Why has Marxism with groups survived? Watch

New-wave
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
Regular Marxism wants to make people equal in the sense of income but its now acceptable to refute this Marxism by saying that it discourages effort, innovation and the magic of the market and therefore makes everyone poor.

However groups Marxism is treated as a viable concept by the education system, politicians and the mass-media. This means the gender equality, race, equality, gay equality, religious equality ideas. If one group earns less than another group, these people believe that it's wrong e.g. Gender pay gap.

The questions that needs to be asked are how these people justify a need for equality. Equality why? And secondly why is the first type of equality not required but the second is absolutely critical according to these people. Many of them go mental if someone challenges them on this and say things like Madonna said, which was that she sometimes wanted to blow up the White House.


Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
New-wave
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#2
No replies then 🤣🤣🤣


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
walkonby
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
(Original post by New-wave)
No replies then 🤣🤣🤣


Posted from TSR Mobile
Equality for minorities is a separate entity from marxism - when society began to recognise that the groups who have been oppressed or persecuted throughout history have been treated unfairly, they began their own movements towards equality (e.g. black civil rights, women's suffrage, native american rights, hispanic rights, ending Apartheid in South Africa, etc).
These movements were not towards marxism but towards social equality. Most would agree that a lot of minority groups are in a far better position today than they were decades ago when most of the public ignored or were ignorant to their oppression.
Marxism on the other hand is about economic equality and class equality.
0
reply
MEGAton1
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
(Original post by walkonby)
Equality for minorities is a separate entity from marxism - when society began to recognise that the groups who have been oppressed or persecuted throughout history have been treated unfairly, they began their own movements towards equality (e.g. black civil rights, women's suffrage, native american rights, hispanic rights, ending Apartheid in South Africa, etc).
These movements were not towards marxism but towards social equality. Most would agree that a lot of minority groups are in a far better position today than they were decades ago when most of the public ignored or were ignorant to their oppression.
Marxism on the other hand is about economic equality and class equality.
That's the thing! These groups haven't been persecuted throughout history. They haven't even been persecuted at all. This "throughout" history that you refer to is but a brief moment in history when some culture travelled to another culture. For all those millennia blacks in Africa were not persecuted by anything except perhaps the forces of nature. A long time ago everyone was persecuted. Every culture kept slaves. Every culture had war, famine, many had child sacrifices. There was not favour to any race or people.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Jesusfaps
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
First of all, learn what marxism actually is. Marxism is the idea that wealth accumulates with those that are most wealthy and are in control of capital and real income of average workers will stagnate. This is a trend that we can observe even now. Marxists believe that eventually the rate of return on capital will diminish and the wealthy no longer earn the returns they once used to.
1
reply
walkonby
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
(Original post by MEGAton1)
That's the thing! These groups haven't been persecuted throughout history. They haven't even been persecuted at all. This "throughout" history that you refer to is but a brief moment in history when some culture travelled to another culture. For all those millennia blacks in Africa were not persecuted by anything except perhaps the forces of nature. A long time ago everyone was persecuted. Every culture kept slaves. Every culture had war, famine, many had child sacrifices. There was not favour to any race or people.


Posted from TSR Mobile
so you don't believe in a multi-cultural society?

There are races and/or religions who have been persistently persecuted throughout history. I see what you're saying about nationalities clashing at first point of contact, but you can't really deny that no group has ever been discriminated against, ever.
0
reply
MEGAton1
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
(Original post by Jesusfaps)
First of all, learn what marxism actually is. Marxism is the idea that wealth accumulates with those that are most wealthy and are in control of capital and real income of average workers will stagnate. This is a trend that we can observe even now. Marxists believe that eventually the rate of return on capital will diminish and the wealthy no longer earn the returns they once used to.
I thought that Marxists want revolution of the Proletarian. That's what Karl Marx's books say.

Your Marxism is a much more well thought out post-industrial economists version.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
walkonby
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
(Original post by MEGAton1)
I thought that Marxists want revolution of the Proletarian. That's what Karl Marx's books say.

Your Marxism is a much more well thought out post-industrial economists version.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Marx wrote, amongst many other things, about the socio-economic rules which set out what he believed were the 'pre-requisites' for an inevitable working-class revolution against the Bourgeoisie.

Marxism itself is merely Marx's socio-economic theories. The people who 'want a revolution of the Proletariat' as you say are Communists. Marxists and Communists are not the same thing
0
reply
Jesusfaps
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by MEGAton1)
I thought that Marxists want revolution of the Proletarian. That's what Karl Marx's books say.

Your Marxism is a much more well thought out post-industrial economists version.


Posted from TSR Mobile
The revolution of the proletarian is just an extension of the paradox within capitalism. When the rate of return on capital diminishes due to external shocks such as rise in cost of production, the goods and services produced will become unaffordable. Alongside this real income will fall and people get poorer so more people become part of the Proletariats as they are poorer. This - or the rate of return that they make will become so high that income is concentrated with only the super rich and eventually there will be the revolt.

Marxism only failed massively to be proven true due to technological advancements and productivity as well as the fact that wages rose in the industrial period at the end (perhaps thanks to Karl Marx's work). Regardless of that, his idea is still relevant and we've done well to avoid such a situation although one might argue it is an inevitability.
0
reply
Jesusfaps
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
(Original post by New-wave)
Regular Marxism wants to make people equal in the sense of income but its now acceptable to refute this Marxism by saying that it discourages effort, innovation and the magic of the market and therefore makes everyone poor.

However groups Marxism is treated as a viable concept by the education system, politicians and the mass-media. This means the gender equality, race, equality, gay equality, religious equality ideas. If one group earns less than another group, these people believe that it's wrong e.g. Gender pay gap.

The questions that needs to be asked are how these people justify a need for equality. Equality why? And secondly why is the first type of equality not required but the second is absolutely critical according to these people. Many of them go mental if someone challenges them on this and say things like Madonna said, which was that she sometimes wanted to blow up the White House.


Posted from TSR Mobile
You've mixed up communism with marxism and suddenly also mixed in some liberal views to create some sort of weird utopian world.

Equality of opportunity is something all meritocratic democracies should uphold, anyone who thinks otherwise are just self driven greedy people who care about prospering themselves as opposed to prospering as a country.
0
reply
MEGAton1
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
(Original post by Jesusfaps)
The revolution of the proletarian is just an extension of the paradox within capitalism. When the rate of return on capital diminishes due to external shocks such as rise in cost of production, the goods and services produced will become unaffordable. Alongside this real income will fall and people get poorer so more people become part of the Proletariats as they are poorer. This - or the rate of return that they make will become so high that income is concentrated with only the super rich and eventually there will be the revolt.

Marxism only failed massively to be proven true due to technological advancements and productivity as well as the fact that wages rose in the industrial period at the end (perhaps thanks to Karl Marx's work). Regardless of that, his idea is still relevant and we've done well to avoid such a situation although one might argue it is an inevitability.
These economic shocks and downturns, like 1929 only started when the state / state collusion banks started rigging the financial system for ironically what they called stability, namely the creation of fiat money and central banks. That was around 1913. Recessions didn't exist before then? Or they hardly existed.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Jesusfaps
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
(Original post by MEGAton1)
These economic shocks and downturns, like 1929 only started when the state / state collusion banks started rigging the financial system for ironically what they called stability, namely the creation of fiat money and central banks. That was around 1913. Recessions didn't exist before then? Or they hardly existed.


Posted from TSR Mobile
The two world wars managed to redistribute income more equally and since then no one dared to underestimate the power of the people. In the past recessions were just shocks. The economy was much simpler and the industrial revolution allowed for exponential growth. Its also key to remember that wages never rose so normal people were still worse off as they were in the centuries before, only this time they were earning a little more and saw a small rise in standard of living.
0
reply
walkonby
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by MEGAton1)
These economic shocks and downturns, like 1929 only started when the state / state collusion banks started rigging the financial system for ironically what they called stability, namely the creation of fiat money and central banks. That was around 1913. Recessions didn't exist before then? Or they hardly existed.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Recessions certainly existed before then. The first one in the USA was in 1785, less than a decade into it's nationhood, and there have been many since then. The Great Depression of 1929 was caused by deregulation of the banking system during the 1920s.
0
reply
walkonby
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
(Original post by MEGAton1)
These economic shocks and downturns, like 1929 only started when the state / state collusion banks started rigging the financial system for ironically what they called stability, namely the creation of fiat money and central banks. That was around 1913. Recessions didn't exist before then? Or they hardly existed.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Furthermore, the Roman Empire nearly collapsed in the 3rd Century due to an economic depression. (Depressions are the more severe form of economic crash.) As long as money and capitalism has existed, economic booms and crashes have existed.
0
reply
MEGAton1
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by walkonby)
Furthermore, the Roman Empire nearly collapsed in the 3rd Century due to an economic depression. (Depressions are the more severe form of economic crash.) As long as money and capitalism has existed, economic booms and crashes have existed.
Again they were conning money like crazy and engaging in collapse phenomenon like national lotteries and entertainment marathons (days on end of Coliseum) like today's pop Idol and soaps.

And they also had Nietzsche' Slave Morality - bleeding heart liberals today!
0
reply
walkonby
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
(Original post by MEGAton1)
Again they were conning money like crazy and engaging in collapse phenomenon like national lotteries and entertainment marathons (days on end of Coliseum) like today's pop Idol and soaps.

And they also had Nietzsche' Slave Morality - bleeding heart liberals today!
I don't know that much about that period of Roman history, just used it as an example to show that economic crashes existed before 1929.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
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 old were you when you first saw porn?

I've never seen it (6)
9.38%
Before I was 12 (30)
46.88%
13 (9)
14.06%
14 (8)
12.5%
15 (6)
9.38%
16 (3)
4.69%
17 (0)
0%
18 (1)
1.56%
Between the ages of 19 - 24 (1)
1.56%
Over 25 (0)
0%

Watched Threads

View All
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