The Relevance of Marxism Today

Hi there everyone,

I'm currently looking into the relevance of Marxism today, and was hoping to hear from anybody that may have views on the topic. Any opinions or information would be extremely appreciated! Thanks. :smile:

Reply 1

AP.

Why does TSR get a boner over Marxism?

Reply 2

Nelo Angelo

Marxism in its purest form is a scientific theory and should therefore still be relavant as under it the communist outcome is inevitable , most people would not be unhappy with the idea of a utopia where everyone is equal (except for those who believe without conflict mankind would stagnate and die)
I am assuming in all of this your talking aout Marxism not marxism-Leninism which the USSR practiced and was an adaption suited to fit the bolsheviks purposes and the state of russia at the time.

Reply 3

poossum

There is no relevance, honestly. Stop trying.

Reply 4

JW92

Marxism as a theory has ever increasing significance concerning consumerism and Capitalist alienation.

Reply 5

JonMDavies

JW92

Marxism as a theory has ever increasing significance concerning consumerism and Capitalist alienation.

This. As capitalism continues, bringing with it all the various crises that come with capitalism, along with the increasing alienation that exists under capitalism, the relevance of Marxism increases.

Reply 6

L i b

Nelo Angelo

Marxism in its purest form is a scientific theory and should therefore still be relavant as under it the communist outcome is inevitable

, most people would not be unhappy with the idea of a utopia where everyone is equal (except for those who believe without conflict mankind would stagnate and die)

Not without conflict, without self-interest.

I am assuming in all of this your talking aout Marxism not marxism-Leninism which the USSR practiced and was an adaption suited to fit the bolsheviks purposes and the state of russia at the time.

The two aren't really distinguishable: one is a theory, the other was the theory put into practice. When we find theory does not reflect reality, theory changes.

Reply 7

L i b

JonMDavies

It's funny - above we have posters suggesting that what happened in the USSR wasn't 'true' Marxism, yet we're expected to believe that what the world has now is 'true' capitalism?

Those crises you talk about - famine in Africa, for example - tend to occur rather disproportionately in places where Marxism is rather popular, haven't you realised? Or do you think these places are examples of pure, unfettered capitalism?

Alienation? I'm not alienated from anything. Maybe you are - but then again, you're apparently one of a tiny, tiny minority of Marxists.

Reply 8

machiavelli123

Marx actually predicted the recession:

''Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable.

The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalised, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism''

looks like we're all going to be commies soon...
:holmes:

Reply 9

Nelo Angelo

L i b

That's logic worthy of 'the end is nigh' types - repeatedly Marxists have seen themselves as just being on the cusp of revolution, yet since the early half of the 20th century it has only seemed more distant. Lenin suggested in the late 1910s or early 1920s that revolution was just around the corner in Britain. See how that worked out.

The two aren't really distinguishable: one is a theory, the other was the theory put into practice. When we find theory does not reflect reality, theory changes.

The theory doesn't neceessarily have a timescale just because it might not happen now doesn't preclude it happening in the future. People have poorly interpreted the theory in the past but we are not looking at the 20th or 21st century in isolation here but the possibility that a Marxist style utopia could one day come about in the near or far future. Plus I don't appreciate the reference to "end is nigh types" as I recall it was Marx himself who stated that the progression was inevitable. How other people interpreted it is not my concern, I prefer to stick true to the mans original theory when attempting to evaluate it
Lenin suggested that Britain was on the verge as Marx himself based his theory on industrialised nations such as Britain and Germany and Britain was going through a period of rising Socialist elements such as the emergence of the Labour party
The 2 are very distinguishable and Marxism-Leninism was definitely not the theory put into practice the proletariat in Russia was too small at this time to gain a sense of opression, in fact the country was still in its feudal stage according to Marxist Stage theory. Lenin changed the theory a lot by allowing the dictatorship of the party(Bolsheviks), as a means of prematurely elevating the proletariat of Russia, as opposed to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Russia would have been the last country anyone expected to go through a Marxist revolution without Lenin changing the theory completely to his own ends and bypassing the capitalist stage. Russia was not ready for a Marxist revolution nor was it an example of how Marxs original theory would have been implemented.

Reply 10

L i b

Nelo Angelo

The theory doesn't neceessarily have a timescale just because it might not happen now doesn't preclude it happening in the future.

The 2 are very distinguishable and Marxism-Leninism was definitely not the theory put into practice the proletariat in Russia was too small at this time to gain a sense of opression, in fact the country was still in its feudal stage according to Marxist Stage theory. Lenin changed the theory a lot by allowing the dictatorship of the party(Bolsheviks), as a means of prematurely elevating the proletariat of Russia

Again, do not think it rather odd that none of the countries that have attempted Revolution - or even countries in which the idea has ever been reasonably popular - tend to have a significantly developed economy? It's not only Russia, but China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba.

Anyway, the Industrial economies of the West that Marx predicted would turn to Communism have been and gone - no longer are we industrialised in the sense he implied, but rather we are mainly service economies.

Not only were people like Lenin predicting things that didn't happen - Marx himself suggested that wages in these industrialised nations would fall and these 'crises' mentioned above would worsen in this countries. Quite the opposite is true: people have more disposable wealth in Western nations, generally, than they know what to do with - certainly more than ever before.

Reply 11

iwilson03

The predictions of Marx certainly are probably no longer relevant. As has already been mentioned most of the developed nations have moved into tertiary sector employment and so the model simply cannot be applied.

However Marxist ideas such as wealth re-distribution I feel still are relevant and will be until poverty is eliminated.

Reply 12

warrenpenalver

Marxism is too idealistic for the world we live in.

Not forgetting that not everyone wants to be equal.

Reply 13

Nelo Angelo

L i b

Convenient isn't it? Just like all the best forms of barminess, it cannot be disproven. But all the same, when I've walked around Hyde Park Corner countless times over the years and seen countless people tell me that the end of the world is just around the corner, I eventually stop believing them.

Again, do not think it rather odd that none of the countries that have attempted Revolution - or even countries in which the idea has ever been reasonably popular - tend to have a significantly developed economy? It's not only Russia, but China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba.

Anyway, the Industrial economies of the West that Marx predicted would turn to Communism have been and gone - no longer are we industrialised in the sense he implied, but rather we are mainly service economies.

All countries which became "communist" due to the USSRs influence thus are all influenced by Marxism Leninism and Russia was not a developed country until after Stalins process of rapid industrialisation(at which point lets face it the country was not remotely like either Marxs or Lenins visions of "Communism"
Thats a good point and possibly precludes these countries from any such sort of a revolution however Marx never had experience of such an economy so its impossible to tell how the theory applies to it.

Its probably wise to stop this now because we haven't really answered OPs question, its just turning into a moderate versus radicalism argument, by calling it barminess it shows you aren't actually taking other peoples arguments seriously but just bashing the theory and by trying to Historically compare its getting muddled with Marxism-Leninism and the USSR rather than the original Marxist principles.
In short this is going nowhere its the endless argument between two opposing ideologies both of which have merits but also flaws.

Reply 14

L i b

Nelo Angelo

Thats a good point and possibly precludes these countries from any such sort of a revolution however Marx never had experience of such an economy so its impossible to tell how the theory applies to it.

Its probably wise to stop this now because we haven't really answered OPs question, its just turning into a moderate versus radicalism argument, by calling it barminess it shows you aren't actually taking other peoples arguments seriously but just bashing the theory and by trying to Historically compare its getting muddled with Marxism-Leninism and the USSR rather than the original Marxist principles.

I'm not trying to dismiss the concept of the ideology out of hand in such a brash way, just trying to make a point about prediction - which I would hope could perhaps be more of a point of agreement than simply stating 'Communism is bad'.

Reply 15

Bagration

Oh my god, an ACTUAL historicist. I didn't even think they EXISTED anymore.

Reply 16

T kay

machiavelli123

In the past 200 years, there's been 15 recessions. Thus, you could argue that every decade or so, a recession is inevitable. In Marx's day, predicting a future recession wouldn't have been overly difficult.

Plus, the causes of this recession are different to the ones highlighted in your quote by Marx.

Reply 17

T kay

L i b

Exactly! I suppose what I'm getting at is, rather than simply stating 'this is right', Marx made a theory which says 'this is inevitable'. However there is no way he could credibly make such predictions about economies so far into the future. There are just too many variables, and too many different interpretations of capitalism.

I'm not trying to dismiss the concept of the ideology out of hand in such a brash way, just trying to make a point about prediction - which I would hope could perhaps be more of a point of agreement than simply stating 'Communism is bad'.

Such a claim makes me wonder why we all still talk about him. Maybe I'm missing something :dontknow:

Reply 18

SunOfABeach

machiavelli123

I suggest that you read some Austrian economics. They have predicted the recession as well. And they're for capitalism, not to mention that they're much more relevant than Marx.