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

[Questerr]

We're getting in the weeds. This thread is about (Classic) Marxism vs NeoMarxism - which is worse?

I think NeoMarxism is worse.

My property is mine. I will protect it by whatever means I have available.

Your property is YOUR property. I don't know if you would protect your property, but I respect your private property, and would not take it, regardless of what you would or wouldn't do to protect it.

oh dear.

False. A house is private property, and so is a car, and a toothbrush.

These things are private property because the Government does not own them.

Not as defined by Marxism. Isn’t this whole thread about how not knowing Marxist theory is bad? Why are you so ignorant about something while making claims about it?

Private property is capital, aka “the means of production”. Your house isn’t that. It’s personal property. Marxists aren’t coming for your house.

And once again, your definition of Neo-Marxism is flat ****ing wrong. You have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[Buster Keaton]

If you think Pelosi and Schumer are “Marxists”, you have no ****ing clue what Marxism is.

Both Pelosi and Schumer use the class envy Marxist phrase "tax cuts for the rich"

 

[Questerr]

Both Pelosi and Schumer use the class envy Marxist phrase "tax cuts for the rich"

That’s not what Marxism is. Pelosi and Schumer are both neo-liberal capitalists.

 

[SkyChief]

Not as defined by Marxism. Isn’t this whole thread about how not knowing. Racist theory is bad?

WTF??? Racist theory? What a nonsensical question.

Why are you so ignorant about something while making claimed about it?

Your posts are so ignorant. You obviously have NO idea what you're talking about, and you ask REALLY dumb questions.

Private property is capital, aka “the means of production”. Your house isn’t that. It’s personal property. Marxists aren’t coming for your house.

What a dumb straw-man argument!!! I never said, or even implied that Marxists are coming for my house. You made that doltish nonsense up.

And once again, your definition of Neo-Marxism is flat ****ing wrong. You have no clue what you are talking about.

You're having a lot of difficulty formulating a sensible argument. Here are the core tenets of each ideology:

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

In my opinion, NeoMarxism is FAR worse. Incorporation of Psychoanalysis???? that's some scary shit right there.

 

[Questerr]

WTF??? Racist theory? What a nonsensical question.

Your posts are so ignorant. You obviously have NO idea what you're talking about, and you ask REALLY dumb questions.

What a dumb straw-man argument!!! I never said, or even implied that Marxists are coming for my house. You made that doltish nonsense up.

You're having a lot of difficulty formulating a sensible argument. Here are the core tenets of each ideology:

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

In my opinion, NeoMarxism is FAR worse. Incorporation of Psychoanalysis???? that's some scary shit right there.

I got autocorrected and already fixed it. It should be “Marxist theory”.

Yet you think your house is private property and that Marxists want to abolish that property, so yes, you do think Marxists are coming for your house. Unless you are willing to admit houses are personal property, which is how they are defined under Marxism. Are you?

Thank you for admitting your definition of Neo-Marxism in the OP was a lie. Why did you lie?

Neo-Marxism exists because Marx’s predictions about how society would react to class struggle didn’t pan out. Marx predicted that material conditions would shape human actions and that classes would act in solidarity due to the material conditions they shared.

But the 20th century proved that wrong again and again. The failure of workers to show solidarity during WW1 and WW2 was the biggest example, or other examples also affected the development. For instance, based on Marxist analysis, the material conditions of poor people in the South should have made them natural allies, yet white Southerners oppressed their black neighbors.

Neo-Marxism was developed because it was clear that material conditions aren’t the only things that shape class consciousness and other aspects of human society, like culture and psychology, needed to be brought into the analysis.

Bear in mind, when Marx wrote Das Kapital, psychology was in its infancy and sociology didn’t even exist.

 

[OlNate]

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.

Oh, boy, someone thinks doing a John Wayne impression is going to thwart a mob.

News flash: if someone has decided to take something from your property, to where they come fully prepared to do so, they will get it, and you going full Chuck Norris will only result in you getting hurt or worse.

Tough guy internet routine notwithstanding, "property" is a very fragile term. It's probably for the best that capitalism is restrained to where people continue to benefit from it. Hunger, envy and desperation are very strong motivators, certainly well beyond what you and your little pew pew can stand against.

 

[Dans La Lune]

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.

That's the law of the jungle, not proof of your property claim. Why is it your property? If I bring 10 guys with guns, is it my property?

Pure nonsense. You have no real concept of private property. You think it's real estate.

Who adjudicates intellectual property?

 

[SkyChief]

Oh, boy, someone thinks doing a John Wayne impression is going to thwart a mob.

What a remarkably dumb argument. But I'm glad that you made it.

News flash: if someone has decided to take something from your property, to where they come fully prepared to do so, they will get it, and you going full Chuck Norris will only result in you getting hurt or worse.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Chuck Norris???? . . . John Wayne???? Those are actors in movies.

You sure have some odd fantasies!

Tough guy internet routine notwithstanding, "property" is a very fragile term.

It's really not. Property is property. Property can exist in many forms - tangible things, and even intangible things such as copyright, patent, trademark, song lyrics, computer code, etc etc.

It's probably for the best that capitalism is restrained to where people continue to benefit from it.

This thread is about (Classic) Marxism vs NeoMarxism. It is not about capitalism. There is no logical reason to mention capitalism in this thread.

Any mention of capitalism is a Red Herring.

Hunger, envy and desperation are very strong motivators, certainly well beyond what you and your little pew pew can stand against.

I have no idea what this red herring nonsense is supposed to mean, or how it pertains to Classic Marxism vs NeoMarxism, and I doubt that you do either!

 

[OlNate]

What a remarkably dumb argument. But I'm glad that you made it.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Chuck Norris???? . . . John Wayne???? Those are actors in movies.

You sure have some odd fantasies!

It's really not. Property is property. Property can exist in many forms - tangible things, and even intangible things such as copyright, patent, trademark, song lyrics, computer code, etc etc.

This thread is about (Classic) Marxism vs NeoMarxism. It is not about capitalism. There is no logical reason to mention capitalism in this thread.

Any mention of capitalism is a Red Herring.

I have no idea what this silly nonsense is supposed to mean, and I doubt that you do either!

I love this response. You make it so easy.

 

[reflechissez]

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.

You are really out of your depth.

 

[reflechissez]

Oh, boy, someone thinks doing a John Wayne impression is going to thwart a mob.

News flash: if someone has decided to take something from your property, to where they come fully prepared to do so, they will get it, and you going full Chuck Norris will only result in you getting hurt or worse.

Tough guy internet routine notwithstanding, "property" is a very fragile term. It's probably for the best that capitalism is restrained to where people continue to benefit from it. Hunger, envy and desperation are very strong motivators, certainly well beyond what you and your little pew pew can stand against.

 

[Dans La Lune]

It's really not. Property is property. Property can exist in many forms - tangible things, and even intangible things such as copyright, patent, trademark, song lyrics, computer code, etc etc.

Did dinosaurs have private property?

 

[SkyChief]

I got autocorrected and already fixed it. It should be “Marxist theory”.

Yet you think your house is private property

My house IS private property.

and that Marxists want to abolish that property,

Marx made that claim - not me. Nice straw-man though.

so yes, you do think Marxists are coming for your house.

That's a stupid straw-man. I shouldn't need to explain that to you.

Unless you are willing to admit houses are personal property, which is how they are defined under Marxism. Are you?

Thank you for admitting your definition of Neo-Marxism in the OP was a lie.

What a hot, steamy, load of

Why did you lie?

oh gawd. more of this

Neo-Marxism exists because Marx’s predictions about how society would react to class struggle didn’t pan out. Marx predicted that material conditions would shape human actions and that classes would act in solidarity due to the material conditions they shared.

But the 20th century proved that wrong again and again. The failure of workers to show solidarity during WW1 and WW2 was the biggest example, or other examples also affected the development. For instance, based on Marxist analysis, the material conditions of poor people in the South should have made them natural allies, yet white Southerners oppressed their black neighbors.

Neo-Marxism was developed because it was clear that material conditions aren’t the only things that shape class consciousness and other aspects of human society, like culture and psychology, needed to be brought into the analysis.

Bear in mind, when Marx wrote Das Kapital, psychology was in its infancy and sociology didn’t even exist.

Marx said: "Democracy is the road to socialism." The founding fathers wanted a Republican form of government vs a pure democracy.
(Article IV, section 4)
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,

Marxism and NeoMarxism subvert the Founders' ideologies of Life, Liberty and Property.

 

[Buster Keaton]

The principle of private property is what makes countries prosperous.

 

[Questerr]

My house IS private property.

Marx made that claim - not me. Nice try.

That's a stupid straw-man. I shouldn't need to explain that to you.

What a hot, steamy, load of



oh gawd. more of this

Ok. "Democracy is the road to socialism." - Karl Marx This is why the founding fathers wanted a Republican form of government vs a pure democracy.
(Article IV, section 4)
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,

Not according to Marxism. Under the definitions of Marxism, your house is personal property. You bitch about Neo-Marxists supposedly not knowing what Marxism says, but you don’t either.

You claimed in the OP that Neo-Marxists don’t know Marxist theory. Why did you lie?

Are Marxists proposing turning America into a monarchy? Because that’s the only way we would cease to be a Republic. We are already a Constitutional Representative Democracy as well as a Republic. When the founders created the nation, we were an oligarchy instead of a democracy.

But thank you for completely ignoring everything I said about Neo-Marxism. It shows you have no interest in an actual discussion.

 

[Questerr]

The principle of private property is what makes countries prosperous.

It definitely makes the rich prosperous.

 

[SkyChief]

Did dinosaurs have private property?

You are lost.

Not according to Marxism. Under the definitions of Marxism, your house is personal property. You bitch about Neo-Marxists supposedly not knowing what Marxism says, but you don’t either.

You claimed in the OP that Neo-Marxists don’t know Marxist theory. Why did you lie?

FALSE - that is Iie. I never made that claim, and you KNOW that I never made that claim. That's another Straw-man fallacy.

Your entire argument is based on a fallacy, and that's why any argument that you make can be dismissed.

Are Marxists proposing turning America into a monarchy? Because that’s the only way we would cease to be a Republic. We are already a Constitutional Representative Democracy as well as a Republic. When the founders created the nation, we were an oligarchy instead of a democracy.

Here are the core tenets of each ideology:
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

But thank you for completely ignoring everything I said about Neo-Marxism. It shows you have no interest in an actual discussion.

Your lies, straw-men and other logical fallacies that you've posted are poor arguments in favor of Marxism.

 

[reinaert]

"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?

Not even wrong.

 

[reinaert]

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.

Or, Marx spent a lot of time expanding on Ricardo and Smith, as well as developing further the study of commodities and the labor theory of value. Marx has a dry wit, so dry his humor regarding the inversion of Hegel's mystico-conservative dialectic, has often been lost in translation. As for envy? Hardly any, probably none.

 

[reinaert]

Four pages to illustrate, comprehensively and without recourse to apology, that American conservatives are not knownothings. They are knowlessthannothings.

 

[Questerr]

You are lost.

FALSE - that is Iie. I never made that claim, and you KNOW that I never made that claim. That's another Straw-man fallacy.

Your entire argument is based on a fallacy, and that's why any argument that you make can be dismissed.

Here are the core tenets of each ideology:
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

Your lies, straw-men and other logical fallacies that you've posted are poor arguments in favor of Marxism.

Your OP: “Neo-Marxism does not involve any study in Marx's teachings”

Why are you deliberately lying?

 

[soylentgreen]

Out of curiosity, how many deaths invalidate an ideology?

Isn't that a good question to ask christians

 

[George50]

This thread is a POLL question.

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

These ideologies are entirely relevant to " debating politics in the real world" - especially now, when there is such a powerful surge of Marxism in America, and NeoMarxists are being elected to positions of power and lawmaking.

Any collectivist ideology which relies on a centralized, confiscatory mandate (income Tax, 2nd plank of Communist Manifesto) is by definition authoritarian, and every American who loves liberty and freedom should work against Communism and socialism.

"The reason this country continues its drift toward socialism and big nanny government is because too many people vote in the expectation of getting something for nothing, not because they have a concern for what is good for the country." - Lyn Nofziger

That’s all delusional.

There is no surge of Marxism (according to you the idea that private property should be abolished) in America.

Nor is there a surge towards socialism…that being government ownership of the means of production.

You can whine about taxes all you want, but no one wants to live in a country with no taxes, that meaning no roads, no police, complete lawlessness, no military, etc. There is no government without taxes, just anarchy.

You wouldn’t like it either because that no tax country wouldn’t be around for long because without a military some authoritarian country like China would swoop in and we’d all be living under the rule of the Chinese Communist Party. Which is just what you say you don’t want!

 

[soylentgreen]

It's a textbook red herring. A red herring is a logical fallacy. A red herring may be 100% true, but it is not germane to the topic.

My opinion- anyone who couldn't get through the first three pages of Das Kapital has no business talking about Marxism.

That is a remarkably stupid argument. Das Kapital and the people who read it are IRRELEVANT to the difference between Marxist and NEO Marxism.

The fact that you defend his red herring as be

You're upset and you're not making any sense. this is your opinion about ME PERSONALLY, and has nothing to do with the topic. You ave no idea how much of Karl Marx's writings I've read. It doesn't even matter.

You really don't understand why your post is nonsense.

What a dumb straw-man argument! I never claimed that I read Das Kapital. You fabricated that false premise.

As has been pointed out by others. You have never read anything about marx. That is obvious by the lies you tell about what marx has said. It is relevant because all you are doing is spreading misinformation.

Karl Marx said "The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property."

That is not in any way ambiguous, and there is no cryptic or mysterious meaning. It doesn't require any interpretation.


Your arguments are logical fallacies, ad hom nonsense, straw men, red herrings, etc..

Of course it is ambiguous. It lacks content and given an actual understanding of marx you would know that the context is in talking about open revolution against the bourgeoisie. Not on how an economy should be run.

Your arguments are based on ignorance and the desire to spread fear .

 

[soylentgreen]

Today I learned capitalism is when the government does stuff.

You really do not have a clue about capitalism.
Today you will learn just how much private indistry profits from war and why they encourage it.
https://businessjournalism.org/2023/12/war-profit/

According to the Department of Defense (DOD), the top U.S. military contractors in 2022 include Lockheed Martin Corporation, Raytheon Technologies Corporation and General Dynamics Corporation. Together, those companies account for $297.68 billion in market capitalization.