My opinion- anyone who couldn't get through the first three pages of Das Kapital has no business talking about Marxism."The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property." - Karl Marx
The difference between Marxism and neo-Marxism is simple:
Marxism is the study and belief in Marxist ideals (i.e., private property should be abolished).
Neo-Marxism does not involve any study in Marx's teachings, however it holds the same fundamental belief that all private property should be abolished.
In your opinion, which is worse?
A fine Red Herring argument.My opinion- anyone who couldn't get through the first three pages of Das Capital has no business talking about Marxism.
And now showing that you don't know what a 'red herring' is.A fine Red Herring argument.
Thanks for making it.
Of course I do.And now showing that you don't know what a 'red herring' is.
Oh dear.It took Karl Marx three volumes of heavy going to explain Marxism. Go ahead, show the class your exceptionally superior intelligence by condensing it into a bumper sticker.
If the topic of this thread is bigger than your understanding, abandon it.Of course I do.
Your post is a textbook example of a Red Herring argument.
You cannot post a sensible argument, so naturally, you resort to the Red Herring logical fallacy.
Oh dear.
If the topic of this thread offends you in some way, move along.
If the topic of this thread is bigger than your understanding, abandon it.
Agreed.. . . . My opinion is that Marxism is generally bad.
I disagree. Neo-Marxists are worse because they lack the ambition and aptitude to find out why Marxism is detrimental to a free and productive society.So a Marxist is worse than a Neo-Marxist because his beliefs will be steadfast and impossible to change.
The malignant narcissist scumbag piece of shit liar grifter rapist seditionist felon serial adulterer and tax cheat along with his fascist and racist administration is worse."The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property." - Karl Marx
The difference between Marxism and neo-Marxism is simple:
Marxism is the study and belief in Marxist ideals (i.e., private property should be abolished).
Neo-Marxism does not involve any study in Marx's teachings, however it holds the same fundamental belief that all private property should be abolished.
In your opinion, which is worse?
Communist herrings are indeed Red. Except in the USA where for some strange reason they are Blue.A fine Red Herring argument.
Thanks for making it.
No, not a red herring. Grand Mal makes a good point. What you quoted from marx is either a dishonest attempt to mine quote or an example of someone who has never read anything about marx except what the anti socialist crowd write.A fine Red Herring argument.
Thanks for making it.
The first reaction to this radical idea ( Abolish private property.) was that it would find little resonance with the British working class, a large number of whom have bought their own homes and seek to get a better life through the acquisition of more property – cars, comfortable domestic furnishings etc. However Marx anticipated this reaction. He pointed out that he was referring to ‘bourgeois property’, and property relations not the hard won property of the worker. For Marx the bourgeois defence of their property was at one and the same time a defence of their power, and was riddled with hypocrisy.
All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions. The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.
Bourgeois property relations come about, as Marx says above, through dispossessing others, and then inventing a legal code to justify this robbery.
In the 18th century the imposition of bourgeois property relations on the labouring poor came about by the seizure of common lands. For example, in Scotland the highland clearances removed crofters from the land and turned the highlands into sheep ranges. This was done through force. In England common land was parcelled up and given to big farmers. Legal documents were provided to defend this robbery.
In North America the native inhabitants thought that private property was an absurd inversion of reality. The inhabitants were secondary and the land was primary. So as European settlers knocked in some wooden stakes to make a claim on native lands, the US government gave them deeds that made the robbery legal. This is going on today in Palestine, and in the Amazon.
The ultimate prize that the bourgeoisie gain from transforming pre-existing property relations is the creation of capital.
Snort! That’s hilarious.My opinion- anyone who couldn't get through the first three pages of Das Kapital has no business talking about Marxism.
And the OP, batting way outside his league, continues to get brutally schooled.Communist herrings are indeed Red. Except in the USA where for some strange reason they are Blue.
Btw, since you asked, the most murderous form of Marxism is Marxist-Leninism which killed tens of millions in Russia and even more in China.
I assume you know the new tariff nickname.The malignant narcissist scumbag piece of shit liar grifter rapist seditionist felon serial adulterer and tax cheat along with his fascist and racist administration is worse.
I almost always chuckle when I see “discussions” of Marxism mentioned here in DP because the individuals more apt to broach the topic almost never display any actual understanding or knowledge of Marx and his body of works.If the topic of this thread is bigger than your understanding, abandon it.
"The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property." - Karl Marx
The difference between Marxism and neo-Marxism is simple:
Marxism is the study and belief in Marxist ideals (i.e., private property should be abolished).
Neo-Marxism does not involve any study in Marx's teachings, however it holds the same fundamental belief that all private property should be abolished.
In your opinion, which is worse?
Marxism is responsible for the deaths of over 100 million innocent people.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?