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

[OlNate]

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.

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

 

[dmpi]

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

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.

 

[SkyChief]

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

Tyr this. Copy and paste the following into your browser:

What is private property?

You should get something like this:

Private property is a term that refers to ownership of things by individuals or groups, rather than by the government.

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

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

 

[OlNate]

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.

I feel like how one assesses the strength of linkage might come down to which ideology they subscribe to (or someone like me, who doesn't blindly subscribe to any ideology per se, but is willing to scrutinize the positives and negatives of any ideology).

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. Historically, I would point to the Irish Potato Famine (~1 million dead) or the Bengal Famine (~3 million dead) as having very strong linkages to capitalsim. My assumption is that you would argue the validity of these claims, due to your belief in capitalism.

On an individual basis, the Mao example obviously has the shock value, and it does tend to stick with someone. But at an aggregate level, I would suggest the two ideologies are a lot closer to break even than either side would like to admit.

 

[SkyChief]

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.

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.

 

[bomberfox]

Marxism is marxism. We can use ideas from marx and see which ones most correspond to reality or give the best theoretical framework.

Marxism is a modernist idea, without that modernist approach ya dont have marxism.

 

[aociswundumho]

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.

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

 

[Questerr]

"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?

That’s not what Neo-Marxism is.

 

[bomberfox]

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:

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

Actually there was private property in Nazi Germany and industrialists could compete for government contracts. Private property was never abolished.

 

[daeler]

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.

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.

 

[Questerr]

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

Approximately 10 million people starve to death under capitalism each year.

 

[Questerr]

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.

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

 

[Dans La Lune]

Tyr this. Copy and paste the following into your browser:

What is private property?

Oh, I already know the answer. Do you? Do you know that Private Property is adjudicated by government? You're chasing your own ass.

 

[Questerr]

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.

Ayn Rand, one of the heroes of your movement, was pretty clear that “savages” didn’t have property rights.

 

[SkyChief]

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.

 

[Dans La Lune]

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.

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

 

[Dans La Lune]

SkyChief doesn't realize it, but he's already lost this debate. 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. The goal of things like Socialism for the power to control these things rest in the hands of the people, and not elites, kings, oligarchs.

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.

 

[SkyChief]

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.

 

[Dans La Lune]

It IS my property.

Says you and who else?

If you think it's yours, then TAKE it.

Me and my ten friends certainly could. What is to prevent that?

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.

Legal action? What do you speak of? We're outside of government now.

 

[Questerr]

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.

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?

 

[SkyChief]

SkyChief doesn't realize it, but he's already lost this debate.

No LOL.

Oh dear you are hilarious.

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.

Bullshit. Come to my property and take something - anything. I will actively protect my property, and I don't need any help from government.

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.

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

 

[Questerr]

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.

So property ownership is based on coercive threats of violence? Is threatening people with violence legitimate?

 

[Questerr]

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 realize that stuff like your house, your car, and your toothbrush aren’t “private property”, right? They are personal property.

 

[OlNate]

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

This is a crazy story, bud, damn. Let me step outside the debate for a sec to express sincere sympathies.

I'm not sure this is a clear reprieve of capitalism in this context, though. Your government uses, for the most part, especially compared against other governments, capitalism as it's guiding principle, and the pharmaceutical lobby is a very powerful one.

Under pure capitalism, would it not be the correct approach to utilize any method to increase profit, up to and including influencing government to enact policy that gives you an edge? Clearly this gives American drug makers a massive advantage, and they are using that advantage to drive significantly higher profit margins than if they had to compete with other countries.

 

[SkyChief]

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?

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

I think NeoMarxism is worse.

So property ownership is based on coercive threats of violence?

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.

Is threatening people with violence legitimate?

oh dear.

You realize that stuff like your house, your car, and your toothbrush aren’t “private property”, right? They are personal property.

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

Private property includes tangible and intangible goods by individuals or entities other than the government. It includes real estate, buildings, objects, and intellectual property such as copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secrets. Private property is exclusive to the owner and can be transferred through consent, sale, or gift.