Why is Marxism wrong? And how are its theories flawed and dangerous?

[NationalConservative]

Although I call myself 'NationalConservative', you would think that I am an expert on all this but I am not, I am only a learner and I want to understand the criticisms thrown at Marxist theory. Whenever I find theoretical criticisms of Marxism, it is always by Libertarians, not Nationalists. I want to know the key problems about Marxism:
Is class consciousness correct?

Is there really a class struggle?

Why is it impossible that the workers control the means of production?

To what extent is the labour theory of value flawed?

Does the capitalist actually steal your labour?

[Loddfafner]

I want to know the key problems about Marxism:


I think Marxism is still useful for understanding how capitalism emerged out of feudalism and for identifying the recurrent tensions or "contradictions" in capitalism. The flaws come in when we assume that Marx has discovered laws of human nature analogous to those of physics that allow us to generally predict where capitalism is headed, and specifically that it is leading towards the scenario Marx called Communism.

Marx had little to say about how socialism or communism would work. The communism we know emerged not out of Marx but out of what Lenin improvised after 1917 so as to force rural peasants to continue supplying urban populations when the cities no longer had anything to trade for the food. As for the flaws of socialism, I suggest reading Hayek. In short, central governments can never have enough information for the decision making needed to run a whole economy so will keep falling back on coercion. Instead, delegate decision making to those with the information: the people directly involved.

Marx took observations that capitalism leads to centralization and that competing firms will cut corners on labor while improving technology to the extreme conclusion that impoverished workers will be centralized enough to a) overthrow the factory owners and their pet politicians, and b) be able to run things on their own without investors or politicians.


Is class consciousness correct?

Only loosely in that one's work experience might shape one's outlook on life. But there are too many factory workers who are not enthusiastically signing up for the nearest communist party cell, and too many trust fund brats who are, to take class consciousness as a reliable law of human nature.


Is there really a class struggle?
The investment climate and the labor market tend to collide. Lords kept looking for ways to keep peasants in line while peasants kept looking for ways to improve their lot in life. Business prefers low wages and quiet, obedient workers, while workers might want to get paid more and have more control over their lives. One has to be naive to think that one set of government policies will make everyone happy. In America, look how the struggle between insurance companies and trial lawyers is reflected in the two party system.


Why is it impossible that the workers control the means of production?

Production is too decentralized. One piece is made in Brazil, another in Singapore, etc.


To what extent is the labour theory of value flawed?

As a loose generalization applying to the aggregate, it is helpful. Once one tries to pin it down to specifics, it falls apart.


Does the capitalist actually steal your labour?

No. But for each hour of work you do, you only earn a very small percentage of the earnings from what you make in that hour. If the job market is tight, you may not have any alternative but to suck it up and keep working. The capitalist should not keep the proceeds from most of your work for luxury consumption but instead should invest that into expanding production.

[Murphy]

At it's core.. materialism.

[Falkata]

Why is it impossible that the workers control the means of production?



In most of the big modern companies, ownership (shareholders) and managament are separated, so workers actually manage and control the company. By workers i mean professionals like engineers,economists, lawyers... not the XIX century concept of "worker" (physical)



Is class consciousness correct?


I´ve always found it pretty absurd. For example, ethnic consciousness, even when many people dont give a fuck about it and they have the right to don´t do it, makes some sense because it´s part of you since you were born until you die.You can´t change it. However "class" is something that change during your life. You can be a worker one day and the next month starting your own business and be a millionaire or becoming bankrupt . Class consciousness made sense in the Middle age because if you were born as a peasant, you were one your whole life, but nowadays i think it´s totally nosense, in my opinion.

[Loddfafner]

At it's core.. materialism.

It is not so much greed as laziness that prevents a large-scale whatever/whenever economy from sustaining itself for very long on good will and love of work. Forums maybe, but not whole societies.

[NationalConservative]

At it's core.. materialism.

I do not want words like "materialist" or "spiritualist", they explain nothing and make no sense while criticising.

[antonio]

I´ve always found it pretty absurd. For example, ethnic consciousness, even when many people dont give a fuck about it and they have the right to do it, makes some sense because it´s part of you since you were born until you die.You can´t change it. However "class" is something that change during your life. You can be a worker one day and the next month starting your own business and be a millionaire or becoming bankrupt . Class consciousness made sense in the Middle age because if you were born as a peasant, you were one your whole life, but nowadays i think it´s totally nosense, in my opinion.

Indeed, they're concepts just to be buyed by complete fools (objective public of modern marxism like redskins and this kind of bullshit): working class pride? WTF mean this in a country like Spain with 25 years of expensive public educative policies? Pride of being retarded? For example, my labour incomes are ridiculous...shall I supposedly to be proud about it? :icon_lol:

Pd. Proud of my lazy youth or my anorexic CV? Well, maybe, if Leftist morons find a plausible relation between laziness and work. :D

[NationalConservative]

Only loosely in that one's work experience might shape one's outlook on life. But there are too many factory workers who are not enthusiastically signing up for the nearest communist party cell, and too many trust fund brats who are, to take class consciousness as a reliable law of human nature.

Why would the factory workers not be signing up to the Communist party? What do you mean by 'trust fund brat'?



The investment climate and the labor market tend to collide. Lords kept looking for ways to keep peasants in line while peasants kept looking for ways to improve their lot in life. Business prefers low wages and quiet, obedient workers, while workers might want to get paid more and have more control over their lives. One has to be naive to think that one set of government policies will make everyone happy. In America, look how the struggle between insurance companies and trial lawyers is reflected in the two party system.

I do not know the struggle between insurance companies and trial lawyers in America; so if business prefers low wages which is why it imports migrant workers as well, then what can one do to stop it?




Production is too decentralized. One piece is made in Brazil, another in Singapore, etc.

What does that mean if one piece is made in Brazil and the other in Singapore?



As a loose generalization applying to the aggregate, it is helpful. Once one tries to pin it down to specifics, it falls apart.

Be more precise



No. But for each hour of work you do, you only earn a very small percentage of the earnings from what you make in that hour. If the job market is tight, you may not have any alternative but to suck it up and keep working. The capitalist should not keep the proceeds from most of your work for luxury consumption but instead should invest that into expanding production.

But I am talking about the first world where you get paid far more than you would in the third world; by what exactly do you mean by expansion of production?

[antonio]

Does the capitalist actually steal your labour?


People who let themselves to be stolen can be two things: stupid or cowards. None of these things has something to do with ideological bullshit.

PD. An occidental worker passively accepting the massive entrance to inmigrants hence degrading labour conditions implies both.

[Falkata]

Steal your labour? :confused: They are paying you a salary. If you dont like your job you can apply for a new one or start your own business, nobody is forcing you to do anything that you don´t want. If the job market is tight like right now, the worker´s salaries should decrease because there is an excess of jobs´ offers and should increase when we were in an expansive cycle and there was an excess of demand, nothing new here.

[NationalConservative]

People who let themselves to be stolen can be two things: stupid or cowards. None of these things has something to do with ideological bullshit.

PD. An occidental worker passively accepting the massive entrance to inmigrants hence degrading labour conditions implies both.

What is incomprehensible about the LTV is that how can the capitalist steal your labour when he is forced to pay you?

[RoyBatty]

Is class consciousness correct?


I'm no expert on the topic but if you're referring to "the haves" vs "the have nots" (most of us) then yes, there is class consciousness. For example, disenfranchised masses will be acutely aware of how "the rich" (particularly the CORRUPT rich) treat them with contempt.

The oligarchic classes will be acutely aware of how much the underclass resents them and will nevertheless spend their days finding new ways to screw them even more.




Is there really a class struggle?


The poor and middle classes aspire to become rich.

The rich want to fend off the lesser classes who are desperately trying to grab "their" slice of the pie.

Imo this amounts to a struggle of sorts.



Why is it impossible that the workers control the means of production?


A typical "worker" doesn't have the time nor the imagination, expertise and experience to fulfill both his / her primary job role AND to manage, develop company strategies, plan ahead etc.

Running a company is a tough job. It involves being part politician part astrologist part manager part accountant part visionary etc.



To what extent is the labour theory of value flawed?


Don't know enough about it to comment.



Does the capitalist actually steal your labour?


It really depends on "the capitalist". In some cases obviously yes. In other cases it's more like labour steals from other labourers, the capitalist and the customers.

A worker is basically a mercenary offering his / her services in exchange for (usually) cash renumeration. Provided workers lived in a society which provided a reasonable number of choices where to work and weren't being horribly exploited (the military is a good example of exploiting the poor) there is little grounds for complaint.

Want to be more than a "worker"? Then work harder and start working for yourself ie, practice cottage capitalism.


My personal gripes against certain forms of "capitalism" has mostly to do with monopoly capitalism (Corporations / Individuals becoming so powerful that they swallow up / destroy the competition).

Another gripe: connivance between politicians from "The State" and capitalists who bankroll them in order to get favours, in other words, corruption.

Any system be it Communism, Socialism, Capitalism or whatever is open to massive abuse. All have their virtues if applied correctly.

[anonymaus]

My personal gripes against certain forms of "capitalism" has mostly to do with monopoly capitalism (Corporations / Individuals becoming so powerful that they swallow up / destroy the competition).

Another gripe: connivance between politicians from "The State" and capitalists who bankroll them in order to get favours, in other words, corruption.

Any system be it Communism, Socialism, Capitalism or whatever is open to massive abuse. All have their virtues if applied correctly.

The first two points there are actually one: the word is collectivism, and not capitalism. The explanation is as simple as individuals and corporations using the power of government to their advantage, which has nothing to do with capitalism properly speaking. It's simply a collectivist "capitalizing" on political power to enrich themselves. This is related to monopoly, which is always the result of similar government intervention.

The abuse you mentioned in the final point is definitely true in the case of capitalism as we currently practice it: there are massive loopholes which aid the proliferation of the aforementioned problem.

[NationalConservative]

I'm no expert on the topic but if you're referring to "the haves" vs "the have nots" (most of us) then yes, there is class consciousness. For example, disenfranchised masses will be acutely aware of how "the rich" (particularly the CORRUPT rich) treat them with contempt.

The oligarchic classes will be acutely aware of how much the underclass resents them and will nevertheless spend their days finding new ways to screw them even more.

The poor and middle classes aspire to become rich.

The rich want to fend off the lesser classes who are desperately trying to grab "their" slice of the pie.

Imo this amounts to a struggle of sorts.

But class consciousness can justify the flood of migrant workers from the Third World which can undercut wages to the minimum. PLus there are middle class entrepreneurs who struggle against big business as well.

[Loddfafner]

Why would the factory workers not be signing up to the Communist party? What do you mean by 'trust fund brat'?

If you want a Marxist answer to the first question, read Gramsci or any of the so-called Frankfurt School. As for trust fund brats, that was simply a caricature of bourgeois who adopt a bohemian lifestyle.



I do not know the struggle between insurance companies and trial lawyers in America; so if business prefers low wages which is why it imports migrant workers as well, then what can one do to stop it?

This is the key reason why it is foolish to lump Marxists and multiculturalists in the same box. The native working class through unionization became strong enough to fight for a larger share of the proceeds of their work so the bourgeoisie basically flooded the labor market with immigrants willing to work for less. If that isn't a tactic in class struggle I don't know what is.



What does that mean if one piece is made in Brazil and the other in Singapore?


If every step in making an item is in one factory, then the workers in that factory are in a position to know how to make it and what raw materials are needed. If one step in manufacturing is on one continent, and then the next step is on another, then the workers in one country's factories cannot take them over and run them on their own.

I'll try to get to the other questions later.

[Loddfafner]

Steal your labour? :confused: They are paying you a salary. If you dont like your job you can apply for a new one or start your own business, nobody is forcing you to do anything that you don´t want. If the job market is tight like right now, the worker´s salaries should decrease because there is an excess of jobs´ offers and should increase when we were in an expansive cycle and there was an excess of demand, nothing new here.

This might be one of the key weaknesses in Marx' argument. He assumes a lack of alternatives for workers and also assumes a loose labor market due to large numbers of recently dispossessed peasants streaming into the cities. Also, as firms rely more on technology, they need fewer workers so more and more get thrown out of work. Since the market rate for wages becomes depressed, no one can afford the commodities being produced so the whole system comes crashing down.

[Wulfhere]

The questioner assumes that Marxism is indeed wrong, and that furthermore its theories are flawed and dangerous. Rather, I think that history has shown that Marx was essentially right, at least as right as Darwin in his own field (i.e. right in general, but requiring later tweaks), and certainly as a philosopher Marx deserves the greatest respect. What conclusions can be drawn from his work, however, is another matter - and once armed with the facts, we are surely able to change things, or at least manage them for the better.

[Octothorpe]

Marx made fundamental errors in understanding the role of capital in the creation of new wealth--his viewpoint, and those of all who follow him, is that wealth is fixed, and that people fight for pieces of the pie. When capital is free to flow (which it hasn't, frankly, in the US since about 1913), it is used to create new wealth, making new 'pies' for everyone involved in the process. Also, Marx failed to understand the critical role of transportation in production.

Too many errors, and nothing testable. If it isn't testable, a hypothesis is essentiall useless. It also fails Popper's falsifiablity test. And more than 100,000,000 dead people in the 20th century also could tell you that Marx's ideas were bad!

[Ibericus]

Marxism is materialist because it bases all humanity history on class struggle, that is,
to marxism, for example, if a country's population is wiped out and replaced by another different race, that country would still be the same as long as the economical system is the same, that is, the class struggle is the same. It doesnt matter your biology, culture... it is all based on class struggle, even if some tribes in Africa or America don't even have classes.

[Loddfafner]

Marx made fundamental errors in understanding the role of capital in the creation of new wealth--his viewpoint, and those of all who follow him, is that wealth is fixed, and that people fight for pieces of the pie. When capital is free to flow (which it hasn't, frankly, in the US since about 1913), it is used to create new wealth, making new 'pies' for everyone involved in the process.

I think you've got Marxism mixed up with Mercantilism. Marx was very clear about the creation of new wealth under capitalism in contrast with earlier modes of production such as feudalism. The Communist Manifesto emphasizes the productivity of capitalism although he also argues that the human cost is high, and so all the benefits of that productivity could go towards the people whose hard work makes that productivity possible.


Also, Marx failed to understand the critical role of transportation in production.

Also a sense of amortization. It is as if all the factories will remain intact after the revolution once capitalism has raised the level of production to a certain point.



Too many errors, and nothing testable. If it isn't testable, a hypothesis is essentiall useless. It also fails Popper's falsifiablity test.

Actually, Popper argued that it was initially falsifiable enough to be scientific, and was falsified by the failure of revolution in the main capitalist countries. Popper used the excuses Marxists made to cover up those falsifying tests as prime examples of pseudoscience.

[Monolith]

Marx made fundamental errors in understanding the role of capital in the creation of new wealth.
Correct. As far as I recall, Marx was convinced that amassing the capital will lead to a viable economic growth, and while that indeed makes sense in the short term, it is most certainly not the case in the long run.

The example of the USSR proves this, as the Soviets were initially producing massive amounts of capital, which led to a relatively short lived growth of their economy. And there was the fundamental flaw of the economic Marxism: they created more capital than their population could use, which rendered a significant part of the produced capital useless. Hence, capital is a factor of production limited by labour, and labour in turn is limited by productivity as well as by population size.

In reality, the only factor responsible for the long-term economic growth is technology, since technological innovations increase the level of productivity, effectively boosting the quantity of available labour, as well as the potential usage of available capital, which leads to a viable economic growth.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/images/image4.gif

The dots on this graph represent fluctuations around a trend (i.e. various levels of growth), while the trend itself represents technological development.

[antonio]

In reality, the only factor responsible for the long-term economic growth is technology, since technological innovations increase the level of productivity, effectively boosting the quantity of available labour, as well as the potential usage of available capital, which leads to a viable economic growth.


This is true. But comtemporary technology is a uncontrollable force which effects are yet to be discovered/experimented. Some people tend to think that scientifics are wise men aware of all things but this is simply not true, they're comonly above average persons (at the best) primarily concerned about they monthly income...and politicians, what to say about them?

Ps. How many people could ever imagine computer networks (an interesting but relatively modest scientific field) would change the Human behaviour in few decades as they did?

[Monolith]

But comtemporary technology is a uncontrollable force which effects are yet to be discovered/experimented.
True. For example, there was a period of poor technological growth during the 70ies, that hardly anyone could have foreseen. It was probably due to low priority of R&D at the time.


Some people tend to think that scientifics are wise men aware of all things but this is simply not true, they're comonly above average persons (at the best) primarily concerned about they monthly income...
Spot on. The force that drives the current technological development is demand. Unfortunately, almost any technology has to be profitable these days, in order to exist. Otherwise it is simply an idea, or an intellectual property at best.

[SwordoftheVistula]

as firms rely more on technology, they need fewer workers so more and more get thrown out of work. Since the market rate for wages becomes depressed, no one can afford the commodities being produced so the whole system comes crashing down.

The way it is supposed to work is that new enterprises are created to employ these workers, and thus more wealth is created, and this is how societies have grown in the past through greater specialization of labor.

Some problems why this is not happening now are:

High regulatory burden for new enterprises

Government debt sucking up available capital

The length of time to get the training/education needed for new job skills makes it difficult for workers to retrain themselves to adjust to rapid changes in the economy. Institutional education is not much use, and most employers outside of a few specialist fields are unwilling to train new employees.


So what ends up happening is the same old companies muddle along with ever decreasing workforces, while more & more people are not part of the full time workforce.

[Óttar]

while more & more people are not part of the full time workforce.

I heard they could just decrease the workday to 4 hours and employ double the amount of people.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I heard they could just decrease the workday to 4 hours and employ double the amount of people.

That sucks though. The job I had in Ohio was like that, 4 hours/day, but it took me an hour or more drive each way to/from work. The jobs I had in the northeast were the same way for the most part, spend a couple hours sitting on the Mass Pike or the Long Island Expressway each day. I'd rather just have less days at work and the same or more hours.

[Monolith]

Here's an interesting tool:
gapminder (http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11 ;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=6;ti= 2007$zpv;v=1$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj1ji MAkmq1iMg;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuy j2tPLxKvvnNPA;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=phAwc NAVuyj0XOoBL_n5tAQ;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=C ATID0;by=grp$map_x;scale=log;dataMin=199;dataMax=4 2642$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=25;dataMax=84$map_s;s ma=49;smi=2.65$cd;bd=0$inds=)

It shows most economic trends in the word, and can be fairly useful when discussing matters pertaining to economic growth.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

T

The length of time to get the training/education needed for new job skills makes it difficult for workers to retrain themselves to adjust to rapid changes in the economy. Institutional education is not much use, and most employers outside of a few specialist fields are unwilling to train new employees.


So what ends up happening is the same old companies muddle along with ever decreasing workforces, while more & more people are not part of the full time workforce.

Present consumption is more valuable than future consumption.

That is what is wrong with labor of value.and Marxism.
Why must I wait for payday if I have already worked 3/4 of a month and can not spend.,

[NationalConservative]

What problems do you think would happen if a far-left Marxist party were elected as the major party in the government?

[Loki]

What problems do you think would happen if a far-left Marxist party were elected as the major party in the government?

Not more than we currently have.

[NationalConservative]

To what extent? These far-left parties talk about nationalising everything under public ownership.

[NationalConservative]

Is there anything wrong with this Marxist phrase "workers own the means of production"? It does not seem right to me.

[Murphy]

I assure you, that is not a Marxist phrase! And any Marxist who says otherwise simply doesn't understand what it means to own the means of production, because as expounded by Chesterton and Belloc, to own the means of production is for man to be given back his right to amass his own capital, which both Capitalism and Socialism deny him, and to be freed from the fetters of the state and the banker.

[NationalConservative]

I assure you, that is not a Marxist phrase! And any Marxist who says otherwise simply doesn't understand what it means to own the means of production, because as expounded by Chesterton and Belloc, to own the means of production is for man to be given back his right to amass his own capital, which both Capitalism and Socialism deny him, and to be freed from the fetters of the state and the banker.

But Marxism advocates the dictatorship of the proletariat and that the workers should put down their tools and take over the ownership of the company.

[NationalConservative]

I assure you, that is not a Marxist phrase! And any Marxist who says otherwise simply doesn't understand what it means to own the means of production, because as expounded by Chesterton and Belloc, to own the means of production is for man to be given back his right to amass his own capital, which both Capitalism and Socialism deny him, and to be freed from the fetters of the state and the banker.

I also read a lot of Marxists that say thtat the capitalist does not work but owns and that the worker works but does not own.

[Eldritch]

Why is Marxism wrong and dangerous?

Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel in coming up with an answer to that question, allow me to divert your attention the essay How -- and how not -- to love Mankind (http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_3_urbanities-how_and_how_no.html) by Theodore Dalrymple.

[Breedingvariety]

I also read a lot of Marxists that say thtat the capitalist does not work but owns and that the worker works but does not own.
"Those who don't own can take away from those who own. Power to own is the right to own." Breedingvariety

"If you own nothing, then you are owned." Breedingvariety

"If supreme owner is good- consider revolution. If supreme owner is bad- stage revolution." Breedingvariety

"View ownership as means." Breedingvariety

[Osweo]

Marxism is ostensibly about 'evening things up'. To do that, you have to TAKE from some, and GIVE to others. Unfortunately, it never seems to figure out how to go about the 'giving' part satisfactorily... ;) It's theft, pure and simple. The revolutionaries usually end up some sort of parasite class themselves. Once they get a taste for it, they become as bad or far worse, than the earlier 'haves'. The 'have nots' are just deluded and deceived all the way along...

[Breedingvariety]

Marxism is ostensibly about 'evening things up'. To do that, you have to TAKE from some, and GIVE to others. Unfortunately, it never seems to figure out how to go about the 'giving' part satisfactorily... ;) It's theft, pure and simple. The revolutionaries usually end up some sort of parasite class themselves. Once they get a taste for it, they become as bad or far worse, than the earlier 'haves'. The 'have nots' are just deluded and deceived all the way along...
Elites gain most during communist revolution. Rich people, who are not part of the elite lose the most.

[Liffrea]

Hierarchy is inherent to man, any system that fails to recognise that will fail. That’s why when you get right down to it, in practise, there isn’t a great deal of difference between a socialist, communist, fascist or liberal society, to some degree the many serve the few, the rest is just window dressing.

It can never be any other way.

[Agrippa]

Marxism ignores human differences and useful mechanisms of disparity.

Also, Capitalism is a huge lie and mean of exploitation, especially in the form of Liberalcapitalism, in which there is no independent authority or morality above the profits & power of the Plutocratic Oligarchy.

But, the problem of Marxism is not that Capitalism is right, but that Marxism is also wrong.

It is really not that valuable if you think about the human nature and how economy works, at least not more than any other theory born out of common sense. Marxism took away the chance from changing to the better from within and between the naturally grown unities, like that of race, ethnicity, culture, social networks and the like, and made a transnational ideology which was favourable for minorities, deviating forms and those which wanted to destroy the European base as such.

In it's essence, Marxism almost always was Anti-European and Anti-White, so, to it's economic and psychological flaws, there is this huge problem with it's spirit which is destructive.

I'm not saying that a social revolutionary movement wouldn't have been the right thing, but the exact way Marxism was build up, in theory and practise, had many "weaknesses" for further exploitation, which one might ask whether these were not implemented deliberately by the Jew Karl Marx.
Or if that wasn't the case, whether the Anglo-Jewish plutocracy decided that Marx' ideas are exactly those they can accept as a social revolutionary ideology - so by boosting Marx, they at the same time changed the direction of all worker's movements and social revolutionary groups, because among those, Marxism became the No. 1 ideology.

And Marxism as such is a huge social problem, not just its ignorance in the matters of the financial system and the nature of money, but also because of it's social implications and the radical egalitarianism, which is levelling.

There is no problem with social justice and support from my point of view, but a problem with the idea and ideological goal of levelling - even, if necessary LEVELLING DOWN to fulfil the prophecy. Therefore producing in practise oftentimes more of a slave labourer on a low level and on the longer run, than a more moderate social revolutionary approach - but Marxism became so dominant among the social/Socialist movements than it there was no real alternative.

Thats the real catastrophy, this horrible connection of necessary and good social revolutionary and just ideas with ideological fallacies of Marxism and levelling egalitarianism in the West - or even worldwide.

As if there would be no 3rd, more rational approach possible than that or Liberalcapitalism. Germany was among the main nations for the 3rd approach between modernity and tradition, between Capitalism and Socialism. It did pretty well in this regards, before, during and shortly after the 3rd Reich in a certain way as well - though as an unfree nation then, so it didn't pay off on the longer run...

However, the most dangerous interpretation of Marxism came up in the West and by Western Jewish and non-Jewish intellectuals, namely the Frankfurt School. They in fact eliminated those few elements of Marxism which could have been useful or even were useful in various nations East of Central Europe, but kept only the worst part.

This worst part was combined, by mostly Jewish think tanks, with Western Liberal approaches and formed was the horrible Neoliberal-Cultural Marxist combination as a mean of exploitation AND control of the people, also with what we can call now "political correctness".

Compare with this documentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwO5ZwF41iQ&feature=player_embedded

In it's essence, regardless of earlier aims, which were always abused anyway, Marxism is now an insufficient economic and social theory which main elements are directly against any form of naturally grown community/collective now and keep up the ideology of the "suppressed indivdual" as the main dogma, even then, if this weak "pseudo-Individualist" ideology leads to political bondage and limitations, to the inability of the group to defend itself against exploitative structures in an effective = collectivist, way.

Even worse, they would never accept, for ideological reasons, any sort of natural order, naturally grown community, useful distinction and discrimination (for the majority of the individuals and the greater whole even) or the like.

So, even if the individual activistis actually might have still social revolutionary goals, even that is not true for Liberal-Cultural Marxists in the West, they finally block a better and more effective way to break up the Plutocratic exploitation and both their ideas of the human nature, economy-financial system and society as such are flawed.

[Ibericus]

In marxism there is no consideration for the human's sense of community, the belonging to a group, a community of people, by common ethnicity, culture, etc. For them this is not natural or biological, it is constructed. For marxism you are either worker class or not, nothing else. What is so ironic and contradictory is that marxists are pro-immigration, yet these immigration is caused by the liberal capitalism and globalism, and ironically the most affected people by these massive immigration are the national workers, because of the foreign cheaper competition,

[SwordoftheVistula]

to own the means of production is for man to be given back his right to amass his own capital, which both Capitalism and Socialism deny him

Capitalism has this, in the form of the stock market, which workers can invest their wages in, or start their own businesses.


Is there anything wrong with this Marxist phrase "workers own the means of production"? It does not seem right to me.

There's no need to connect the two, especially for larger enterprises. Workers put in work, and get a wage. Investors put in capital, and might get a return on that capital, or might not.

[Monolith]

Capitalism has this, in the form of the stock market, which workers can invest their wages in, or start their own businesses.
Indeed, though the stock market is nothing but a giant gambling house. One would be very reckless to invest his wages there, unless he invests them into debt securities.


Workers put in work, and get a wage. Investors put in capital, and might get a return on that capital, or might not.
The same goes for workers, doesn't it? They might not receive their wage as well, if the company they're working in goes bankrupt.

[Breedingvariety]

George Carlin- "They own you":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI

Lesson- Revisiting Civics 101 - Ownership:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2VDC8UQ3c8

[SwordoftheVistula]

The same goes for workers, doesn't it? They might not receive their wage as well, if the company they're working in goes bankrupt.

Maybe a week or 2, if the company suddenly goes completely broke and has no assets whatsoever.

[Invictus_88]

Is class consciousness correct?
Some class consciousness does still exist, but it's not so fundamentally important to society as it once was. This is - in my view - a problem for modern Marxism.

Is there really a class struggle?
Certainly there is, though to call it that ignores the more fundamental issue of enfranchisement, liberty, and wellbeing.

Why is it impossible that the workers control the means of production?
It isn't.

To what extent is the labour theory of value flawed?
No idea, never studied this aspect.

[Invictus_88]

In marxism there is no consideration for the human's sense of community, the belonging to a group, a community of people, by common ethnicity, culture, etc. For them this is not natural or biological, it is constructed. For marxism you are either worker class or not, nothing else. What is so ironic and contradictory is that marxists are pro-immigration, yet these immigration is caused by the liberal capitalism and globalism, and ironically the most affected people by these massive immigration are the national workers, because of the foreign cheaper competition,

Nor, really, in globalised capitalism.

[NationalConservative]

In marxism there is no consideration for the human's sense of community, the belonging to a group, a community of people, by common ethnicity, culture, etc. For them this is not natural or biological, it is constructed. For marxism you are either worker class or not, nothing else. What is so ironic and contradictory is that marxists are pro-immigration, yet these immigration is caused by the liberal capitalism and globalism, and ironically the most affected people by these massive immigration are the national workers, because of the foreign cheaper competition,

But what about the workers that will own the means of production?

[Monolith]

But what about the workers that will own the means of production?
Actually, it's not important what the workers own, but who owns the workers. Ideally, the workers would be able to control the means of productions without the political interference, but the reality is painfully different, as this kind of economic system is intertwined with a sociocultural ideology pertaining to it, as well as with some harmful, intrinsically human traits.

[Ibericus]

But what about the workers that will own the means of production?
In practice, it is the State that owns the means of production, not the workers

[Ibericus]

Nor, really, in globalised capitalism.
I am not in favor of globalised capitalism