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

[Questerr]

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 .

He also ignores the Marxist definition of “private property”.

 

[soylentgreen]

He also ignores the Marxist definition of “private property”.

He has no idea what marx said about anything. All he is interested in is telling lies and creating fear. It is no wonder trump won an election he is the role model for people like skychief.

 

[George50]

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

In 1981, the top marginal income tax rate in the US was 70%. Were we a Marxist country then? Now it’s 37% Pelosi and Schumer are saying that we’ve gone too far in lowering the rate. Nothing at all wrong with or Marxist about that.

Talking about class envy, can you explain why we should support Republicans in congress who want to take money from the middle class and poor and give it to their donors who make more than a billion dollars a year? The House has just passed a bill to do exactly that. That doesn’t sound like class envy on the part of those at the bottom. That sounds like class warfare started by those at the top!

 

[SkyChief]

. . . You can whine about taxes all you want, but no one wants to live in a country with no taxes,

Nobody suggested living in a country with no taxes. A classic Red Herring argument. Thanks.

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!

I never said (or even implied) that I don't want a Military. Another classic Straw-Man logical fallacy.

Your post is mostly logical fallacy nonsense.

As has been pointed out by others. You have never read anything about marx.

That is patently false, and you should know that I don't need to refute the lies and nonsense which YOU (or others) fabricate.

Your argument is based on lies, and logical fallacies, so that's why your nonsensical post need to be dismissed.

That is obvious by the lies you tell about what marx has said.

Your constant lying and logical fallacies actually reveal how weak your (flawed) argument is. I really shouldn't need to explain that to you.

That is obvious by the lies you tell about what marx has said.

You're making two huge mistakes - 1) you somehow think that I need to refute your lies and your logical fallacy nonsense. I don't.
2) you pretend to be better informed about Marxism than I am, and the BASIS for this is your false belief that haven't read Marx's work. I HAVE read Marx's work. So your false pretense is based on a false premise.

Your arguments are

It is relevant because all you are doing is spreading misinformation.

Of course it is ambiguous.

It is not ambiguous. The word Ambiguous means that a word or term could have different meanings. Marx's idiotic goal to "Abolish all private property" is so unbelievably stupid - no intelligent person would entertain such a notion. It's patently absurd, and no freedom loving person would want to live in a country where the Government prohibited a citizen from owning property.

What an awful idea.

Marx was a subversive. Marxists and NeoMarxists are subversive. But Neo-Marxists are worse, in my opinion because of the Psychoanalysis element.

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 .

Your arguments are based mostly on lies, logical fallacies, and profound lack of knowledge about simple terms such as private property. Your nonsensical posts are easily refuted, and just as easily dismissed.

 

[reinaert]

Nobody suggested living in a country with no taxes. A classic Red Herring argument. Thanks.

I never said (or even implied) that I don't want a Military. Another classic Straw-Man logical fallacy.

Your post is mostly logical fallacy nonsense.

That is patently false, and you should know that I don't need to refute the lies and nonsense which YOU (or others) fabricate.

Your argument is based on lies, and logical fallacies, so that's why your nonsensical post need to be dismissed.


Your constant lying and logical fallacies actually reveal how weak your (flawed) argument is. I really shouldn't need to explain that to you.


You're making two huge mistakes - 1) you somehow think that I need to refute your lies and your logical fallacy nonsense. I don't.
2) you pretend to be better informed about Marxism than I am, and the BASIS for this is your false belief that haven't read Marx's work. I HAVE read Marx's work. So your false pretense is based on a false premise.

Your arguments are

It is not ambiguous. The word Ambiguous means that a word or term could have different meanings. Marx's idiotic goal to "Abolish all private property" is so unbelievably stupid - no intelligent person would entertain such a notion. It's patently absurd, and no freedom loving person would want to live in a country where the Government prohibited a citizen from owning property.

What an awful idea.

Marx was a subversive. Marxists and NeoMarxists are subversive. But Neo-Marxists are worse, in my opinion.



Your arguments are based mostly on lies, logical fallacies, and profound lack of knowledge about simple terms such as private property. Your nonsensical posts are easily refuted, and just as easily dismissed.

Marx and your knowledge of Marx have a gulf of infinite voids between them. What's more, a good summation of your knowledge of Marx might look like: @SkyChief 's knowledge of Marx = -100.

Let's start with "Marx was a subversive."

I mean, great galloping gish, what balderdashian rubbish is this?

 

[Jason Warfield]

"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 is not an accurate description of Neo-Marxism. Neo-Marxism doesn't abandon the majority of Marx's teachings and for the most part does encourage the abolishment of private property. Neo-Marxism expands on Marxism which focuses mostly on economic ideological principals into other areas of society and power structures.

Still, about as useless as the original Marxist, philosophy. Just wanted to point out that your definition is not really correct. But, again, if your post is meant to point out that both are useless, then I would still agree with you on that point.

 

[reinaert]

...not even beginning to touch the "psychoanalysis element" yet. The dust needs to settle on those stones and await several rains to fall...

 

[Questerr]

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

Why are you deliberately lying?

@SkyChief why are you deliberately lying about what you said in your own OP?

 

[SkyChief]

He has no idea what marx said about anything. All he is interested in is telling lies and creating fear. It is no wonder trump won an election he is the role model for people like skychief.

You have made some really dumb arguments in this thread, but this one is pure ad hominem nonsense.

It is purely an attack on my character, and does has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. You tried to discredit me by suggesting that my role model is Trump.

That's a bald-faced lie, and a really cheap ad hominem attack. That's what bad debaters typically do once they've realize that they are incapable of formulating a sensible argument -they attack the person, instead of the position.

Thanks for all of your logical fallacies and profoundly bad arguments in thread.

 

[Questerr]

You have made some really dumb arguments in this thread, but this one is pure ad hominem nonsense.

It is purely an attack on my character, and does has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. You tried to discredit me by suggesting that my role model is Trump.

That's a bald-faced lie, and a really cheap ad hominem attack. That's what bad debaters typically do once they've realize that they are incapable of formulating a sensible argument -they attack the person, instead of the position.

Thanks for all of your logical fallacies and profoundly bad arguments in thread.

Why did you deliberately lie about what you said in your own OP?

 

[Ikari]

Marxism is a fundamentally flawed philosophy, and while it has these lofty goals of equity, it's never realized in practice. In practice, you get the communist regimes we see in China and NK, the sort of government MAGA yearns for.

 

[jmotivator]

Neo-Marxism is worse simply because it takes the egalitarian ideal of Marx and applies it to everything. Nobody can succeed without it being seen as a collective loss.

Both fail because the only way towards economic or class equality is through enforcement through state power, which achieves the exact opposite of the ideal and leads to a societal death spiral of greater and greater state power and a bigger disparity between that haves and have nots... to which the only solution to the Marxist is more state power.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

"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?

Neither is good, but we don't have either in the US, and the discussion of it while we have MUCH bigger problems seems like wasted energy.

While you bring this up for discussion we have a man sitting in the White House, in the seat of power, who is unarguably the most corrupted individual ever to occupy that seat. He is currently accepting BILLIONS in crypto currency fees, going directly into his pockets, from heads of foreign governments who mean us no good will [and he shouldn't even be doing so from actual allies - we have a Constitutional clause directly forbidding it] and he not only has continued his practice of stealing for the US taxpayers by holding federal business in his venues but has stepped it up. Stealing MILLIONS from the public till in that.

All while continuing to practice the most despicable ethics and horrible character ever observed in a holder of the title POTUS, at least in my life time and I've been around for almost 70 years.

So with that going on it seems misplaced to discuss the depths of Marxism, in any of its forms, as unsuitable when what we have going on at the moment is pretty damn bad.

 

[MamboDervish]

"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?

Worse for whom?

 

[soylentgreen]

You have made some really dumb arguments in this thread, but this one is pure ad hominem nonsense.

It is purely an attack on my character, and does has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. You tried to discredit me by suggesting that my role model is Trump.

That's a bald-faced lie, and a really cheap ad hominem attack. That's what bad debaters typically do once they've realize that they are incapable of formulating a sensible argument -they attack the person, instead of the position.

Thanks for all of your logical fallacies and profoundly bad arguments in thread.

Hardly an attack on your character . More of a good explanation of why you wish to misinform and create fear of marxism.
Noticed that you steer clear of actually explaining where he said what you falsely claim or in what context. Instead like trump you pretend it is all about you in order to distract from the fact that you are doing nothing more than creating lies and fear.

 

[George50]

Nobody suggested living in a country with no taxes. A classic Red Herring argument. Thanks.

So you said:

“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.”

Did you forget that? That was what my comment was in response to. It certainly sounds like you are against taxes (a centralized, confiscatory mandate)! We certainly rely on that. You say every American should work against that. Or are you now saying that you support the Communist Manifesto?

What’s the deal! What exactly are you saying? You can’t have it both ways.

I never said (or even implied) that I don't want a Military. Another classic Straw-Man logical fallacy.

No taxes, no military. Or are you now fine with taxes?

Your post is mostly logical fallacy nonsense.

Also, as I said in response to your claim about the direction of the country that you did not reply to:

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.

 

[ataraxia]

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

They're even calling for traffic lights at busy intersections. TYRANNYYYYY!!!!

 

[watsup]

"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?

Is your John Birch membership paid up?

 

[ataraxia]

Nobody suggested living in a country with no taxes. A classic Red Herring argument. Thanks.

I never said (or even implied) that I don't want a Military. Another classic Straw-Man logical fallacy.

Your post is mostly logical fallacy nonsense.

That is patently false, and you should know that I don't need to refute the lies and nonsense which YOU (or others) fabricate.

Your argument is based on lies, and logical fallacies, so that's why your nonsensical post need to be dismissed.


Your constant lying and logical fallacies actually reveal how weak your (flawed) argument is. I really shouldn't need to explain that to you.


You're making two huge mistakes - 1) you somehow think that I need to refute your lies and your logical fallacy nonsense. I don't.
2) you pretend to be better informed about Marxism than I am, and the BASIS for this is your false belief that haven't read Marx's work. I HAVE read Marx's work. So your false pretense is based on a false premise.

Your arguments are

It is not ambiguous. The word Ambiguous means that a word or term could have different meanings. Marx's idiotic goal to "Abolish all private property" is so unbelievably stupid - no intelligent person would entertain such a notion. It's patently absurd, and no freedom loving person would want to live in a country where the Government prohibited a citizen from owning property.

What an awful idea.

Marx was a subversive. Marxists and NeoMarxists are subversive. But Neo-Marxists are worse, in my opinion because of the Psychoanalysis element.

Your arguments are based mostly on lies, logical fallacies, and profound lack of knowledge about simple terms such as private property. Your nonsensical posts are easily refuted, and just as easily dismissed.

Who cares about Marxism? No one is interested in Marxism. "Cultural marxism" is about watching out for vulnerable minorities and demographics in society. Are you against that?

Even the biggest "socialists" in this country don't want anything more than the Nordic model. Are you against that?

Bernie Sanders and AOC support the 'Nordic model,' which features robust health and social-welfare systems — one that Finland's leader calls 'the American Dream'

"We have a good health-care and social welfare system that allows anybody to become anything," Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin said.

markets.businessinsider.com

 

[soylentgreen]

That is patently false, and you should know that I don't need to refute the lies and nonsense which YOU (or others) fabricate.

And yet you lie about what he said by taking it out of context. If you had actually read any of his work then we can only assume your misinforming people is a deliberate attempt to lie about what he said.

Your argument is based on lies, and logical fallacies, so that's why your nonsensical post need to be dismissed.

You cannot defend your lies so instead you blame others for what you yourself are really doing. Another classical trump tactic to pretend others other doing what he does himself

Your constant lying and logical fallacies actually reveal how weak your (flawed) argument is. I really shouldn't need to explain that to you.

But you do so because you can do nothing to back your own claims

You're making two huge mistakes - 1) you somehow think that I need to refute your lies and your logical fallacy nonsense. I don't.
2) you pretend to be better informed about Marxism than I am, and the BASIS for this is your false belief that haven't read Marx's work. I HAVE read Marx's work. So your false pretense is based on a false premise.

Then we can only assume yours is a deliberate attempt to misinform.

Your arguments are

It is not ambiguous. The word Ambiguous means that a word or term could have different meanings. Marx's idiotic goal to "Abolish all private property" is so unbelievably stupid - no intelligent person would entertain such a notion. It's patently absurd, and no freedom loving person would want to live in a country where the Government prohibited a citizen from owning property.

Only because you are making the attempt to create a really stupid interpretation and then insist it is the only interpretation.
Marx made that comment speaking about revolution. It has nothing to do with his philosophy of economics. Either you lack the nous to figure out the difference between his writings on revolution and his writing on economics or you are deliberately trying to misinform people about what and why he wrote soemething.

What an awful idea.

True, you really are awful at lying.

Marx was a subversive. Marxists and NeoMarxists are subversive. But Neo-Marxists are worse, in my opinion because of the Psychoanalysis element.

Your arguments are based mostly on lies, logical fallacies, and profound lack of knowledge about simple terms such as private property. Your nonsensical posts are easily refuted, and just as easily dismissed.

You have done nothing to refute what I have said except to deny, deny , deny. Not even credible the idea that you refute anything. All you do is give us a pity speech about how you are being misunderstood.

 

[SkyChief]

So you said:

“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.”

I did. It's an honest sentiment shared by many good Americans.

That was what my comment was in response to. \It certainly sounds like you are against taxes (a centralized, confiscatory mandate)!

That's a false assumption. I am not against taxes. Of course there needs to be taxes to maintain government and the federal Courts. and the military, infrastructure, etc. . .

We certainly rely on that. You say every American should work against that. Or are you now saying that you support the Communist Manifesto?

What’s the deal! What exactly are you saying? You can’t have it both ways. No taxes, no military. Or are you now fine with taxes?

Some taxes yes, some taxes, no.

Also, as I said in response to your claim about the direction of the country that you did not reply to:

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

BS. Of course there is. Marxists and NeoMarxists were mocked and ridiculed 30 years ago for their subversive ideology. Today they've infiltrated government at all levels -we have many Marxists in Congress. These nincompoops are making our LAWS. That should be a wake-up call for all freedom loving Americans.

Marx wanted to destroy capitalism - the very economic system on which our country was founded. No wonder so many Americans distrust Marxists. Marxism is a cold slap to face of liberty and freedom.

"If socialists understood economics, they wouldn't be socialists." - Friedrich Hayek

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

And yet you lie about what he said by taking it out of context. If you had actually read any of his work then we can only assume your misinforming people is a deliberate attempt to lie about what he said.

You cannot defend your lies so instead you blame others for what you yourself are really doing. Another classical trump tactic to pretend others other doing what he does himself

But you do so because you can do nothing to back your own claims


Then we can only assume yours is a deliberate attempt to misinform.

Only because you are making the attempt to create a really stupid interpretation and then insist it is the only interpretation.
Marx made that comment speaking about revolution. It has nothing to do with his philosophy of economics. Either you lack the nous to figure out the difference between his writings on revolution and his writing on economics or you are deliberately trying to misinform people about what and why he wrote soemething.

True, you really are awful at lying.

You have done nothing to refute what I have said except to deny, deny , deny. Not even credible the idea that you refute anything. All you do is give us a pity speech about how you are being misunderstood.

You you you you you you you you you you you - LOL you said the word 'you' SIXTEEN TIMES in your dumb post!!


Your incessant sanctimonious crap - someone at YOUR level pretending to be morally superior to a person who wants freedom and liberty, instead of the bootheel of Marxism on our necks. There is SO much irony there.

Your posts are nonsense - it's mostly crap based on false premises, emotions and bigotry (an irrational hatred for those who don't agree with you).

 

[ataraxia]

I did. It's an honest sentiment shared by many good Americans.

That's a false assumption. I am not against taxes. Of course there needs to be taxes to maintain government and the federal Courts. and the military, infrastructure, etc. . .

Education and healthcare are the most basic infrastructure of any modern developed economy. They are being gutted at every level as "socialism" and "Marxism". They just want lots of factory workers working like mindless drones.

America is not going to do well like this.

 

[watsup]

It's an honest sentiment shared by many good Americans.

John Birchers.

 

[SkyChief]

Education and healthcare are the most basic infrastructure of any modern developed economy.

Those things are not really "Basic infrastructure".

Infrastructure includes National Parks, the electrical grid, bridges, interstate highways, waterways, harbors, airports, etc. etc.

Education and healthcare are NOT infrastructure that the federal government should be levying taxes for. Those types of infrastructure should be handled at the State level. If the Founders had wanted the federal government to build public schools, then they would have had public schools.

They are being gutted at every level as "socialism" and "Marxism". They just want lots of factory workers working like mindless drones.

LOL

America is not going to do well like this.

We'll be fine. Government has become too large, and too powerful. Our lawmakers pass laws which undermine our liberty and freedom, and makes the government even MORE powerful.

"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

Anyways, we're DEEP in the weeds here. Lets' discuss the differences between Marxism and NeoMarxism, and why one is worse than the other.

 

[George50]

I did. It's an honest sentiment shared by many good Americans.

That's a false assumption. I am not against taxes. Of course there needs to be taxes to maintain government and the federal Courts. and the military, infrastructure, etc. . .

So then you are for a centralized, confiscatory mandate, the one you said all Americans should oppose.

Some taxes yes, some taxes, no.

So then you are for a centralized, confiscatory mandate, the one you said all Americans should oppose.

BS. Of course there is. Marxists and NeoMarxists were mocked and ridiculed 30 years ago for their subversive ideology. Today they've infiltrated government at all levels -we have many Marxists in Congress. These nincompoops are making our LAWS. That should be a wake-up call for all freedom loving Americans.

Which Congress members have said they want to abolish personal property? Give us your list of the many who have said that.