The Student Room Group

Marxism, good, bad, both?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
I think Marxist Communism is bad in means but good (or noble) in ends. The problem with Marxist thinking is that of the preaching of proletariat class war against the owners of the means of production, and against Capitalism. Communism is highly antagonistic, and has little or no scope for acheiving its ends after a revolutionary class war. What is needed is a gradual and peaceful move towards Socialism
He is a genius.
The idea is phenomenal. Its fair and it works. However, this planet has yet to see a truly Marxist or even communist government for that matter, so until then, its brandished with the reputation created by idiotic power crazy rulers such as Stalin, Honecker and Kim Jong il. This is because in Marxism and communism, there is no class system, and therefore there are no celebrity individuals who are perceived to be of higher value than anyone else, but clearly, individuals such as Stalin use communism and Marxism to create societies in which most people submit to the idea, and then instead of becoming an equal themselves, they cling onto their power. This is made easy for them due to the lack of opposition that exists in a communist government. Therefore the process of creating it is flawed, because it is abused by power mad people who take away power from the people and hold onto it all from themselves, instead of giving all of the power to all of the people.
Not a fan.

Technically wrong in many cases and morally wrong as well.
Reply 24
Marxism FTW.

Whenever I see a rich person I want to beat the living crap out of them. That guy in the Ferrari - I want to pull him out of his car and club him like a seal pup. That woman in the fur coat - I want to cut her fingers off to get her diamond rings. That fat pig in first class - I want him to exit the plane at 35'000ft without a parachute.

In a Marxist society I'd have no reason to feel this way. We would ALL be equal - no diamond rings, no multi-million dollar bonuses for thieving bankers while bricklayers struggle to make a living in the rain.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 25
Bad, I have more respect for Non-marxian socialists, OK, pre Marxist ones. Marxists worship Marx like a God. And its pretty ironic, beacuse Marx was a God, he was a hypocrite, hate deep hatred and was spiteful, out for revenge.

I'm sick of hearing the following catchphrase, "Marxism is good in theory, but bad in practice" .... Its bad in theory AS WELL.

Will someone remind me how forcing most people to give up their property (sorry, be forced to or be shot, but in prisons etc etc) and to ban people from persuing their interests is a moral thing. So capitalism doesn't allow us to persue our interests completely, and it means some have property and some are poor(er), but it certainly better than the former.
Reply 26
Original post by Howard
Marxism FTW.

Whenever I see a rich person I want to beat the living crap out of them. That guy in the Ferrari - I want to pull him out of his car and club him like a seal pup. That woman in the fur coat - I want to cut her fingers off to get her diamond rings. That fat pig in first class - I want him to exit the plane at 35'000ft without a parachute.

In a Marxist society I'd have no reason to feel this way. We would ALL be equal - no diamond rings, no multi-million dollar bonuses for thieving bankers while bricklayers struggle to make a living in the rain.


As I said, Marx and Marxists, like God, are spiteful and hateful, it is envy and self-gratification.
Reply 27
Original post by Martyn*
I think Marxist Communism is bad in means but good (or noble) in ends. The problem with Marxist thinking is that of the preaching of proletariat class war against the owners of the means of production, and against Capitalism. Communism is highly antagonistic, and has little or no scope for acheiving its ends after a revolutionary class war. What is needed is a gradual and peaceful move towards Socialism


Yes.

That would be a better way.

Socialism that isn't democratic is the anti-thesis of social justice.
Reply 28
Original post by Old Father Time
The idea is phenomenal.



I swear they print phrases like this on badges these days.
Original post by Martyn*
I think Marxist Communism is bad in means but good (or noble) in ends. The problem with Marxist thinking is that of the preaching of proletariat class war against the owners of the means of production, and against Capitalism. Communism is highly antagonistic, and has little or no scope for acheiving its ends after a revolutionary class war. What is needed is a gradual and peaceful move towards Socialism


An inevitable stage in Marxism is admitted by Karl Marx in his manifesto in fact as needing a socialist stage in form of government and they sort of hope it will just dissolve in the move towards a utopian civilisation if you like, but one of the problem is that it never gets out of the socialist phase!


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
Original post by Bill_Gates
He is a genius.


Isn't there a slight irony in the content of your post and your username :colone:

In terms of my opinion, I would say a few theories that really extended beyond the scope of what was realistically achievable in that time period. I'm not too sure about the necessity for what was essentially a violent revolution.
Reply 31
Original post by prog2djent
As I said, Marx and Marxists, like God, are spiteful and hateful, it is envy and self-gratification.


Maybe. I'd gladly have bayoneted the Romanovs in that basement.
Reply 32
Its a legitimate but flawed theory. After all, in socialism/communism there is not as much freedom compared to capitalism but then again in capitalism, freedom is based upon the money you have.
Original post by Howard
Maybe. I'd gladly have bayoneted the Romanovs in that basement.

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?
Reply 34
Original post by Wawasan
Its a legitimate but flawed theory. After all, in socialism/communism there is not as much freedom compared to capitalism but then again in capitalism, freedom is based upon the money you have.


How much freedom you have outiside the system of Wage labour is a state of mind.

A high pressure bank job, with high pay,

compared with a street musician, low pay .... who has more freedom.
Reply 35
Original post by prog2djent
How much freedom you have outiside the system of Wage labour is a state of mind.

A high pressure bank job, with high pay,

compared with a street musician, low pay .... who has more freedom.


Economic freedom sorry. Thanks for rectifying though :P
Reply 36
Original post by Wawasan
Economic freedom sorry. Thanks for rectifying though :P


Hmm, confused a bit.

How can more economic freedom be marked by having more money?

Are you saying that, within the economy, you are freer if you have more money.

Or that economic freedom, i.e the ease of doing business and how much the government interfere's .... is marked by how much money you have? Who's money?
I don't understand this "in theory it's good" line. Oft repeated, never substantiated.
Reply 38
Original post by prog2djent
Hmm, confused a bit.

How can more economic freedom be marked by having more money?

Are you saying that, within the economy, you are freer if you have more money.

Or that economic freedom, i.e the ease of doing business and how much the government interfere's .... is marked by how much money you have? Who's money?


The aforemented. Of course thats before other regulations such as that of governments come into play.
Terrible, idealistic nonsense. The ideology generally supported by hipsters trying to rebel against the "Man" or the establishment to pose as an individual.

Quick Reply