Marxism

[Martin Hash]

The fall of the Berlin Wall and symbolic collapse of Communism occurred in a previous generation so it is understandable that many younger people do not know the distinctions between Socialism, Marxism, and Communism. Socialism is the political manifestation of collectivism, which espouses that group rights subordinate individual rights - the opposite of liberty, which champions the individual. Building on the premise of collectivism, Marxism goes on to dictate “from those according to their ability, to those according to their need” – an envious desire cloaked in a self-righteous platitude. Communism is the political manifestation of Marxism.

Marxism is NOT about the equitable redistribution of wealth - consider that one of its major axioms is “property is theft.” Undeniable brilliant minds, such as F. A. Hayek, have writen approachable treatises on the superiority of liberty over collectivism, and of the success of Capitalism "free market" over Communist "command" economies, but those logical and detailed analysis seem lost on latent revolutionaries in America. That is because Marxism is more than dry techno-babble – it is a cause, and should be recognized as such. Like all over-indulgent religious fervor, Marxism can be a weapon of demonic power. No one says it better than renowned social scientist Howard Bloom:

“Marxism is a murderous invention - it represents the worst that marketing can achieve. Marxism is manipulative -it is based on mass promotion, mass media, and the tools of the capitalist system. Marxism is the ultimate commercial product of the capitalism of passion - it robs, steals, cheats, intimidates, and even murders.”

Those are harsh but true words.

[DrYouth]

Gonna throw out a different wrinkle on this hot-button issue.

I am noticing a very loose use of the word Marxism... especially on this board.
Marx of course got a lot of things wrong... I don't suggest otherwise. I'm no Che Gevara Tshirt wearing lunatic...

But Collective interests and Individual interests are inevitably in tension and an extreme imbalance towards either is dangerous.

According to your own post in the Politics of philosophy, Marty, you correctly warn against Good-Bad dichotomies. So you should agree with this.

The protection of collective interests is not "Bad" while the protection of individual interests (or Liberty as you call it) is "Good"... and the converse is also false.

It's about striking the right balance.

Obviously Communism did not strike the right balance.
But Raw Capitalism and Libertarianism does not either.

Using Marxism as a expletive/insult... or the other one I keep hearing - "Collectivism" - once again falls into the villainizing of all things protecting collective interests. Caution here is definitely warranted.

[Fife]

Fuck caution. Grownups appreciate straight talk.

Marxism = "property is theft"

Start there, be intellectually honest, use actual English words in a logical manner, and you won't go wrong on understanding and making the arguments.

[DrYouth]

Marxism gets used on this forum as a buzzword for a lot more than how Marxism addresses property rights.
Cultural Marxism for example.

But lets focus on what Marty says here:

Socialism is the political manifestation of collectivism, which espouses that group rights subordinate individual rights - the opposite of liberty, which champions the individual.

He juxtaposes collective responsibility with individual liberty...
Without looking at the necessary balance and tension between these two values.

I see that a lot in this forum... and in general.

[Speaker to Animals]

Marxism evolved. The basic concept is the class conflict between victim and oppressor classes. The progs we all know and love today assigned to those classes groups like homosexuals and noreal people, or minorities and whites.

This began as an effort by the marxists in the FrankfuRT School to explain why Marx's predictions failed. They blamed social and cultural institutions like marriage, religion, etc. for keeping the revolution at bay. Their solution was cultural marxism.

The end goal of this weaponized ideology is the destruction of families, of faith, of marriage, and even your basic gender roles.

[Fife]

Marxism gets used on this forum as a buzzword for a lot more than how Marxism addresses property rights.
Cultural Marxism for example.

But lets focus on what Marty says here:

Socialism is the political manifestation of collectivism, which espouses that group rights subordinate individual rights - the opposite of liberty, which champions the individual.

He juxtaposes collective responsibility with individual liberty...
Without looking at the necessary balance and tension between these two values.

I see that a lot in this forum... and in general.

There is no "balance" to be struck. To a realist, the state can only legitimately supply and control public goods as actually defined. People spend their time arguing about what economic goods are public and which are private. To Marxists, everything is public, which consumes the entire corpus. To neocons, almost everything is public. To liberty people, the strict definition applies. And on and on. That's the extent of the "balance."

When you are looking for "balance," you are wondering why people resist being compelled to your or some group's point of view by men with guns forcing them to behave properly and to hand over the fruits of their labor and their families to the state.

Fuck "balance." If you want men with guns to force private people to do your bidding, present an argument that it is for providing an otherwise unavailable public good.

[DrYouth]

Marxism evolved. The basic concept is the class conflict between victim and oppressor classes. The progs we all know and love today assigned to those classes groups like homosexuals and noreal people, or minorities and whites.

This began as an effort by the marxists in the FrankfuRT School to explain why Marx's predictions failed. They blamed social and cultural institutions like marriage, religion, etc. for keeping the revolution at bay. Their solution was cultural marxism.

The end goal of this weaponized ideology is the destruction of families, of faith, of marriage, and even your basic gender roles.

And FIfe... who expounds on the "fuck balance"

Victims and oppressors.
Yes - I understand this...
So this discussion is entirely separate from collective vs. individual interests.
Eg: Collective concerns: pollution, collective infrastructure (roads, emergency services, sewage), crime deterance, national security, extreme poverty
Individual concerns: how much money I keep vs pay in taxes, my privacy rights, free speech

There is an obvious tension between these two.

The victim / oppressor dynamic is something separate.
Using Marxist to lump all these things together. i.e. "Collectivism" vs Individual liberty and Oppressor / Victim - muddies all of our thinking.

[Speaker to Animals]

Marxism evolved. The basic concept is the class conflict between victim and oppressor classes. The progs we all know and love today assigned to those classes groups like homosexuals and noreal people, or minorities and whites.

This began as an effort by the marxists in the FrankfuRT School to explain why Marx's predictions failed. They blamed social and cultural institutions like marriage, religion, etc. for keeping the revolution at bay. Their solution was cultural marxism.

The end goal of this weaponized ideology is the destruction of families, of faith, of marriage, and even your basic gender roles.

And FIfe... who expounds on the "fuck balance"

Victims and oppressors.
Yes - I understand this...
So this discussion is entirely separate from collective vs. individual interests.
Eg: Collective concerns: pollution, collective infrastructure (roads, emergency services, sewage), crime deterance, national security, extreme poverty
Individual concerns: how much money I keep vs pay in taxes, my privacy rights, free speech

There is an obvious tension between these two.

The victim / oppressor dynamic is something separate.
Using Marxist to lump all these things together. i.e. "Collectivism" vs Individual liberty and Oppressor / Victim - muddies all of our thinking.

No, it's the same thing.

Marxists look at the world through group identity. Some of us must be punished because we belong to the group white male. It isn't about what we individually did in our life. It's all the group. Likewise, if the black student fails in college, it's not because affirmative action placed him in a university that was ill-suited for him, but because of white privilege keeping him down.

Marxists see everything according to a collective (group) mindset.

[DrYouth]

Collective identity is part of Theocracy, Nationalism, Fascism.... not just Marxism.
What you are getting at is that Marxism is an effort to erase any identity other than an imposed forced egalitarianism.

The Collective Identity of Fascism is the ethnic/nationalist identity under the charismatic leader... German under Hitler, Serbian under Milosovich
The Collective identity of the Theocracy is the Religious identity with it's ethnic overlay... the state of Israel of course has some of this... certainly Iran and ISIS are textbook examples.

The unwanted ethnicities / nationalitites / religions must be purged, or must submit in the Fascist, HyperNationalist or Theocratic system...

In Marxist totalitarian states any religious identity or cultural identity must be purged with complete submission to the egalitarian identity as comrade.

Hopefully we can find something to discuss other than these extremes...

That all being said.... the collective has interests that are in tension with the individual's interests... any functioning state needs to address this.

[Speaker to Animals]

You are tossing out non sequitur here. We are talking about the marxists who now dominate most of the left in the western world. Fascists no longer control much of anything at all.