• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

  • Total voters
    15

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.
 
Questerr said:
If you think Pelosi and Schumer are “Marxists”, you have no ****ing clue what Marxism is.
Click to expand...
Both Pelosi and Schumer use the class envy Marxist phrase "tax cuts for the rich"
 
Questerr said:
Not as defined by Marxism. Isn’t this whole thread about how not knowing. Racist theory is bad?
Click to expand...
WTF??? Racist theory? What a nonsensical question.
Questerr said:
Why are you so ignorant about something while making claimed about it?
Click to expand...
Your posts are so ignorant. You obviously have NO idea what you're talking about, and you ask REALLY dumb questions.
Questerr said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Questerr said:
And once again, your definition of Neo-Marxism is flat ****ing wrong. You have no clue what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
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.
 

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.
 
SkyChief said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?

SkyChief said:
Pure nonsense. You have no real concept of private property. You think it's real estate.
Click to expand...

Who adjudicates intellectual property?
 
OlNate said:
Oh, boy, someone thinks doing a John Wayne impression is going to thwart a mob.
Click to expand...
What a remarkably dumb argument. But I'm glad that you made it.
OlNate said:
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.
Click to expand...
You have no idea what you're talking about. Chuck Norris???? . . . John Wayne???? Those are actors in movies.

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

I love this response. You make it so easy.
 
You are really out of your depth.
 
 
SkyChief said:
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.
Click to expand...

Did dinosaurs have private property?
 
Questerr said:
I got autocorrected and already fixed it. It should be “Marxist theory”.

Yet you think your house is private property
Click to expand...
My house IS private property.
Questerr said:
and that Marxists want to abolish that property,
Click to expand...
Marx made that claim - not me. Nice straw-man though.
Questerr said:
so yes, you do think Marxists are coming for your house.
Click to expand...
That's a stupid straw-man. I shouldn't need to explain that to you.
Questerr said:
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.
Click to expand...
What a hot, steamy, load of


Questerr said:
Why did you lie?
Click to expand...
oh gawd. more of this
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.
 
The principle of private property is what makes countries prosperous.
 

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.
 
Dans La Lune said:
Did dinosaurs have private property?
Click to expand...
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
Questerr said:
But thank you for completely ignoring everything I said about Neo-Marxism. It shows you have no interest in an actual discussion.
Click to expand...
Your lies, straw-men and other logical fallacies that you've posted are poor arguments in favor of Marxism.
 
Last edited:
Not even wrong.
 
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.
 
Four pages to illustrate, comprehensively and without recourse to apology, that American conservatives are not knownothings. They are knowlessthannothings.
 

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

Why are you deliberately lying?
 
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!
 

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.
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 .
 
aociswundumho said:
Today I learned capitalism is when the government does stuff.
Click to expand...
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/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…