Was Marx Wrong?

Watch this thread
thehistorybore
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
Communism/Marxism, even in its truest form, has quite clearly failed to go global.

But was Marx wrong in his assessment of the world in Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto?

Personally I like to see Marx as a brilliant physician of the 16th century; he quite correctly diagnoses the problems of our civilisation, but has absolutely no idea how to solve them effectively.
1
reply
Flibib
Badges: 9
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
The difficulty lies in the fact that there is no absolute unification in Marx's work in that his views and the nuanced implications in his work changed over the course of his life. Much of Marx's less snappy work doesn't really have much moral proselytizing. Even the Manifesto, despite being a Manifesto and finishing with the famous call to arms, is actually pretty even handed in its exploration of capitalism. This is especially true of his later works - Grundrisse most notably IMO.

I think Marx is too much of an influential figure in too many disciplines just to say that he was either right or wrong; Marx the economist, the philosopher, the sociologist, the revolutionary; he made predictions, assessments, arguments throughout his life through varying degrees of success.

I don't think Marx was wrong based on our current experience of reality. Just because what Marx theorised hasn't come to pass yet doesn't mean that it won't eventually do so - though granted that's an argument on the verge of being un-falsifiable.
1
reply
shawn_o1
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
He was right about capitalism
0
reply
john2054
Badges: 6
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
I like gramsci's hegemony theory and foucault's application of discourse and power. Both very insightful applications by theoretically astute marxists?
0
reply
Flibib
Badges: 9
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
Have you read Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth? It seems like it'd be up your alley.

(Original post by john2054)
I like gramsci's hegemony theory and foucault's application of discourse and power. Both very insightful applications by theoretically astute marxists?
0
reply
That Bearded Man
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
Funny, I just watched a video called "Marx is right"

Marx was right to look at capitalism as rewarding managers on the backs of the poor workers, work as a commodity in terms of quantity and quality.

He assumed however that communism would bring prosperity, which it didn't. While capitalism gives you £1 for every owner getting £10, that is still £1 more than under the USSR.

I do think were we to have a communist Govt it would be nothing like the USSR and I think it would be managed in such a way that we would improve the quality of life of workers. However it's a gamble and a pipe dream.

Reading the Secret Agent Dmitri based on one of Russia's illegals, he explains very well why he was attracted towards Bolshevism and especially Marx.

How ironic that the nearest forms of Marxism were in Russia and China rather than England and France.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
Marx correctly saw that Victorian capitalism would cause the elastic band to snap back but he failed to see the rise of the new right and he allowed his idealism to override understanding of human nature.
1
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
Marx incorrectly assumed that capitalism would always prioritise short-term larger profits over long-term survival. Keynesianism and neoliberalism, each in their own way, showed that, contrary to Marx's predictions, capitalists were prepared to take a hit to preserve capitalism, either as a more egalitarian version under Keynesianism, or just a hegemonic political version under neoliberalism.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Herman Toothrot
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
All Communism in Europe did was kill a lot of people, largely Slavs.

It created A LOT of rich Jewish oligarchs, also creating a lot of Antisemitism (Nazi's, fascism)

There were a lot of wealthy Jews who supported the revolution in Russia. An anti-capitalist Communist revolution was financed by bankers to seize control of Russia which before was in power of Nicholas Romanov II who was considered an anti-Semite.
0
reply
SonOfTheGun
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by Rakas21)
Marx correctly saw that Victorian capitalism would cause the elastic band to snap back but he failed to see the rise of the new right and he allowed his idealism to override understanding of human nature.
Correct.

This was how Britain beat Communism whereas the Tsars got ****ed. Britain is very anti-revolutionary because it allows a sort of controlled dissent.
0
reply
SonOfTheGun
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by Herman Toothrot)
All Communism in Europe did was kill a lot of people, largely Slavs.

It created A LOT of rich Jewish oligarchs, also creating a lot of Antisemitism (Nazi's, fascism)

There were a lot of wealthy Jews who supported the revolution in Russia. An anti-capitalist Communist revolution was financed by bankers to seize control of Russia which before was in power of Nicholas Romanov II who was considered an anti-Semite.
He was.
0
reply
ErniePicks
Badges: 2
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by Herman Toothrot)
All Communism in Europe did was kill a lot of people, largely Slavs.

It created A LOT of rich Jewish oligarchs, also creating a lot of Antisemitism (Nazi's, fascism)

There were a lot of wealthy Jews who supported the revolution in Russia. An anti-capitalist Communist revolution was financed by bankers to seize control of Russia which before was in power of Nicholas Romanov II who was considered an anti-Semite.
"i swear I'm not an anti-semite, but it was all DA JOOOOOOS"
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by Herman Toothrot)
All Communism in Europe did was kill a lot of people, largely Slavs.

It created A LOT of rich Jewish oligarchs, also creating a lot of Antisemitism (Nazi's, fascism)

There were a lot of wealthy Jews who supported the revolution in Russia. An anti-capitalist Communist revolution was financed by bankers to seize control of Russia which before was in power of Nicholas Romanov II who was considered an anti-Semite.
Seems legit.
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by thehistorybore)
Communism/Marxism, even in its truest form, has quite clearly failed to go global.

But was Marx wrong in his assessment of the world in Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto?

Personally I like to see Marx as a brilliant physician of the 16th century; he quite correctly diagnoses the problems of our civilisation, but has absolutely no idea how to solve them effectively.
In my view, Peter Singer was spot-on about Marx:

It is both sad and ironic to read today some marginal jottings Marx made in 1874, while reading Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy. Marx copied out passages from this work by his anarchist rival from the days of the first International, and then made his own comments on each passage. Thus, the jottings read like a dialogue, one section of which goes like this:

Bakunin: Universal suffrage by the whole people of representatives and rulers of the state – this is the last word of the Marxists as well as of the democratic school. They are lies behind which lurks the despotism of a governing minority, lies all the more dangerous in that this minority appears as the expression of the so-called people’s will.

Marx: Under collective property, the so-called will of the people disappears in order to make way for the real will of the co-operative.

Bakunin: Result: rule of the great majority of the people by a privileged minority. But, the Marxists say, this minority will consist of workers. Yes, indeed, but of ex-workers who, once they become only representatives or rulers of the people, cease to be workers.

Marx: No more than a manufacturer today ceases to be a capitalist when he becomes a member of the municipal council.

Bakunin: And from the heights of the state they begin to look down upon the whole common world of the workers. From that time on they represent not the people but themselves and their own claims to govern the people. Those who can doubt this know nothing at all about human nature.

Marx: If Mr Bakunin were familiar just with the position of a manager in a workers’ co-operative, he could send all his nightmares about authority to the devil. He should have asked himself: what form can administrative functions take, on the basis of this workers’ state – if he wants to call it that?

The tragedy of Marxism is that a century after Marx wrote these words, our experience of the rule of workers in several different countries bears out Bakunin's objections, rather than Marx's replies. Marx saw that capitalism is a wasteful, irrational system, a system which controls us when we should be controlling it. That insight is still valid; but we can now see that the construction of a free and equal society is a more difficult task than Marx realised.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by viddy9)
In my view, Peter Singer was spot-on about Marx:
It's spooky reading warnings by Bakunin all those years before the Russian Revolution.


It's also interesting seeing an anarchist (who are often labeled as naive idealists) expressing concern for the unavoidable corruptibility in humans.

Bakunin: And from the heights of the state they begin to look down upon the whole common world of the workers. From that time on they represent not the people but themselves and their own claims to govern the people. Those who can doubt this know nothing at all about human nature.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
It's spooky reading warnings by Bakunin all those years before the Russian Revolution.


It's also interesting seeing an anarchist (who are often labeled as naive idealists) expressing concern for the unavoidable corruptibility in humans.

Bakunin: And from the heights of the state they begin to look down upon the whole common world of the workers. From that time on they represent not the people but themselves and their own claims to govern the people. Those who can doubt this know nothing at all about human nature.
Interestingly, Marx once said "Go and run one of the Barcelona factories without direction, that is to say without authority!" as a reposte to anarchists and others who called for direct workplace self-management. Ironically, in 1936 the Spanish anarchists did exactly that.

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
31/03/1492
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
It's spooky reading warnings by Bakunin all those years before the Russian Revolution.


It's also interesting seeing an anarchist (who are often labeled as naive idealists) expressing concern for the unavoidable corruptibility in humans.

Bakunin: And from the heights of the state they begin to look down upon the whole common world of the workers. From that time on they represent not the people but themselves and their own claims to govern the people. Those who can doubt this know nothing at all about human nature.
(Original post by anarchism101)
Interestingly, Marx once said "Go and run one of the Barcelona factories without direction, that is to say without authority!" as a reposte to anarchists and others who called for direct workplace self-management. Ironically, in 1936 the Spanish anarchists did exactly that.Posted from TSR Mobile


He also wrote:

"Marx is a Jew and is surrounded by a crowd of little, more or less intelligent, scheming, agile, speculating Jews, just as Jews are everywhere, commercial and banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades; in short, literary brokers, just as they are financial brokers, with one foot in the bank and the other in the socialist movement, and their arses sitting upon the German press. They have grabbed hold of all newspapers, and you can imagine what a nauseating literature is the outcome of it.Now this entire Jewish world, which constitutes an exploiting sect, a people of leeches, a voracious parasite, Marx feels an instinctive inclination and a great respect for the Rothschilds. This may seem strange. What could there be in common between communism and high finance? Ho ho! The communism of Marx seeks a strong state centralization, and where this exists there must inevitably exist a state central bank, and where this exists, there the parasitic Jewish nation, which speculates upon the labor of the people, will always find the means for its existence.
In reality, this would be for the proletariat a barrack regime, under which the workingmen and the working closely and intimately connected with one another, regardless not only of frontiers but of political differences as well - this Jewish world is today largely at the disposal of Marx or Rothschild. I am sure that, on the one hand, the Rothschilds appreciate the merits of Marx, and that on the other hand, women, converted into a uniform mass, would rise, fall asleep, work and live at the beat of the drum; the privilege of ruling would be in the hands of the skilled and the learned, with a wide scope left for profitable crooked deals carried on by the Jews, who would be attracted by the enormous extension of the international speculations of the national banks."

He knew the truth about what communism (i.e. Marxism) really was and why Jews really supported it in such large numbers.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by 31/03/1492)
He also wrote:

"Marx is a Jew and is surrounded by a crowd of little, more or less intelligent, scheming, agile, speculating Jews, just as Jews are everywhere, commercial and banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades; in short, literary brokers, just as they are financial brokers, with one foot in the bank and the other in the socialist movement, and their arses sitting upon the German press. They have grabbed hold of all newspapers, and you can imagine what a nauseating literature is the outcome of it.Now this entire Jewish world, which constitutes an exploiting sect, a people of leeches, a voracious parasite, Marx feels an instinctive inclination and a great respect for the Rothschilds. This may seem strange. What could there be in common between communism and high finance? Ho ho! The communism of Marx seeks a strong state centralization, and where this exists there must inevitably exist a state central bank, and where this exists, there the parasitic Jewish nation, which speculates upon the labor of the people, will always find the means for its existence.
In reality, this would be for the proletariat a barrack regime, under which the workingmen and the working closely and intimately connected with one another, regardless not only of frontiers but of political differences as well - this Jewish world is today largely at the disposal of Marx or Rothschild. I am sure that, on the one hand, the Rothschilds appreciate the merits of Marx, and that on the other hand, women, converted into a uniform mass, would rise, fall asleep, work and live at the beat of the drum; the privilege of ruling would be in the hands of the skilled and the learned, with a wide scope left for profitable crooked deals carried on by the Jews, who would be attracted by the enormous extension of the international speculations of the national banks."

He knew the truth about what communism (i.e. Marxism) really was and why Jews really supported it in such large numbers.
Yeah,like so many back then, also expressed antisemitic views. Which are largely *******s.
0
reply
31/03/1492
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Yeah,like so many back then, also expressed antisemitic views. Which are largely *******s.
How does it feel being an uncurious sheeple reflexingly reacting in horror to any sign of "racism"?

IF it is "*******s" as you say then why did Marx admire the Rothschilds? Why did Jewish Wall Street bankers such as Jacob Schiff finance the Bolsheviks? Why were 75% of the NKVD in the 1920s and 1930s Jewish?
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Yeah,like so many back then, also expressed antisemitic views. Which are largely *******s.
Marx himself went on some antisemitic rants too, for the record.

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your Edexcel A-level Economics Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (37)
15.29%
The paper was reasonable (124)
51.24%
Not feeling great about that exam... (59)
24.38%
It was TERRIBLE (22)
9.09%

Watched Threads

View All