Marxism

[Cisairse]

The bulk of Marxism is the economic/historical theories.

Fine but we run into the same problem: has it ever been implemented as an economic system?

How can I judge it?

Again, it isn't an economic system, really, so it can't be "implemented."

You can judge it by studying the works which created it, and the works of its proponents and detractors, and decide who you feel makes a more compelling case.

To get started I recommend beginning with the Manifesto, which is the OG work of Marxism; Marx's magnum opus, Capital, is intended primarily for expert audiences and may come across very dense/difficult to follow for those without a background in academic study of economics. The Manifesto is very exquisitely written prose and is approachable for anyone and everyone.

[Kubra]

The bulk of Marxism is the economic/historical theories.

Fine but we run into the same problem: has it ever been implemented as an economic system?

How can I judge it?

Marxism isn't an "economic system" any more than ricardianism is. It was a system of economic thought, which we can also say if ricardianism, which tend to lean towards some general policies.
I mean I guess one can say that Japanese economic thought until a half decade before the bubble popped was extremely marxist oriented and we can probably assumed that affected policy. They weren't communists, just Marxists. Weird lot, them.

[Esotyrica]

Fine but we run into the same problem: has it ever been implemented as an economic system?

How can I judge it?

Marxism isn't an "economic system" any more than ricardianism is. It was a system of economic thought, which we can also say if ricardianism, which tend to lean towards some general policies.
I mean I guess one can say that Japanese economic thought until a half decade before the bubble popped was extremely marxist oriented and we can probably assumed that affected policy. They weren't communists, just Marxists. Weird lot, them.

bro ricardo milos is an economist??? epic....

marxism has been attempted to be implemented numerous times across the world and to say that "x or y isn't real marxism" is stupid because at some point you'll run into something that matches up

otherwise you end up running into the "communism/socialism doesn't work with human nature" argument which would have validity if communism has never been successfully implemented beforehand

[Kubra]

Marxism isn't an "economic system" any more than ricardianism is. It was a system of economic thought, which we can also say if ricardianism, which tend to lean towards some general policies.
I mean I guess one can say that Japanese economic thought until a half decade before the bubble popped was extremely marxist oriented and we can probably assumed that affected policy. They weren't communists, just Marxists. Weird lot, them.

bro ricardo milos is an economist??? epic....

marxism has been attempted to be implemented numerous times across the world and to say that "x or y isn't real marxism" is stupid because at some point you'll run into something that matches up

otherwise you end up running into the "communism/socialism doesn't work with human nature" argument which would have validity if communism has never been successfully implemented beforehand

What I'm mostly getting at is that there's no such thing as a "real marxism", because "real" is a fundamentally pointless category in these sorts of questions. Rather, I'm tryna get ya'll to discuss actual policy, which is the actual meat of any discussion that involves, you know, actually existing societies.
After, all it's a dangerous line of thought to think that something fails because it is marxism and something is successful because it's capitalism. That's what Edward Lampert thought when he reformed Sears into what he thought to be the most authentic expression of a capitalistic enterprise and ended up with a Soviet Union in miniature.

[The Remote Islands]

I know there's other stuff Marx wrote about his own beliefs, I just don't know all the titles of his books because, well, I'm not a communist.

It's absolutely hilarious that you said Marx should be "required reading" and then immediately admitted that you haven't read any of it

Not like communists read it either lol

[Duvniask]

It's absolutely hilarious that you said Marx should be "required reading" and then immediately admitted that you haven't read any of it

Not like communists read it either lol

Most probably do (it's fairly light reading, like 35 pages). Just admit to your ignorance of its topics from the beginning instead of peddling nonsense.

[Feyrisshire]

Again, it isn't an economic system, really, so it can't be "implemented."

You can judge it by studying the works which created it, and the works of its proponents and detractors, and decide who you feel makes a more compelling case.

To get started I recommend beginning with the Manifesto, which is the OG work of Marxism; Marx's magnum opus, Capital, is intended primarily for expert audiences and may come across very dense/difficult to follow for those without a background in academic study of economics. The Manifesto is very exquisitely written prose and is approachable for anyone and everyone.

They are probably confusing "Marxism", as in Marx only and his economic and historical framework, and "Marxism-Leninism" which is distinctly more political and more answers the question of how to apply Marx's framework to society.

Most probably do (it's fairly light reading, like 35 pages). Just admit to your ignorance of its topics from the beginning instead of peddling nonsense.

Saying "I haven't read the Communist Manifesto" is basically the same as "I'm a noob" in leftist speak. Lots of leftists love reading theory a lot.

[Duvniask]

Marxism isn't an "economic system" any more than ricardianism is. It was a system of economic thought, which we can also say if ricardianism, which tend to lean towards some general policies.
I mean I guess one can say that Japanese economic thought until a half decade before the bubble popped was extremely marxist oriented and we can probably assumed that affected policy. They weren't communists, just Marxists. Weird lot, them.

bro ricardo milos is an economist??? epic....

marxism has been attempted to be implemented numerous times across the world and to say that "x or y isn't real marxism" is stupid because at some point you'll run into something that matches up

otherwise you end up running into the "communism/socialism doesn't work with human nature" argument which would have validity if communism has never been successfully implemented beforehand

You don't "implement" Marxism anymore than you "implement" the study of the laws of nature. It's a way of analysis, seeking to uncover the march of history, not a political programme by itself.

Communism is what is to be implemented, and it is not done by the theorizing of Marxist academia or conspiracy of a cabal of political leaders; it is done when the working class seizes the means of production by its own volition.

[Cisairse]

Marxism isn't an "economic system" any more than ricardianism is. It was a system of economic thought, which we can also say if ricardianism, which tend to lean towards some general policies.
I mean I guess one can say that Japanese economic thought until a half decade before the bubble popped was extremely marxist oriented and we can probably assumed that affected policy. They weren't communists, just Marxists. Weird lot, them.

bro ricardo milos is an economist??? epic....

marxism has been attempted to be implemented numerous times across the world and to say that "x or y isn't real marxism" is stupid because at some point you'll run into something that matches up

otherwise you end up running into the "communism/socialism doesn't work with human nature" argument which would have validity if communism has never been successfully implemented beforehand

Communism isn't Marxism, though, which is the part that you seem to be stuck on.

[Sanghyeok]

Hello NSG, I'd like to open a conversation about Marxism.

To start off this discussion, I have a few questions for the community:

• Do you believe that Marx's views on the class dichotomy are valid, or reductionist? Some modern authors have claimed that Marx downplayed the role of intersectionality in oppression, but Marx himself wrote about gender roles etc often, including in the Manifesto.
• Is Marxism—Leninism revisionist, or is it merely an extension of Marx's views?
• Do you believe that Marx has been vindicated or damned by the more than 170 years since he began to publish his theories?

1. They are valid, but we must not ignore intersectionality. Following only one liberation movement cannot completely free that marginalized group, but neither can only class struggle. Class struggle is the root of many issues, but that does not mean it cannot be solved in part by others. Consider the story from coloured feminists in the US, who found themselves at a quandary: feminist groups fought for white women, and coloured people's groups fought for coloured men. We cannot have a situation where the revolution centres itself about fighting for cishet white male comrades. Therefore, those intersection and identity groups must not be sidelined but fully incorporated into the revolution.

2. It is an "answer" to the "questions" that Marx posed. Marx listed issues and a basic framework for his vision, Marxist-Leninism is the full framework for how to achieve Marx's vision.

3. Vindicated, by far. Class struggle is once again being more and more apparent, and will only continue to do so.

[UniversalCommons]

What Marxism shows along with most of the current political systems is that they cannot provide or deal with basic abundance. By 1980, universal basic abundance where everyone on earth can be housed and fed had already happened. The basics can be provided for everyone. People still continue to view resources as scarce irregardless of their political philosophy. This is counterintuitive. Most of class struggle is unnecessary, there is enough for everyone even with some people being richer than others.
https://www.cato.org/publications/polic ... -resources

Starting with there is enough for everyone, it is possible to build an increasing level of resources through technology, not politics, where the total amount of food, energy, and resources increases steadily without depleting the resources of the earth. The main barrier to this is politics of all stripes and a constant desire for conflict and war.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/ ... -11644811/

Marxist is based on class conflict and scarcity so is capitalism for that matter. A change in thinking is necessary which moves people away from monumental spending on military spending to spending on monumental projects aimed to solve problems like food distribution, climate change, asteroid mining, and other pie in the sky ideas. It is ideas like the International Space Station which will make our future not politics.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Hello NSG, I'd like to open a conversation about Marxism.

To start off this discussion, I have a few questions for the community:

• Do you believe that Marx's views on the class dichotomy are valid, or reductionist? Some modern authors have claimed that Marx downplayed the role of intersectionality in oppression, but Marx himself wrote about gender roles etc often, including in the Manifesto.
• Is Marxism—Leninism revisionist, or is it merely an extension of Marx's views?
• Do you believe that Marx has been vindicated or damned by the more than 170 years since he began to publish his theories?

1. They are valid, but we must not ignore intersectionality. Following only one liberation movement cannot completely free that marginalized group, but neither can only class struggle. Class struggle is the root of many issues, but that does not mean it cannot be solved in part by others. Consider the story from coloured feminists in the US, who found themselves at a quandary: feminist groups fought for white women, and coloured people's groups fought for coloured men. We cannot have a situation where the revolution centres itself about fighting for cishet white male comrades. Therefore, those intersection and identity groups must not be sidelined but fully incorporated into the revolution.

2. It is an "answer" to the "questions" that Marx posed. Marx listed issues and a basic framework for his vision, Marxist-Leninism is the full framework for how to achieve Marx's vision.

3. Vindicated, by far. Class struggle is once again being more and more apparent, and will only continue to do so.

If you think that the "intersectional" people within our group would act that benignly, you're mistaken.

[Norastan]

Communism is ok in theory, but terrible in practice.

[Cordel One]

Communism is ok in theory, but terrible in practice.

Communism is finished! I don't know how Marxism can hold up in the face of this insightful take.

[Sanghyeok]

---

You are intersectional yourself if I am not wrong.

[Sanghyeok]

Communism is finished! I don't know how Marxism can hold up in the face of this insightful take.

Guess our work is done. Let's go home.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Imagine if a country has an ironic communist insurgency. The government gets overthrown by meme lords in red berets.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Communism is ok in theory, but terrible in practice.

Communism is finished! I don't know how Marxism can hold up in the face of this insightful take.

Rip communism
1848-2020
ok in theory
Terrible in practice

[Disgraces]

I consider myself a Marxist, but I am not a communist.

Isn't Marxism Communist?

[West Leas Oros 2]

---

You are intersectional yourself if I am not wrong.

Depends on how you define "intersectional". Like anything leftist, expect infighting. My beliefs on the subject tend to be "don't be an asshole to somebody because of their race, gender, etc.". Is that asking too much?

[Achidyemay]

Hey guys, just wanted to share the results so far of an ongoing experiment from Liberty Twitter:

A few anarchists have basically been reading lots of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, primarily theory sourced from Marx and Lenin's books, essays, and letters. Especially Lenin's memos, in particular during his rise and subsequent capture of power. From there they dress up their account with roses and hammer/sickles and engage in The Discourse. Here is what they've found.

1. The Ancom mentality is weak/subservient.
To start, the first people these anarchists came across were other anarchists. Here is where Lenin's writings on anarchism and anarcho-communism come into play. Every time an ancom made an argument and then found out that they were arguing with a Marxist-Leninist, they immediately began to cede ground to the ML. They either refused to engage, or immediately started agreeing with the ML, even if the point ran counter to what the ancom was espousing.

2. The communist movement isn't strong, it's just full of neo-liberals.
Theoretically, the ancoms and BLMs and Antifas could be brought into line with Marxist thinking. The great success of Marxism is that even dirty capitalist pig-dogs use Marx's language and ontology. Already, these people have a baseline understanding of class struggle, which is why these groups are typically considered left or left-leaning. However, their constant goal is an increase for civil rights and civil liberties. The only time class even theoretically enters into their minds is in intersectionality. Otherwise things like race or sexuality are more important than class theory. And we all know what Marx thought about black people.

3. Marxism can describe, but socialism and communism cannot save, a society increasingly engaged in "information trading".
Right now about 40% of jobs in America are in administrative work, pencil pushing and the like. These jobs are so far removed from the production line that many of these people feel an angst. Clearly late-stage capitalism has given us a society where everyone is still forced to work, and politicians promise more jobs, but the productive capacity of the workforce precludes the need for more jobs. Corporatism has increased the size of the petty bourgeoise to include a plurality of the workforce. Without a factory to sit in, or farm to control, or logistical line to cut, the abilities of striking workers to accomplish anything are mitigated.

4. Embarrassment works as a tactic when your ideology is based and has no members.
We can see this in the first and several following pages of this thread. Tankies, whose ideology is based and has no members, can just constantly joke about killing people. The common joke that the left can't meme only applies to lower lefties, the auth left can absolutely meme, it's their only actual tactic. If their revolutionary ideology is ever going to take root, part of its praxis is to unite the left rigidly under threat of death. A one party system. They don't need to worry about crafting strong arguments, their merit is the strong state. To this end, they seek to embarrass people who believe in anything else. And the thing is, this argument style, neither pathos nor logos, works.

[Farnhamia]

Hello NSG, I'd like to open a conversation about Marxism.

To start off this discussion, I have a few questions for the community:

• Do you believe that Marx's views on the class dichotomy are valid, or reductionist? Some modern authors have claimed that Marx downplayed the role of intersectionality in oppression, but Marx himself wrote about gender roles etc often, including in the Manifesto.
• Is Marxism—Leninism revisionist, or is it merely an extension of Marx's views?
• Do you believe that Marx has been vindicated or damned by the more than 170 years since he began to publish his theories?

1. They are valid, but we must not ignore intersectionality. Following only one liberation movement cannot completely free that marginalized group, but neither can only class struggle. Class struggle is the root of many issues, but that does not mean it cannot be solved in part by others. Consider the story from coloured feminists in the US, who found themselves at a quandary: feminist groups fought for white women, and coloured people's groups fought for coloured men. We cannot have a situation where the revolution centres itself about fighting for cishet white male comrades. Therefore, those intersection and identity groups must not be sidelined but fully incorporated into the revolution.

2. It is an "answer" to the "questions" that Marx posed. Marx listed issues and a basic framework for his vision, Marxist-Leninism is the full framework for how to achieve Marx's vision.

3. Vindicated, by far. Class struggle is once again being more and more apparent, and will only continue to do so.

Please do not post in threads that have not had a new post in more than four weeks. If you have an update to make, ask in Moderation. Otherwise, start a new thread and link the old one.