Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why are so many young people Marxists? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PolPot)
    I actually agree. Socialism has always been popular on campuses, but with the advent of the Internet more people from outside hear about it, hence the backlash and the formation of the "New Right". Which is a mixture of Libertarians and those who call themselves "Alt-Right".Socialist attitudes on Campuses has always been the same since the 70's. The difference is the public is now more exposed to it.
    I don't think the public is now more exposed to socialism, on the contrary. In the 70s there was a really existing workers movement that was connected to Marxist intellectuals. Today there simply isn't, and what we have instead is a sadly degenerate Left that as yet is unable to re-orient itself toward the new directions capitalism has taken over the past few decades.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eugaurie)
    Title really. I'd love for some advocates of Marxism to explain why they believe this ideology will be good for British society. Thanks.
    Firstly, as a Marxist, there are very few young Marxists compared to young Tories. What you're referring to is most probably the Corbyn supporters - Corbyn isn't a Marxist, nor a communist: he's arguably not even a socialist.

    Secondly, Marxism isn't an ideology, it's a method of scientific analysis.

    Thirdly, it will 'be good' because working people will have a say in how their place of work is run. That's essentially Marxism in a nutshell: the people democratically control the means of production.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I could give a lengthy explaining the psychology and motivations but in short:

    They're indolent idiots
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Firstly, as a Marxist, there are very few young Marxists compared to young Tories. What you're referring to is most probably the Corbyn supporters - Corbyn isn't a Marxist, nor a communist: he's arguably not even a socialist.

    Secondly, Marxism isn't an ideology, it's a method of scientific analysis.

    Thirdly, it will 'be good' because working people will have a say in how their place of work is run. That's essentially Marxism in a nutshell: the people democratically control the means of production.
    Exactly. It's a measure of the rightward shift in society over the past few decades that Corbyn is considered a socialist at all. His programme is very modest, it's stuff that the ruling class ought to be doing simply to stabilise capitalism in the longer-term anyway! ie. get a properly sustainable global financial system, increase wages, get capital, investment, moving properly again etc.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hirsty97)
    I could give a lengthy explaining the psychology and motivations but in short:

    They're indolent idiots
    Thanks bro I appreciate it. However, we might just as easily analyse the particular pathologies that constitute your reaction to the prospect of us young Leftist idiots engaging in political struggle too.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Firstly, as a Marxist, there are very few young Marxists compared to young Tories. What you're referring to is most probably the Corbyn supporters - Corbyn isn't a Marxist, nor a communist: he's arguably not even a socialist.

    Secondly, Marxism isn't an ideology, it's a method of scientific analysis.

    Thirdly, it will 'be good' because working people will have a say in how their place of work is run. That's essentially Marxism in a nutshell: the people democratically control the means of production.
    First, you say you are a Marxist, so it is a group of ideas which an individual can identify themselves by, then secondly you say it's not an ideology?

    Marxism is absolutely an ideology. It's a set of ideas which are used to form the basis of political and economic theories. It literally fits the dictionary definition of an ideology.

    As for it being good, as I said earlier the real measure of an idea is how well it can predict future outcomes. Marxism is full of ideas that sound superficially good, but when you observe the outcomes of its implementation, every single time regardless of cultural variation you have the same results. Economic failure at best, murderous oppression at worst. Any other idea that so consistently fails to deliver an expected outcome would be cast off as a bad idea. Why there are still people that cling to this insidious ideology I can't for the life of me understand.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigYoSpeck)
    First, you say you are a Marxist, so it is a group of ideas which an individual can identify themselves by, then secondly you say it's not an ideology? Marxism is absolutely an ideology. It's a set of ideas which are used to form the basis of political and economic theories. It literally fits the dictionary definition of an ideology. As for it being good, as I said earlier the real measure of an idea is how well it can predict future outcomes. Marxism is full of ideas that sound superficially good, but when you observe the outcomes of its implementation, every single time regardless of cultural variation you have the same results. Economic failure at best, murderous oppression at worst. Any other idea that so consistently fails to deliver an expected outcome would be cast off as a bad idea. Why there are still people that cling to this insidious ideology I can't for the life of me understand.
    Marxism provides the theoretical basis for an understanding of class struggle. That is, of an understanding of history based on the formation and conflict of social classes in contention with one another. It's goal is for a scientific understanding of society, including sexuality, art, philosophy, history etc. in their holistic relation with each other. Society CAN be understood in it's totality.

    Only Marxism can offer this understanding because, as I said before, only Marxism is unbound by the necessity of reproducing current society at the level of thought. Only through Marxism can one engage in a boundless criticism of everything that exists. But of course, a Marxist is not outside of the world, not positioned outside of the class struggle, we, like everyone else, are engaged in the struggle itself. The difference is that we are self-conscious of these processes, since we are unbound by the necessity of having, in some way or other, to justify the current social order in our thought.

    All of which I'm sure sounds completely nutty to you. You have an idealistic understanding of what Marxism is. You say "Marxism is full of ideas that sound superficially good...", but you fall into the trap, so common of people today, of assuming they know what Marxism is before having engaged with it. This unwarranted cynicism whereby someone assumes a 'God's eye view' of something as if they themselves exist outside of the particular controversies with which Marxists have heroically grappled. Sorry, you have no right to such a comfortable cynicism.

    Marxism is NOT about postulating ideas regarding some kind of utopia, new Jerusalem or whatever else, it is the attempt to scientifically understand the totality of human society without the crutch of superstition, be that 'human nature', genetics, or whatever. Marxists cannot predict future outcomes, that would be impossible. Because the future is an uncertain horizon, it's possibilities can be hypothesised, but the future depends on us, what we do. We are engaged, we have a stake, in the present, meaning that our action, or lack thereof, will effect the future in ways which can never be totally known. And really, if 'ability to predict the future' was a qualification for the efficacy of an 'idea', then you really couldn't do much worse than capitalist economists, liberal commentators and such like, in terms of their continual failure to predict the outcomes of society. World War One was a shock to them, World War Two likewise. The collapse of the rotten corpse that was the Soviet Union came as a total surprise to these people! etc. etc.

    There are indeed people who "cling to this insidious ideology". Because as long as capitalism exists, the prospect of it's transcendence, it's negation, will continue to haunt it as the spectre of communism. Such is the terrifying power that communism has on the minds of those righteous defenders of capital, they are forced to account for it's power in some way, but they can only do so through the narrow confines of their own liberal ideology, thus we get butchered understanding of Marxism through that lens, Marxism as a set of abstractions, platitudes and misunderstood phraseology. There is a reason that communism has seized the hearts and minds of people across the globe, from the jungles of Asia to the plains of America, because wherever capitalist social relations have torn to shreds the old pre-capitalist social bonds which kept those societies together, forcing societies in one way or another to conform to the universality of capitalism, it is followed by the potential for its negation in the form of a the universality of communism.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jingo7)
    Exactly. It's a measure of the rightward shift in society over the past few decades that Corbyn is considered a socialist at all. His programme is very modest, it's stuff that the ruling class ought to be doing simply to stabilise capitalism in the longer-term anyway! ie. get a properly sustainable global financial system, increase wages, get capital, investment, moving properly again etc.
    Exactly - Corbyn only seems radical in the context of how far two decades of neoliberal Blairism has pushed Labour (and Britain) to the right.

    (Original post by BigYoSpeck)
    First, you say you are a Marxist, so it is a group of ideas which an individual can identify themselves by, then secondly you say it's not an ideology?

    Marxism is absolutely an ideology. It's a set of ideas which are used to form the basis of political and economic theories. It literally fits the dictionary definition of an ideology.
    Actually, the dictionary definition for Marxism is "a form of socioeconomic analysis that analyses class relations and societal conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and a dialectical view of social transformation". It is not an ideology.

    As for it being good, as I said earlier the real measure of an idea is how well it can predict future outcomes.
    That's a poor assumption.

    Marxism is full of ideas that sound superficially good
    Like what, for example?

    but when you observe the outcomes of its implementation, every single time regardless of cultural variation you have the same results. Economic failure at best, murderous oppression at worst. Any other idea that so consistently fails to deliver an expected outcome would be cast off as a bad idea. Why there are still people that cling to this insidious ideology I can't for the life of me understand.
    Classical Marxism has actually never been implemented to achieve socialism.

    These 'implementations' are nothing of the sort, instead a label used by various dictatorships with state-run economies in the 20th Century to justify their totalitarianism, even calling themselves 'Marxist-Leninists' while practicing nothing related to it.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    What's everyone's opinions on centralism?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    I'm not saying that they've turned their backs on Marxism but rather that it's laughable to think of them as Marxists at all
    Not entirely sure how one logically reconciles these two clauses :curious:

    Spoiler:
    Show
    If one hasn't turned ones back on Marxism then one is, by definition, not disqualified from being "at all .. Marxist" surely? :holmes:

    They're social democrats intent on endless reforms within capitalism, in strict contrast to the doctrine of Marx
    See thousand cuts characterisation, above :yy:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    Neither individual is a Marxist by any considerable measure because they both advocate and intend to just have seemingly endless reforms of capitalism (arguably no different from the Tories) whereas a Marxist would be revolutionary wanting to bring an end to wage labour relationships and abolishing private property etc. It doesn't matter at all if they've said otherwise, words don't matter in this case, actions do.
    A Marxist may well 'want to end wage labour', but the conditions for doing so right now are not present. That is, we are not at a point where abolishing private property is a political possibility. Really if Corbyn suddenly said "When I get elected we are going to abolish private property", do you think anyone apart from a handful of ultra-leftists are going to know what the **** he is talking about? Let alone how, in the context of where we are situated politically right now in 2017, can we even imagine, let alone politically enact, a communism of the 21st century which has a real social basis of existence? That is, a real movement composed of real people, and not just a vague abstraction existing in the heads of some ultra-leftists.

    A Marxist does not sit idly by and criticise the Left for not having 'abolish private property' as their slogan. That's because such a slogan would be worthless in the context of where we are today, without a workers movement. The point is that nobody cares if you want to overthrow capitalism, the struggle of the workers against capital is fought within the context of reforming capitalism. Capitalism sets forth social standards which it is structurally unable to realise for the majority of people. The struggle for reform steadily (or at times rapidly) illuminates this fact for ordinary people, as well as their victories giving them more and more confidence in their ability to organise and fight.As the struggle intensifies, it eventually reaches a point where it can go no further without calling into question private property itself. That is, where, finally, the last obstacle to workers conquest of power is recognised, by the masses of ordinary people, as private property itself.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Exactly - Corbyn only seems radical in the context of how far two decades of neoliberal Blairism has pushed Labour (and Britain) to the right.
    It does worry me how easily swayed people have been that Corbyn's vision of a fairer economy is seen as extreme and communist. I don't know what's gone so wrong in society that we don't think people who work deserve to be able to live.

    Actually, the dictionary definition for Marxism is "a form of socioeconomic analysis that analyses class relations and societal conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and a dialectical view of social transformation". It is not an ideology.
    I didn't say the dictionary definition of Marxism. I said Marxism fits the dictionary definition of an ideology. Marxism is an ideology, it seems redundant debating that point and I can only think you are hoping to steer it away from being viewed in a similarly critical fashion to all other ideologies.

    Ideology simply means a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. How does Marxism not fit that definition?

    Like what, for example?
    The split of class into Bourgeois-Proletariat. It makes it nice and black and white, good vs evil, oppressed vs oppressor. It's a nice simple narrative that people can buy into because most people will consider themselves the Proletariat.

    The problem is global society isn't a two tier system. I feel exploited by those above me like they profit from the sweat of my brow. But I'm typing this on a device made in China by someone who could only dream of my life. There are infinite divisions in society, you can't easily divide people into oppressed-oppressor because depending on the scenario all people will be one or the other at some point.

    Classical Marxism has actually never been implemented to achieve socialism.

    These 'implementations' are nothing of the sort, instead a label used by various dictatorships with state-run economies in the 20th Century to justify their totalitarianism, even calling themselves 'Marxist-Leninists' while practicing nothing related to it.
    Not real Marxism is a common argument. I won't contest that they are perversions of the original intent behind the ideology. Just like ISIS is a perversion of Islam or burning witches was a perversion of Christianity. But that's the problem with ideologies, they present a set of tools (ideas) that people then use to dehumanise others. In the case of Marxism, the model of oppressor/oppressed is used to dehumanise the bourgeoisie which is what leads to atrocities such as Holodomor.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PlainDoll)
    What's everyone's opinions on centralism?
    There is no universal approach. Left, right, centrist etc don't cover everything. Sometimes a left wing approach works, sometimes a right wing approach works, sometimes a centrist approach works.

    The trick is not to consider that there is a one size fits all universal model, but in accepting that because the environment beneath politics shifts, that politics also has to shift and adapt to solve problems. That why left and right need to stop attacking each other in a clannish manner and accept that sometimes the other sides ideas are valid and worth listening to.

    Left, right, centrist are all wrong if they're the only approach being used. And they're all valid if the environment requires them.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigYoSpeck)
    There is no universal approach. Left, right, centrist etc don't cover everything. Sometimes a left wing approach works, sometimes a right wing approach works, sometimes a centrist approach works.

    The trick is not to consider that there is a one size fits all universal model, but in accepting that because the environment beneath politics shifts, that politics also has to shift and adapt to solve problems. That why left and right need to stop attacking each other in a clannish manner and accept that sometimes the other sides ideas are valid and worth listening to.

    Left, right, centrist are all wrong if they're the only approach being used. And they're all valid if the environment requires them.
    Thank you, I appreciate it
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigYoSpeck)
    The split of class into Bourgeois-Proletariat. It makes it nice and black and white, good vs evil, oppressed vs oppressor. It's a nice simple narrative that people can buy into because most people will consider themselves the Proletariat.

    The problem is global society isn't a two tier system. I feel exploited by those above me like they profit from the sweat of my brow. But I'm typing this on a device made in China by someone who could only dream of my life. There are infinite divisions in society, you can't easily divide people into oppressed-oppressor because depending on the scenario all people will be one or the other at some point.



    Not real Marxism is a common argument. I won't contest that they are perversions of the original intent behind the ideology. Just like ISIS is a perversion of Islam or burning witches was a perversion of Christianity. But that's the problem with ideologies, they present a set of tools (ideas) that people then use to dehumanise others. In the case of Marxism, the model of oppressor/oppressed is used to dehumanise the bourgeoisie which is what leads to atrocities such as Holodomor.
    BigYoSpeck, it's pretty clear that you are unfamiliar with the Marxist tradition. Not one single Marxist theorist ever observed how society could be easily divided into oppressor/oppressed. Not one single Marxist theorist ever observed that society could be split into nice Holywood cookie-cutter good vs. evil camps. Even the 'Communist Manifesto', which was intended for the reading of ordinary (non intellectual) workers and thus simplified, is more subtle than this. Even in there we find that Marx talks about there being more than 2 classes. He talks about the class of reactionary aristocrats, vestiges of the European 'ancien regime'. He talks about the small capitalists, he talks about the lumpen (sub) proletariat etc. and their relation to capitalist production.

    Of course there are infinite divisions in society, insofar as there are billions of individuals with different positions on life, society etc. The point is that where the movement, the motor, of society is concerned, it's social classes that count, not individuals by themselves. Social classes are composed of people who, because of their similar means of existence and relationship to production, share similar political orientations. Their class therefore, if it is to be a contender in the struggle for power, must constitute itself as a class on a political level, to advance its particular interests etc. against (or alongside) the other social classes in a particular society.

    Try reading some Marx, I promise you he is not as dry as you might think.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    It's more that people who've never had to solve problems are Marxists. Academia is one of the bubbles where problems can be abstract and say nothing of the real world. When you have a budget and competing demands for it though, you start to understand the need for sacrifices and compromise.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Because young people can be quite often arrogant and think they know better than their elders (sometimes they do)

    And Marxism suppports and encourages this sentiment whilst also giving a blue print of a world they don't really understand. Oh and btw it's 'scientific' so you're just an idiot if you disagree

    There's also the trendy counter culture aspect to it (it's also a lot safer to protest 'evil dictatorships' like the UK than it would be in Cuba.





    That was certainly my experience of it when I was an edgy 14 year old. e.g:

    Religion is dumb, we should just ban it and shoot anyone who disagrees

    Nationalism is stupid and racist- we should just have one world government

    There's too many people on the planet, we should force people to only have 2 kids if any

    The UK is so hypocritical calling Iran a theocracy- we have Bishops in the House of Lords

    Capitalism is wasteful and inefficient, we should just get the government to nationalise everything.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.