Topic: Marxism theory Suddenly making sense - page 2. (Read 509 times)

I think the strengthening support for socialism and Marxism lately is caused by several things including:
- As if the communist and authoritarian countries are more competent in dealing with a pandemic than the capitalist countries here represented by China and America
- The power of socialist propaganda in moving the media to support propaganda so that narratives are directed and public opinion is made to accept that socialists are better than capitalists. Especially in today's online world, many reports are considered true even though their validity and sources are not credible.
- Maybe the OP had read Francis Fukuyama's book that he postponed the end of the history in 2018. Even though in 1992 he published the book the end of history and the last man stand. I know this book because when my wife went to college this was a must read book.


Maybe even distribution of prosperity cannot be achieved with Marxism but Liberalime is considered to cause a wider and even deeper gap between rich and poor.

What happened in the year 2020 and make you think that this theory has a meaning?
the facts you talk about happened some time ago and have not changed anything.
The socialist, and Marxist theories all failed to find a single solution for all countries in the world. They may succeed in some countries, but they will not work in many countries.
It is impossible to create equality for all incomes in the world, but it is easy to make the standard of living of all people above the limit of subsistence and extreme poverty.

Incorrect.

There are also people that do jobs and also provide jobs. And here we can talk about rich people that still work and about medium class ones too that obviously work, but may need to hire somebody (individual or company) for house keeping, cleaning, food preparation, take care of the children...
And there are also people that don't do job and neither provide - from people in care of others (individuals of country/institution) to rich people that choose to not create businesses.

But actually, at least indirectly, everybody provides jobs.



There are discussions about a global minimum income. There are well fundamented opinions in both directions, from encouraging people just don't work (which in my country already happens in many cases) to the opinion that people who will want a little more than the average will actually work.

I think that giving anything for free is discriminatory for the ones who actually work for that and pay the taxes which are given for free to others.
I think that a system where everybody has a chance to earn is more beneficial for everybody. Reducing the working day from 8h would be a start. Some would work less and still have enough money and some others will work too.

A more fair wage system is also necessary. I don't see as normal that somebody who was able to remember a few lines and got lucky enough to live and work at Hollywood just get paid millions per year for that. And it's
only one of many many examples.


Governments have 2 simple points on their agenda: [1] get access to country's funds so they can fund their own pockets, preferably indirectly so they cannot be caught and [2] get re-elected.
All the rest is way lower on the priorities list.

What we need is:

1. Since we have a global economy, we need a global government. If then there will regional governing units, that's another story.
With one government and same rules for everybody, with same currency, .. things should be better.

2. Since current type of politicians are not of any good, we need something better. The current way of democratic elections are incorrect (you can pick for a small list where the same politicians get visibility over and over again), so we need a different way to get the government, by merit, by projects, by interview, like applying for any job. Of course, like in any job, one can be fired if he doesn't do the job well enough, not only after a number of years.
[The only flaw in this logic is that I don't know who would be capable to fairly pick from the candidates.]


Unfortunately the governing system always favored either the rich, either the governing group (political party, monarchic family, ... name it). Never the one who is fair and poor.

Marxism theory has been made sense during all time of its existence. However, it doesn't mean that building the communist society is ever possible. Why? There was a historical example. The communist economic system was officially enumerated as the ultimate goal of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in its party platform. The goal wasn't achieved, in 1991 the USSR was dissolved.

Progress, innovation and advancement in the world. Increasing standards of living. All of it comes from capitalism and the private sector.

Socialist monopolies like NASA could never hope to compete with private sector groups like Space X on an even playing field.

All real scientific and technological progress in the world comes from free market competition between corporations like AMD and Intel.

All of the real efforts to address issues like climate change and reliance on fossil fuels come from corporations like tesla who are forcing automakers to build electric vehicles, while simultaneously pushing battery technology the way it needs to progress in order to reduce reliance on coal, natural gas and oil.

If the world were dominated by global socialism over the past 20 years. We would all still be using computers with less than 64 megabytes of RAM with CPU's that had a clock speed still measured in megahertz.

Marxists often attack capitalism. And never offer a superior alternative. While the alternatives they do offer trend towards being oppressive & repressive.

Damn, that is one hell of a word dude. Marxist principle does not work really well in execution because of the people that are in charge vying to have a control over it. In my opinion, that ideology will only will work on small scale because people will surely become tyrant once they realize that they have control over things, I do believe that it will only work if the man in power is someone as virtuous as Jesus or Buddha which means that the ideology will not work unless there is no corruption within someone who wants to lead.

I know that you want them to help and you don't want them to suffer but I hope you could read this. I am from a province in the Philippines and I live in a barangay with a lot of poor people. I am not that rich, not a mid one too but we are doing well compared to them.

People are actually struggling to find a job here not because they can't but because they are comfortable with what they can get. They are earning a minimum and they are actually good with that. We are in a province so that is fine but some of the people in our barangay actually can do better since some of the people here are now working overseas, with their connection they can work under them or work somewhere and live with them but they don't want that.

In terms of help, we have what we call 4Ps, in which poor people will be receiving incentives by helping cleaning our barangay but the thing is they don't look at it as a help, they took it as a job and the money being given to them as their wage. As you expect, people are just waiting for that to happen and don't do that much in their spare time. They are relying on that small amount so much, it is not that bad but I know they could do better.

I know it is risky to work right now but I am observing this in years and years I am living here. They wanted luxurious lives but they don't have the drive to do that and I don't know why. From what you are saying that as rich people just kept on getting richer, I guess that river will be widened more if people are just taking jobs they can and not thinking about what they can do and make their lives better. They'll keep on working under but they didn't know they can work better and earn better than that.

Yeah, things like that would never happen in a communist country, because there would never be any toilet paper in the stores to begin with (wink-wink to people who actually had to live through socialist regimes).

All this talk about inequality is completely wrong, because inequality isn't inherently wrong - people don't get poor because of others getting rich. This gets proven every time a communist regime gets installed, as the population overall quickly slides into extreme poverty. The twentieth and the current centuries are full of examples that capitalism works and socialism doesn't, but naive people still think that the grass is greener on the other side.

arguably a marxist structure for capital would only change the ruling class---from the capitalists to the political/bureaucrat class. workers still wouldn't own the means of production and would be at the mercy of the political class.

some political theories see marxism and especially soviet-style communism as just another form of (anti-market) capitalism. free market theories that also oppose private property are much more interesting to me.


these aren't really marxist ideas---more like welfare statism and democratic socialism.

In the reality, agree or not. According to me there's no government in the capitalist country really think about the poor. The rich will be richer and the poor will be poorer

I googled a bit and found that 53% of Romanian prefer living in Ceausescu's regime.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/30/struggling-romanians-yearn-for-communism/

It is quite strange that in Indonesia, many people have similar feelings about dictatorship. They feel living in Soeharto's era was more comfortable than the present age. I have some "theories" about this phenomenon despite it was not communism:

- Happiness is relative to its neighborhood peers (I can't remember what the term in psychology for this effect though): When people are more equal they can't look up and envy what their neighbors have. Conversely, if there are the poor and the rich, the poor will envy the rich. This inequality is the source of dissatisfaction and, therefore, unhappy.
- The dead cannot speak: The 53% probably the one who got benefits from the past regime. What happens to the opposite party? They were slaughtered or assassinated.

For god, why did you bring this here? Please stop you make yourself look mentally retarded.
Any left-wing economy is a defective product of the darkness that has emerged from the thoughts of a person who has never worked in his life and lived at someone else's expense.
No one owes you anything just because you exist. The employer should not hire you just because you are POOR or some "oppressed minority" - they need a person who will do well the work for which they are willing to pay. Leave all your Marxist habits for your mother when she refuses to give you pocket money - then tell her about it.

There are a few theories out there that sounded like some utopian world but the problem is how having the power and control in your hands might make the utopian theory turn into a nightmare as at one point you might be following more of your own ideas than what you initially planned to, and part of the community may not agree with it. There have been some attempts to create utopic societies/communities before but most of them ended up as a failure.

Some of these still existing utopic communities have quite interesting concepts. Nucla has made gun ownership mandatory, for example. Twin Oaks Community and the East Wind Community have a pretty interesting way of the community's selection of new members. These are all still alive communities, and they do manage to do the right thing apparently. Only if the entire world agreed to put greed aside and do the same.

When you get the taste of power, there's a quite good probability that you'll only want to earn more power than you already have. Wealth inequality will always exist especially because of this crave for power/control the human mind has. Give a little more wealth to the poor than and they'll almost always be hungry for more. The average person will not understand that if the rich and poor were fair to each other, it would've been much better than 95% working like slaves for the 5%.

The sad thing is, when a real leader comes up with really good ideas, they usually end up shot or assassinated in some other way. Come up as a leader of your country with this kind of mindset and it won't take long before you get taken down through a coup/assassination/whatever else. The poor may be happier with this mindset, but the 5-10% won't and although they're a minority as a number of people, they own the majority of the country's wealth so they are basically under control. They can easily change the real narrative and call you a dictator willing to destroy a country. This is the weak point of the poor.

For example, we had communism in Romania. Although we did go through hard times during the communism, one of the main plans Ceausescu had right before he was killed was to get Romania's debt down to zero. And he managed to do so, 9 months before he.. was taken down from the leadership and killed.

Yes, we had $11B of external debt and he was able to wipe it all. There obviously were a lot of things he did that I would not agree to submit to today, but if one thing was sure, it's that Romania did manage to get their debt all the way to zero and we did have a lot of development.

If at the time our country produced almost anything, today probably >90% of these factories have been either demolished or bought by foreigners. Today we have more freedom, but we do not achieve the things we used to achieve back when communism was here anymore. Probably not even 10% of that. Now we basically only have corruption and the false sense of choice when voting for and electing a new leader.

It honestly feels like we aren't even advancing anymore as a human race. It's mostly just new technology and more poor caused by the small percentage sucking all the wealth out of the middle/lower class. Other than that, remove the technology and you'd find that our society has been stuck at the same level for many decades - or maybe has even regressed, considering my second argument from this paragraph.

Maybe you're living in a country where taxes really are used for the good of the population/country. Give Romania 99% inheritance tax and all you'd really be doing is putting 99% of everyone's wealth in the leaders' pockets with every new generation; I wouldn't mind that much only if at least a part of that money turned into resources to be used for development. But that's surely not the case here.

There are not enough resources on this planet earth that can be equally distributed without making everyone equally poor. Even with socialism, we will find the rich and the poor, and the bad thing is, the work does not determine the distribution, but the society, a.k.a the government.

Whenever I heard Marxism, I'm always thinking about beta males who don't want to compete.

In capitalism, most people are also born without wealth (inheritance), but only a small portion of them can be at the top, and the majority will be poor. It's a combination of hard work, smart work, and luck. It's the distribution of resources based on the competition, and the competition will push civilization forward with the new technology and stuff.

Perhaps I'm more in favor of 99% inheritance tax (than socialism), so the sons of the bitches riches, can only inherit 1% of their father's wealth. It's pure competition with a level playing field.

Minimum wage: it's a bad idea because businesses cannot employ more people into the workforce. Assumed without a minimum wage, a firm can employ two new workers with half of the salary, both will get job training (new skills), and both will get the money, compared to only accept one and leave the other one unemployed.
Job discrimination: it's a bad idea because the fittest should get the job, so productivity will increase.

Your thread title is wrong.Marxism theory about capitalism had always made sense.Marx is one of the biggest
minds of the economic theory.What doesn't make sense is the ideology of communism...
OP,you are suggesting the same old socialist policy of "taking from the rich and giving to the poor".It doesn't matter if it's about electricity bills or wealth.Redistribution makes sense,but the rich people can easily avoid paying taxes and move their business overseas.
A job interview is only about the skills of the candidate.Companies are not charity organizations.They should care about the families of their employees,but providing help should be voluntary and not forced by the government.

To alleviate poverty the Marxism group must abolish the plutocrat class, forbid private ownership, carry out a provocative investigation of the working class to attack the plutocrat class, create class warfare by spreading malice and hostility. Marx also regards religion and the state as a tool used by the plutocrat class to increase their profits.

When possessions are shared, the order of life will be chaotic. Everyone can just take it. Not caring about people's rights another, because there is no clear boundary between individual rights and collective rights. The state is one of the important institutions that must be involved in poverty alleviation. The state must ensure that agreed values are applied in the economy.


Capitalism will bring disaster because it places too much importance on the interests of individual citizens because it relies on individualism. Whereas collectivism which is the teaching of Marxism, will in fact eliminate the legal rights of individuals who are citizens of the community. People's rights and individual rights should be balanced. Both rely on materialism and use prosperity as an end rather than a tool.



I think as long as there is a misperception of the essence of wealth, the government will not be able to guarantee the welfare of the working class.

There is an economic system that has not yet been implemented, namely the Islamic economic system.

In the Islamic economic system, wealth or wealth is not a goal, but rather a tool, so that the benchmark for the success of the economic system is not the wealth that is obtained but the extent to which the material possessed has benefits in the revolving economy. Islamic Economics encourages every economic actor to always make use of everything he has to fulfill his life's needs but with the values of noble character underlying it. In Islamic economics, resources related to the interests of the people are transferred to the state in order to avoid exploitative use of individuals. On the other hand, individual ownership of economic assets is also justified as long as ownership does not conflict with value. In Islam, everyone does not have to get the same results from one another. Someone who has a business is more justified to get more results as long as the business that is run is still in accordance with the corridor of values not intended for exploitation. But there are zakat instruments in Islam so that the greater the wealth, the greater the value of zakat. It aims to sustain and eliminate poverty and as a form of equity of wealth.

it would look like the wealthy class are the villain and the lower class the heros. No one wants to be poor everyone wants to be comfortable..