The Student Room Group

Marxism, good, bad, both?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Kallisto
Classless society is one of the aspects in marxism. And that was my point of view which I have talked about. A classless society is impossible, because people are too different to made an one possible. If it would be able to work, humans would live in a fairy world.


I was talking about your list, not the concept of classless society. In the Marxist sense, class is to do with economic power, and very little else. It has nothing to do with the fact everyone is different, its to do with ownership of the means of production.
I have not read up much on this theory either i have however touched upon some of their ideas regarding the education system. I believe as many Marxist do believe that the education system does not provide equality or equal opportunity. The upper classes or 'ruling classes' dominate the top university places and have better opportunities regarding trips and subject choice.
Reply 62
Lovely concept but unviable as it relies on humans being perfect.
Reply 63
Original post by Dinnes
Lovely concept but unviable as it relies on humans being perfect.


Yet more proof (not that it's needed here at TSR) that many people are willing to offer opinions about Marxism without knowing the first thing about it.
Original post by Oswy
Yet more proof (not that it's needed here at TSR) that many people are willing to offer opinions about Marxism without knowing the first thing about it.


This.
Reply 65
Marxism is neither good or bad. It is a method of interpretation and analysis.

Socialism and/or Communism is not necessarily part of the Marxist thesis, and in fact communism was not even central to Marx himself - rather a poorly thought out addition to his well thought out theories.

No one has been more prescient than marks regarding globalisation.
Reply 66
Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
Even the children and the servants? What about Elizabeth Romanov who had given all of her wealth to charity and become a nun? Did they deserve to die as well because of your tyrannical hatred?


Yes. The children too. Human rats - parasites - that needed to be exterminated.
Im currently trawling through Capital, its certainly hardwork but some of the concepts are truely enlightening. I'm curious, have many people read Capital?

My favourite quote so far. On describing the inherent ineffective trends of money in Capitalism "The hoarder therefore sacrifices the lusts of his flesh to the fetish of gold."
Original post by GR3YFOXXX
Im currently trawling through Capital, its certainly hardwork but some of the concepts are truely enlightening. I'm curious, have many people read Capital?

My favourite quote so far. On describing the inherent ineffective trends of money in Capitalism "The hoarder therefore sacrifices the lusts of his flesh to the fetish of gold."


I'm reading it too... It certainly isn't the easiest book out there, especially the first few chapters, but it's definitely worth it. A must if you want to understand how capitalist parasites live off workers.

There are some lectures by David Harvey about Capital online... What I'm doing is read the chapters, and then watch his lecture. Here's the link in case you're interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBazR59SZXk&list=PL0A7FFF28B99C1303&feature=plcp.
Original post by GR3YFOXXX
Im currently trawling through Capital, its certainly hardwork but some of the concepts are truely enlightening. I'm curious, have many people read Capital?

My favourite quote so far. On describing the inherent ineffective trends of money in Capitalism "The hoarder therefore sacrifices the lusts of his flesh to the fetish of gold."


I read it years ago. I'm glad you're enjoying it with an open mind, most people people prefer to slag it off before they've even read it. It is certainly the most thorough, distinctive and definitive criticism of capitalism I've ever come across. I agree though, it is a difficult read. Some of the things he was talking about I had to draw diagrams for just to keep up with his mental acrobatics :P.
Original post by MercuryHail
I'm reading it too... It certainly isn't the easiest book out there, especially the first few chapters, but it's definitely worth it. A must if you want to understand how capitalist parasites live off workers.

There are some lectures by David Harvey about Capital online... What I'm doing is read the chapters, and then watch his lecture. Here's the link in case you're interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBazR59SZXk&list=PL0A7FFF28B99C1303&feature=plcp.


I've actually read some of Harvey as part of my LL.M disertation research, particularly "the Enigma of Capital". Very well written and easy to read, not overtly technical as he is a Geographer after all. If you like Harvey I would suggest reading some Joseph Stiglitz.
Original post by johnaulich
I read it years ago. I'm glad you're enjoying it with an open mind, most people people prefer to slag it off before they've even read it. It is certainly the most thorough, distinctive and definitive criticism of capitalism I've ever come across. I agree though, it is a difficult read. Some of the things he was talking about I had to draw diagrams for just to keep up with his mental acrobatics :P.


Yeah, in particular the English translation suffers due to excesive and overly long citatations and annotations. Another issue is a number of key words which do not directly translate into english, for example he continues at length on the 'valorization' of capital. In this example it is clear enough what Marx's point is, it just seems that the German terminology more acurately reflect his ideas.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by GR3YFOXXX
Yeah, in particular the English translation suffers due to excesive and overly long citatations and annotations. Another issue is a number key words which do not directly translate into english, for example he continues at length on the 'valorization' of capital. In this example it is clear enough what Marx's point is, it just seems that the German terminology more acurately reflect his ideas.


Yeah, although I think Engels did a commendable job with a very very difficult task.
Reply 73
Being a Sociologist we study Marx for nearly my entire first year, I think I share a common view that it's supposed to be a fair, nice, equal but due to the natural underlying element in humankind in general it can never be achieved I am a big fan of elite theory.
Reply 74
Good for most, in theory. In theory, there is equality and no class system. But in practice, it doesn't work. In practice, bad, because someone must be a leader, and it's tempting to be a leader of such obedient people because they trust you completely. Also, with 'equality' in this sense, there is little freedom, and some may argue such a comfortable life may lead to laziness.
Original post by Josh20
Being a Sociologist we study Marx for nearly my entire first year, I think I share a common view that it's supposed to be a fair, nice, equal but due to the natural underlying element in humankind in general it can never be achieved I am a big fan of elite theory.


Marx addresses this through various stages of political ideologies he shoehorns into a historic narrative. His argument is that when the conditions for Socialism are met, it will happen inevitably, and then when the conditions for Communism are met, it will happen again. It can only happen (according to him) through class consciousness, social as it is economic... so he does say that, essentially, collective psyche changes with or before the political landscape. I'm surprised you didn't pick up on this.
Reply 76
Original post by johnaulich
Marx addresses this through various stages of political ideologies he shoehorns into a historic narrative. His argument is that when the conditions for Socialism are met, it will happen inevitably, and then when the conditions for Communism are met, it will happen again. It can only happen (according to him) through class consciousness, social as it is economic... so he does say that, essentially, collective psyche changes with or before the political landscape. I'm surprised you didn't pick up on this.


I didn't say I was a good sociologist :P Interesting though thank you for sharing that :smile:
Original post by nombo
Good for most, in theory. In theory, there is equality and no class system. But in practice, it doesn't work. In practice, bad, because someone must be a leader, and it's tempting to be a leader of such obedient people because they trust you completely. Also, with 'equality' in this sense, there is little freedom, and some may argue such a comfortable life may lead to laziness.


Rubbish arguments. It hasn't been attempted, because it is impossible to consciously attempt something that is supposed to be an inevitable result of the collapse of capitalism. Its a school boy error to assume Leninism Marxism (at least I assume you're referring to the Soviets?) is the same as Marxism. What exactly do you mean by freedom? Look at the Marxist post-capitalist stage entitled 'Pure Communism' or 'Stateless Communism' which is essentially the Marxist endgame. In fact, its probably best if you just read Marx full stop before stating your opinion at all.
Both.
Original post by Josh20
I didn't say I was a good sociologist :P Interesting though thank you for sharing that :smile:


Sorry, I didn't mean to sound patronizing. There's a new book out, which aims to point out and explain common misconceptions in Marx's work by Terry Eagleton, entitled 'Why Marx was Right'. If you're interested, its definitely worth a read. :biggrin:

Quick Reply

Latest