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

[instagramsci]

"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?

In my opinion you should stop making a fool of yourself, speaking on things you are ill informed on

 

[daeler]

"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?

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.

 

[Dans La Lune]

"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?

What is private property, @SkyChief? Who or what determines it?

 

[Dans La Lune]

Marxism is responsible for the deaths of over 100 million innocent people. Neo-Marxism, thankfully, never made it out of the universities.

Deaths Attributed to Capitalism​

Estimates of deaths attributable to capitalism vary widely. Some sources suggest that capitalism leads to more than 10 million excess deaths per year due to systemic failures such as poverty, lack of access to healthcare, and other social issues. Another source on Reddit discusses the difficulty in precisely quantifying these deaths but mentions that deaths from imperialist wars, genocides, and preventable poverty could number in the billions over time.

A Quora answer provides a specific figure, attributing over 222.5 million deaths to certain events linked to capitalism, including the extermination of Native Americans, the Atlantic slave trade, and various colonial conquests.

In a more recent study, a Columbia University research from 2011 estimated that capitalism contributes to nearly 1 million deaths per year in the United States alone, surpassing deaths from heart disease and cancer.

These figures highlight the significant impact of capitalism on mortality rates, though the exact number is subject to interpretation and varies based on the scope and criteria used in different studies.

...

Excess Deaths Attributable to Capitalism

A System Built on Exploitation and Neglect Capitalism, often celebrated for its ability to generate wealth and innovation, also brings with it a darker legacy: the untold millions of lives prematur…

philosophics.blog

 

[ALiberalModerate]

"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?

The unhinged belief that anything you don’t like is some sort of Marxism is the worst.

 

[aociswundumho]

Out of curiosity, how many deaths invalidate an ideology?

I don’t know, but 100 million feels like a strong candidate for disqualification.

 

[spud_meister]

I don’t know, but 100 million feels like a strong candidate for disqualification.

I mean, that's cool.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10455752.2021.1875603

since the time of the Russian Revolution, capitalist institutions as a whole have caused close to 158 million deaths by waging war alone

 

[j brown's body]

What about paleo-Marxism?

 

[Dans La Lune]

I don’t know, but 100 million feels like a strong candidate for disqualification.

Keep in mind that socialism consolidated under an authoritarian regime is inherently right-wing. The economic model of government might be based some bastardization of socialism, but if the people don't have control of government, socialism is not operating as intended.

Socialism is the mitigation or absence of hierarchies, and that's the foundation of left-leaning ideology. Right wing ideology is based on hierarchies and the consolidation of power, and that's why authoritarian-based socialism can legitimately be considered right-wing.

Socialism = People Power, Labor Power, Unions, Anti-Hierarchy = Left-Wing
Authoritarianism = Monarchy / Dictator, Hierarchy = Right-Wing

 

[aociswundumho]

Keep in mind that socialism consolidated under an authoritarian regime is inherently right-wing.

You mean like the Nazis?

 

[aociswundumho]

since the time of the Russian Revolution, capitalist institutions as a whole have caused close to 158 million deaths by waging war alone

Today I learned capitalism is when the government does stuff.

 

[Grand Mal]

I don’t know, but 100 million feels like a strong candidate for disqualification.

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.

 

[George50]

"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?

This question may be of interest to some academics but how is it relevant to debating politics in the real world?

 

[Dans La Lune]

You mean like the Nazis?

That was hyper-capitalism + ethno-nationalism. But yeah, like the Nazis.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Today I learned capitalism is when the government does stuff.

You're not getting it. Government exists in any society. It's who is in control of government that determines whether it serves capitalist interests or those of the people.

You will NEVER escape the fact that capitalism cannot exist without government. Stop trying. You're humiliating yourself.

 

[aociswundumho]

If deaths caused by a Marxist country count against Marxism, do deaths caused by capitalist countries count against capitalism?

Sure, as long as you can demonstrate causality. You can bring up that fire that happened over 100 years ago in NYC. Even the Bhopal disaster counts.

However private ownership of productive assets is the backbone of most societies, and it creates wealth, jobs, and higher standards of living. The ability for individuals or firms to own and invest in land, factories, tools, along with largely free trade gives rise to competition, efficiency, low prices, and widespread prosperity everywhere it has been tried.

By contrast, in Marxist, collectivist countries where private ownership has been abolished, history shows a pattern of shortages, quotas, forced labor, famine, repression, widespread suffering, and death.

 

[dmpi]

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.

The 100 million deaths is a reference to Mao's culture revolution of the early 60s. It was a direct result of putting young inexperienced radical youth in charge and expecting them to run a county already facing many difficult challenges. This is where theoretical meets practical. You may be a steadfast believer in your ideology but that's not going to motivate people to produce nor put food on the table.

 

[Grand Mal]

Sure, as long as you can demonstrate causality. You can bring up that fire that happened over 100 years ago in NYC. Even the Bhopal disaster counts.

Does colonial exploitation count?

However private ownership of productive assets is the backbone of most societies, and it creates wealth, jobs, and higher standards of living. The ability for individuals or firms to own and invest in land, factories, tools, along with largely free trade gives rise to competition, efficiency, low prices, and widespread prosperity everywhere it has been tried.

By contrast, in Marxist, collectivist countries where private ownership has been abolished, history shows a pattern of shortages, quotas, forced labor, famine, repression, widespread suffering, and death.

All those things have happened under capitalism. For profit. The slave trade was pure capitalism at work. The destruction of indigenous people and cultures was pure capitalism at work.
I'm not sure where your '100,000,000' number came from but I'm pretty sure that the victims of capitalism, of the profit motive, are uncountable.

 

[OlNate]

The 100 million deaths is a reference to Mao's culture revolution of the early 60s. It was a direct result of putting young inexperienced radical youth in charge and expecting them to run a county already facing many difficult challenges. This is where theoretical meets practical. You may be a steadfast believer in your ideology but that's not going to motivate people to produce nor put food on the table.

So, per your post, you have established that it was not an issue of ideology, but rather execution.

I'm curious, though, how this response addresses the post you were refering to. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with what @Grand Mal said. Is the failure of ideologies due to the nature of the ideology, or is it the fact that all ideologies are built around utopian hopes, but fail with the introduction of the human element? Certainly it can be demonstrated that no ideology has produced a perfect report card, in terms of human cost.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Voted "both are equally bad," the distinction on including "Marx's teachings" in one and not the other is largely irrelevant as it does not remove the real social, economic, and governmental implications of abolishing private ownership.

The ultimate Achilles heel of these arguments, Marxism or neo-Marxism, is it would take an amazingly strong and centralized governmental power to remove private ownership only to then try to steward some sort of public ownership arrangement. The ultimate goal of stateless is not achievable.

 

[Grand Mal]

The 100 million deaths is a reference to Mao's culture revolution of the early 60s. It was a direct result of putting young inexperienced radical youth in charge and expecting them to run a county already facing many difficult challenges. This is where theoretical meets practical. You may be a steadfast believer in your ideology but that's not going to motivate people to produce nor put food on the table.

Hence slavery?

 

[aociswundumho]

That was hyper-capitalism + ethno-nationalism. But yeah, like the Nazis.

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:

Hence you are a hyper-capitalist, anti-government extremist.

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:

In the present state of affairs I am convinced that we cannot possibly
dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the
most important institutions in the economic life of the nation. Not only
are they important in the sphere of social policy but also, and even
more so, in the national political sphere. For when the great masses of
a nation see their vital needs satisfied through a just trade unionist
movement the stamina of the whole nation in its struggle for existence
will be enormously reinforced thereby.

https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt

 

[SkyChief]

No, not a red herring. Grand Mal makes a good point.

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

What you quoted from marx is either a dishonest attempt to mine quote or an example of someone who has never read anything about marx except what the anti socialist crowd write.

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.

And I really do doubt that you have ever read das kapital.

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

What you quoted is misleading. It gives the impression that marx was against all private property which of course is not true.
https://www.counterfire.org/article/marx-and-the-meaning-of-private-property/

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.

So thank you for once again demonstrating at best just how ignorant of marx's philosophy the anti socialists really are And at worst just how willingly they will raise false talking points and use the most insidious of fallacies, ie; quote mining to distort and lie to achieve their goal of misinforming people about marx and what he had to say.

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

 

[dmpi]

So, per your post, you have established that it was not an issue of ideology, but rather execution.

I'm curious, though, how this response addresses the post you were refering to. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with what @Grand Mal said. Is the failure of ideologies due to the nature of the ideology, or is it the fact that all ideologies are built around utopian hopes, but fail with the introduction of the human element? Certainly it can be demonstrated that no ideology has produced a perfect report card, in terms of human cost.

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.

 

[aociswundumho]

Does colonial exploitation count?

Colonial exploitation means things like forced labor, state-enforced monopolies, and military conquests.

All gross violations of property rights.

All those things have happened under capitalism. For profit. The slave trade was pure capitalism at work.

Again, human slavery is an extreme violation of property rights. You might as well blame capitalism anytime someone gets kidnapped.

The destruction of indigenous people and cultures was pure capitalism at work.
I'm not sure where your '100,000,000' number came from but I'm pretty sure that the victims of capitalism, of the profit motive, are uncountable.