You must log in or # to comment.
Genuinely, though. You describe democratic worker councils, large public programs, criticize Capitalism, even point out Imperialism, and everyone agrees with you and what you want, as long as you don’t call yourself a Marxist.
I see this a ton on Lemmy, if I describe what I want and how I want to get there, very few people openly disagree unless I add that this is Marxism. So, I’ve stopped trying to hide that these ideas are Marxist and instead focus on correcting misconceptions about Marxism, like thinking Communism would have no government because Marx used the word “stateless” when describing it, not realizing he meant things like Private Property Rights and other statist means of upholding Capitalism. Marx wasn’t an Anarchist nor did he want Anarchism.
Indeed, as soon as you mention Marxism then the whole conversation becomes about that. Simply discussing the concepts with people without using trigger words tends to be a lot more productive. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what people want to call it, as long as they can understand what course of action is desirable.
I do think it’s useful to dispel the veil, though. People simply agreeing with concepts doesn’t mean they will pursue action, it’s important that people actually understand Marxism, at least in my opinion. Agitprop is good.
For sure, I agree that chipping away at the propaganda has its own value, hence the meme. :)
People conflate Marxism with extreme left beliefs, most people don’t even actually know what Marxism is
Would you care to elaborate on what aspects of these beliefs you find to be extreme. Is it the idea that workers should own the fruits of their labor, or perhaps the idea that the purpose of work should be for common benefit?
I’m not saying I find them extreme, I’m saying they’re not extreme but people hear the word and immediately think far left extremism
But what is far left extremism exactly, how is it even defined. The typical definition seems to be anything that deviates too far from the status quo.
deleted by creator
I mean, Marxism is extreme left belief.
We shouldn’t fall into a trap of defining what’s extreme as a deviation from the mainstream liberal bias in the west. In my view the idea that a minority of people should own the means of production and dictate the economic reality for the working majority is what’s extreme. It is true, that Marxists advocate for extreme measures for overthrowing an extreme system though.
I generally agree, however whether something is reasonable or just has little to do with deviation from the norm. It’s linguistic gymnastics, really. Marxism is extreme in the sense that it is a firmly Leftist position in a world dominated by Capital, but is perfectly reasonable at the same time.
I dunno, more of a monologue than a response, but I hope it cleared up my intent.
For sure, I do think this is worth pushing back on though. If we agree that the world capitalism built is itself extreme then, a firmly Leftist ideology is perhaps something we should be striving for to get away from the state we currently find ourselves in.
The problem is, Marxism was created over 100 years ago. I bet Karl Marx wouldn’t agree to his own theorem for the world we live actually. It needs upgrades, and an other name and shouldn’t be set in comparison with the systems which tried to be marxism / communism.
Smaller steps would be a good start, why not take a closer look at Portugal? A left government recreate the whole state in just a few years and save the country from being bankrupt. This wasn’t Marxism, but it was a left wing party with really good ideas.
You haven’t seriously engaged with Marx if you think the stuff he wrote isn’t still relevant.
Not meant as a diss, but please actually engage with his body of work before making this criticism.
Describe “Marx’s theorem” without paraphrasing wikipedia. This is nonsensical and as an adult you’re supposed to read about the things you choose to talk about. Linnaeus lived three centuries ago, but would you throw out taxonomy? Is the scientific method outdated because Francis Bacon wouldn’t know a thing about modern science? People build on the epistomological and ontological frameworks to make a living tradition.
The problem is, Marxism was created over 100 years ago. I bet Karl Marx wouldn’t agree to his own theorem for the world we live actually. It needs upgrades, and an other name and shouldn’t be set in comparison with the systems which tried to be marxism / communism.
On what grounds do you think he wouldn’t agree? Marxists since Marx have expanded on his ideas, like analysis of Imperialism, but Marxism is stronger than ever and consistently proved correct.
Smaller steps would be a good start, why not take a closer look at Portugal? A left government recreate the whole state in just a few years and save the country from being bankrupt. This wasn’t Marxism, but it was a left wing party with really good ideas.
I don’t see what this has to do with Marxism.
Well, the general form of Marxist ideology in the population is not so much. But some elements of this ideology are so strong that the Republican Party uses this model of discourse for its voters.
What on Earth are you on about?
Have I finally met that unicorn of perfect ignorance for whom the “Trump Is a Leninist” thinkpieces were written for? I’m just dying to know what part of Marx is used by Republicans!
This article explains it better, although it is from 2017. Link
And the MAGAs are against big business, just like some of the Democrats.
And the MAGAs are against big business, just like some of the Democrats.
Lmao. That’s why they stan a billionaire and Peter Thiel vice that fucks couched
I called it! Though I suppose it was plain enough by the time I came across it.
Faux-populist rhetoric is not a Marx thing and Magats are absolutely not opposed to big business. It’s like Trump’s only thing that he’s a billionaire due to real estate and other related fields.
I had a premonition that you will one day drown taking a bath because you’re too stupid to know which way is up.
Marxism is a living, constantly evolving science, so it very much adapts with the times.
It’s best to think of Marx and Engels as the Newton of political science and sociology… did they get everything right, and should we treat their words as gospel? Of course not, but their central tenets and ideas stand, and they built a solid foundation for others to build on.
We can recommend a lot of works on how marxism has evolved as a science, and how modern marxists view class struggle in the 21st century.
yeah thats why we read the works of other theorists that have lived since him and have taken his ideas an updated them and applied them to new circumstances at every moment since he wrote his books, for fucks sakes most communist dont even call themselves Marxists most of us call ourselves Marxists Leninist. Also if u actually read anything Marks wrote u would realize that while specifics are almost all outdated the ideas themselves and methods of analyzing and understanding things hold up just fine.
What in Marxism do you think needs upgrades?
An ideology has to evolve over time in order to remain relevant to the generations that come and go from time to time. If you don’t do that, you will stagnate with a small group of people.
To gather more people, you have to find a common ground of the groups that are marginalized from society at that time, and you have to lead them to achieve that goal.
What in Marxism needs to be upgraded, specifically?
They should have a Marxist ideology that is friendly to a large part of the population or marginalized groups in order to achieve relevance.
Adapt new technologies to their ideology and not come into conflict.
Such as?
The word ‘Marxism’ means five different things in five different fields. You’ll need to be clearer about what exactly you feel should change.
From what I understand, the core ideas of Marxism - the ones about epistemiology, metaphysics, sociology and history - are more or less universally accepted in those fields (to the point that a student of, say, history may learn Marx’s theories as revealed truth, without even questioning them). His writings on economics are controversial, but again the core of it has remained largely unchanged.
Also, Marx thought of sociology, economics and so on as sciences, meaning that a theory is either right or wrong (or partially right). How many people believe in them has no effect on their truth value. So I don’t get what you mean by an ‘ideology that is friendly to a large part of the population or marginalized groups’.
this one drives me up walls omg.
how did they manage to demonize something thats so common sense.
Pervasive cradle-to-grave anti-communist indoctrination programming, affecting nearly every western institution from media, education, law, political structures, etc.
whoops, marxism again
Propaganda is a powerful drug
Lots of people promote eugenics until you point out that they’re promoting eugenics.
Thanks for providing an example of an opposite.
how is that an opposite?
an opposite would be something everybody thinks is a bad idea until you name it
unless you’re saying people disagree with the concepts and goals of eugenics until you say “but that’s just eugenics” at which point they’re fully on board?
Most people think that Eugenics are a bad idea even if you don’t name it, which is the opposite of people actually agreeing with the ideas behind Marxism without knowing its Marxism.
but that’s not what the comment said?
Lots of people promote eugenics
people sometimes end up accidentally talking themselves into eugenics and promoting eugenics before somebody points out that they’re talking about eugenics
But it is what the comment said. It’s saying that people promote eugenics without realizing it. They do so by talking about the mechanics of eugenics without naming them.
i’m baffled as to what’s going on here
- if you describe the mechanics of eugenics, people like the idea
- if you label the mechanics of eugenics as eugenics, people do not like the idea
versus
- if you describe the mechanics of marxism, people like the idea
- if you label the mechanics of marxism as marxism, people do not like the idea
Your confusion comes from the fact that you assume most people like the mechanics of eugenics. If that’s the sort of crowd you hang out with, then you may be associating with fascists.
Do they? Pretty sure lots of people would reject an idea like “maybe we should just kill disabled people” whatever you call it.
Socialism and communism would also have been accepted.
I usually hate your biased posts, but this is fire.
Complaining about ‘bias’ in every day situations like a totally normal well adjusted person
deleted by creator
Yeah but in this context it’s a dogwhistle for ‘not right wing’
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Honestly many ideas behind it are well meant but the whole bourgeoisie and proletariat thing isn’t as black and white. Also the economic adaptation of companies and supply chains to what is needed doesn’t really work properly in marxism. I like many social aspects but in a state where everyone owns everything there is no personal incentive to innovate. The economy just doesn’t run as smooth and adjusted to the individual. There are many good ideas, good intentions but in the end it works better as a theory. Especially since personal needs often go unaddressed and the personal wish for wealth doesn’t just disappear
I urge you to actually learn about Marxism, because your claims are demonstrably false. Things like supply chains work just fine, and in many cases far better than they do under capitalism and markets.
Can you explain how so? In capitalism the market adjusts to the need of the individual through monetary incentives. With the complexity of the products we have today it’s almost impossible to adjust the entire supply chain. Do you have any case as an example where it works far better?
I mean there are lots of obvious examples of capitalist markets misallocating resources on a massive scale. Take the current AI hype or the blockchain madness that preceded it. In general, capitalism does a really poor job of ensuring that the needs of the working majority are met, and allocating resources in equitable fashion that benefits the working majority. US is one of the richest countries in the world, yet it has incredible amounts of people living in destitute conditions.
The obvious comparison is USSR vs US bloc during the cold war. US ended up in a dominant position because it was an ocean away. While Europe and USSR took the brunt of the war. US got to spin up their industry, and then massively profited from reconstruction of Europe. Meanwhile, USSR had to rebuild effectively on its own. Yet, even starting from such a massively disadvantaged position, USSR managed to challenge the western bloc and was seen as an existential threat by the US.
Furthermore, USSR produced many technological firsts. USSR was the first to put a satellite in space, and led majority of the space race. They produced the first Tokamak thermonuclear experimental system, developed the first intercontinental ballistic missile, and so on. It’s pretty clear that innovation was quite vibrant in USSR without any need for markets.
I believe the way is to go for something in between. I believe the state is needed to regulate the economy and ensure the safety and well-being of the citizens while keeping the economic freedom that allows for competition and success through novel ideas. Generally something like the Social market economy if you’re interested. I believe the USSR is a horrible example as the economy relied on oil in order to function and is widely regarded by workers who used to live under it as a suppressive country that ignored human rights. The innovation in the USSR was all directed top down from the government and funnily enough stemmed out of competition with the US.
The leadership of the USSR tried to grow the economy in an irresponsible manner which starved millions. While I would like if we would incentivize innovation more the economy in capitalist countries had many smaller quality of life improvements outside of the space race.
When it comes to blockchain technology and ai I think the hype was temporary with blockchain and it itself is quite an interesting and innovative but useless tech. For AI I believe we will see them improve a lot and become many times better than the stupid chatbots we have today and it will probably be the driving factor of innovation of the 21. century. I know this is quite the bold claim but it has a lot of potential.
Ownership also holds one accountable. Were in east-germany many people didn’t see the point in work as the government ensured a certain living standard a potential to rise through new ideas and hard work is non-existent. If we were a hivemind like ants I believe this would work wonderfully but I think we are just too different so we need to take the best aspects of history and not swerve to too strong ideologies.
The leadership of the USSR tried to grow the economy in an irresponsible manner which starved millions.
That’s factually inaccurate. Russia went from a backwards agrarian society where people travelled by horse and carriage to being the first in space in the span of 40 years. Russia showed incredible growth after the revolution that surpassed the rest of the world:
- https://wid.world/document/soviets-oligarchs-inequality-property-russia-1905-2016/
- https://wid.world/document/appendix-soviets-oligarchs-inequality-property-russia-1905-2016-wid-world-working-paper-201710/
USSR doubled life expectancy in just 20 years. A newborn child in 1926-27 had a life expectancy of 44.4 years, up from 32.3 years thirty years before. In 1958-59 the life expectancy for newborns went up to 68.6 years. the Semashko system of the USSR increased lifespan by 50% in 20 years. By the 1960’s, lifespans in the USSR were comparable to those in the USA:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Soviet_Union
- https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB5054/index1.html
Quality of nutrition improved after the Soviet revolution, and the last time USSR had a famine was in 1940s. CIA data suggests they ate just as much as Americans after WW2 peroid while having better nutrition:
believe the USSR is a horrible example as the economy relied on oil in order to function and is widely regarded by workers who used to live under it as a suppressive country that ignored human rights.
Having actually grown up in USSR, I can tell you that this is just US propaganda you’re regurgitating.
I believe the way is to go for something in between
Going for something in between is China’s approach. While private companies and a stock market exist, they operate within a socialist framework, guided by the principles laid out by Chen Yun. Chen advocated for a “birdcage economy,” where the market acts as a bird, free to fly within the confines of a cage representing the overall economic plan. His approach, adopted in the early 1980s, allowed for use of market forces for efficient allocation of resources, while the state maintained ultimate control over the direction and goals of economic development.
When it comes to blockchain technology and ai I think the hype was temporary with blockchain and it itself is quite an interesting and innovative but useless tech. For AI I believe we will see them improve a lot and become many times better than the stupid chatbots we have today and it will probably be the driving factor of innovation of the 21. century. I know this is quite the bold claim but it has a lot of potential.
Another way we could phrase this as the leadership of the US tried to grow the economy in an irresponsible manner which starved millions. https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/31/us/food-insecurity-30-million-census-survey/index.html
Ownership also holds one accountable. Were in east-germany many people didn’t see the point in work as the government ensured a certain living standard a potential to rise through new ideas and hard work is non-existent.
That’s why cooperative ownership is important. Capitalist enterprises have exact same problem where the workers are alienated from their labor.
I’m gonna address point one for now:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin I would say when it comes to human rights this is also enough to disprove that the USSR didn’t ignore human rights:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Soviet_Union When it comes to the oil reliance: One of the greatest strengths of Soviet economy was its vast supplies of oil and gas; world oil prices quadrupled in the 1973–1974 and rose again in 1979–1981, making the energy sector the chief driver of the Soviet economy, and was used to cover multiple weaknesses
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union#1930–1970 Considering China is also a totalitarian state that suppresses individual rights and only communist on paper I would argue its not a great example. When it comes to bad allocation of resources you just need to look at the chinese housing bubble
Also, as I said the US is not a good country for a western Social market economy with a good welfare state.
The fact that you get your world view solely from wikipedia explains a lot actually.
You do realize you’re just parroting ideas that were put in your head as a child right?
