Marxism, good, bad, both?

What do you see in Marxism, is it a good or bad idea? What advantages and disadvantages do you see in this theory?

I have not read much on marxism, I just want to get a light overview of this theory before diving deep in it so don't go too harshly on me. ^_^

Reply 1

TheHansa

11

Good but can never deliver in practice, so it's bad because it distracts people from more pragmatic ways to help the poor and is an easy tool for neo-fascists.

Reply 2

Procrastinatius

3

Good. Gets a bad rap for being utopian, mechanistic and/or illiberal and is in fact none of the above; just a fairly accurate and well-substantiated picture of the world we live in. @TheHansa, not really, one can be a revolutionary whilst working for realistic reforms, and just about anything can be co-opted by fascistic types.

Doesn't work - bad.

Bad.

Because Marxist theories of the progression of History are complete rubbish.

Also bad because it sees human beings as something to be moulded and shaped to fit a view held by a small group of people who see themselves as "enlightened".

Further bad because it promotes violence and tyranny in the name of a cause. The idea that the end justifies the means is one of the most dangerous there is. So many atrocities have been committed because of this way of thinking. No outcome is ever separate from the input. No abstract concept of equality is worth outright class warfare and slaughter and the destruction of society and the brutal oppression of all opposition.

Reply 5

Procrastinatius

3

'Because Marxist theories of the progression of History are complete rubbish.'
Care to elaborate?

'Also bad because it sees human beings as something to be moulded and shaped to fit a view held by a small group of people who see themselves as "enlightened".'
No, it really doesn't. Any Marxist who tells you that is an idiot.

'Further bad because it promotes violence and tyranny in the name of a cause. The idea that the end justifies the means is one of the most dangerous there is. So many atrocities have been committed because of this way of thinking. No outcome is ever separate from the input. No abstract concept of equality is worth outright class warfare and slaughter and the destruction of society and the brutal oppression of all opposition.'
No, you're thinking of Josef Stalin. Violence in a revolutionary situation would be only undertaken if and when the forces of capital used violence against our side. A nonviolent socialist revolution is entirely possible, and as far as tyranny goes, you've completely misunderstood what 'dictatorship of the proletariat' actually means- it isn't a dictatorship.

Reply 6

chickenonsteroids

17

Original post by Historophilia

Bad.

Because Marxist theories of the progression of History are complete rubbish.

Also bad because it sees human beings as something to be moulded and shaped to fit a view held by a small group of people who see themselves as "enlightened".

Further bad because it promotes violence and tyranny in the name of a cause. The idea that the end justifies the means is one of the most dangerous there is. So many atrocities have been committed because of this way of thinking. No outcome is ever separate from the input. No abstract concept of equality is worth outright class warfare and slaughter and the destruction of society and the brutal oppression of all opposition.

You've been responded to in the post above.

Just letting you know since you weren't quoted.

Reply 7

viddy9

16

Certainly good. It seeks to provide a better and fairer future for society, but it's a shame that some of it's principles have been, in the past, adopted by radicals which has led to it's criticism by Western society in particular.

Reply 8

OedipusTheKing

11

To be honest, I share some of the similar opinions to the above. Marxism, and Marx's advocation of global redistribution; 'from each according to his talents, to each according to his needs', is a sublime concept. No one can doubt that capitalism is thoroughly oppressive, it restricts the proletariat to mundane and repetitive work - which offers no development or ultimately freedom. Those who own the means of production inevitably have their liberties secured at the expense of everyone else. There is indeed a class divided society in any capitalist culture between those who have a relative abundance of private wealth and those who do not.

However, the communist ideal is impractical for several reasons. The first is that Marx seems to have a rather rosy view of the proletariat - what evidence is there to suggest he will work to the extent required for civilised society without incentive? Equal pay was rapidly abandoned in Soviet Russia when it became evident that many individuals only performed to the 'bare miniumum'. The second, is that while private property is oppressive it also acts as a failsafe, stopping the government from becoming too powerful. The global redistribution required for Marx's ideal would need a state colossal in construction. Arguably responsibility would be lost under beaucracy and it would then become impossible to get rid of any corrupt elite who may arise. A likely circumstance given the enormity of wealth placed in the state's hand prior to redistribution.

Instead I would recommend a Rawlsian theory of justice to gaurantee everyone a basic level of human liberties on the grounds of fairness, that is without abolishing laws of private property altogether which I would find to be rather impractical.

Reply 9

Nihilum

8

Marxism is the epitome of evil and takes away all liberties.

Reply 10

sheldorofazaroth

The aspect of Marxism is when everyone is seen as equal, no exploitation from the bourgeoise towards the proletariat which many marxists see good. However, because everyone is equal, society awards no privileges which means no high pay, the motivation to succeed in higher levelled jobs such as doctors etc. which society needs in order to survive in the post-industrialised era, will therefore drop because if doctors are being paid the same as a bin man (not disregarding the profession) then people will edge towards the less stressful jobs.

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 11

JacobW

7

I wouldn't suggest everything Marxists have said and wrote has been categorically wrong, but insofar as the idea of proletarian exploitation depends on the labour theory of value it is plainly garbage.

Reply 12

Rhadamanthus

17

Bad. Historicism and the labour theory of value are complete unqualified, unfounded nonsense.

Reply 13

lettucesoap

2

Original post by Procrastinatius

No, you're thinking of Josef Stalin. Violence in a revolutionary situation would be only undertaken if and when the forces of capital used violence against our side. A nonviolent socialist revolution is entirely possible, and as far as tyranny goes, you've completely misunderstood what 'dictatorship of the proletariat' actually means- it isn't a dictatorship.

Both Marx himself and Engels advocated violence as they saw capitalism as inherently violent in creating class conflict as well as emotional/spiritual violation through exploitation, surplus value, alienation etc. I take this to mean that they are suggesting violence theough pre-emptive attack in a way as it implies violence against the existing system, in contrast to your view that Marxists use violence only when provoked, as a reaction (apologies if this is not what you mean, and also for my rather convoluted explanation).
While I agree with you on the dictatorship of the proletariat point, in practice it has usually descended into tyranny and continued violence after capitalism has been abolished, not just towards the bourgeoisie.. for example N. Korea, Lenin, Mao. On the other hand, one could argue that these examples are not 'true' forms of capitalism as the revolutionary exploited masses have been peasant populations.
Correct me if I'm wrong because I don't remember well but isn't Marxism a different strand of the nonviolent form of socialism you've mentioned here? Just wondering because the OP was strictly talking about Marxism.
Anyway, as you probably already know, the nonviolent, evolutionary strand of socialism which aims to achieve communism through social democracy and the ballot box or trade unionism came out of the Fabian Society's criticisms of the aforementioned examples, so I'd argue that it depends on the context.

On the whole I think Marxism is a subjective ideology in that all who study it will interpret it in their own way including Marxists themselves, so it's not easy to say whether it's 'good in intention but bad in practice', as I don't think it's necessarily been achieved yet in Marx's original sense. Perhaps this very point suggests that Marxism is utopian (despite Marx proposing that it is scientific)? Just putting it out there, I haven't decided whether I think it is or not.
Yes, Marxism is optimistic, but I don't think this is a bad thing necessarily. As an ideology it serves as a moral challenge to capitalist society and what with the current Occupy movement and global financial crisis, I think it's more relevant than ever.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 14

Introvert2020

8

Probably best to read some of Marx's work yourself without asking opinions because it's frankly impossible to receive an unbiased response.

I recommend you have a look through this website and see what you think. http://marxists.org/archive/marx/index.htm

Reply 15

anarchism101

17

Original post by Introvert2020

Probably best to read some of Marx's work yourself without asking opinions because it's frankly impossible to receive an unbiased response.

I recommend you have a look through this website and see what you think. http://marxists.org/archive/marx/index.htm

The voice of reason at last.

I get so fed up of people who say 'Marxism killed people' or 'Marxism is bad' and yet haven't read a word of Marx.

Reply 16

Oswy

15

Original post by ANIGAV

What do you see in Marxism, is it a good or bad idea? What advantages and disadvantages do you see in this theory?

I have not read much on marxism, I just want to get a light overview of this theory before diving deep in it so don't go too harshly on me. ^_^

More than any political theorist before him Marx observed the intricacies and extent to which economic arrangements and organisation strongly shaped all other aspects of a society, most obviously in the generation, maintenance and reproduction of social relations and classes. Marx is famous for applying his ideas to emergent capitalism in the nineteenth century but he intended that they would be scientific and universally applicable to any form of human society - no wonder that historians, archaologists and anthropologists, among scholars in other disciplines, have taken up his core tools of analysis.

As others have suggested, read some Marx or the work of more recent Marxist scholars (there are plenty of them).

Reply 17

Aspiringlawstudent

3

Bad.

Very, very bad.

Reply 18

FrigidSymphony

11

Original post by OedipusTheKing

To be honest, I share some of the similar opinions to the above. Marxism, and Marx's advocation of global redistribution; 'from each according to his talents, to each according to his needs', is a sublime concept. No one can doubt that capitalism is thoroughly oppressive, it restricts the proletariat to mundane and repetitive work - which offers no development or ultimately freedom. Those who own the means of production inevitably have their liberties secured at the expense of everyone else. There is indeed a class divided society in any capitalist culture between those who have a relative abundance of private wealth and those who do not.

However, the communist ideal is impractical for several reasons. The first is that Marx seems to have a rather rosy view of the proletariat - what evidence is there to suggest he will work to the extent required for civilised society without incentive? Equal pay was rapidly abandoned in Soviet Russia when it became evident that many individuals only performed to the 'bare miniumum'. The second, is that while private property is oppressive it also acts as a failsafe, stopping the government from becoming too powerful. The global redistribution required for Marx's ideal would need a state colossal in construction. Arguably responsibility would be lost under beaucracy and it would then become impossible to get rid of any corrupt elite who may arise. A likely circumstance given the enormity of wealth placed in the state's hand prior to redistribution.

Instead I would recommend a Rawlsian theory of justice to gaurantee everyone a basic level of human liberties on the grounds of fairness, that is without abolishing laws of private property altogether which I would find to be rather impractical.

This is a good summary of the ambiguous question, especially considering the reputation for near Heideggerian levels of obfuscation usually engendered by analyses of Marxist thought.