Marxism vs neo-Marxism . . . Which Is Worse?

[SNOWFLAKE]

If a theory fails every time it's applied, the theory is the problem. Good luck getting anyone on the left to admit that about Marxism.

I am on the Left and do NOT believe in the theory of Marxism. SO your strawman falls on it's face. As for what I posted, Marxism, like any OTHER form of government, is never practiced as intended.
Cute how you quoted part of my rebuttal by missed this part:

Marxism is used nowadays to describe a certain mind set. YET, the vast majority of those who use the word Marxism never read a history book or studied political movements. Marxism had become a catchphrase to insult people.

TO put it more plainly, Righties use the term Marxist to attack anyone on the Left. Of course we Leftists laugh at that realized how totally bonkers those claims are.

Take Democracy for example. An ideal. Yet the very people who claim to be defending democracy want to take it away from "others" and preserve it only for themselves.

Now we get to the point I was making. You can take any form of government and it is never practiced as intended. I prefer Democracy over Marxism because I don't care about the ideals of Marxism, but Democracy is as poorly observed as any other form of government. Hence the highlighted part.

I typically don't go to this great a length to explain the nuances of what I was saying, because I know that no matter what I say, the simple-minded will use strawman arguments to twist what I have said. On that note, you will no proceed to do just that, because you are SO predictable.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Part of your list is nonsense.

I don't think you understand much of anything. All you can do is make lists of concepts you don't understand and quote people (appeal to authority). You don't articulate or defend ANY of your arguments. Can you?

Sensible taxation? LOL Karl Marx was the idiot (and Friedrich Engles) who advocated income taxation.

Appeal to Ridicule.

A heavy progressive income tax is the Second Plank of the Communist Manifesto. And democrats' one-size-fit-all solution to ANY problem is to raise taxes and throw money at it.

You're unable to articulate what you're saying. You can't just scream, 'Marxism!' without articulating an actual argument. I don't think you understand anything.

Take for example the dipshit NeoMarxist governor of California.

Marxism! /argument

Newsom is a Marxist LOL. You're making yourself look clownish.

Currently, California has the highest aggregate taxes in the nation, and MILLIONS OF CALIFORNIANS HAVE ALREADY FLED TO OTHER STATES TO ESCAPE INSANELY HIGH TAXES. Predictably, Dipshit Gavin Newsom says that Californians should be paying MORE in taxes.

'Everything to the left of me is Marxism!'

Anti-war?? NeoMarxists are notorious for war-mongering. They are the ones clamoring for U.S. funding an endless war between Russia and Ukraine.

Everyone is a neo-Marxist = No One is a Neo-Marxist.

Many NeoMarxist were horrified when Trump tried to negotiate a peace agreement.

I'd be happy if he could negotiate peace.

What a dumb question. Our country was FOUNDED on the principles of freedom and liberty.

Not for indigenous Americans or black people.

Not ONE person had affordable health care, but these brave people fought to the death for independence and freedom.

So as medical knowledge increases, only the rich should have access to those benefits (from public research)?

Irrelevant. My opinions on taxes and social security have nothing to do with the thread topic, which is (Classic)Marxism vs NeoMarxism.

Sure they do. The alternatives to socialist policies HAVE to be better by default for your criticisms to land. You are representing your beliefs as superior to mine. I'm challenging you. Can you defend anything you represent?

You loathe the Bourgeoisie. Got it.

So you love being ruled by wealthy elites. Got it.

To a Marxist, (and Neo-Marxist), the only way to "improve" government is to make it stronger and more powerful, so it can redistribute wealth and property more efficiently.

Nope, I think government should proportionate to the needs of the people. The size isn't important. Since government ALWAYS exists in a society, it's merely a question of who controls it (the elites or the people). There are no other options. Do you want democracy (tyranny of the majority) or some form of oligarchy / dictatorship (tyranny of the few or one).

Pick your poison. Surely you've thought out your own beliefs to this extent. Have you?

Thankfully, informed Americans realize how patently absurd that notion is, because the more powerful the government becomes, the less freedom and liberty there is for the citizenry.

Blah blah blah, herpaderp. You don't understand what government actually is.

"I am convinced that there are more threats to American liberty within the 10 mile radius of my office on Capitol Hill than there are on the rest of the globe." -- Ron Paul

LOL Ron ****ing Paul. Quote someone whose opinions I give a SHIT about.

To a libertarian, the only way to "improve" the government is to make it smaller, and less powerful. Liberty and freedom of the citizens are inversely proportional to the power of their government.

Can a libertarian society work? How? Give me an example. Argentina? LOL.

 

[aociswundumho]

I am on the Left and do NOT believe in the theory of Marxism. SO your strawman falls on it's face.

Should people get healthcare based on their needs?

Should people be taxed on their income according to their ability to pay?

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Should people get healthcare based on their needs?

Should people be taxed on their income according to their ability to pay?

Give it a rest. Now you are just sounding silly. Every western nation except the US has some form of universal health care, so by your argument, they are ALL MARXIST. If you enjoy sounding silly, I have no reason to go back n forth with someone making such inane comments.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Should people get healthcare based on their needs?

Should people be taxed on their income according to their ability to pay?

Note that anything that isn't 100% "free market libertarianism" (an oxymoronic, if not paradoxical notion) is full-blown max left Communism to these people.

They are unable to reason like a normal person. That's why they should be ridiculed.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

They are unable to reason like a normal person. That's why they should be ridiculed.

THEY are quite happy with police protection and fire departments coming to their rescue. THEY are perfectly fine with having their roads fixed. BUT OMG, offer people universal healthcare, THAT is Marxism.
You can't argue with empty-headed people who have no idea what they are talking about but like throwing phrases or terms around because someone told them those phrases and terms sound scary.

 

[aociswundumho]

Give it a rest. Now you are just sounding silly.

Note that anything that isn't 100% "free market libertarianism" (an oxymoronic, if not paradoxical notion) is full-blown max left Communism to these people.

At least I'm not embarrassed about what I believe in. Both of you are embarrassed about your left wing views, which is why won't answer some simple questions.

 

[Dans La Lune]

At least I'm not embarrassed about what I believe in.

You should be, though. It's cartoon, fantasy-land nonsense that you cannot defend on the best day of your life.

Both of you are embarrassed about your left wing views, which is why won't answer some simple questions.

Ask me about my left wing views. I'll defend them all day, while dancing on your head. The problem is, you guys are incapable of articulating serious arguments. Thus you need to say, 'taxation = 100 million dead' and similar nonsensical bullshit that no one takes seriously.

 

[Dans La Lune]

THEY are quite happy with police protection and fire departments coming to their rescue. THEY are perfectly fine with having their roads fixed. BUT OMG, offer people universal healthcare, THAT is Marxism.
You can't argue with empty-headed people who have no idea what they are talking about but like throwing phrases or terms around because someone told them those phrases and terms sound scary.

They are antisocial by nature. They don't believe in society, but want to reap all the benefits and protections of society, while having zero obligations to that society. They are basically wannabe freeloaders.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

They are basically wannabe freeloaders.

THAT sounds about right.

 

[SkyChief]

I don't think you understand much of anything. All you can do is make lists of concepts you don't understand and quote people (appeal to authority). You don't articulate or defend ANY of your arguments. Can you?

I've articulated the fundamental tenets of classic Marxism and the fundamental tenets of NeoMarxism, and explained while both are subversive ideologies, one is worse than the other because as a free and enlightened society progresses, it should shun subversive ideologies which have repeatedly shown throughout history that they just don't work.

You're unable to articulate what you're saying. You can't just scream, 'Marxism!' without articulating an actual argument. I don't think you understand anything.

Im the only one in this thread who provided a comprehensive list of distinctions with classic marxism and neoMarxism. You made an attempt, but yours didn't work because of logical fallacies.

Newsom is a Marxist LOL. You're making yourself look clownish.

Newsom is a NeoMarxist. He embraces the idiotic notions that government cannot be powerful enough, and that the citizens cannot ever be over-taxed. Gavin Newson is highly educated, yet he's still dumber than a sack of hammers.

Everyone is a neo-Marxist = No One is a Neo-Marxist.

Typical Straw-Man nonsense.

So as medical knowledge increases, only the rich should have access to those benefits (from public research)?

You really should do a little research. I'm not spoon-feeding anyone.

You are representing your beliefs as superior to mine.

True. And they ARE.

I'm challenging you. Can you defend anything you represent?

You're challenging me, but there's no need for me to defend liberty and freedom. All decent and good people cherish liberty and freedom. BAD people cherish a powerful and oppressive government, high taxes, redistribution of wealth, abolition of private property, and many other really stupid ideas.

So you love being ruled by wealthy elites. Got it.

Another really dumb Straw-Man logical fallacy.

I think government should proportionate to the needs of the people.

Right - "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - Karl Marx

Marx said some remarkably dumb things, but this dipshittery ranked way up there. This is why the NeoMarxist falsely believes that he has some right to take my earnings and/or property.

"Government should never be able to do anything you can't do. If you can't steal from your neighbor, you can't send the government to steal for you." - Ron Paul

The size isn't important.

False. Americans' liberty and freedom erodes with each new Law they pass. Our lawmakers don't give a shit about liberty or freedom. The Laws they pass makes the government stronger and more powerful.

"As government expands, liberty contracts." - Ronald Reagan

Since government ALWAYS exists in a society, it's merely a question of who controls it (the elites or the people). There are no other options.

That's a Marxist construct, and it is patently FALSE.

Do you want democracy (tyranny of the majority) or some form of oligarchy / dictatorship (tyranny of the few or one). Pick your poison. Surely you've thought out your own beliefs to this extent. Have you?

This nonsensical scenario is based entirely on a false premise.

Blah blah blah, herpaderp. You don't understand what government actually is.

I do. I know exactly what a government IS, and what a good government should be DOING.(scope).

You have a Marxist perspective of what government is (which is totally wrong), and a Marxist perspective of what government should be doing (which is totally wrong). This is fundamentally why your position is flawed. The ideology is just stupid.

Can a libertarian society work? How? Give me an example. Argentina? LOL.

Argentina is NOT a libertarian society. You need to do some research. "The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

 

[Dans La Lune]

I've articulated the fundamental tenets of classic Marxism and the fundamental tenets of NeoMarxism, and explained while both are subversive ideologies, one is worse than the other because as a free and enlightened society progresses, it should shun subversive ideologies which have repeatedly shown throughout history that they just don't work.

And you've called Newsom a neo-Marxist, thus undermining your entire thread.

Newsom is a NeoMarxist.

Who isn't a neo-Marxist then?

Argentina is NOT a libertarian society. You need to do some research. "The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

What is it? Neo-Marxist?

Javier Milei, an Argentine libertarian, is rising in the polls

Annual inflation of 104% is boosting support for him

www.economist.com

 

[SkyChief]

And you've called Newsom a neo-Marxist, thus undermining your entire thread.

Newsom is a NeoMarxist, as he embraces most of the idiotic tenets of NeoMarxism.

Who isn't a neo-Marxist then?

You probably meant to ask: Who are some prominent people who aren't NeoMarxist? The answer would be Bernie Sanders. Sanders rejects most of NeoMarxism, including alienation, psychoanalysis, and highly flawed ideologies such as Critical Race Theory (which focuses on struggles of marginalized groups beyond the proletariat).

Javier Milei, an Argentine libertarian, is rising in the polls

Annual inflation of 104% is boosting support for him

www.economist.com

One libertarian candidate does not make an entire society libertarian. What a lame argument.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Newsom is a NeoMarxist, as he embraces most of the idiotic tenets of NeoMarxism.

LOL the more you dig in, the more absurd you become. If Newsom is a neo-Marxist, you could credibly make the case that Joe Manchin is.

You probably meant to ask: Who are some prominent people who aren't NeoMarxist? The answer would be Bernie Sanders.

Newsom ain't Bernie Sanders. They don't share anywhere near the same ideology. Not by a country mile.

One libertarian candidate does not make an entire society libertarian. What a lame argument.

Is Argentina Libertarian​

Argentina has seen a significant rise in libertarian influence, particularly since Javier Milei became president in 2023. Milei, who describes himself as a philosophical anarcho-capitalist but operates as a minarchist in practice, has implemented policies aligned with libertarian ideals such as promoting free markets and advocating for a minimal state presence. His party, the Libertarian Party (Partido Libertario, abbreviated as PL), supports economic liberalism and minarchism, reflecting a blend of social conservatism and right-libertarianism.

However, the implementation of these policies has been criticized for potentially undermining democratic institutions and human rights. For instance, Milei's government has taken steps that critics argue weaken social and labor protections and deregulate environmental policies, aiming for a radical shift in Argentina's social model. These actions have been likened to a "shock doctrine," suggesting that while libertarian principles are espoused, the methods employed may veer towards authoritarianism.

 

[SkyChief]

LOL the more you dig in, the more absurd you become. If Newsom is a neo-Marxist, you could credibly make the case that Joe Manchin is.

That's a nonsensical argument. Joe Manchin is not any kind of Marxist - classical OR neo.

Newsom ain't Bernie Sanders.

Thanks - you unwittingly just made my MY POINT - - one is a neoMarxist and the other is not.

They don't share anywhere near the same ideology. Not by a country mile.

Exactly my point. Newsom is a neo Marxist, and Bernie is not.

Is Argentina Libertarian​

Argentina has seen a significant rise in libertarian influence, particularly since Javier Milei became president in 2023. Milei, who describes himself as a philosophical anarcho-capitalist but operates as a minarchist in practice, has implemented policies aligned with libertarian ideals such as promoting free markets and advocating for a minimal state presence. His party, the Libertarian Party (Partido Libertario, abbreviated as PL), supports economic liberalism and minarchism, reflecting a blend of social conservatism and right-libertarianism.

However, the implementation of these policies has been criticized for potentially undermining democratic institutions and human rights. For instance, Milei's government has taken steps that critics argue weaken social and labor protections and deregulate environmental policies, aiming for a radical shift in Argentina's social model. These actions have been likened to a "shock doctrine," suggesting that while libertarian principles are espoused, the methods employed may veer towards authoritarianism.

The above is ignorant nonsense. Argentina is no more libertarian than America is socialist.

It's possible that Argentina might have some libertarian policies, but they are not even close to being a libertarian society. The U.S. certainly has some socialist policies, but the U.S. is not (and never will be) a socialist society. The fact is there are no libertarian societies on the planet. Not one. Any country that has Income Tax cannot possibly be a libertarian country, in the same way a sphere cannot have corners.

Anyways, thanks for supporting my argument about neoMarxist Newsom and (classical) Marxist Bernie.

 

[Dans La Lune]

That's a nonsensical argument. Joe Manchin is not any kind of Marxist - classical OR neo.

I think Manchin and Newsom align on many issues. Newsom is a neoliberal (conservative economics), protects corporate interests, does not support Medicare For All, and is critical of cultural progressive issues. He was married to Kimberly Guilfoyle, a MAGA CHUD.

Thanks - you unwittingly just made my MY POINT - - one is a neoMarxist and the other is not.

Wait, you said Bernie is NOT a neo-Marxist? My mistake. I thought you were saying he WAS one. Your overall point is utterly incoherent, so I got lost in your incoherence.

It's possible that Argentina might have some libertarian policies, but they are not even close to being a libertarian society. The U.S. certainly has some socialist policies, but the U.S. is not (and never will be) a socialist society.

How would you describe America?

The fact is there are no libertarian societies on the planet. Not one.

Why is that?

Any country that has Income Tax cannot possibly be a libertarian country, in the same way a sphere cannot have corners.

So you're saying Libertarianism is useless and cannot function as a governing model? Because I could certainly agree with you if so.

Anyways, thanks for supporting my argument about neoMarxist Newsom and (classical) Marxist Bernie.

'Is Newsom a Neo-Marxist​

There is no direct evidence to suggest that Gavin Newsom is a neo-Marxist. However, his political actions and affiliations have sparked debates among various communities. Some critics argue that his policies and recent moves towards the right, such as hosting a podcast featuring figures like Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk, indicate a shift in his political stance rather than alignment with Marxist ideologies. These actions have been interpreted by some as an attempt to normalize and legitimize far-right figures, which contrasts with the principles associated with Marxism.

On the other hand, supporters of Newsom highlight his progressive stances on social issues during his tenure as mayor of San Francisco and his initial support for a statewide single-payer health system, which align with certain aspects of social democratic policies. However, his subsequent decision to abandon the single-payer healthcare bill due to pressure from private healthcare companies has been seen as a compromise influenced by corporate interests rather than a steadfast commitment to leftist principles.

In summary, while Newsom's political positions and affiliations have been subject to scrutiny and criticism, there is no substantial evidence to label him as a neo-Marxist.

Gavin Newsom's political actions and policies do not align with the core tenets of neo-Marxism. While he has implemented progressive social policies and criticized the Democratic Party, his engagement with conservative figures and his pragmatic approach to governance indicate a more centrist or moderate stance. The label of neo-Marxist is not appropriate for Newsom based on the available evidence.

Summary Table​

Aspect	Details
Political Background	Born in 1967, served as mayor of San Francisco (2003-2011) and lieutenant governor of California (2011-2019). Current governor of California since 2019.2
Recent Actions	Launched podcast featuring conservative figures, criticized the Democratic Party as "toxic".712
Criticism	Left-wing criticism for legitimizing far-right figures, right-wing criticism for being disingenuous.312
Neo-Marxism	Collection of Marxist schools of thought incorporating critical theory, cultural studies, and feminism.8
Newsom's Policies	Progressive social policies, criticized for economic policies and failure to deliver on single-payer healthcare.23
Conclusion	Not a neo-Marxist; more centrist or moderate approach.712

 

[SkyChief]

Wait, you said Bernie is NOT a neo-Marxist? My mistake. I thought you were saying he WAS one. Your overall point is utterly incoherent, so I got lost in your incoherence.

Yes it WAS your mistake. I was clear that Bernie Sanders is not neoMarxist, but you have poor comprehension. (comprehension means the ability to understand the meaning of a message). You didn't even try to understand what was said - you jumped to a false conclusion, which is predictable, and THEN you blame me for your ignorance. (also predictable).

How would you describe America?

Transitioning to a diverse social global culture - abandoning "American" traditions/culture. Powerful and wasteful government. Globalist (neoMarxist) policy with regards to costly and needless Military intervention into foreign wars.

America is lost.

So you're saying Libertarianism is useless and cannot function as a governing model? Because I could certainly agree with you if so.

No, not saying that at all.

"Any country that has Income Tax cannot possibly be a libertarian country, in the same way a sphere cannot have corners."

A core tenet of libertarianism is that the government should NEVER have the power to take our property or our earnings. If a government forces a citizen to surrender part of his earnings (Income Tax), then that government cannot be libertarian.

An object with corners can be many things, however it cannot possibly be a sphere.

There is no direct evidence to suggest that Gavin Newsom is a neo-Marxist.

Of course there is. Critical Race Theory is an idiotic neo Marxist ideology. Gavin Newsom is a huge fan of CRT. The founders of CRT publicly (and proudly) declared that CRT is based on Critical Theory (neoMarxism).

Gavin Newsom's political actions and policies do not align with the core tenets of neo-Marxism.

LOL of course they do. Newsom is a globalist, he doesn't respect other people's property, he believes in CRT, Big Government, oppression of the people, high taxes (the highest in the country), high regulations. . . nearly all of the idiotic nonsense that any neoMaxist believes.