Can any reader explain 'Marxism'?

Can any reader explain 'Marxism'?

 

A word used by the US right groupthink commanders to strike fear into the hearts and minds of their foot toy soldiers and cause uncritical obedience to whatever ideological malfeasance follows.

 

Created by Karl Marx, advanced by Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union, responsible for 100 million+ deaths during the 20th century, currently destroying the West from within, disseminated by today's "progressives".

Probably not the answer you were looking for. Are you looking for a detailed explanation of what it is? There's plenty of information on the internet. Wikipedia would be a good starting point.

 

Like the previous person said, it's a word that social conservatives throw around towards anything they don't like, especially towards the LGBT movement.

 

I'm sure a search engine will clear this up for any reader, so don't really understand the aim of the thread, but will take it at its word. IIRC, Marxism was a response to the industrial revolution via economic/political -prediction- (as opposed to a political theory or governing system) that an exploited labor proletariat class would eventually overthrow exploitative capital interests resulting in a utopia of collective ownership of and benefit from resources and the means of production.

The governing system resulting from the goal of actively bringing that prediction to reality has resulted in several distinct, but highly overlapping and related descriptive terms including "communism," "socialism," and "collectivism." In light of semantic differences in those terms (and the left changing its own self-identifying terms several times in the 20th century), "Marxism" has become something of an umbrella term describing emphasis on the collective over individual rights and interests.

There is not now, nor has there ever been a "Marxist" government or economy if I understand the term correctly because it was never a cohesive political theory. There have been "Marxists" and Marxist interests attempting to realize the prediction of Marxism. The term is apt, though, just like conservative, liberal, and any other terms that serve as shorthand or summarizing terms of specific political policies in the now.

Some indisputable historical facts about the term: 1. "Marxist" was the chosen self-identifying term for the overall political view of many of the most influential of the academic left from the late 19th, early 20th century up to and through sometime in the 1970s-80s (and arguably remains so in many academic circles today). 2. It was styled as a derogatory epithet by anticommunists during that time as well, but was not coined as such by those interests. 3. As many of the self-identified Marxists still exert tremendous political influence in this country, and many of the left's stated objectives and talking points are Marxist in origin (see "labor union"), it's just as reasonable to identify this or that policy as "Marxist" as it is to use "conservative" or "liberal." It's not just some unfair propaganda term that the RW created out of thin air. It's use is actually more reasonable that the leftist framed term "capitalism" because it has been readily used in self-identifying ways by adherents throughout its history, "capitalism" much less so.

 

It is very easy. Read Carl Marx book titled "Capital". A good reading.

 

You really have no clue who pulls your strings, do you?

 

Yeah?

Well Hitler's your main man!

Notice how ridiculous that seems to you?

That.

Maybe I hit a nerve, though.

 

There is a simple problem with defining Marxism. Even Marx said that he wasn't a Marxist.

Marx so refined and changed his views over the course of his life that a careful selective reading of Marx can allow any leftists to both take or reject the Marxist banner without ever changing their personal views.

When your read some leftist dunderhead on a forum saying 'You don't know what Marxism is.' That is because no one really does including them. Even Marx couldn't define it by the end of his life.

However, it has a very distinctive silhouette that Marxists of all different stripes fill in with their own colors.

 

Marxism is a way of looking at history as an ongoing class struggle.

 

Wikipedia would be a horrible starting point if one is looking for a definition of Marxism. If you want to know what it is just read the Manifesto of the Communist Party. It's a short book and it's the book that literally defines Marxism. If you don't want to read the Manifesto then just read the Republican Party platform.

 

In as few sentences as possible

Marxism is a political theory .
According to the Marxist world view society is divided in two major classes ,the bourgeoisie (exploiters who own the mean of production) and the proletariat (who are exploited into selling their labor) . In the middle stands the state that legitimizes this exploitation .

All this situation will lead to the revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat (called socialism) , the power of the bourgeoisie will be overthrown and the government will be replaced by direct democracy . This dictatorship will seize the means of production from the bourgeois and end the existence of the state leading into a classless society.


Note: t this reply tries to be short , i understand that some parts are missing and there is a difference in understanding . I am open to debate

 

how did you come up with that preposterous figure anyhow?

 

I think you pretty much nailed it. I don't agree with a lot of what Marx wrote - but everything in your post is pretty self-evident when you look around the world today. One thing that's missing is the revolution. But I think the media controlled by the "bourgeoisie" works well for suppressing it.

 

for sure, it's much easier to buy people off than encourage them to revolt - and money buys votes in the West!

 

Just going by the facts, history IS a class struggle. This notion was not born of Marx, but by the upper and middle classes who repeatedly restricted the franchise in europe to themselves.

You Americans had your own version is this problem so you dont really understand much about class struggle..

 

too right, the Americans just made the black man their slave, so they didn't have to worry about class struggle, nice huh

 

There is no simple explaination of Marxism. It is mainly a bastardizations of communism that insures the leaders of Marxims are fully in power. There aim is to insure that the population has a boogie man to complain about.

This incidently is somewhat the actions put forth by the Obama admin.

 

Classes always existed but in western Europe the struggle started almost at the middle of 14th century and the black death .
Funny enough this era was the opposite of what we live today , bubonic plague killed so many that laborers could chose to work for the highest bidder , this reverse capitalism was very unpopular among the rich and the aristocrats,

If you are not trying to be funny i suggest you stop the nonsense.
All literature is subject to interpretation ... given that you know what this literature is about.

 

Sorry friends. The question should have been 'Can anybody explain Communism?'
My quirk of absent mindedness Marxism was typed instead of Communism. Marxism can't be explained in a few sentences or pages.
Actually in my humble way I dealt with critically some aspects of Marxism in my book 'Marxism - relevance and practice' renamed 'Specter turned Ogre'.
If anybody has a small interest you may refer to post: 'Falsehood exposed'

 

Lol! Good grief. People who say things like this don't realize how far out toward the fringe they are. The media is on your side, dude. They promote your statist agendas. They protect your politicians while frequently lying about anyone that tries to challenge them on anything. Accusing them of racism, sexism, homophobia, and all of the same tired allegations used throughout history by every Marxist group in every country attempting to bully people into collectivism. Go read up on the origins of Soviet communism and see if you don't notice some similarities between the attitudes and behaviors of their people then and your people today.

Isn't it interesting how history repeats itself.

I'll agree with this only in the sense that we had the good fortune to be a unique country that was born without a king. We fought for our independence from a foreign king, but our country, itself, never had a king of its own. So we bypassed the entire feudal system. Which I think is a primary reason why class envy never became a significant problem until it was imported from Europe via the Frankfurt School around World War II.

When you're used to being ruled by a king, the idea of everything being equally distributed among the people will seem a lot more appealing. But when you have the freedom to essentially live as you want, you will see no value in collectivism until mass propaganda steadily conditions your people to believe that freedom is slavery and slavery is freedom.

 

Uh no thats not the media, thats the people, these ideas have been fought over and discussed across the country for decades, centuries even. Statism as you term it, is the natural proclivity of the same people who won WW2 for you after the shock of 1929. Then you had movement conservatism trying to turn the clock back that conservatism failed in the battle of ideas and in policy - thats why our left agenda continues.

Interesting that you think our struggles are about class envy. Its not envy at all. Its justice. The landed class of country did little for their wealth, and considered themselves superior to poorer people. Much as many wealthier Americans do today. At the end of the day, much of Americans success is off their own backs, and all credit to them - but to try and pretend Americas success was nothing to do with all the poor workers who never saw a fast car, or the Native Americans on who's land you walk, or the blacks who's labour you got for free for centuries is a fools errand that we in europe - given our own history of arrogant & oppressive wealthy people - have learned the harder way.

 

The big problem here is the fools in this country that think any form of Marxism or communism is wonderful, have never lived under that form of government. They need to get their colective heads out of their asses and notice that form of government has never worked.

 

But they are about envy. They're about nothing but envy. Those people's perverted definition of justice involves squelching other people's right to grow freely into the strongest people they can be. And it's based entirely on a lack of understanding of human nature that manifests itself in an emotional need to tear down the strong to make the weak feel better about themselves. The entire thing is one big pitiful attempt to hold back the unstoppable freight train of evolution. Which is why it always fails. Because the ego of man is no match for the force of nature.

 

It seems so simple, doesn't it? But unfortunately you cannot reason with people who did not use reason to arrive at their position in the first place. When you combat Marxism, you are fighting against empty emotionalism. Emotionalism is impervious to logic, fact, or reason. That's what makes these people so dangerous. There is nothing you can show them that will make them change their minds. They simply want what they want because they feel a certain way.