[RD] What does Marxism offer?

[Traitorfish]

I want Marxists to answer: what are you giving people? How will they organize themselves after nationalism disappears, how will culture evolve after it is all apportioned to its originating group, how will children be raised after you destroy the nuclear family, what will they believe in when religion is refuted, how will resources be allocated without a market?

The question I have is not what Marxism can offer, but what it can deliver.

Marxism is a theory of historical development, it is not a political program. Moreover, it's a theory of history which argues that political programs are thrown up by the processes of historical development, rather than by theorists. Marx would have been the first to say that asking for theoretical answers to practical questions is fundamentally misguided.

Also, "cultural Marxist" originated as a euphemism for "Jew". So, I mean, if Mouthwash was looking to start this thread on an uncomfortable note.

 

[Algeroth]

Categorizing people by biology...isn't simply to exclude a perpetually oppressed caste of undesirables, it's to make a society function.

*Raises hand*
Uh, hi.
How does this work?

 

[civver_764]

*Raises hand*
Uh, hi.
How does this work?

It makes sense to divide labor to different people based on their abilities. Men were physically stronger and so were delegated to protecting and providing. Women held reproductive ability and so were delegated to raising children and taking care of the home.

 

[Hrothbern]

I guess many people associate Marx with communism.

He was however just a German philosopher of the post Napoleontic time (the Romantic time), who fleshed away idealism from the predecessing philosophy of Hegel and invented materialism.

"Not ideas are the main driving force of mankind, but technology and economical developments"

well.... I think many people today are materialists and many more will agree with that basic statement above.

 

[Honor]

To be fair, the OP is conflating two things that might not deserve to be conflated. But I won't deny that there's an extremist wing to the progressives, one that doesn't seem to offer any actual progress, merely pain. I really, really like the term 'Regressive Left', and I mourn its abuse as a term, since it will be meaningless by the time I actually want to use it.

I don't think that Marxism offers much, but I've been less-than-impressed by the majority of Marxists I have interacted with. But it does allow the creation of a moral framework that allows some wealth redistribution, which is a good thing insofar as there are certain instances of a capitalist economy where wealth redistribution becomes necessary - not only from a human suffering perspective, but also from a sustainable-growth perspective.

The Regressive Left is annoying, I'll grant. But the Progressive Left has done a lot of good in the world. If you look back through two centuries, you can see a LOT of instances where we're glad that the liberals won their cultural victory. I view the Regressive Left as part of an idea-generating machine, where they notice injustices, and we then mull them to see which ones have fruit. And then we decide to also push for the ones where they're correct. Conservatives perform a similar function, where they note the negative effects from previous efforts and then warn about the negative effects of current efforts. And that way we trundle forwards slightly more informed than we could have been without this two-pronged analysis.

I was initially going to agree with @Mouthwash on the microagression crowd (i.e. the regressive left?), but then decided to tackle the title of the thread, instead. Had to go with either or. Too bad, I think the former is a much more interesting topic.

I believe the regressive left is simply the new iteration (generation) of the left under increasing competitive pressure. They do seem to be less like feeling real empathy, and more like projecting their anger whenever they feel they are right and others are wrong.

 

[Honor]

I guess many people associate Marx with communism.

Marxism can refer to political Marxism, which is a branch of communist ideology. That is probably what Mouthwash is referring to.

 

[Algeroth]

It makes sense to divide labor to different people based on their abilities. Men were physically stronger and so were delegated to protecting and providing. Women held reproductive ability and so were delegated to raising children and taking care of the home.

Oh, by biology he meant gender. Thanks for clarifying that, I have no idea why OP is unable to call things what they are.

Also, the last two sentences of your post sounds like you are describing something that you believe actually happened, just to let you know.

 

[civver_764]

Also, the last two sentences of your post sounds like you are describing something that you believe actually happened, just to let you know.

Uhh what? That's an over-simplified explanation, but gendered division of labor definitely happened.

 

[onejayhawk]

It makes sense to divide labor to different people based on their abilities. Men were physically stronger and so were delegated to protecting and providing. Women held reproductive ability and so were delegated to raising children and taking care of the home.

This is a well known fallacy. George Orwell wrote Animal Farm to satirize it.

J

 

[civver_764]

You're going to have to be more specific because I've never read Animal Farm.

 

[red_elk]

I guess many people associate Marx with communism.

Would be strange not to associate one of the authors of Communist Manifesto, with Communism...

 

[warpus]

You know what every ideology promises: All the best stuff with the least amount of problems

Doesn't matter if it's Marxism, Libertarianism, Christianity, Scientology, or whatever, every single ideology claims that if its tenets are followed 100% then amazing crap will happen. All problems will disappear and everything will be perfect forever.

 

[Lexicus]

Would be strange not to associate one of the authors of Communist Manifesto, with Communism...

Because the Bolsheviks were good at propaganda.

 

[innonimatu]

Everything I hear from Marxists and cultural Marxists (the microaggression crowd) seems to simply be a critique of society as it exists today.

Hint: Marx was not a postmodernist. You seem to be finding strange "marxists"...

 

[Narz]

I've yet to hear them offer anything.

I think it's all about what you can take.

They're kinda like dumpster divers except they don't want to get their hands dirty. Actually they're not really like dumpster divers, critique seems to be their only tool, I don't think I've ever read about them ever actually doing anything.

 

[Mouthwash]

Marxism is a theory of historical development, it is not a political program. Moreover, it's a theory of history which argues that political programs are thrown up by the processes of historical development, rather than by theorists. Marx would have been the first to say that asking for theoretical answers to practical questions is fundamentally misguided.

Yes, yes, I'm well aware that old-fashioned Marxists had assurance of 'historical inevitability' in place of any actual ideas, which is probably one of the reasons that any regime calling itself Marxist has turned into a horror show.

FYI, I get to call these people Marxists for the same reason that you can label as fascist those who think that society should be organized martially and that low-IQ populations should expelled, no matter how vehemently they reject the term.

Also, "cultural Marxist" originated as a euphemism for "Jew". So, I mean, if Mouthwash was looking to start this thread on an uncomfortable note.

There's not much to communism or Marxism that hasn't been associated with Jews at some point, so this is hard to avoid.

Oh, by biology he meant gender. Thanks for clarifying that, I have no idea why OP is unable to call things what they are.

Biology is a catch-all term for gender, attractiveness, etc. I guess phenotypes could be included on that list, but I don't think ordering societies based on that makes them more effective.

Also, the last two sentences of your post sounds like you are describing something that you believe actually happened, just to let you know.

That's probably because it did happen.

This is a well known fallacy. George Orwell wrote Animal Farm to satirize it.

You didn't read some feminist spinoff? You read the original Animal Farm by George Orwell? Because that is really, really not what it's about.

Hint: Marx was not a postmodernist. You seem to be finding strange "marxists"...

I'm not claiming they are postmodernists, only that they appear to oppose every institution in place right now and offer little more than vague promises of "equality" and "freedom" to replace them.

 

[bernie14]

darn, this thread, the empathy thread and the surprisingly right CFC thread seem to be merging somehow....

 

[onejayhawk]

You're going to have to be more specific because I've never read Animal Farm.

The animals on a farm run off the humans. They get together and decide to run the farm themselves. The pigs, being the smartest take charge. The draught horse, being the strongest, takes on all the heavy tasks. At the end of the book, the pigs become farmers and the workhorse is sold for catfood and glue. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

It's all a satire of Russia becoming USSR. They depose the Csar and replace him with Stalin, all the while telling the world that things are improving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm

Because the Bolsheviks were good at propaganda.

That would be the pigs in Animal Farm. They start with seven statements of principle. At the end Seven Commandments are abridged to a single phrase: "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".

J

 

[Mouthwash]

[The notion that gender roles arise from need] is a well known fallacy. George Orwell wrote Animal Farm to satirize it.

[George Orwell's Animal Farm is] all a satire of Russia becoming USSR. They depose the Csar and replace him with Stalin, all the while telling the world that things are improving.

 

[Hrothbern]

Would be strange not to associate one of the authors of Communist Manifesto, with Communism...

I cannot deny that,
but do note that Marx wrote this only AFTER the bond of communists asked him to write a manifest about it.
AND he AGAIN launches here in his philosophical basic idea, that the world and her history were always "ruled" by technology & economic developments => by materialistic drivers and NOT by ideas and ideals !!!

and yeah...
that the communist party, especially the one in Russia, needed some icon for her political power, to legitimate a kind of "divine right" without a God/Religion......
That's just practical politics.

Marx simply did not believe in ideals.

And that's the really odd thing.....
.... that the way Marxism was picked up by communists in the 19th century and now as "political Marxism", is that it is seen as something to get a better world

So my post was to emphasise that Marx was primarily a philosopher NOT believing in ideals, but more an analysing type.
His importance is I think that his analysis of prime drivers of mankind:
A. that his insights are now shared by almost all mainstream political movements and parties (smile... imagine that the GOP would be aware of this).
B. it is a good analysing tool for many situations, including understanding historical developments from stone age to modern history.

EDIT
On topic: what has (political) Marxism to offer ?
The original Marxism has an analysing tool to offer
And I guess the current political Marxism has compassion and humanitarian improvement to offer by highlighting were the materialistic system/reality is crushing ordinary human happiness of a non-materialistic nature.

As Churchill once stated:
(He was not the creator of it)
"If you’re not a socialist/liberal before you’re twenty-five, you have no heart;
if you are a socialist/liberal after twenty-five, you have no head".