Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

What do you think of Marxism?

Announcements Posted on
What are your mock exam revision tips?! Share them with our year 10 & 11 students! 19-11-2014
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DontJudge)
    I mean working class families who are culturally deprived. Some working class people live in a better environment, than other working class people who live in areas that are filled with dangerous gangs.

    However my point was, that if you don't believe in Marxism, you believe that everyone has equal chances. I don't believe everyone has equal chances. We are mere components on a chessboard, some are placed at the front, a more advantageous position to get to the otherside of glory. And the others still stuck at the back, which represents the lower class.

    I'm bigoted? Don't really mean to be though
    Well it was a pretty broad assumption, and pretty insulting to the poor people living in Oxford. Though I'll accept it as a unintended insult.

    I do have to question the bolded part of your post. I'm sure Anarcho Communists and non Communistic Socialists share your belief that not everyone has equal chances. And I'm 100 percent sure that there are non communists who don't believe that everyone has equal chances.
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
    The 20th century has seen the endurance of economic freedom (capitalism) and the collapse of all attempts at marxism amid stagnation and immense human suffering.
    Hmm, but what you're saying is based on the assumption that the various "attempts at Marxism" during the 20th Century were correct in their approach... These "attempts at Marxism" are usually corrupted by other influences that end up diluting just how "Marxist" they are.

    Capitalism has endured but I don't think that is conclusive evidence to suggest that capitalism will continue to endure, seeing as there is no evidence to show that social inequality is decreasing.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    Free market Capitalism does not create any more wealth than a Marxist system. This is a claim made by Neo-Liberals without any evidence to back it up in order to remove the functions of the state that are actually required by Capitalist theory for proper functioning of the markets.
    The required function of the state is to maintain the security of life, liberty, and property. What else do you see as required?

    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    Don't confuse wealth, money and credit. Capitalist systems are capable of producing vast amounts of credit, but this is not the same as creating wealth.
    I don't think you quite get it. Wealth is created most dramatically by innovation; innovation is stimulated most dramatically by economic freedom.

    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    There has never been a true Marxist system attempted on this planet. Socialism is not Marxism, the USSR was not communist but a dictatorship disguised under the guise of socialism.
    This is the constant refrain. It will persist to the end of time because Marxism invariably leads to totalitarianism, and will always be criticised by the next crop of deluded true believers as 'not true marxism.'

    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    Actually read Marx's theory before you attempt to discredit it.
    done and done. i am reminded of reagan's observation that "a communist is one who reads marx and lenin. and anti-communist is one who understands marx and lenin"

    (Original post by The Mr Z)
    The last 2 decades have quite succinctly demonstrated that his views on Capitalism hold substantial merit. Don't hold your breath that neo-liberal capitalist systems will survive the next 20 years.
    Capitalism (freedom) remains as healthy as ever. It is the milking of the market to support a bloated government, as well as the toxic incentives that are brought in to the political system from such an active government deploying such huge amounts of money, that has been discredited.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
    The 20th century has seen the endurance of economic freedom (capitalism) and the collapse of all attempts at marxism amid stagnation and immense human suffering.
    What do you mean by "attempts at marxism"?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DontJudge)
    Well, I am still learning.
    Oh stop being so emotional, if you're going to get offended by that, you need to man up ffs!

    Don't say 'poor' lol, it's relative deprivation. Your definition of 'poor' is not having a flat screen TV.
    No it's not.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
    The 20th century has seen the endurance of economic freedom (capitalism) and the collapse of all attempts at marxism amid stagnation and immense human suffering.
    Really? Because I thought Scandinavian countries were doing much better in terms of, e.g., unemployment rates and income inequality than more capitalist countries like the US?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andyyy)
    Really? Because I thought Scandinavian countries were doing much better in terms of, e.g., unemployment rates and income inequality than more capitalist countries like the US?
    Are you seriously implying that Scandanavian countries are Marxist? Or even Socialist? They're welfare Capitalist states, arguably Social Democracies at best. They don't have workers control of the means of production.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andyyy)
    Really? Because I thought Scandinavian countries were doing much better in terms of, e.g., unemployment rates and income inequality than more capitalist countries like the US?
    Scandinavian countries are not Marxist. They implemented socialistic policies upon a capitalistic system which works, to a certain extent. Although income inequality is not necessarily the best indicator for economic success (not when everybody is equally poor).
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
    The required function of the state is to maintain the security of life, liberty, and property. What else do you see as required?
    Propping up capitalism in its many crises.

    (Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
    I don't think you quite get it. Wealth is created most dramatically by innovation; innovation is stimulated most dramatically by economic freedom.
    Wealth is created by labour.

    (Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
    This is the constant refrain. It will persist to the end of time because Marxism invariably leads to totalitarianism, and will always be criticised by the next crop of deluded true believers as 'not true marxism.'


    Capitalism (freedom) remains as healthy as ever. It is the milking of the market to support a bloated government, as well as the toxic incentives that are brought in to the political system from such an active government deploying such huge amounts of money, that has been discredited.
    Capitalism certainly isn't freedom for many people. Its enforced labour for many people.
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
    Wealth is created most dramatically by innovation; innovation is stimulated most dramatically by economic freedom.
    China?
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
    Marxism is a flawed utopian ideology which is based on a misreading of history and humanity. The attempt to impose it has caused immense human suffering for no significant benefit. On a different scale, within the academic discipline of history we are still undoing the damage that marxist interpretations have done to our understanding of the past, even as they come across as refreshingly positivist in the face of the ludcirous postmodernist assault on the very foundations of the discipline.
    at least one person is speaking sense
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The right create the wealth, the Left spend it.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dux_Helvetica)
    Scandinavian countries are not Marxist. They implemented socialistic policies upon a capitalistic system which works, to a certain extent.
    But leftist parties in countries which implement the Northern model identify themselves as Marxist? If claiming one is a Marxist doesn't make one a Marxist, how can anybody say that communist regimes were Marxist?

    Although income inequality is not necessarily the best indicator for economic success (not when everybody is equally poor).
    Name some countries where people are "equally poor"?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    May I suggest something ?
    I hadn't got the courage to read all the replies to the initial question. I think that there is a strong link between capitalism and social darwinism. Which implies that only the fittests can manage to earn money, find a good job or simply a good place in society. Marxism is (if you stick to the definition given by K.Marx) what is going to happen in a capitalist state : - a raise of the working class against the employers and so on ...
    An in my opinion socialism is gaining more and more support as the capitalist elite is a sort closed circle, it doesn't allow the poorer to get richer, and to live a happy life... Europe will become more socialist, we all want to have the same chances.
    Well I'm loosing my point ... I believe that leading countries wil fall into socialism (wich is a good a thing after all) and then probably go for capitalism again. Capitalism is not efficient when some persons are not playing the game (investing money in the machine) and economy can't follow (actual economic crisis / economic crisis to come ).
    Communism might be the best alternative, you are given things according to your needs and not in order to get more than your neighbour, but it is still a utopia. Lenine tried, and Stalin failed. So shall we expect a communist country that is working or a capitalist system, that did more arm than good, for tomorow ? The question remains open,
    It might be a little bit confusing, but I only had a few minutes to reply,
    But that's a good debate !
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Every economic/political theory is correct in what it tries to achieve, free market economics aims to create social divisions and a wealthy upper class. Marxism and Keynesian economics don't try to achieve an equal society they try to achieve a society where everyone has equal opportunity. Marxism is not communism, all communist nations that have ever existed have been centrally planned totalitarian regimes in which class movement was even harder than it is in present day America.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It's a system that's great in theory, but doesn't work in practice.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roger Mexico)
    It's a system that's great in theory, but doesn't work in practice.
    it's not even remotely good in theory tbh.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DontJudge)
    I mean working class families who are culturally deprived. Some working class people live in a better environment, than other working class people who live in areas that are filled with dangerous gangs.

    However my point was, that if you don't believe in Marxism, you believe that everyone has equal chances. I don't believe everyone has equal chances. We are mere components on a chessboard, some are placed at the front, a more advantageous position to get to the otherside of glory. And the others still stuck at the back, which represents the lower class.

    I'm bigoted? Don't really mean to be though
    The irony being of course that it is the pawns (ie the lowest) who go first in chess, not the king or queen. Not that this is relevant to anything.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    The irony being of course that it is the pawns (ie the lowest) who go first in chess, not the king or queen. Not that this is relevant to anything.
    Lol that just made me laff. :lol:

    But you're looking at it from an individualistic point of veiw (micro-theory), we're looking at the Macro theory, which is Marxism. So no it isn't relevent.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andyyy)
    But leftist parties in countries which implement the Northern model identify themselves as Marxist? If claiming one is a Marxist doesn't make one a Marxist, how can anybody say that communist regimes were Marxist?
    I'm afraid I don't fully understand your first point. To my knowledge, no mainstream Scandinavian parties self-identify as Marxist.

    (Original post by andyyy)
    Name some countries where people are "equally poor"?
    Well, there are few countries where the population is genuinely 'equally poor', but to many Leftists it seems to be morally superior to the idea of some being rich and others being poorer.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 22, 2012
New on TSR

GCSE mocks revision

Talk study tips this weekend

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.