Is Marxism in the modern world outdated?

[maxgreen1]

"The communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling class tremble at a Communist revolution. The Proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite!"

 

-Karl Marx, at the conclusion of the Communist manifesto

 

 

 

During the industrial revolution, a worker could have a 12-hour working day, in either an insanely hot or freezing factory production hall. Poor pay meant that expectant mothers and their children also had to work. Conditions worsened and wages were partially paid for with cheap liquor, and women were often obliged to earn money through prostitution. The customers for the products were the upper classes. The lower classes were beasts of burden, in a sense.

 

 

 

Nowadays the conditions are improved in us 1st-world countries, and the old Marxist-Leninist views are obsolete in the new world, and must be maintained as a progressive Social Democracy, much like Western European countries. :thumbsup:

 

The homeless should be sheltered and provided with jobs, and private business is limited to things that are not life-necessary, althought they could create privately funded research labs. Merchants are allowed to thrive, as long as the work is well compensated for. :thumbsup:

 

The economy of the country of Jordan, for example, increased by 400% in exports recently, more than 95% through sweatshop labour making traditional dresses for richer customers. :shame:

 

 

 

Marxist-Leninism however is the only way to improve the developing world and 3rd world countries such as Iraq, Sudan, Liberia, And Sierra Lione, where the gdp of a massive amount of people is outmatched by the few priveleged. This doesn't even have to be about money. Liberian "freedom fighters" slaughter innocents mindlessly, and must be toppled by the populous itself. The ones who suffer indeed have nothing to lose but their chains.

[assassin_696]

I was going to write a step by step critique of your argument, but what it boils down to is this:

 

 

 

Communism doesn't work.

 

 

 

In your last paragraph you also made a glaring assumption that the only thing that can save developing countries is communism, when in fact that's probably the last thing they'd want.

 

 

 

Personally, I think anarcho-syndicalism holds up far better as a revolutionary social construct designed for the workers than communism, look into that and look at the categoric repeated failures of communism.

[Satenza]

It's outdated where i live (England) as we now have something called "Global Capitalism" so we don't really have a proletatiat in the same sense (at least not one that has "nothing to lose"). Since the new proletariat are from countrys like China, who are ironically apparently communist. Yet are now part of the global proletariat.

 

 

 

Edit: In response to your last paragraph. I do agree communism can work and is one of the only ways in which 3rd world countrys can resolve their matters. Enstating communist principles on small african villages or towns may be a good way in which to build the country up (although nothing like a communist country as such, just divided in areas). However the Western world (most predominatley America) are still under the threat of the spread of communism and would NEVER do anything to encourage any sort of growth in it. I think the only way for poverty stricken countries like Africa is through communism, but i doubt that would ever happen because of western counties fear of it, despite how many lives it may save. I mean communism has a debt of 100 Million lives from last century, it will be interesting if it can reclaim what it took away this century.

[Evrae]

Communism, it its true, ideal, state, can never work. The reason is that its flawed. The premise of it is that the proletariat are good, and desire equality, while the bourgeoise are bad and live off the proletariat.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, the majority of poor people want to be rich and powerful. Its human nature. While sharing everything equally makes sense intellectually, in reality what most people want is more than what their neighbour has. You cannot change human nature to fit political theories.

 

 

 

It is possible to devise a system of complete equality, but it would entail oppression. Allow any leeway for trade, and the system will eventually degenerate to the one we have today.

 

 

 

The fact is communism doesn't work. The only remotely successful communist country is one that isn't communist - China. And their 'communism' has changed so that its kept the oppression, but not the equality.

[Death_By_Pod]

I was going to write a step by step critique of your argument, but what it boils down to is this:

 

 

 

Communism doesn't work.

 

 

 

Idealised economic models in general don't work, that's why basically every economy is a mixed economy.

[Giordano]

True communism its great on paper, but in the real world of greed, it doesn't work. Hell even I don't like it, if I'm a doctor I'll get paid the exact same as a MacDonald cashier. Just not fair, but if people can overcome this 'not fairness' then it'll work. Problem is, we're naturally tied to this idea and can never loose it.

[Zealot]

"The communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling class tremble at a Communist revolution. The Proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite!"

 

-Karl Marx, at the conclusion of the Communist manifesto

 

 

 

During the industrial revolution, a worker could have a 12-hour working day, in either an insanely hot or freezing factory production hall. Poor pay meant that expectant mothers and their children also had to work. Conditions worsened and wages were partially paid for with cheap liquor, and women were often obliged to earn money through prostitution. The customers for the products were the upper classes. The lower classes were beasts of burden, in a sense.

 

 

 

Nowadays the conditions are improved in us 1st-world countries, and the old Marxist-Leninist views are obsolete in the new world, and must be maintained as a progressive Social Democracy, much like Western European countries. :thumbsup:

 

The homeless should be sheltered and provided with jobs, and private business is limited to things that are not life-necessary, althought they could create privately funded research labs. Merchants are allowed to thrive, as long as the work is well compensated for. :thumbsup:

 

The economy of the country of Jordan, for example, increased by 400% in exports recently, more than 95% through sweatshop labour making traditional dresses for richer customers. :shame:

 

 

 

Marxist-Leninism however is the only way to improve the developing world and 3rd world countries such as Iraq, Sudan, Liberia, And Sierra Lione, where the gdp of a massive amount of people is outmatched by the few priveleged. This doesn't even have to be about money. Liberian "freedom fighters" slaughter innocents mindlessly, and must be toppled by the populous itself. The ones who suffer indeed have nothing to lose but their chains.

 

 

 

I am going to take a leap and guess that you probably have never critically read the communist manifesto... Marx's error is right there, plain as day. He assumes the worst of human nature in his preamble history of the western world. Then he assumes that human nature will somehow be improved by the implimentation of his system. If people are evil, as he assumes in his preamble, then people will continue to be evil and nothing will really change. (the USSR under communism is a prime example of this.) If people are good then there is no need for the revolution. In either case it is the case that communism does not work. In case you had not noticed I am not impressed with humanity's moral capabilities. I think that we are all a bunch of selfish little brats. Some people do a better job of hiding it, but we are all the same in that respect.

 

 

 

However, I will say that I am a little bit liberal when it comes to social programs. I believe that it is fine if the government wants to pay for education, healthcare, or so on... But they also need to find a way to minimize abuse of the privilage (and the consiquent abuse of the system that goes with it). Otherwise countless billions of dolars will be wasted annually which could be much better applied. That's the problem that most of Europe is facing at the moment... and the United States of America is facing it as well in a slightly different way.

 

 

 

The real question is how do we enable social welfare without enabling people to be less then they could become? And in honesty I have no idea what the answer is. Since people are selfish, a lot of people will take advantage of anything which enables that. If we are going to help people out with healthcare of such, how do we do so without encouraging that behavior? *Shrugs* Straight communism doesn't work. No offense to those of you who live in Socialist states, but that doesnt' seem to be working well either. So I suppose that the answer must be somewhere else.

[spikethebloody]

Communism may not work, but Facism only works for the rich, the only way to gain the best situation is to find an ideal between these two, sort of a balance.

 

 

 

 

 

Remember, it is easier for a thick thread to get through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven. :XD:

[assassin_696]

I am going to take a leap and guess that you probably have never critically read the communist manifesto... Marx's error is right there, plain as day. He assumes the worst of human nature in his preamble history of the western world. Then he assumes that human nature will somehow be improved by the implimentation of his system.

 

 

 

 

That sums up the failures of communism very nicely, although i'm still an idealist who believes we have to at least believe in some kind of change if we want true justice, but clearly communism fails and i'm against it's ideals anyway.

 

 

 

ethebloody"]Remember, it is easier for a thick thread to get through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven. :XD:

 

 

 

Pedantism alert

 

That's a misquote actually, I believe the phrase was "It is easier (fixed, thanks for pointing it out Sepherus) for a camel to pass through the eye of an needle than for a rich man to enter heaven" Which is actually a reference to an archway in a Middle Eastern city where traders would have great trouble trying to pass through, although the message is the same. Why am I so pedantic? :(

[Ash6110]

I bleive no matter how time has it Marxism is two things

 

 

 

1. Good in theory

 

2. Bad in practice.

[cryztalwing]

Is Marxism in the modern world outdated? NO Marxism and morden day communism has just simply chang and disgust it self. Today Marxism and Communism wear's the Mask of environmentalism and Global Warming. Ture they are some environmentalism groups out there that are not Communists, but many of them have been taken over by Communists that are using the Environmentalism cause for the Communists agenda.

 

 

 

That agenda now seems to be is bringin the post industrial age. enforcing Carbon Taxe's on evil pollution, and Carbon emissions. Limiting the amount of goods a small factory that can't afford Carbon credits can make, even run out of business. Imposing New Green law's that control every thing a person can or can't do. Can or can't own land.Even forceing the person to live in a certan type of house becuse it's Green Freindly from the house they all ready live in. Inculding One child policy's, just like china has. Why? Becuse of Global Warming, and over poplation.

[The Dark Lord]

@ Assassin:

 

 

 

Actually it's "It is EASIER for a camel to pass through an eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."

 

 

 

Humanity isn't designed to exist in a utopian state. Everytime we try to create a Utopian society, it fails because of one thing - greed.

 

 

 

Although I do believe we can have very "good" societies, but just not a perfect existence for mankind.

 

 

 

And if you start a Revolution to enact said society, then you would be forcing people into it. Thus, you don't have a perfect existence because not everyone is pleased. In fact you are being oppressive.

[spikethebloody]

Pedantism alert

 

That's a misquote actually, I believe the phrase was "It is harder for a camel to pass through the eye of an needle than for a rich man to enter heaven" Which is actually a reference to an archway in a Middle Eastern city where traders would have great trouble trying to pass through, although the message is the same. Why am I so pedantic?

 

_________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually I think you will find that the word for camel and for a piece fo thick thread were very similar, the text was translated incorrectly.

[Led-Zeppelin]

Good in theory, but theres always the greedy person at the top. Absolute power corrupts abo[bleep]ly.

 

 

 

And as someone emntioned earlier, that is what I have always had against communism. You go to university, study for years upon years to become a doctor. Then theres your pimple encrusted teenager working at McD's getting the same pay as you for mopping floors?

[IGoddessI]

If anything Post Modernism would be the new 'ism' that is about to take over the social majority.

[jak722]

Back when Marx wrote it, you had disgruntled industrial workers who were being forced to do harsh jobs for little pay, and often with little care except for profit.

 

 

 

 

 

Today in most first world countries, the Service sector has surpassed the manufacturing and industrial sector.

 

 

 

You now have disgruntled waiters and cashiers who know better than to start a revolution over risking their jobs.

 

 

 

And besides, most people are satisfied enough not to start a rebellion.

 

 

 

People love this society enough not to destroy it to created a socialist world.

 

 

 

 

 

Less can be said about developing countries though...

[Satenza]

I don't know why everyone is saying "marxism is good in theory" when it's probably the worst theoretic system i have ever read in terms of complete errors, assumptions, logical contradiction ect on Marx and Engles behalf. Infact, the main problem Marx had was making it so communism is not even a theory. Theories are tested hypothesis', Marxism cannot be tested due to his dialectic and hypothesis can;t be changed therefore it's accepted as an infalliable system, because if a communist revolution happens and then fails (Russia, China) that isn't accountable on Communism but the social and economic situation before and during the revolution.

[Evrae]

Communism also opens the way for horrendous brutality. If everything belongs to the state, and the state operates for the good of the people, then the slightest crime becomes treason. When you see yourself as acting on behalf of 'the people' or 'the greater good', anything becomes possible without further justification. Combine that with the fact that only those who want power are likely to achieve it (in any type of state), and you have a recipe for disaster.

 

 

 

Perhaps national leaders should be selected at random from a pool of people with a certain level of qualifications. That would stop the power hungry.

[BlueTear]

Is Marxism in the modern world outdated? NO Marxism and morden day communism has just simply chang and disgust it self. Today Marxism and Communism wear's the Mask of environmentalism and Global Warming. Ture they are some environmentalism groups out there that are not Communists, but many of them have been taken over by Communists that are using the Environmentalism cause for the Communists agenda.

 

 

 

That agenda now seems to be is bringin the post industrial age. enforcing Carbon Taxe's on evil pollution, and Carbon emissions. Limiting the amount of goods a small factory that can't afford Carbon credits can make, even run out of business. Imposing New Green law's that control every thing a person can or can't do. Can or can't own land.Even forceing the person to live in a certan type of house becuse it's Green Freindly from the house they all ready live in. Inculding One child policy's, just like china has. Why? Becuse of Global Warming, and over poplation.

 

 

 

Well, partly in all seriousness, partly to play devil's advocate; Is a primarily capitalist system the best way to combat environmental issues, or does a socialist/communist system work better?

 

 

 

Yes, capitalism is a great way to produce an economy in which the public gets what the public wants, the problem comes in explaining to the public what they will want for their own survival in a few decades. Corporations looking for their own profit margins are not, in my opinion, the ideal medium to explain environmental issues, simply because in many cases it is not in the best interest of the corporation to do so today. The State - having no profit margins to worry about - are much more suited to do so. Yes, they need to worry about reelection, but that's over a longer span of time more suited to combatting these issues.

 

 

 

(And in my personal opinion, socalist ideas when it comes to education of the young are neccesary for a truly democratic society.)

[Lynyrd_Skynyrd]

Well, partly in all seriousness, partly to play devil's advocate; Is a primarily capitalist system the best way to combat environmental issues, or does a socialist/communist system work better?

 

 

 

 

I don't think it matters, powerful governments are motivated by what the majority of its people want, but that is nowadays. It wasn't the case with Marx at the time. Nowadays we have the Internet, education, the media. Governments may try but its the people truly with the power. Really communism can't save the earth anymore than Capitalism can.

 

 

 

It's currently irrelevant to my argument but why do you say socialism/communism, they're both very different.