The strongest believers are those who never had to test their ideology out and/or those with unlimited resources and power who can keep doubling down on a failed policy. The cultural revolution exposes both of these. Marxism is bad to begin with, but multiple that by 100x. That's what you got in China.
The China failure was obviously due to a dysfunctional ideology carried to the extreme.Again, that's not really responding to what I asked you. Would you like to give that a shot, or are you just having fun all on your own, bud? hehe
Tyr this. Copy and paste the following into your browser:What is private property, @SkyChief? Who or what determines it?
Private property is a term that refers to ownership of things by individuals or groups, rather than by the government.
This thread is a POLL question.This question may be of interest to some academics but how is it relevant to debating politics in the real world?
The China failure was obviously due to a dysfunctional ideology carried to the extreme.
Grand Mal said: "If deaths caused by a Marxist country count against Marxism, do deaths caused by capitalist countries count against capitalism?
It's like attributing deaths and atrocities by Muslim countries to Islam. By that standard deaths and atrocities by Christian countries have to be attributed to Christianity."
If we are referring to this post. I disagree with him because context matters, in the cultural revolution the linkage (cause and effect) between the tragic outcome and the failed ideology is quite strong and direct unlike his other examples. Also the magnitude of the disaster is far greater and is frankly on another level.
Interesting.I think you are confused on the true difference between the 2
Classic Marxism is focused primarily on the economic structures of class conflict IE: Rich vs Poor, or production vs working class.
While Neo-Marxism is broadens the focus to include culture and other non-economic factors in shaping social structures and power relations.
It isn't one studied and the other didn't.
For example, I would suggest that tens of thousands of Americans dying each year due to lack of access to care, delayed treament, or rationing medications like insulin has a very strong linkage to capitalism.
"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?
Actually there was private property in Nazi Germany and industrialists could compete for government contracts. Private property was never abolished.We've already been through this. You agree capitalism requires private property rights to be respected and enforced, correct? Well, there were no private property rights in Nazi Germany. It was a particularly vicious dictatorship, and if the Nazis wanted something you have, you either gave it to them or wound up in a concentration camp or worse. You also could not sue them in court, because the courts were completely controlled by the Nazis.
Here's some evidence showing that your beliefs are totally incoherent. In another thread, about me, you wrote:
If I'm a hyper-capitalist, and if Hitler was a hyper-capitalist, then we should have very similar economic views.
We don't, of course. Hitler was an extreme statist and an extreme collectivist, just like you, and just like every hardcore socialist. Hitler's economic policies would align very close to what yours are: nationalization of key industries, price controls, profligate spending on infrastructure, welfare statism, etc. Hell, you and Hitler even see eye-to-eye on labor unions:
Personally I have always believed communism and socialism is great on paper horrible in practice. You can't remove the human corruption that would destroy both systems. Marxism follows similar ideologies. Again good on paper horrible in practice.Interesting.
Marxism is a political, economic and social philosophy that primarily seeks to understand how society works and how to change it. Neo-Marxism is a term sometimes used to refer to some of the different strains of Marxism that developed in the 20th century.
Classic Marxism tenets
Historical Materialism
Class Struggle (proletariat/bourgeoisie)
Capitalism as Exploitative
Revolution and Socialism as transitional steps to Communism
NeoMarxism tenets
Focus on Culture and Ideology “cultural hegemony,”
Critique of Reductionism
Incorporation of Psychoanalysis
Global Perspective
all of it is scary and subversive.
Marxism is responsible for the deaths of over 100 million innocent people. Neo-Marxism, thankfully, never made it out of the universities.
Traditional Marxism was based on class envy and class warfare.
Those are the establishment Democrats, like Pelosi and Schumer.
Neo-marxism is based on racial hatred and cultural hatred.
Those are the new generation of left wing bigot Democrats like the Squad.
Tyr this. Copy and paste the following into your browser:
What is private property?
Colonial exploitation means things like forced labor, state-enforced monopolies, and military conquests.
All gross violations of property rights.
Again, human slavery is an extreme violation of property rights. You might as well blame capitalism anytime someone gets kidnapped.
Nonsense.Oh, I already know the answer. Do you? Do you know that Private Property is adjudicated by government? You're chasing your own ass.
Nonsense.
You obviously have no idea what private property is EVEN THOUGH I SHOWED YOU HOW TO LEARN ABOUT IT. You mistakenly believe that private property must be real estate. IT DOESNT.
Private property can be anything. Real estate, tangible things, even intangible things - intellectual property i.e., lyrics, poetry, writings, computer code, etc, . .
These things are private property.
It IS my property.You say its your property. I say its mine. Who decides who owns it?
It IS my property.
If you think it's yours, then TAKE it.
I will take action(s) to show you who it belongs to. It might be legal action, or it might involve firearms. It's risky.
It IS my property.
If you think it's yours, then TAKE it.
I will take action(s) to show you who it belongs to. It might be legal action, or it might involve firearms. It's risky.
No LOL.SkyChief doesn't realize it, but he's already lost this debate.
Bullshit. Come to my property and take something - anything. I will actively protect my property, and I don't need any help from government.The notion that anyone owns anything can ONLY exist in a society, and society cannot exist without government. A system of laws, boundaries, and rights DETERMINED by a governing force.
Pure nonsense. You have no real concept of private property. You think it's real estate.Outside of government, there is nothing except YOUR FORCE preventing MY FORCE from taking your shit. The notion that you have property is a function of government.
No LOL.
Oh dear you are hilarious.
Bullshit. Come to my property and take something - anything. I will actively protect my property, and I don't need any help from government.
Pure nonsense. You have no real concept of private property. You think it's real estate.
No LOL.
Oh dear you are hilarious.
Bullshit. Come to my property and take something - anything. I will actively protect my property, and I don't need any help from government.
Pure nonsense. You have no real concept of private property. You think it's real estate.
I'm going to focus on insulin here but the same argument (artificial supply restrictions) applies across the entire healthcare industry. Insulin is expensive in the US because the idiot government prohibits imports. For example, Lantus, which is a brand of insulin, is sold both in the U.S. and Mexico. But the same drug, coming from the same manufacturer, to the same standards, cannot be legally imported to America.
You can't blame capitalism for government preventing people from buying insulin at lower prices:
Americans Cross Border Into Mexico To Buy Insulin At A Fraction Of U.S. Cost - KFF Health News
For one patient, a three-month supply of insulin is $3,700 in the U.S. versus $600 in Mexico. But is it legal?kffhealthnews.org
We're getting in the weeds. This thread is about (Classic) Marxism vs NeoMarxism - which is worse?Based on what? If you claim your personal property was a thousand acres of land, or a thousand homes, or a factory that requires a thousand workers to function, what is the basis of your claim of ownership?
Is it a piece of paper from a government threatening violence on your behalf (aka a “deed”) meaning property rights under capitalism are based on violence?
My property is mine. I will protect it by whatever means I have available.So property ownership is based on coercive threats of violence?
oh dear.Is threatening people with violence legitimate?
False. A house is private property, and so is a car, and a toothbrush.You realize that stuff like your house, your car, and your toothbrush aren’t “private property”, right? They are personal property.
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?