This board makes me lol. 'political discussion!' 'No, all discussion of politics is futile!'
Anyway. You've got the Marxism, and then you've got the Marxism-Leninism. Big difference. Marxism-Leninism refers to the style of single-party control that was employed by the USSR and China; it represents the actual 'applied' communism, rather than the theoretical counterpart which the lay person always distinguishes from the former. Of course, Marxism-Leninism makes a very big assumption: This one party must be able to make the right decisions for the people and the state, and must have internal debate-however, once a decision is reached, the party must act as one, and support and execute the policy as one. As we've seen, such a setup was not conducive to actual open debate-some of the problem may have been cultural as well as programmatic.
As for the actual topic at hand, the Marxism itself, there are all manner of theoretical implications covered in the two main documents- the Manifesto (the short, sweeping program), and Capital (the scientific research). Some of the assumptions are that the bourgeois must first rise before they can be reacted against by the proletarians, and that the only thing which makes it POSSIBLE for society to break out of the mold of high-and-low is the recent advancement of technology, making it possible for all to be provided for. This seems to run counter to the 'agrarian utopia' strains of communism in east Asia, although China's manifestation of this was more of a realistic, again 'applied communism' response to Chinese reality. Marxism proper, however, is supposed to require the development of tech so that we can all actually live good once the (necessary) revolution takes place.
A couple of other things-Marxism is not against private property. It's against so-called unearned property or capital, viz. the profit that the owner makes by selling something that you manufactured. It's supposed to be against a situation where enough capital is concentrated in a few hands, that others do not have the option to get their own capital, and are thus forced to sell their labor.
One of the big problems of Marxism-what happens to innovation? American students always pose this one and think themselves really smart. Well, they're right about one thing-the choice and instant response inherent in a capitalist environment are good actual fuel for innovation. But they act as though straight pay can't be supplanted by other desires (promotion, credit, more research money) which are not expressly condemned by Marxism. Of course, I myself would rather be filthy rich than hold a lot of titles, so I won't try to defend this counter-argument too seriously. Anyway the Marxism sure is funky and let's actually talk about it.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-05 19:48
I liked Marx. He was a very funny guy, and his moustache was even funnier.
It's a fucking politics board you fucking ninny. It's supposed to actually be the place where people can whine about political systems. If people can whine about pedos for five months, surely they can spare some time to whine about the commies, in a way that is more illuminating than commies gtfo.
Supply and demand: the rich want high class goods, the poor want stuff they can afford. A good economy will cater to both groups.
Name:
Mothra2005-06-13 15:30
Just clearing a few misconceptions:
"Marxism" is a shitty ass synonym for Communism or Socialism. Marxism is a mode of thought, a methodology. Marx thought that everything in a society was based on its economy. Every element of a society could be traced to a fact of its economy which influenced everything else. So to study society is really to study economics.
Marx never actually advocated Communism. Marx thought it was a natural progression that the economies of the world would all pass through. According to Marx's timeline, all economies would become more capitalistic, and then the revolution would happen. He never advocated changing anything, he was just laying out what he thought would happen.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-13 16:41
karl marx is dead
THERE IS NO MARX!!!
MARX IS DEAD
in refernce to Nietzche's god is dead
Name:
York!TnfC957mQY2005-06-13 20:28
>>13
Yep. The commie manifesto does not say that Communism OUGHT to happen, or COULD happen, or SHOULD happen. It states that it WILL happen.
Of course Hegel has a certain appeal for adolescent minds (myself included).
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-13 21:25
it cant happen stupid,
anyways, communism was invented by capitalists so peons could remain peons without knowing it.
I am not taking a position. I am stating what Marx stated. So to address me personally gets you nowhere. Argue the theory.
Idiot.
Name:
KRUNCHY2005-06-17 22:56 (sage)
Marx thought that the most powerful force in the world was a sense of public justice. That's obviously not the case.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-25 20:58
the problem today is that automatically society (western/west europe) see's communism through china's near facist explotiation, north korea's seclusion, and todays russia which isnt the case at all. I think that if everyone read Das Capital, the Manifesto, as well as Mein Kampf and be allowed to decide what can be better for everyone as a whole be it left or right, only then will it put an end to left&right propaganda.
Name:
Anonymous2005-06-28 17:21 (sage)
Das Capital
"Das Kapital"
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-05 20:51
the nationalist social worker's party (NSDAP/Nazi) hated marxism and communism
Name:
Anonymous2005-07-06 9:25
But then again, you don't have to be too smart to hate it. See, even the nazis did.
If people valued their community in communism, they'd probably want to innovate for the well being of their people rather than for personal blame.
But also you are assuming that innovation is necessary and good. Which isn't necessarily true. (innovation in medication leads to longer life, but it also leads to eventual overpopulation. innovation in technology leads to ease of communication and transportation and increased luxury among other things, but also leads to the destruction of wildlife and pollution and those kinds of things.) Do we need to innovate past basic necessities for a "better" life? We are so obsessed with progress and innovation but forget to look at downsides and alternatives.
Also, dicks.
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-31 4:01
>>28
True. Communism..Marxism...Socialism...different flavors of wanting mommy to take care of you until you die of old age.
Marxism in theory is nice, in practice (besides the millions of lives it took and the millions more it continues to) it's the political theory of choice by rich brats who buy Che Guevara shirts while driving a Mercades-Benz. I hate to say that right-wing wankers are right about this (which sadly, they are and it is the truth), but it doesn't make them any less of being fucktards. Become a social democrat.