Why does Marxism refuse to die? Watch

ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#41
Report 2 weeks ago
#41
(Original post by Axiomasher)
Marxism as a means to understand and explain how human societies come to exist and are organised has a lot to attract it. Marxism as a political project, i.e. as a porgamme of change towards 'how things should be' as opposed to 'why things are the way they are' has been less successful. We're at the high water-mark of capitalism right now but we should be a little humble about that, plenty of self-confident and thriving civilisations in the past have become mere history.
Not to mention the developement of high capitalism may well be building the foundations for a post-capitalist system.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#42
Report 2 weeks ago
#42
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Not to mention the developement of high capitalism may well be building the foundations for a post-capitalist system.
Post capitalist system has another name :

https://theamericansun.com/2018/12/1...mpression=true
0
reply
Axiomasher
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#43
Report 2 weeks ago
#43
(Original post by Joshua Lancer)
Marx was an immensely important economist and philosopher whose ideas have been adopted by capitalists so as to better preserve capitalism itself; his crisis theory describes the tendency of capitalism to lurch from crisis to crisis as the capital owners attempt to keep a greater share of the profits, thus depriving workers of the necessary means to consume the goods in the very first place and causing a crisis in demand. This was a central contradiction at the heart of capitalism, and you don't need to be a Marxist to recognise that this was immensely important in the development of Keynesian economics as an attempt to smooth out such lurches in the business cycle. In the post-2008 crash, where the failure to step in would have destroyed the economy.

This thread has talked a lot about the Soviet Union. It is insulting to say that Marxists cannot also condemn such barbarism. Take Rosa Luxembourg, for instance. Or literally any anarcho-communist. To call someone a 'Marxist', like calling someone a 'Capitalist' or a 'Keynesian' entails a huge amount of variability within it; those who would call themselves Marxists form a broad, chaotic and internally divided group. This is for a good reason - Marxism is bloody complicated. Professors dedicate their whole lives to understanding it, with all of its complicated Hegelian links. Now, to address the point about the Soviet Union more directly. Ideologies all have had bloody consequences. Christianity led to the Crusades, a horrific series of events. But to dismiss Christianity as a whole because of its barbaric consequences would be absurd, because there are certain elements we can take from it without necessarily believing in the whole thing. The same is true of Marxism; some of his ideas are extremely useful. Others are not, and can be used to justify the most evil and hideous forms of authoritarianism. But the fact that some of his ideas are bad does not justify totally dismissing him as an economic and philosophical thinker. To do so would be the most crude and dogmatic form of stupidity.

Some have stated that we can learn nothing useful from Marxism. I have vastly oversimplified crisis theory above. But where his ideas really shine are on his critique of capitalism. He exposed it as a wasteful, alienating system that degrades and dehumanises the individual through utterly monotonous work. This is not to say that he thought it was all bad; he described it as 'dynamic'. But dynamic as in a lifeless robot. I'm going to link a Yanis Varoufakis article because I have become bored.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/201...nist-manifesto
Thanks for this. It's been a while since I picked up my books though I'm quite a fan of Alex Callinicos's Resources of Critique. I'd agree that aspects of Marxism can be hard going to the unfamiliar and Marxist economic theory (in the narrow sense) isn't exactly fun, but for me the core idea in Marx is easy. We started out as (primitive) 'communists' in the form of (relatively) egalitarian hunter gatherers, technological developments led to a series of societal changes which have divided labour, divided resources, divided power. Now we have slums and billionaires.
1
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#44
Report 2 weeks ago
#44
(Original post by Davij038)
Post capitalist system has another name :

https://theamericansun.com/2018/12/1...mpression=true
Can i get a TLDR before I attemp to read that -___-

Also said post-capitalist to imply it wasn't nececerily a communist post cap system.
Last edited by ChaoticButterfly; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#45
Report 2 weeks ago
#45
(Original post by Axiomasher)
Thanks for this. It's been a while since I picked up my books though I'm quite a fan of Alex Callinicos's Resources of Critique. I'd agree that aspects of Marxism can be hard going to the unfamiliar and Marxist economic theory (in the narrow sense) isn't exactly fun, but for me the core idea in Marx is easy. We started out as (primitive) 'communists' in the form of (relatively) egalitarian hunter gatherers, technological developments led to a series of societal changes which have divided labour, divided resources, divided power. Now we have slums and billionaires.
System that gives us plenty has left us in want.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#46
Report 2 weeks ago
#46
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Can i get a TLDR before I attemp to read that -___-

Also said post-capitalist to imply it wasn't nececerily a communist post cap system
Basically what I said here:,

P*** Earth (named after the P*** Christ work of modern ‘Art’ , is:

(Original post by Davij038)

Tthe erosion of borders, traditional family units, religion: no more bigotry- we will all be materialistic individuals pursuing our own interests with an apparently benevolent government paying the bill as almost everything is done by automation now.

Basically liberal utopia. You can pump yourself full of now legal drugs and the state will pay to get you detoxed. You can abandon your kids and the state will look after them. You can do whatever you please so long as it does not directly harm anyone else (aside from abortion obviously which you can get whenever you want) :, As others have noted its strikingly Similar to Ian Banks’s ‘’Culture’ faction.
Last edited by Davij038; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#47
Report 2 weeks ago
#47
(Original post by Davij038)
Basically what I said here:,

P*** Earth (named after the P*** Christ work of modern ‘Art’ , is:
That first paragraph sounds good to me lol. I can spend my days climbing and landscaping the moors with others, do a bit of science and philosophising. All whilst socialising with other poeple free from economic alienation. Maybe find a partner and have some children, teach them how to climb and be happy.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#48
Report 2 weeks ago
#48
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
That first paragraph sounds good to me lol. I can spend my days climbing and landscaping the moors with others, do a bit of science and philosophising. All whilst socialising with other poeple free from economic alienation. Maybe find a partner and have some children, teach them how to climb and be happy.
A: I think this is of course an illusion put forward by a cynical other ethnic group who do the reverse policies in their own homeland. Human nature and finite resources show this to be a dangerous pipe dream.

B: even if this was sincere or/ and possible, it would not be the paradise you think it would be. To a African tribesman, we live lives of unimagineable luxury and comfort yet are we happier? Why do we commit so many more suicides? Struggle and suffering are an integral part of what it means to be human, and if we can’t live as as humans then we will simply not live at all.
0
reply
Joshua Lancer
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#49
Report 2 weeks ago
#49
(Original post by Davij038)
A: I think this is of course an illusion put forward by a cynical other ethnic group who do the reverse policies in their own homeland. Human nature and finite resources show this to be a dangerous pipe dream.

B: even if this was sincere or/ and possible, it would not be the paradise you think it would be. To a African tribesman, we live lives of unimagineable luxury and comfort yet are we happier? Why do we commit so many more suicides? Struggle and suffering are an integral part of what it means to be human, and if we can’t live as as humans then we will simply not live at all.
You've raised some important issues there. Firstly, to respond to (A), any Marxist system rests upon the assumption that there isn't any scarcity. I accept that this may sound a little far fetched, but automation and artificial intelligence have immense potential to do a huge amount of stuff without the need for a substantial labour force. Capitalism's tendency for producing a vast array of service jobs should not be underestimated, but the simple fact is that such technological developments allow capital owners to keep quite incredible profit margins without the need to employ workers.
Given the tendency of capitalism to concentrate wealth (in the absence of unionisation, which by necessity wouldn't occur without any workers) we will arrive at a situation of immense inequality, where the class division between the workers and the bourgeoisie has reached quite extraordinary levels; these two groups will be utterly alien to one another (you can link this to a bit of one-nation conservatism as well!). Given such a situation, there will be high levels of unemployment, and those who are employed will experience job dissatisfaction as their jobs are essentially meaningless without providing any sort of fulfillment - society will be faced with a fundamental choice to take such transformative technologies into public ownership or continue with the subjugation of the nation state to the whims of an absurdly wealthy capitalist elite. This situation I don't think is a pipe dream, though I think there are problems with the transition Marx predicted from socialism (state manages means of production) to communism (there is no state). As I said earlier, there are some cool ideas, but undoubtedly problems.
1
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#50
Report 2 weeks ago
#50
(Original post by Joshua Lancer)
You've raised some important issues there. Firstly, to respond to (A), any Marxist system rests upon the assumption that there isn't any scarcity. I accept that this may sound a little far fetched, but automation and artificial intelligence have immense potential to do a huge amount of stuff without the need for a substantial labour force. Capitalism's tendency for producing a vast array of service jobs should not be underestimated, but the simple fact is that such technological developments allow capital owners to keep quite incredible profit margins without the need to employ workers.
Given the tendency of capitalism to concentrate wealth (in the absence of unionisation, which by necessity wouldn't occur without any workers) we will arrive at a situation of immense inequality, where the class division between the workers and the bourgeoisie has reached quite extraordinary levels; these two groups will be utterly alien to one another (you can link this to a bit of one-nation conservatism as well!). Given such a situation, there will be high levels of unemployment, and those who are employed will experience job dissatisfaction as their jobs are essentially meaningless without providing any sort of fulfillment - society will be faced with a fundamental choice to take such transformative technologies into public ownership or continue with the subjugation of the nation state to the whims of an absurdly wealthy capitalist elite. This situation I don't think is a pipe dream, though I think there are problems with the transition Marx predicted from socialism (state manages means of production) to communism (there is no state). As I said earlier, there are some cool ideas, but undoubtedly problems.
I certainly agree that in an ideal government key industries should be put under public ownership for the good of society. My issue is how, by who, for who and for what purpose?

The Marxist answer for the above is by mass uprising and solidarity, by everyone, for everyone to do what ever they want.

I do not believe this is practical or moral. I do not believe that different ethnicities can put aside their differences particularly one small group of people. This is why among other reasons mass immigration is so essential for the capitalist class: divide and rule. The Marxist approach also indicates that humans are basically afyervtge same things: this is not the case. As materialists they are blind to important spiritual and cultural concerns. The end goal of being able to ‘climb mountains and philosophise’ (aka do jack **** is simply not an important or worthwhile moral good as defending ones faith, family or/and heritage)

Revolutions require high social trust which can only come from homogeneous groups , plus they require a collective leadership and defining moral principles which a nihilistic, anarcho communist mob simply do not posses. This is why among other reasons the anarchists were annihilated by the fascists in Spain. In the 30s.

The Alt -right answer to my question would be by creating white consciousness for White Europeans in white Nations for the benefit of their people and traditions.

This to me is the most likely cause of real revoloutionwry change, which is why it is under constant attack from both the neoliberal super structure and it’s useful idiots doing its bidding on the ‘left’
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#51
Report 2 weeks ago
#51
(Original post by Davij038)
A: I think this is of course an illusion put forward by a cynical other ethnic group who do the reverse policies in their own homeland. Human nature and finite resources show this to be a dangerous pipe dream.

B: even if this was sincere or/ and possible, it would not be the paradise you think it would be. To a African tribesman, we live lives of unimagineable luxury and comfort yet are we happier? Why do we commit so many more suicides? Struggle and suffering are an integral part of what it means to be human, and if we can’t live as as humans then we will simply not live at all.
Well all life is suffering, but yeah I think on the whole it would be a better less alienating existence. I also didn't say it was possible, it was a thought experiment (which you carried out) in a world where it was possible.

The whole point is to be able to live a life more akin to an african bush man. So not sure how this counteracts anything. Arguably the premise of marxism is there is an innocent state of humanity, found in our hunter getherer ancestors( who were primitive communists), and the goal of politics and economic development is to engineer a world where we can live like that again, but with all the machinery and complexity of a modern economy.

I think you are also making the mistake of thinking there is a garden of eden to escape back to. Suicide, death and illness have always been a thing. We are the product of an indifferent universe after all.
Last edited by ChaoticButterfly; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#52
Report 2 weeks ago
#52
(Original post by Davij038)

The end goal of being able to ‘climb mountains and philosophise’ (aka do jack **** is simply not an important or worthwhile moral good as defending ones faith, family or/and heritage)

Revolutions require high social trust which can only come from homogeneous groups , plus they require a collective leadership and defining moral principles which a nihilistic, anarcho communist mob simply do not posses. This is why among other reasons the anarchists were annihilated by the fascists in Spain. In the 30s.
Why does my scenario exclude morality, faith and family? Climbing a mountain is like poetry. It is good for it's own sake and it is actions like this that is fundamentally human and can have useful spill over effects. Your beloved Nazis were big on mountaineers lol, it's very ubermench.

There would still be a place for morality, as there would still be moral questions and issues to solve. We would still get ill, there would still be scientific enquiry, there would still be sport, there would be a whole heap of human activity which includes questions of how we relate to each other.

I also specifically said I would probably have children as well. I don't where you get this idea that people only have children when have to sell their labour to live. Where as with how things are now, I just can't cope with the prospect of having to raise a child alongside all the alienating **** and then having to put them through it.

It wasn't just the anarchists who were defeated by the fascists.
Last edited by ChaoticButterfly; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Pinkisk
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#53
Report 2 weeks ago
#53
(Original post by Davij038)
For Jews, not for Goyim.

In the same way that under Islam, lying is forbidden except in the use of Taqiya where it is permitted if you are reviving non Muslims for the benefit of Islam
Yes. I think it goes without saying that our rules only apply to those who choose to follow our religion. We don't believe in imposing our laws, our way of life, our choices on others.

You claimed that Judaism has no law against pornography. I provided you with the evidence that this in fact is wrong. Clearly your ideas about Jews are based on fallacies.

There are many people in Islam, in christianity and other faiths and ideologies that do things that go against the teachings of their faiths. That does not mean that those actions of theirs are in any way related to their religion or ideology. Many communists were born Jews. All of them without one single exception upon adopting communism renounced their beliefs in G_d and Judaism. We cannot judge Judaism by their actions. We cannot judge judaism by the actions of marxists, communists, criminals. We judge Judaism by its teachings and not the actions of people who's only association with Judaism is genetic.
Last edited by Pinkisk; 2 weeks ago
1
reply
Rachmaninov
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#54
Report 2 weeks ago
#54
(Original post by Arran90)
Marxism is not a popular political ideology in Britain but why does it refuse to die? What exactly is so attractive about it that keeps its flame burning?
“Two things are infinite: the universe, and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the former”

Albert Einstein
2
reply
Axiomasher
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#55
Report 2 weeks ago
#55
(Original post by Rachmaninov)
“Two things are infinite: the universe, and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the former”

Albert Einstein
Einstein was a socialist.
0
reply
Arran90
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#56
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#56
A notable feature of Marxism is that its supporters very rarely come from the ranks of the poor or the economically downtrodden, or even the working class who is just getting by financially, but instead from comfortably well off intellectual types.

The same phenomenon was true in the 1930s depression according to Peter Wright, the author of Spy Catcher.

(Original post by Pinkisk)
Marxism is the main ideology behind left-wing and liberal politics. Communism is entirely based on Marxism. Feminism is entirely based Marxism. Socialism is entirely based on Marxism. All these aformentioned ideologies are more so alive today than they were back in the mid 1800s when Marxism was birthed. They keep Marxism alive.
Socialism lacks a precise definition. I have previously mentioned non-Marxist strands of socialism in Britain in the 19th century with origins going back to the Diggers and the Chartists. The Labour Party owed more to Methodism than to Marx in its early years.

https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho...0&postcount=65

I am well aware that Marxists are overwhelmingly feminists but where exactly did the connection between Marxism and feminism take place in the past? Did Marx himself even spend any time thinking about abortion or consider it an issue high on his agenda?
1
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#57
Report 2 weeks ago
#57
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Well all life is suffering, but yeah I think on the whole it would be a better less alienating existence. I also didn't say it was possible, it was a thought experiment (which you carried out) in a world where it was possible.

The whole point is to be able to live a life more akin to an african bush man. So not sure how this counteracts anything. Arguably the premise of marxism is there is an innocent state of humanity, found in our hunter getherer ancestors( who were primitive communists), and the goal of politics and economic development is to engineer a world where we can live like that again, but with all the machinery and complexity of a modern economy.

I think you are also making the mistake of thinking there is a garden of eden to escape back to. Suicide, death and illness have always been a thing. We are the product of an indifferent universe after all.
A: why are you advocating for something you don’t think is possible?

B: suffering makes a part of life. You cannot have pleasure without discomfort, you cannot have good without evil.

C: that hunter gatherer society was incredibly tribalistic and patriarchal, even for me. The idea that we were noble savages is laughable. Also how on Earth are you going to be able to freely convince people to go outside when they can freely stay inside and binge watch Netflix and stuff themselves with chips?

D: I don’t believe there is a garden of Eden we can escape to. All things will fall in time and human failure is inevitable as per the City of God. We are not in an indifferent universe but as
one in which we must fight to survive.

As a great man once said:

‘Those who want to live, let them fight and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live’
0
reply
Arran90
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#58
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#58
(Original post by Pinkisk)
Many communists were born Jews. All of them without one single exception upon adopting communism renounced their beliefs in G_d and Judaism.
It would be technically incorrect to call Marxism and communism Jewish ideologies as they are completely incompatible with the Torah and traditional Jewish beliefs. What I find intriguing is that many of the 'greatest' minds in communism during the 19th and early 20th century were in the heads of people of Jewish heritage.

It is questionable and debatable whether Marx was a Jew, a former Jew, a Protestant, or a former Protestant himself, but why exactly were so many people of Jewish origin attracted to Marxism in the 19th and early 20th century then they renounced their religious beliefs?

Marxism wasn't specifically written as an ideology for Jews but by 1900 it had taken on a (possibly unexpected) Jewish angle that was not prevalent amongst non-Marxists strains of socialism that were competing for public support from the downtrodden masses.

Were people of Jewish origin ultimately responsible for keeping the flame of Marxism burning right up to the present day?
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#59
Report 2 weeks ago
#59
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Why does my scenario exclude morality, faith and family? Climbing a mountain is like poetry. It is good for it's own sake and it is actions like this that is fundamentally human and can have useful spill over effects. Your beloved Nazis were big on mountaineers lol, it's very ubermench.

There would still be a place for morality, as there would still be moral questions and issues to solve. We would still get ill, there would still be scientific enquiry, there would still be sport, there would be a whole heap of human activity which includes questions of how we relate to each other.

I also specifically said I would probably have children as well. I don't where you get this idea that people only have children when have to sell their labour to live. Where as with how things are now, I just can't cope with the prospect of having to raise a child alongside all the alienating **** and then having to put them through it.

It wasn't just the anarchists who were defeated by the fascists.

A: Becausec you don’t believe in any of those things. Just as a home for everyone is a home for no one, your attempts at defining faith, family and morality is woolly, subjective and ultimately nihilistic. That is why you don’t believe life has meaning.

B: I love mountaineeering, but it is no subsistitite for the above.

C: Yes but those questions and endeavours would be for abysmal nihilistic purposes such as how can I help my son retransition back to a girl again after she’s decided she doesn’t want to be a boy anymore?

D: it’s not you that’s going to have the child though, you would have to find a woman to settle down with and make sacrifices for. That is essentially what a family is about, negating their individual freedom for a greater freedom and happiness. This is getting harder to do now that we are living in an age of greater individual ‘freedom’ and materialistic selfishness. There’s an economic factor there of course, but the same anti social politics are practised on those of the left.
0
reply
Arran90
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#60
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#60
(Original post by Davij038)
I’m speaking abput jews genetically who are a distinct group and as such behave differently and to their own advantage. Whilst, as with any group there are outliers most Jews whether conservative , liberal or communist favour similar policies which are harmful to the west and beneficial for their own. Many of the earliest Zionists were secular communists- the USSR was one if the first to recognise Israel.
Considering that Soviet style communism is a totally and utterly discredited system of government today, then it raises the question whether many of the ideas and achievements of capitalists of Jewish heritage are also destined to be discredited in the future.

A certain faction of people of (mostly Ashkenazi) Jewish heritage appear to be in games for themselves, so concepts like Soviet style communism, Marxism, and varieties of capitalism, could actually be nothing more than tools they use for as long as they require to further their cause which are later discarded when they are no longer of use, whilst the vast majority of gentiles or goyim who support such ideologies are actually being taken for a ride without realising it.

I find it strange how so many Marxists and Marxist organisations in Britain champion the Palestinian cause despite the close ties between Zionists and communists in the late 19th and early 20th century culminating in the USSR being amongst the first nations to recognise Israel. It is a web of confusion. What I do know is that many Jews who support Palestine hate Marxists even if they (claim to) support Palestine.
1
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

Are you chained to your phone?

Yes (109)
19.57%
Yes, but I'm trying to cut back (227)
40.75%
Nope, not that interesting (221)
39.68%

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