CDZ Ask Me About Marxism

[Marxist_Trash]

I see you're equipped with arguments concerning the absinthe ...

Quite honestly that's the first time I've heard that theory. But I enjoy absinthe myself, it's the reason I know that stuff lol. Also Wikipedia helps to refresh my memory = P.

Seriously I'm weird when it comes to drinking...I'll drink straight vermouth of all things.

Where have you lived under Marxism?

Nowhere. And no one else has either. It hasn't ever been successfully implemented on the scale it needs to function properly. The people who lived under Stalin and Mao lived under a mockery of the system.

However I still believe it merits some form of discussion. And I think it'll be necessary in the future, though perhaps right now it looks much more dangerous than capitalism.

 

[BETH-MIDAN]

The absinthe theory is occasionally given or is even a long running joke amongst scholars and teachers (usually of eastern European origin) its not commonly known but is a popular given just like saying an old actor was gay or that the founding fathers smoked weed or that there were hellfire clubs during the revolution in the Americas.

 

[Marxist_Trash]

The absinthe theory is occasionally given or is even a long running joke amongst scholars and teachers (usually of eastern European origin) its not commonly known but is a popular given just like saying an old actor was gay or that the founding fathers smoked weed or that there were hellfire clubs during the revolution in the Americas.

I get you, it's why I drink it. Kind of has an artistic legacy to it. Just I tend to get a little literal/overly serious when it comes to Marxism lol.

 

[BETH-MIDAN]

The absinthe theory is occasionally given or is even a long running joke amongst scholars and teachers (usually of eastern European origin) its not commonly known but is a popular given just like saying an old actor was gay or that the founding fathers smoked weed or that there were hellfire clubs during the revolution in the Americas.

I get you, it's why I drink it. Kind of has an artistic legacy to it. Just I tend to get a little literal/overly serious when it comes to Marxism lol.

So would Marxists hrrm ...

 

[flacaltenn]

Also, if we won't be doing work, why is capitalism still important? If we're all living off basic income, why even have corporate executives and concentrations of wealth and power? Why not provide democratic equality instead of having some dystopian 1984-type future where a wealthy upper class can control everything?

There will still be contributions to society. Marxism just defines how those transactions are done. The problem is -- NO existing political system is ready for a 21st economy. The concept of a job and labor completely changes for most sectors of the economy except for maybe service industries. Unions are in the 18th century with their definition of "a job". And education is still hell bent on producing workers for jobs that won't exist.

BUT -- I'm very optimistic that the FUTURE is entrepreneurial. It's freeing people to have the power of a 1960s Fortune 500 company in the palm of their hand. They can acquire the means of production for the price of root canal. I've got tools on my desktop that NONE of the companies I worked for in the 80s DREAMED of having.

So -- Good Luck with the Marxist message. All that "controlling the means of production" messaging. Because you're not gonna stop the creative, inventive, entrepreneurial world of what's gonna be 21st Century labor..

 

[Marxist_Trash]

We will see how things pan out...at the moment I'm not entirely so optimistic, considering the trend of wealth being concentrated in the very highest elites of our society. But if such a world can exist where literally everyone can be an entrepreneur and the capitalist economy still has room for everybody, hey, it still means everyone's equal I suppose = P.

 

[depotoo]

Big time gov't advocates want nothing more than to quell the entrepreneurial spirit except for those they see fit. Thus why big gov't helps no one.

We will see how things pan out...at the moment I'm not entirely so optimistic, considering the trend of wealth being concentrated in the very highest elites of our society. But if such a world can exist where literally everyone can be an entrepreneur and the capitalist economy still has room for everybody, hey, it still means everyone's equal I suppose = P.

 

[westwall]

Ideally? The sacrifice of a few privileged people's opulent lifestyles that get toned down to happily comfortable.

In reality? Likely some form of conflict between proletariat and bourgeoisie that shakes the foundations of society to its core. It would be intellectually dishonest for me to say otherwise...Marxism is inherently based in the concept of struggle.

How do you reconcile human nature, specifically, if a person works, and has his product taken away from him and given to a person who chooses not to work, eventually the worker stops working. How do you plan on dealing with that very real problem?

 

[Tehon]

if a person works, and has his product taken away from him and given to a person who chooses not to work, eventually the worker stops working.

That is the exact system we live under now. If you had read Kapital you would understand that to be Marx's theory of alienation. Why do believe it to be fair practice for one class but not the other?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Communism is the antithesis of individual liberty.

 

[Natural Citizen]

How do you reconcile human nature, specifically, if a person works, and has his product taken away from him and given to a person who chooses not to work, eventually the worker stops working. How do you plan on dealing with that very real problem?

They don't. The natural human condition is suppressed by the state under the communist model. They ignore human nature's desire to better oneself and to aspire for a better standard and wage of living.

The communist relies on the state changing human nature, which in reality and in historical application can only be attempted by coercion, repression, and tyranny at the barrel of the state's gun.

I'll tell you something else about human nature. Tyrants, once in absolute power, never cede away their power.

 

[alang1216]

democratic elections are held under the one party

This sounds like an oxymoron. You either have democracy or you don't. You can't lock in an economic system that can't be changed by popular consensus and still consider yourself a democracy.

 

[depotoo]

So then, where do you believe is the closest to what you envision now out there, or has been?

I see you're equipped with arguments concerning the absinthe ...

Quite honestly that's the first time I've heard that theory. But I enjoy absinthe myself, it's the reason I know that stuff lol. Also Wikipedia helps to refresh my memory = P.

Seriously I'm weird when it comes to drinking...I'll drink straight vermouth of all things.

Where have you lived under Marxism?

Nowhere. And no one else has either. It hasn't ever been successfully implemented on the scale it needs to function properly. The people who lived under Stalin and Mao lived under a mockery of the system.

However I still believe it merits some form of discussion. And I think it'll be necessary in the future, though perhaps right now it looks much more dangerous than capitalism.

 

[westwall]

if a person works, and has his product taken away from him and given to a person who chooses not to work, eventually the worker stops working.

That is the exact system we live under now. If you had read Kapital you would understand that to be Marx's theory of alienation. Why do believe it to be fair practice for one class but not the other?

I read Kapital before you were born junior. And no, it isn't. If a person works, they get to keep what they have save for the taxes that are dragged out of them. But, they always have the option of leaving if the job they are doing isn't paying them well enough. Under marxism the government controls where the worker can work. They have no control, they can only go where they are told to.

 

[alang1216]

As for why every communist state has been authoritarian, most Trotskyists will blame Stalin and his attempt to bring about the socialism in one state policy.

I don't think you can blame Stalin. Authorization rule was a basic Bolshevik doctrine:

Politically, the Bolshevik party faced massive opposition following its seizure of power in 1917. The Social Revolutionaries (the party of the peasants) had more support in the countryside, whilst the Bolsheviks (the party of the proletariat) did not command the overwhelming support of the Soviets. Nevertheless, having made so much political capital out of the Provisional Government’s failure to call a Constituent Assembly throughout 1917, Lenin had no choice but to call elections immediately. For the Bolsheviks, the results were depressingly predictable: they gained barely a quarter of the available seats, whilst the SRs gained almost half.
Given his precarious position, Lenin’s response to this setback at first sight appears reckless: he contemptuously dissolved the Assembly, calling his action ‘true democracy’ because he knew the needs of the proletariat better than they did themselves. He then set up Soviets throughout the country in a desperate attempt to break the power of the SR-dominated Zemstvos. By the end of May 1918 Lenin felt confident enough to expel opposition parties from the Central Executive Committee and to declare that ‘our party stands at the head of soviet power. Decrees and measures of soviet power emanate from our party.’ Trotsky justified this by saying that ‘We have trampled underfoot the principles of democracy for the sake of the loftier principles of a social revolution’. By the time of Lenin’s death political opposition parties had been formally banned and the Bolshevik Party (renamed the Communist Party in 1919) reigned supreme.
​

A truly communist government cannot coexist alongside a capitalist one due to the latter's aggressive need for imperialist expansion...

There is no 'need' for capitalist imperialist expansion any more than there is a 'need' for communist imperialist expansion. Capitalism and imperialism are separate isms, neither dependent on the other. There are plenty of capitalist countries in Europe today that are not imperialist.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It's easy to be a Marxist when you are still living off good, old mom and dad and so want to turn the entire state into your parents -- especially if you are unmotivated and aimless in life.

What happens when people grow up and decide to make something of themselves, instead?

 

[Marion Morrison]

What about the American Dream of having a wife, couple kids, house, RV or boat? Those things were a common sight when I was a kid.

 

[Votto]

I can't give you all the answers, but I'd like to discuss people's objections to it, as well as why I still believe it's a worthwhile philosophy. Not looking to change minds so much as to have an exchange of an ideas. Or at least provide an understanding of how I and most Marxists I know think about politics, the damage done to the idea of Communism by the USSR and governments like it, economics, etc.

Marxism seems to work so well, it begs the question why it needs and apologist like yourself.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Two problems. 1. The rich and the poor tend to be very conservative. 2. Most people are too uneducated to know they are going against their own best interests. Electing Trump is a perfect example. There was a fighter for the poor and what's left of the middle class. It wasn't Trump.

Trump spoke to the immediate concerns of the working class, which were charged with rhetoric about immigration, terrorism, and the like. They had been disenfranchised for a long time, and Trump was what they perceived to be their only option...it was either him, a...successful(?) businessman that oozed bravado and promises to take America back for the sections of the working class that had been forgotten by every administration that came before it, or the demonic entity known as Hillary Clinton. In short, the only reason he was voted for was because he claimed to have their interests at heart...populism is a novel concept in a government dominated by neoliberals with capitalist interests at the forefront of their policy decisions.

However, upon seeing what he actually does for the working class (which I predict to be very little), I believe that people will begin to understand that candidates like Trump are not the answer to their problems; the people themselves are.

Also worth mentioning, Bernie Sanders (though not a hardcore Marxist), a self-labeled socialist, almost won the DNC nomination. I genuinely believe a strong labor movement can be formed out of the left and the disenfranchised right.

We already have an American communist here.
Right JakeStarkey

Another American Communist?

*insert get off my lawn pic*

Labor is not the answer. Class is. As for labor the focus needs to be on a universal basic income to keep what capitalism we can manage going. AI and the robots will be doing most of the work soon. The humans are going to need money and something to occupy their time.

Karl Marx Was the Sex Slave of a Patty Hearst Type Duchess

Eliminating hereditary rights is the answer, not any of the others the Left/Right ruling class offers us as fake alternatives. When the son of a millionaire has the same chance of becoming a blue-collar worker that the son of a blue-collar worker has, then the rulers won't be so selfish and cruel towards the working class. They won't start wars when their sons will get drafted for the front lines at age 18

The university, which is the cradle of the Socialist fraud, is designed specifically for richkids living off an allowance. All others are slavish nobodies and traitors to their class.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people". - Karl Marx.

To be honest, even today, this holds true in ways; religion is very much an escape from a harsh reality, and organized religion (especially the Catholic Church) is a vehicle for oppression and political control much like an actual government.

My personal opinion on the situation is this: remove religion from any sort of governmental significance, but don't suppress it. To suppress it would be anti-democratic...and democracy was something that most Trotskyists I know hold in high regard, especially after the USSR going to hell in a handbasket under Stalin.

Communists Are HeirHeads, a Class That Has No Right to Exist

Trotsky massacred the Kronstadt sailors for objecting to the absolutist dictatorship of the Communist Party members and their inhuman idol Lenin. So he wouldn't have been any better than Stalin when his pseudo-intellectual utopia became threatened by reality.