Marxism, good, bad, both?
Scroll to see replies
Terrible idea because it requires the existence of a severely coercive state.
Original post by prog2djent
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.
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.
Have you ever actually read Marx?
Original post by johnaulich
Have you ever actually read Marx?
I've read the first half of Kapital and got bored.
Anybody that uses the Labour theory of Value as a critique shouldn't be allowed to have any influence over how an economy is run.
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. ^_^
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. ^_^
Unfortunately he had more than one. What is it you want to know? Marxism is extremely complicated but with good reason - it's difficult to simplify without misrepresenting. In terms of sociological and economic theory, many of his ideas have been picked up by the Left over the years as cornerstones of their own ideologies. Ideas like the planned economy by way of free association and common ownership of the means of production, for example. Marx's critique of capitalism (probably best represented in 'Das Kapital') is extremely heavy reading, and almost impossible to summarize, but essentially it details the many ways in which a capitalist system exploits the working class because the value of a product is greater than the sum of its parts and the value of the labour involved in creating it (profit).
One thing that seperates Marxism from other left-wing theories is that it contains several 'phases' (including capitalism), justified by a (tenuous) narrative history. He believed each phase not only necessary, but inevitable, prior to true communism. Revolution wasn't something to be instigated or put in place, but would instead just be as an inevitable result of the breakdown of capitalism (as a stage in Marxist theory).
Original post by prog2djent
I've read the first half of Kapital and got bored.
Anybody that uses the Labour theory of Value as a critique shouldn't be allowed to have any influence over how an economy is run.
Anybody that uses the Labour theory of Value as a critique shouldn't be allowed to have any influence over how an economy is run.
That's not really an argument.
Whoever negged me, what about some reasoned debate? It's easy to click a button but it's also easy to join the discussion. What I meant by the above was that I'd like to be told why the Labour theory of Value is flawed, according to the person I quoted. I'd also suggest he reads the whole thing or at least Volume 2. For a fuller understanding.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by johnaulich
That's not really an argument.
Whoever negged me, what about some reasoned debate? It's easy to click a button but it's also easy to join the discussion. What I meant by the above was that I'd like to be told why the Labour theory of Value is flawed, according to the person I quoted. I'd also suggest he reads the whole thing or at least Volume 2. For a fuller understanding.
Whoever negged me, what about some reasoned debate? It's easy to click a button but it's also easy to join the discussion. What I meant by the above was that I'd like to be told why the Labour theory of Value is flawed, according to the person I quoted. I'd also suggest he reads the whole thing or at least Volume 2. For a fuller understanding.
Despite the fact most modern marxists and socialists don't like to use the rigid labour value, they do still few they profit is theft, yet price is subjective. Whereas the LTV (no, not the Land Tax value haha), says that workers produce the product and its value, and their labour is stolen in the sale, and in the mark up.
http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_1/20_1_3.pdf
I believe socialism if followed correctly is a perfectly sound political ideology. It is corrupted by the political classes.
Original post by prog2djent
Despite the fact most modern marxists and socialists don't like to use the rigid labour value, they do still few they profit is theft, yet price is subjective. Whereas the LTV (no, not the Land Tax value haha), says that workers produce the product and its value, and their labour is stolen in the sale, and in the mark up.
http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_1/20_1_3.pdf
http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_1/20_1_3.pdf
Yep that's a fair criticism and you've got to bare in mind Marx is very old literature. Economic theory is dominated by the right, and it's probably fair to say that the left have some catching up to do in this regard. However, I don't think its fair to write his entire collection of theories and ideas off because people have since realized things don't work quite like that. The theory of labour value is too retrospective to be useful in practice (value can only be assigned post production and gets very chicken or egg). Anyway, its a shame Marx bored you so much you couldn't finish it, Das Kapital is still held up as THE critical analysis of capitalism with good reason.
Anyway, to the OP, what I'd say is this: Marx and Marx alone isn't the answer. I'm a Socialist and while I often myself defending him, I don't necessarily always agree with him. For one, predicting the future based on an arbitrary historic narrative is insane. Not to forget that Marx's publication of his theories was self defeating, because there can now be no bona fide unconcious shifts between modes of production, which was kind of the whole point. I think its good to know about and understand though from an intellectual perspective, regardless of weather or not you like what he says.
Original post by johnaulich
Marx bored you so much you couldn't finish it, Das Kapital is still held up as THE critical analysis of capitalism with good reason.
Sorry about this in my post "they do still few they profit is theft", which makes no sense, I meant to say they still view that profit is theft.
I got bored because between the anecodotes and literal statements of suposed fact, I've heard it all before from socialists and communists that just repeat his ideas.
Original post by prog2djent
Sorry about this in my post "they do still few they profit is theft", which makes no sense, I meant to say they still view that profit is theft.
I got bored because between the anecodotes and literal statements of suposed fact, I've heard it all before from socialists and communists that just repeat his ideas.
I got bored because between the anecodotes and literal statements of suposed fact, I've heard it all before from socialists and communists that just repeat his ideas.
I don't think presenting things that are arguable as facts in a context like this is a fair criticism though, because the premise for its very existence is that it is theory. I don't think he needs to keep reminding the reader of that. It would read very oddly if he did. Also, Das Kapital doesn't really start from the beginning, which means if you've not read the whole thing there's a fair chance you misunderstood him.
I think he had a point in arguing that the Bourgeoisie have at least some control over the proletariat. When you consider the legislation system, the House of Lords have final say over whether a piece of legislation is passed or not after scrutinising it constantly. These "Lords" are appointed by the monarchy and so are not voted for by society. Also, before a bill becomes a law it must have "Royal Assent" which just means that it requires permission from the monarchy before it becomes a law. Obviously this is undemocratic as we cannot vote for these people, and yet they have control over which laws are put in place. From that standpoint I believe Marx was right (in this circumstance anyway).
Original post by Ridingmyego
I think he had a point in arguing that the Bourgeoisie have at least some control over the proletariat. When you consider the legislation system, the House of Lords have final say over whether a piece of legislation is passed or not after scrutinising it constantly. These "Lords" are appointed by the monarchy and so are not voted for by society. Also, before a bill becomes a law it must have "Royal Assent" which just means that it requires permission from the monarchy before it becomes a law. Obviously this is undemocratic as we cannot vote for these people, and yet they have control over which laws are put in place. From that standpoint I believe Marx was right (in this circumstance anyway).
This was true before WW1. The lords are now appointed by the PM who has 'royal prerogative' power; he/she appoint lords in the name of the monarch. Because the PM is elected, this adds at least a bit of legitimacy to the appointment process. In addition, it could be argued that the House of Lords has become less elitist as peerage titles are no longer inherited due to the House of Lords Reform Act. This means that technically anyone with the expertise could become a 'lord', not just the bourgeoisie, take Alan Sugar, who came from a humble proletariat background for example. This also means the House of Lords as a whole is no longer conservative-biased or acting wholly in the interests of the bourgeoisie, as it once used to.
The Commons is actually the stronger chamber due to the fact that it is elected. This is why it is called the 'upper' chamber. The House of Lords is thus the 'lower' chamber, it has less power. Its main function in the legislative process is to scrutinise bills and suggest amendments to the Commons, who may pick up on them and amend if they wish. As a Parliamentary rule, the Lords can only block bills for up to one year, before it is redrafted by the Commons and the process starts again. It is possible for the Commons to push laws through, for example the fox hunting ban was blocked by the Lords but was implemented later on.
Royal assent is just a formality or convention nowadays. It is often joked that the Queen is just a 'stamp', a figurehead who is largely irrelevant when it comes to the legislative process. There has not been an instance of a monarch giving Royal Assent in person since the mid 1800s in the UK. The Houses of Parliament do the real work in passing legislation.
Thus I must disagree with your view that the legislation system is undemocratic, although of course there are still areas for improvement. Yet I don't think this was what Marx was actually talking about in his class struggle thesis; his point was more on the economic side than the political side. He argued that the bourgeoisie was controlling the proletariat through economic production and labour, where the proletariat was economically exploited through manipulation of surplus value and alienation, to achieve higher profit for the bourgeoisie capitalist employer.
I think a real example of this is seen in the effects of transnational corporations in third world countries, and this in my mind explains why many post-colonial critics also use Marxist criticisms in their arguments.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by lettucesoap
This was true before WW1. The lords are now appointed by the PM who has 'royal prerogative' power; he/she appoint lords in the name of the monarch. Because the PM is elected, this adds at least a bit of legitimacy to the appointment process. In addition, it could be argued that the House of Lords has become less elitist as peerage titles are no longer inherited due to the House of Lords Reform Act. This means that technically anyone with the expertise could become a 'lord', not just the bourgeoisie, take Alan Sugar, who came from a humble proletariat background for example. This also means the House of Lords as a whole is no longer conservative-biased or acting wholly in the interests of the bourgeoisie, as it once used to.
The Commons is actually the stronger chamber due to the fact that it is elected. This is why it is called the 'upper' chamber. The House of Lords is thus the 'lower' chamber, it has less power. Its main function in the legislative process is to scrutinise bills and suggest amendments to the Commons, who may pick up on them and amend if they wish. As a Parliamentary rule, the Lords can only block bills for up to one year, before it is redrafted by the Commons and the process starts again. It is possible for the Commons to push laws through, for example the fox hunting ban was blocked by the Lords but was implemented later on.
Royal assent is just a formality or convention nowadays. It is often joked that the Queen is just a 'stamp', a figurehead who is largely irrelevant when it comes to the legislative process. There has not been an instance of a monarch giving Royal Assent in person since the mid 1800s in the UK. The Houses of Parliament do the real work in passing legislation.
Thus I must disagree with your view that the legislation system is undemocratic, although of course there are still areas for improvement. Yet I don't think this was what Marx was actually talking about in his class struggle thesis; his point was more on the economic side than the political side. He argued that the bourgeoisie was controlling the proletariat through economic production and labour, where the proletariat was economically exploited through manipulation of surplus value and alienation, to achieve higher profit for the bourgeoisie capitalist employer.
I think a real example of this is seen in the effects of transnational corporations in third world countries, and this in my mind explains why many post-colonial critics also use Marxist criticisms in their arguments.
The Commons is actually the stronger chamber due to the fact that it is elected. This is why it is called the 'upper' chamber. The House of Lords is thus the 'lower' chamber, it has less power. Its main function in the legislative process is to scrutinise bills and suggest amendments to the Commons, who may pick up on them and amend if they wish. As a Parliamentary rule, the Lords can only block bills for up to one year, before it is redrafted by the Commons and the process starts again. It is possible for the Commons to push laws through, for example the fox hunting ban was blocked by the Lords but was implemented later on.
Royal assent is just a formality or convention nowadays. It is often joked that the Queen is just a 'stamp', a figurehead who is largely irrelevant when it comes to the legislative process. There has not been an instance of a monarch giving Royal Assent in person since the mid 1800s in the UK. The Houses of Parliament do the real work in passing legislation.
Thus I must disagree with your view that the legislation system is undemocratic, although of course there are still areas for improvement. Yet I don't think this was what Marx was actually talking about in his class struggle thesis; his point was more on the economic side than the political side. He argued that the bourgeoisie was controlling the proletariat through economic production and labour, where the proletariat was economically exploited through manipulation of surplus value and alienation, to achieve higher profit for the bourgeoisie capitalist employer.
I think a real example of this is seen in the effects of transnational corporations in third world countries, and this in my mind explains why many post-colonial critics also use Marxist criticisms in their arguments.
Wow, thank you for correcting me. That's very informative, and I guess I was wrong on this matter.
Both. The idea of marxism from a classless society is good. In this one everyone has resources as much as is necessary. But when you consider that (it)
- oppressed oppositions,
- eliminate political pluralism,
- doesn't allow a "multiparty state",
- everyone have to forced into line
you must say marxism is bad. In other words: the theory is good, but the practice is bad.
- oppressed oppositions,
- eliminate political pluralism,
- doesn't allow a "multiparty state",
- everyone have to forced into line
you must say marxism is bad. In other words: the theory is good, but the practice is bad.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Kallisto
Both. The idea of marxism from a classless society is good. In this one everyone has resources as much as is necessary. But when you consider that (it)
- oppressed oppositions,
- eliminate political pluralism,
- doesn't allow a "multiparty state",
- everyone have to forced into line
you must say marxism is bad. In other words: the theory is good, but the practice is bad.
- oppressed oppositions,
- eliminate political pluralism,
- doesn't allow a "multiparty state",
- everyone have to forced into line
you must say marxism is bad. In other words: the theory is good, but the practice is bad.
I am getting tired of this 'the theory is good' line. What, in theory, is good or workable about the labour theory of value or the theory of surplus value?
Original post by Ridingmyego
Wow, thank you for correcting me. That's very informative, and I guess I was wrong on this matter.
No problem man.
To be honest you weren't entirely wrong, I think what you were generally saying would fit with an anarchist's view of society, as it takes the Marxist class theory further into a social context. 
Original post by Kallisto
Both. The idea of marxism from a classless society is good. In this one everyone has resources as much as is necessary. But when you consider that (it)
- oppressed oppositions,
- eliminate political pluralism,
- doesn't allow a "multiparty state",
- everyone have to forced into line
you must say marxism is bad. In other words: the theory is good, but the practice is bad.
- oppressed oppositions,
- eliminate political pluralism,
- doesn't allow a "multiparty state",
- everyone have to forced into line
you must say marxism is bad. In other words: the theory is good, but the practice is bad.
That's not Marxism though... revolution was supposed to be an organic occurrence as a result the collapse of capitalism, it wasn't supposed to be forced. Also, any dominant ideology eliminates political pluralism in any meaningful way. Which of the main political parties is against the free market? The rest is just details.
Original post by johnaulich
That's not Marxism though... (...)
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.
Marxism is flawed. Neo-Marxists even disagree with Marx's initial theory. Marx is an advocate of radical comunist reform and equality. But it generally ignores Power inequalities and other issues like gender inequalities.
Capitalism is the more practical option for societies as Communism is dying out and isn't working. Evidence? Soviet Russia and Poland.
Marx argues that the majority, the working class will overthrow the bourgeoisie and Marxists argue generally that as the state progresses technology will de-skill the workforce creating a larger proletariat class. But this hasn't happened, most employees need dual-skills as for ICT usage. Plus, the proletariat class has decreased and the middle class has increased again weakening the theory.
Nice idea, will never work in a western society.
Capitalism is the more practical option for societies as Communism is dying out and isn't working. Evidence? Soviet Russia and Poland.
Marx argues that the majority, the working class will overthrow the bourgeoisie and Marxists argue generally that as the state progresses technology will de-skill the workforce creating a larger proletariat class. But this hasn't happened, most employees need dual-skills as for ICT usage. Plus, the proletariat class has decreased and the middle class has increased again weakening the theory.
Nice idea, will never work in a western society.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- OCR A-Level Sociology Paper 1 - 22 May 2023
- English lit as/a level
- A-level Literature NEA (prose)
- English literature NEA - marxism HELP
- OCR A-level Sociology Paper 2 (H580/02) - 9th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- CRITICISMS OF THE MARXIST VIEW OF THE FAMILY - Help please.
- English literature NEA
- Sociology A Level??
- AQA A Level Sociology Paper 3 7192/3 - 13 Jun 2022 [Exam Chat]
- english lit nea help
- AQA A Level Sociology Paper 3 (7192/3) - 14th June [Exam Chat]
- Sociology essay - Education
- sociology alevel 2023
- English, History and Econ for A Level
- OCR Sociology Paper 3 Predictions
- Are communists stupid?
- poetry NEA recommendations please! <3
- AQA A-Level English Literature B Paper 2 (7716/2) - 8th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Prose NEA A level year 13
- Alevel English Literature Essay structure help?
Latest
Last reply 4 minutes ago
I want to quit physio, maybe to start a career in ITLast reply 4 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 10 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 16 minutes ago
Medical doctor degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 16 minutes ago
Anyone else going to Coventry starting September 2024?Last reply 16 minutes ago
DHSC Health Policy Fast Track Scheme 2023 ThreadLast reply 17 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 17 minutes ago
Official LSE Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 17 minutes ago
Integrated mechanical and electrical engineering vs pure mechanicalLast reply 19 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 22 minutes ago
Official: Newcastle University A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 24 minutes ago
want to break up with my boyfriend but i'm too ****ed up to be with anyone elseLast reply 25 minutes ago
Official: University of Plymouth A102 (BMBS with Foundation Year) 2024 EntryTrending
Last reply 17 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 days ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 17 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 days ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
