Ask a Marxist!!!

But there is no such thing as a "simple" Marxist. Even a classical Marxist -- someone who would promote dialectical materialism, historical materialism, and stay as close to Hegel as Marx -- would have to define himself within a framework of theoretical coordinates. He would not brush aside as irrelevant his theoretical attachments to Lenin and Mao. Moreover, if he were a classical Marxist, he would not underscore that he rejects either development, but how.

These three nail-in-the-coffin quotes pretty much round up any lingering suspicion of your Marxist persuasion. Communism is a mode of becoming and possesses no economic model; just consider the Stamokap models of Lenin's NEP, East Germany, and in China's and Vietnam's current economies.

You, sir, may well be a left-wing hipster and Communism apologist, but the Marxist imprimatur simply isn't there.

 

Like quoting a Socialist in a thread about Marxism?

 

Isn't a Marxist simply someone who agrees with the ideas of Marx?

 

You're confusing the "state" with authority. Would a carpenter not have authority over his fellow man over how to build something out of wood? But does he have the right to dictate what everyone does with wood? Of course not. That's the difference here, those groups that you mention are states and inherently they will be weaker then any anarchy that exists. The states take away freedom, so why not join the side that has an unlimited amount of freedom? In an anarchy there is liberty to do all the freedoms that the state denied them in the first place. There would be no reason to duplicate a failure.

So it would end in a "Scientific Anarchy"?

 

Or possibly pointing out the irony of an appeal to dubious authority on the subject.

Einstein's genius pertained to the realm of physics, not civics, sociology, or economics.

 

How so?

 

So herein follow just some of the unanswered questions of a Marxist during the course of this thread.

1. How do you determine ability and necessity? You have said that Marxism is a science. Please provide me with the formula or method that calculates a person's abilities and necessities.

2. How does Marxism determine value? Marxism decrees that all labor is equal, yet a year of 1 farmer's crops cannot be equal to a year of a 2nd farmer's crops if the yield of the two farms is not equal. Please provide the exact procedure Marxism has designed to resolve this conflict between dogma and reality.

3. Who is responsible to determine #1 and #2?

4. How can there be theft if there is no right to property?

 

there would be a temporary state that would conduct the revolution, it would take 50 bedroom mansion for example and allow 50 people to live in them, instead of just one crotchety old guy but most people in america wouldn't be effected by this, because we have more than enough vacant houses to give everyone a home, but because of private property laws, and capitalism, they sit empty while the homeless sleep in gutters

also since you wouldn't be able to use your wealth too buy servants, most mansions would fall into disrepair, since you can't pay anyone too maintain and clean it, so most of them will be turned into museums and hotels, but if your servants want too take over the house live there and maintain and clean as they were doing before then they could. Understand?

 

All jobs suck....... Abolish work!

 

Do you honestly and truly believe human beings actually have the capacity to create a Marxist utopia?

 

I'm always struck by how simplistic the views are of people who support centralized control of something as complex as an entire society.

"It" in this hypothetical above is a person charged with the ultimate task of making a decision. Somehow, this person has a Godlike understanding of the building in question, and the environment that the building exists within. By some method, this God-man is able to determine that this specific building can support the lives of 50 people, and that the current occupant has more space then is necessary. I've yet to see any rational dissertation on the method that allows this determination, but let's for a moment ponder the complexity of this decision.

Just because the building has 50 bedrooms, that does not mean the building can support the lives of 50 people. There's energy concerns, and hygiene concerns, and traffic concerns, and dietary concerns, and waste concerns etc.. There's very good reasons why we have zoning laws, and addressing these concerns is one of them. A building zoned for single family, even though it has 50 bedrooms, may not be able to support the needs of 50 people. (and most likely cannot) You can't park 50 cars in the garage. You can't run 50 stoves for them to cook their meals. You can't have 50 people get up and take a shower for work at the same time. You don't have 50 jobs for them to do a reasonable distance away. The problems are myriad.

But these are the assumptions that those with the hubris to believe they can control society make. They believe that they can simply take from those that have too much, and give to those that have too little, and it simply doesn't work that way. That's because these fixers make hasty and often stupid assumptions about how things work. And their demand to put themselves in control of those things to fix them are based on flawed premises right from the start.

Look at that fantasy above. It's like a Lego set in Blackharvest's basement. Mansion Legos turned into hotels and museums. Poor little homeless legos plucked up and placed in the mansions. There's no servant Legos, so the mansions fall apart, but somehow the hotels and museums don't...

Right. Have you seen any pictures of North Korea lately?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm always struck by how simplistic the views are of people who support centralized control of something as complex as an entire society.

"It" in this hypothetical above is a person charged with the ultimate task of making a decision. Somehow, this person has a Godlike understanding of the building in question, and the environment that the building exists within. By some method, this God-man is able to determine that this specific building can support the lives of 50 people, and that the current occupant has more space then is necessary. I've yet to see any rational dissertation on the method that allows this determination, but let's for a moment ponder the complexity of this decision.

Just because the building has 50 bedrooms, that does not mean the building can support the lives of 50 people. There's energy concerns, and hygiene concerns, and traffic concerns, and dietary concerns, and waste concerns etc.. There's very good reasons why we have zoning laws, and addressing these concerns is one of them. A building zoned for single family, even though it has 50 bedrooms, may not be able to support the needs of 50 people. (and most likely cannot) You can't park 50 cars in the garage. You can't run 50 stoves for them to cook their meals. You can't have 50 people get up and take a shower for work at the same time. You don't have 50 jobs for them to do a reasonable distance away. The problems are myriad.

But these are the assumptions that those with the hubris to believe they can control society make. They believe that they can simply take from those that have too much, and give to those that have too little, and it simply doesn't work that way. That's because these fixers make hasty and often stupid assumptions about how things work. And their demand to put themselves in control of those things to fix them are based on flawed premises right from the start.

Look at that fantasy above. It's like a Lego set in Blackharvest's basement. Mansion Legos turned into hotels and museums. Poor little homeless legos plucked up and placed in the mansions. There's no servant Legos, so the mansions fall apart, but somehow the hotels and museums don't...

Right. Have you seen any pictures of North Korea lately?

 

When you say "you would be allowed to live in it", who, in the absence of a state (the temporary state having ceased), would have the authority to allow or deny me living in my house? Anyone? Everyone?

 

as far as I know there are none, too me that's like asking what are flaws in theory gravity, if there are any flaws, I certainly wouldn't be the one too find them

We will be free from the corruption of money, we will be free from the exploitation of money, and we will be a 1 world society no longer born to a nation but born as a human being, we will no longer be divided by classes and we will achieve true equality

 

marxists seek to abolish all classes, I was born in america i know what you mean, but no matter how easy you make it to rise to the upper class there will always be a lower class.

studies say you only need about 70k a year to be "happy", so lets just give everyone 70k a year (tell them they can't save anything), then step back and see what happens

 

yep you go it!

john locke's theories specifically condone slavery, white supremacy, and christian dominion theory, by supporting his theories you are doing the same

"Every freeman of Carolina shall have absolute power and authority over his negro slaves, of what opinion or religion soever." - John Locke

what baffles me is that people with no economic, politcal, or historical education whatsoever outright dismiss one of the greatest philosophers in the history of the world, simply because their cold war propaganda brainwashed them too.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/help/value.htm

your right thats why I don't think people should be able to be farmers only farm laborers

 

so now i don't understand first you're saying china and russia are proof that communism doesn't work, now your saying they don't count which is it? your poem was about state capitalism, wasn't it? both the USSR and china were state capitalists

well your question is basically how do we force people to work if we don't threaten them with death

my answer is that we shouldn't force anyone too work

[video=youtube;4YMNth3JF0M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YMNth3JF0M[/video]

 

No. If we allow ourselves to consult Merriam-Webster, Marxism is "the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society."

The four points -- 1. labor theory of value; 2. dialectical materialism; 3. class struggle; 4. the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a means to arrive at a classless society -- are cornerstones of Marxist thought.

Those who are simply influenced by Marx, who, i.e., show a great deal of interest in the base-superstructure theory or class struggle and apply them to literary criticism, as UCLA generally does, are Marxian, i.e., relating to that which is "of, developed by, or influenced by the doctrines of Marx" (Merriam-Webster).

Hopefully this clears out the difference between a Marxist and a Marxian.

 

You have found a perfect system, then? The perfect system accounts for all instances- even sabatuers who would meaningfully destroy or derail the system. It must have had a flaw...

Money is a product of convenience and what men consider convenient is not necessarily based on need or reason. It can be fear, ambition, greed, etc. The problems you assume Marxism will cure are human problems. Corruption is a human problem. Doesn't matter what system you chose- whether it be captialism, socialism, theism, or whatever- the human tendency to be corrupt will corrupt whatever system you create. The problems we see today aren't flaws of one system verses another, it's the flaws of human corruptions, vices, fears, and irrationalities pitted up against one another.

Also, difference creates classes, castes, and such. Equality is an illusion. All things are different. You are different even from your own father or son. You will never eradicate difference or the divisiveness that will result from difference. Moderating it is probably the closest peace you'll ever get in that regard.

 

We first need to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat before any meaningful accomplishments can be made

You're welcome

 

that number is from the black book of communism, it was something published in the 1990's it was widely discredited, even by two of the authors who helped work on it, it did things like count infant mortality rates, which are usually measured by 1 in every 1000 and translated them to be 1 in every 100, it took mortality rates, that increased in certain provinces as part of the tally, but failed too recognize the rise in life expectancy and infant mortality across the whole country

Meaning it was like taking an increase in infant mortality in Alabama and not taking account he overall decrease in america, and using it as propaganda too criticize america

the black book of capitalism, would include the north Atlantic slave trade, the opium wars, the colonization of Africa, the Americas and Asia, the nazis and imperialist japan, the crimes of the East India Company etc....over the past 500 years, and there would be no doubt it would number into the trillions

In short the black book of communism, is nothing but a bunch of french aristocratic propaganda

 

they would be treated well, why should we tell someone who lives in a city, a person who can't physically hunt and fish too feed himself that he can't eat unless he gets a job at a dildo factory?

yes paris hilton and donald trump must be sent to the gulag, the only other alternative would be too pay them a bribe, not too spread their toxic anti-social way of life/ideology throughout the community

they wouldn't!!! we wouldn't force everyone to work by threat of death, that's the point, capitalism forces one to work, or die even if it's at a dildo factory

i don't know? what number of people has capitalism killed? why don't you confess how many have been murdered by your ideology of capitalism, then i might say how many deaths communism is responsible for...

 

thats not true at professor struass

should i also follow the kim dynasty or pol pot? because the aristocracy say I should? your comments are ridiculous

im sorry would you mind tellin me your personal qualifications as too what a "marxist" is?

thanks for telling me, but im sure that you will appreciate the fact that your opinions of me (considering your an anti communist) are completely worthless

since your a straussian would you say you agree with everything hitler said? or just most things? I know that straussians are kind of sensitive to the jewish question

 

Those were all state, not capitalist, atrocities.

 

Yes China is proof that communism doesn't work. They had to abandon communism in everything but name only.

Ha Ha Ha you've forgotten your previous posts.

 

That's a straw man. Incidentally, however, Pol Pot was a Maoist and was certain to let the world know of his particular brand of communism. But his violent interpretation is off topic. What interests me is your theoretical attachment to the founding figures of Marxism. And as you reject both dialectical materialism and historical materialism, both classical Marxism and Marxism-Leninism are obviously off the table.

I ask because it is an interesting topic as well as an essential starting point -- and I thought the thread title "ask a Marxist" was an appeal on your behalf.

As I responded to Long Shot above,
If we allow ourselves to consult Merriam-Webster, Marxism is "the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society."

The dialectic, the negative movement of contradictory forces in societies through history, forms the causa sine qua non for Marxist analysis. It is what moves history, yet you dismissed it as irrelevant. You also played down the importance of Hegel and Kojève (the end of history), which I have never encountered among well-read individuals of various Marxist persuasions. And yes, all of them have made it very clear whether they are neo-Trotskyite/anti-Leninist, Frankfurt School post-Marxists, or revolutionary Marxist-Leninists.

Once the question of theoretical identity is out of the way, would you then care to explain how "capitalism," i.e., the globalized mixed economy, can collapse either on its own or through the imposition of a particular economic system?