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

[Questerr]

What a stupid question.


Your posts are complete nonsense.

You keep asking the same stupid questions over and over. If you were capable of formulating a sensible argument, then you would. But thankfully you're not.

All you can do is post nonsense, based on lies, mistruths, misinformation, poor comprehension, false pretenses, deceit and logical fallacies.

I’m sorry basic logic destroys your arguments and makes your lies obvious. Maybe don’t use those arguments or lie.

I keep asking the same questions because you lack the courage to answer them. Just admit you lied. It’s the honest thing to do. But then if you were honest, you wouldn’t be a Libertarian.

 

[SkyChief]

I’m sorry basic logic destroys your arguments and makes your lies obvious. Maybe don’t use those arguments or lie.

I keep asking the same questions because you lack the courage to answer them.

I don't lack courage. You lack knowledge, insight, common sense, a fundamental understanding of why logical fallacies weaken an argument, . . you lack a lot of things.

Your posts have zero merit because they don't contain any useful information. Your posts are the same nonsense - over and over, just with different words.

Just admit you lied. It’s the honest thing to do.

Not chasing you down your nonsense rabbit hole.

But then if you were honest, you wouldn’t be a Libertarian.

If you were honest, you would realize that you lost this debate, and move on. But you're no at that level, so naturally you will continue posting the same nonsensical crap that you've been posting.

It's good that you're incapable of formulating a sensible argument.

 

[Questerr]

I don't lack courage. You lack knowledge, insight, common sense, a fundamental understanding of why logical fallacies weaken an argument, . . you lack a lot of things.

Your posts have zero merit because they don't contain any useful information. Your posts are the same nonsense - over and over, just with different words.

Not chasing you down your nonsense rabbit hole.

If you were honest, you would realize that you lost this debate, and move on. But you're no at that level, so naturally you will continue posting the same nonsensical crap that you've been posting.

It's good that you're incapable of formulating a sensible argument.

You claimed you never said that Neo-Marxists don’t study Marx when that’s exactly what you said in the OP.

You lied. And after being called out of your lie, you’ve now been copy and pasting new definitions of the term.

It must really suck that capitalism only has defenders like you and Aociswundumbho, who thinks a raped child should have to pay private police to arrest her rapist.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

You say its your property. I say its mine. Who decides who owns it?

In this nation property in dispute winds up in the civil courts where the case is made and the court decides who the rightful owner is.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

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

What makes it a "class envy" situation if a phrase honestly portrays truth? If a tax cut benefits the wealthy almost exclusively than stating it is a tax cut for the wealthy can be simply a statement of fact with no arbitrary agenda assigned to it.

 

[SkyChief]

You claimed you never said that Neo-Marxists don’t study Marx when that’s exactly what you said in the OP.

You lied. And after being called out of your lie, you’ve now been copy and pasting new definitions of the term.

Your posts are nonsensical.

It must really suck that capitalism only has defenders like you and Aociswundumbho, who thinks a raped child should have to pay private police to arrest her rapist.

I like these dumb arguments.

You're incapable of discussing the topic (Marxism and NeoMarxism) so instead you float the capitalism Red Herring. You rely a lot on logical fallacies.

You don't even realize why your repeated logical fallacies weaken YOUR argument and strengthen mine. You keep repeating the same logical fallacies, not knowing that your nonsense lost you the debate. . . a long time ago, actually.

Your posts have zero merit because they don't contain any useful information.

 

[Questerr]

Your posts are nonsensical.

I like these dumb arguments.

You're incapable of discussing the topic (Marxism and NeoMarxism) so instead you float the capitalism Red Herring. You rely a lot on logical fallacies.

You don't even realize why your repeated logical fallacies weaken YOUR argument and strengthen mine. You keep repeating the same logical fallacies, not knowing that your nonsense lost you the debate. . . a long time ago, actually.

Your posts have zero merit because they don't contain any useful information.

I gave a very detailed explanation of why neo-Marxism exists and was developed and you ignored it.

It’s clear you aren’t interested in any honest debate.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Your posts are nonsensical.

I like these dumb arguments.

You're incapable of discussing the topic (Marxism and NeoMarxism) so instead you float the capitalism Red Herring. You rely a lot on logical fallacies.

Are you in favor of wealthy elites controlling society?

 

[SkyChief]

Are you in favor of wealthy elites controlling society?

That has nothing to do with the topic.

We're discussing the difference between Classic Marxism and NeoMarxism.

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

NeoMarxism is worse, in my opinion.

Nobody really knew how subversive Communism was when communist societies emerged in the early 20th century. The communist rulers were tyrannical, and the proletariat were miserable. (except for the rulers, of course - they were quite comfortable)

Today's NeoMarxists know how oppressive communism is, yet they refuse to acknowledge or learn from the mistakes of the past. This is why I think neoMarxism is worse. Modern society should know better.

 

[spud_meister]

Good point. Government using prison labor is pure, free market capitalism. Hence Stalin was the most prolific capitalist who ever lived. You should teach this stuff.

I'm glad we agree

 

[Dans La Lune]

That has nothing to do with the topic.

Actually, it does. That you don't understand this key aspect of Marxism shows that you're not prepared for your own topic.

We're discussing the difference between Classic Marxism and NeoMarxism.

Classic Marxism tenets
Historical Materialism
Class Struggle (proletariat/bourgeoisie)
Capitalism as Exploitative
Revolution and Socialism as transitional steps to Communism

To what end?

NeoMarxism tenets
Focus on Culture and Ideology “cultural hegemony,”
Critique of Reductionism
Incorporation of Psychoanalysis
Global Perspective

NeoMarxism is worse, in my opinion.

Do you even know what you're talking about, or do you just list words and terms without understanding them?

Nobody really knew how subversive Communism was when communist societies emerged in the early 20th century. The communist rulers were tyrannical, and the proletariat were miserable. (except for the rulers, of course - they were quite comfortable)

Today's NeoMarxists know how oppressive communism is, yet they refuse to acknowledge or learn from the mistakes of the past. This is why I think neoMarxism is worse. Modern society should know better.

But wait -- Marxism is not making your life miserable today. It's not in effect. This is the age of CONSERVATIVE economics. Neoliberalism. You're supporting Trump, a capitalist. Is your life getting better or worse?

 

[Dans La Lune]

Are these components of Marxism of Neo-Marxism:

- Universal Healthcare
- Sensible Public Health Policy
- Sensible Taxation Policy
- Climate Change Mitigation
- Labor Unions / Workers Rights
- Civil Rights
- Human Rights
- Anti-War

Lets say I represent the fringe, the neo-Marxist element. And this is my ideology. Show me how this ideology, if implemented as a national policy framework, kills 100 million people, infringes on freedom, is or otherwise authoritarian / tyrannical.

 

[SkyChief]

Actually, it does. That you don't understand this key aspect of Marxism shows that you're not prepared for your own topic.

Nonsense. I know exactly what the key aspect of Marxism was and is.

You asked me an irrelevant question about my opinion regarding "wealthy elites controlling society". My opinion about wealthy elites has nothing to do with comparing Classic Marxism and NeoMarxism.

Do you even know what you're talking about, or do you just list words and terms without understanding them?

I know exactly what I'm talking about. I posted an informative list of tenets for each ideology . You posted NOTHING about the nuances of them. You just ask irrelevant questions about my opinion. My opinion about "wealthy elites controlling society" doesn't matter any more than yours does.

But wait -- Marxism is not making your life miserable today.

Straw-man noted, and appreciated. I never said that Marxism is making my "life miserable today" - you fabricated that logical fallacy. You don't realize that your logical fallacies effectively weaken your position, and strengthen mine.

It's not in effect. This is the age of CONSERVATIVE economics. Neoliberalism. You're supporting Trump, a capitalist. Is your life getting better or worse?

Another really stupid Straw-Man logical fallacy. I am not "supporting Trump" as you falsely claim. That's lie that YOU fabricated with the intent to weakening my position. It actually weakened YOUR position, because you've demonstrated that you cannot formulate an intelligent argument. All you do is use Straw-men to make your point.

Your argument is based on nonsense and fallacies.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

Someone must have a college degree in political science to give us his assessment of the difference. OR he heard something about Marxism from Rightwing radio or Fox.

I do not agree that the only two options for having an opinion are a 6 figure degree, or an obsession with tabloid political TV,

I think it is possible to have nuanced, intelligent, well founded opinions on this without either of those two.

And the difference is fairly simple. Marxism is all about class struggle. Neomarxism has evolved to include many more shades of oppressor/oppressed type doctrine. Otherwise they draw from the same poisonous root.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

I do not agree that the only two options for having an opinion are a 6 figure degree, or an obsession with tabloid political TV,

I think it is possible to have nuanced, intelligent, well founded opinions on this without either of those two.

And the difference is fairly simple. Marxism is all about class struggle. Neomarxism has evolved to include many more shades of oppressor/oppressed type doctrine. Otherwise they draw from the same poisonous root.

The "expert" has spoken.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

The "expert" has spoken.

Your whole shtick is taking people's positions and inflating them to some ridiculous degree and then making fun of them.

When did I ever say I was an expert? I just said I don't think that it has to be black and white like you seem to be portraying.

I do actually try to think about the things that we talk about here, rather than just come up with vapid one-liners that make fun of the other side. ( And sometimes that's fun too, I guess.)

I also want to learn from people who I disagree with that may be more informed than I am, but the above isn't any of that.

 

[trixare4kids]

Someone must have a college degree in political science to give us his assessment of the difference. OR he heard something about Marxism from Rightwing radio or Fox.

Or a person is just another poster who disagrees because he heard the above expressed on Canada’s left wing news.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Your whole shtick is taking people's positions and inflating them to some ridiculous degree and then making fun of them.

When did I ever say I was an expert? I just said I don't think that it has to be black and white like you seem to be portraying.

I do actually try to think about the things that we talk about here, rather than just come up with vapid one-liners that make fun of the other side. ( And sometimes that's fun too, I guess.)

I also want to learn from people who I disagree with that may be more informed than I am, but the above isn't any of that.

To be more informed, this is not the place, nor scouring the internet for "opinions."
If I want to be informed, I learn about a topic. I read journals, not opinion pieces. I watch documentaries, not Fox. I might look up and study the history of political movements. If I lack knowledge, then I attempt to educate myself.
I will give you a perfect example: I was a landscaper for most of my life. I had to study up on plants and trees and which would survive best in certain conditions. One is NOT born with that knowledge. I didn't go ask some rando online about what fertilizer I needed to use for an evergreen vs a maple tree.
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.
Ditto for "neo-Marxism". Everything is "neo" nowadays. Neo-liberals, neo-conservatives. They are catch phrases. Incredibly, when I argue with people online about Nazism, they claim that the Nazis were actually SOCIALISTS.
This is how ignorant people are.
The OP was baiting us. There was no serious consideration of what Marxism is or isn't. He wanted to goat people into defending Marxism. Because it's a ................... ready for it?................a scary word.
Yet any student of history would know that the ideal of Marxism and the practice of Marxism are totally different. 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.
If you are going to fall victim to terminology without context or historical context, you are going to look silly, and when you end up looking silly, you will become defensive. You are clearly defensive by your reactions. Marxism is a failed ideology, but to pose a question about what is the difference between Marxism and neo-Marxism is meant to try and paint people who have leftist views - like I do - as somehow neo-Marzist.
I honestly don't know if you are as naive as you appear in your comments or if you really believe in the things you post, but either way, falling for the slant the OP was implying in his supposed "poll" to me suggests ignorance. Take that any way you want to take it.

 

[SkyChief]

Or a person is just another poster who disagrees because he heard the above expressed on Canada’s left wing news.

Thankfully, America doesn't need to worry about Marxism (or NeoMarxism) poisoning our values of liberty and freedom. Our Founding Fathers were adamantly against Marxism - - even though it had not yet been invented:

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits." - Thomas Jefferson

Marxists (and neo-Marxists) hate this. They hate this, too:

"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." - Thomas Jefferson

And this:
"The goal of socialism is communism" - Vladimir Lenin

Socialism is a stepping-off point to communism. Any Marxist (or NeoMarxist) who denies this is a liar (or profoundly ignorant), and we need to expose them.

And you did.

 

[yankintx]

The Democrats are so far left that even Mao would say WTF.

Hyperbole

 

[Dans La Lune]

Nonsense. I know exactly what the key aspect of Marxism was and is.

You asked me an irrelevant question about my opinion regarding "wealthy elites controlling society". My opinion about wealthy elites has nothing to do with comparing Classic Marxism and NeoMarxism.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. I posted an informative list of tenets for each ideology . You posted NOTHING about the nuances of them. You just ask irrelevant questions about my opinion. My opinion about "wealthy elites controlling society" doesn't matter any more than yours does.


Straw-man noted, and appreciated. I never said that Marxism is making my "life miserable today" - you fabricated that logical fallacy. You don't realize that your logical fallacies effectively weaken your position, and strengthen mine.

Another really stupid Straw-Man logical fallacy. I am not "supporting Trump" as you falsely claim. That's lie that YOU fabricated with the intent to weakening my position. It actually weakened YOUR position, because you've demonstrated that you cannot formulate an intelligent argument. All you do is use Straw-men to make your point.

Your argument is based on nonsense and fallacies.

Hey @SkyChief, there is probably no one on these forums to the left of me. Thus, I represent the outer most extremes of the dichotomy YOU laid out. Why don't you address my neo-Marxist ideology? And if you can't apply neo-Marxism to me (the socialist fringe), what is the point of the term?

Here's the list:

- Universal Healthcare
- Sensible Public Health Policy
- Sensible Taxation Policy
- Climate Change Mitigation
- Labor Unions / Workers Rights
- Civil Rights
- Human Rights
- Anti-War

If you can't address this, I will just assume that you're caught flat-footed and rendered impotent.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Thankfully, America doesn't need to worry about Marxism (or NeoMarxism) poisoning our values of liberty and freedom. Our Founding Fathers were adamantly against Marxism - - even though it had not yet been invented:

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits." - Thomas Jefferson

Are you free if you can't afford healthcare?

"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." - Thomas Jefferson

Do you support any taxation? Social Security?

Socialism is a stepping-off point to communism. Any Marxist (or NeoMarxist) who denies this is a liar (or profoundly ignorant), and we need to expose them.

Capitalism without socialist mitigation inevitably leads to fascism. As wealth accrues in the hands of fewer individuals, the average person's quality of life becomes worse. With political power having been captured by wealthy interests, government no longer answers to the will of the people. Therefore society is ruled by wealthy elites (getting back to my previous comment, which you dismissed without understanding it). This is where we're currently at.

Tell me how to improve current government without socialist policies. No quotes from Thomas Jefferson. Actual policy. I challenge you and anyone else.

 

[SkyChief]

Hey @SkyChief, there is probably no one on these forums to the left of me. Thus, I represent the outer most extremes of the dichotomy YOU laid out. Why don't you address my neo-Marxist ideology? And if you can't apply neo-Marxism to me (the socialist fringe), what is the point of the term?

Here's the list:

- Universal Healthcare
- Sensible Public Health Policy
- Sensible Taxation Policy
- Climate Change Mitigation
- Labor Unions / Workers Rights
- Civil Rights
- Human Rights
- Anti-War

If you can't address this, I will just assume that you're caught flat-footed and rendered impotent.

Part of your list is nonsense.

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

Take for example the dipshit NeoMarxist governor of California. 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.

Anti-war?? NeoMarxists are notorious for war-mongering. They are the ones clamoring for U.S. funding an endless war between Russia and Ukraine. Many NeoMarxist were horrified when Trump tried to negotiate a peace agreement.

Are you free if you can't afford healthcare?

What a dumb question. Our country was FOUNDED on the principles of freedom and liberty. Not ONE person had affordable health care, but these brave people fought to the death for independence and freedom.

Do you support any taxation? Social Security?

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

Capitalism without socialist mitigation inevitably leads to fascism.

What a load of BULLSHIT.

As wealth accrues in the hands of fewer individuals, the average person's quality of life becomes worse. With political power having been captured by wealthy interests, government no longer answers to the will of the people. Therefore society is ruled by wealthy elites (getting back to my previous comment, which you dismissed without understanding it). This is where we're currently at.

You loathe the Bourgeoisie. Got it.

Tell me how to improve current government without socialist policies.

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. 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.

"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

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.

 

[aociswundumho]

Yet any student of history would know that the ideal of Marxism and the practice of Marxism are totally different.

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.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

I honestly don't know if you are as naive as you appear in your comments or if you really believe in the things you post, but either way, falling for the slant the OP was implying in his supposed "poll" to me suggests ignorance. Take that any way you want to take it.

Well, you put some work into that one. I appreciate it. I mean, it was kind of capslock sized and rambly, but I can't blame anybody for that.

I may or may not be as naive as you think. I don't know, but I also think that this thread has a stupid poll. And I think there's a lot of stupid one-sided silly polls that don't really mean anything posted here. I almost said it in my original response to this whole thing, but didn't for some reason.