The Value of Marxism

The word 'Marxism' is popularly associated with repressive regimes, like the old Soviet Union or North Korea today. And that's completely understandable -- it makes sense to judge an ideology by the fruits of its implementation.

But ... life is more complicated than that.

Without going into a lot of detail, I would like to propose to Political Forum readers, from every point of the political spectrum, that people who call themselves Marxists have sometimes produced some very good work -- histories, political analyses, observations about events.

Of course this is true about people from other political traditions as well. It's just that anyone
who calls himself a 'Marxist' may find he has therefore limited his potential audience, unnecssarily.

In any case, I would like to urge everyone to read the following thoughtful essay: I've linked to it (in red) but I'll try to tempt you to read the whole thing by quoting the first paragraph:

If you go on to read the whole article, I would appreciate your comments.

 

If there is but one thing I can say that Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels taught the world is this: the power of ideas, especially revolutionary ones can change the world. The idea combined with the power of personality is a potent formula for mobilizing millions. The same can be said with Islam.

People here or even myself may not like the ideas presented, but it does inspire one to be ambitious and think big.

 

Hmm... it's certainly true that the ideas of Marxism were held by people who changed the world. But then the ideas of Christianity did the same .. and I'm not talking about religious changes, but about the English Revolution -- the revolutionaries were devout fundamentalist Protestants. And then the French Revolutionaries were sort-of Deists who believed in a democratic Republic. But, yes, ideas are critical.

It is a great shame that at the moment, there is not world-embracing 'ideology' of liberal democracy. People are willing to fight and even die for Utopia, or to do God's Will ... but liberal democracy apparently is boring.

 

Marxism is evil. There’s no putting lipstick on that pig.

For every one good thing Marxism did, there are a hundred bad things. It’s a loser.

 

Lol, Conservatives and the Russians like to use Marxists to try and undermine Democrats. Yet I thought the radical left party Democrats were all Marxists, I'm confused.

 

The singular value of Marxism is as a cautionary tale for future generations.

I attempted to read the article, and agree with one early claim, that the virtue signaling of the contemporary, indoctrinated college Left is gestural more than political. But the question then becomes, who is to blame for that? My vote is for the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex statist bureaucratic academics who aren't even sincere Marxists any more. They are rather ordinary capitalists seeking to protect their illicit grant and contractor culture by indoctrinating young people as statist drones trained with "Marxish" crit theory jargon to ignore the immorality of self-enriching Complex command transactions. Instead, they are trained to focus on all manner of social and cultural red herring talking points... which they then spew endlessly and thoughtlessly in validation of the recent antileft "Non Player Character" meme.

Then the article devolves into a combination movie review and a stilted, jargon-ridden glass bead game full of strained comparisons and allusions with no clearly discernible points or claims. No thanks.

 

I agree with some points of Socialism. Every Human must have

-- food
-- housing
-- medical care

 

Its not possible to understand capitalism without reference to Marxism. Of course, for the ideological driven right, understanding is an over-rated business...

 

What Marx did was to let us know that a political and economic system that ignores human nature doesn't work. We got that out of the way. Now if we could get the neo communists to see it.

 

That doesn't make any sense. If there is any economic school of thought that doesn't understand human nature that is 'free market economics'. It assumes hyper-rationality which can only be deemed to be rational idiocy. Adam Smith, when it comes to embedding human nature within the analysis, would be closer to Marx than Friedman.

 

No it doesn't assume "hyper-rationality" whatever that means. It assumes some -basic- level of rationality, enough for self-determination of one's own life, together with a preference to transact voluntarily as opposed to collective command, and government as strictly contained and enumerated in de minimis function and power to support the necessary accompanying individual property rights.

 

Sounds like you don't understand free market economics! It has zero understanding of human nature. It assumes folk are akin to machines, simply calculation machines around the premise of selfish constrained maximisation. Sen got it right when he condemned such approaches for assuming folk were rational idiots.

Can you refer to the 'human nature' traits assumed in free market economics? Perhaps I've missed something!

 

Please continue.

Do you mean that free market economics makes faulty assumptions about human nature?

Says you. I say straw man.

I don't know who Sen is. If they are some obscure Marxist-collectivist-statist economist, try again.

No. I will stand on my prior post.

 

The two are linked. I believe you have zero understanding of free market economics. I have given you the opportunity to prove me wrong. Can you refer to the 'human nature' traits assumed in free market economics?

 

You (nor I) are in any position to "give opportunities to prove" or disprove anything.

You made the claim that free market economics assumes "hyper-rationality" (IMO a semantic nullity) with no definition, evidence, reasoning, examples or even anecdotes supporting your claim. That's fine, but I say that's not only erroneous, but fallacious to boot. And here we are.

 

Not if they don't work for them.

 

You've been asked something very simple. Can you refer to the 'human nature' traits assumed in free market economics? You seem to be hiding. Wonder why...

 

Unfortunately many people can not work. People with disabilities have much harder time trying to work. Many mental disabilities are not obvious.

 

Answered in post #11.

Again, you are in no position to play at Socratic dialogue here, an obnoxious tendency seen almost exclusively in leftists on this forum and elsewhere.

You made a claim about "hyper rationality" assumptions in free market economics, a bogus jargon term IMO used in this case to set up a straw man. You have not defined the term, nor have you added any convincing reasoning to your claim. My response was that free market economics does not presume some "hyper rationality" but only an average, reasonable degree of rationality. And again, here we are.

 

You didn't. Let's try again. Can you refer to the 'human nature' traits assumed in free market economics?

List them!

 

Talking about Lenin - he said exactly the same thing. But in his society everyone who wanted a job could get one and if they didn't want a job then they wouldn't eat. In a capitalist society a number of involuntarily unemployed must exist in order for the economy to function. Therefore since it's a necessity that some not be able to earn a wage those involuntary unemployed should be compensated so that they can meet their basic human needs.

BTW damn fine article!

 

It doesn't make sense to you. Like Marx, you don't understand that people don't want to share with people who aren't loved or family. Most people are interested in getting ahead, not working to get nowhere. I understand why it doesn't make sense to you. Perhaps some historical reading would help you understand better.

 

Answered in the most crystal clear way in post #11.

Let's not "try again" until you define the term "hyper rationality" in the context of market choices.

Remember folks ALWAYS have a WRITTEN RECORD of ANY discussion attempted with a Leftist.

 

Why? According to whom? Then you follow this nonsensical premise with a sentence beginning with "Therefore?"

 

Given you can't even come out with a simple list, you have nothing to say. Hope you have a great life dodging!