equates Stalinism to Marxism, to their benefit of getting people confused about Marxism.

Fact is Engels made field observations of the working class in England, and Marx completed the theory. It has to do with the social economic evolution of the human species. Ancient production modes have taken thousands of years, or centuries to reach their final stages. Even within feudalism the germs of capitalism were forming. And the transformations were not peaceful, thus the class struggle.

Capitalism took almost a millennia and a half to reach to its industrial stage. So to establish with absolutism that the failure of the worker's states like the Soviet Union, et al (thanks to the stalinism betrayal), is due to Marx short-sightness, is over simplifying, and just being confused by the official propaganda.

To reach the further stages of human evolution, a simple government, or an election. or a coup won't be enough, it will take several centuries to reach that most advanced utopian stages.

Mind, the Russian revolution was a colossal transformation force from the workers that it took the capitalists -through their stalinist minions- almost 70 years to dismantle it.

It hast to be viewed in a macro diachronic scale.

Just like the 50 premier league titles that City will win over the scum 20.