Current Events > Is Marxism a viable ideology?

(+) Yeah! (+)

What I know of Marx is that his theories on history were criticized by Popper for being unfalsifiable. I don't know his ideas in detail as far as ideology goes. A colleague read Das Kapital recently and remarked that it was a lot more violent than he would have thought.
---

nicklebro posted...

@COVxy @averagejoel

So you guys have a bunch of fellow defenders of Marxism but they don't seem to defend out and out Marxism like you two do. They simply argue that some good ideas came from it while basically acknowledging it is unsustainable. What would you say to these people to convince them to come to the Dark Side and become actual Marxists?

Lmao, I'm not a marxist. How you ever got it in you that I am is baffling lol.

I think any strong claims about these types of systems are mostly just stupid political rhetoric.
---

What a lame copout. We all know you were defending Marxism, so to us you're a Marxist. None of your bullshit excuses will change that.
---

nicklebro posted...

What a lame copout. We all know you were defending Marxism, so to us you're a Marxist. None of your bullshit excuses will change that.

This is an example of a person who desperately wants to have an argument even when there's none to be had. A certain Monty Python sketch comes to mind...
---

nicklebro posted...

What a lame copout. We all know you were defending Marxism, so to us you're a Marxist. None of your bullshit excuses will change that.

I've never defended Marxism as an ideology. I've only attacked shitty ridiculous claims that you and Proudclad have put fourth, such as claiming that history is hard evidence that communism is unviable (the evidence simply doesn't match the claim, and this bullshit rhetoric is touted around as some sort of highly evolved thought which makes it laughable) or that without monetary incentive nobody would ever work.

I couldn't give a crap about arguing about political or economic systems like this. Completely pointless and too far away from any empirical evidence.
---

scar the 1 posted...

This is an example of a person who desperately wants to have an argument even when there's none to be had. A certain Monty Python sketch comes to mind...

This is an example of someone who never has anything of substance to add to discussions but writes meaningless posts anyways. Thanks for your opinion, I'm sure everyone appreciates it.

COVxy posted...

I've never defended Marxism as an ideology. I've only attacked shitty ridiculous claims that you and Proudclad have put fourth, such as claiming that history is hard evidence that communism is unviable (the evidence simply doesn't match the claim, and this bullshit rhetoric is touted around as some sort of highly evolved thought which makes it laughable) or that without monetary incentive nobody would ever work.

I couldn't give a crap about arguing about political or economic systems like this. Completely pointless and too far away from any empirical evidence.

You don't defend Marxism, you just attack the facts that prove it's unsustainable. Lol ok man.

The history proves Marxism isn't a sustainable ideology. Actual analysis of the text itself contradicts basic human nature which further proves it isn't a viable form of governance. The absolutely hilarious assertion you've made that everyone would feel absolutely fine with working full time jobs if they weren't being compensated. Lol according to you society wouldn't even slow down if people we're no longer being paid and we're expected to motivate themselves to go to work out of what, a duty to their non existent state? The goodness of their hearts? Sheer boredom? Lol you keep making this ridiculously ignorant assertion without even explaining it, let alone proving it with some kind of evidence or a source.

But you claim to not defend Marxism so you should have no problem stating it is an unstable ideology.
---

nicklebro posted...

The absolutely hilarious assertion you've made that everyone would feel absolutely fine with working full time jobs if they weren't being compensated. Lol according to you society wouldn't even slow down if people we're no longer being paid

I never said that, in fact I stated quite the opposite. I'm not responsible for your "poor reading comprehension", or better described as "motivated reading comprehension".

nicklebro posted...

no problem stating it is an unstable ideology.

If there was actually good evidence of it, yes, I would have no problem. There's really no evidence either way, so as stated earlier, I'm at a resounding "meh".
---

lol, socialism
---

Do you think anyone falls for you ad hominem attacks anymore? Whenever you're cornered you try to insult the other posters reading comprehension or their general understanding of the topic or anything like that, usually based on you harping on some semantic disagreement or some other nitpicky nonsense that is irrelevant to the topic. You're too predictable man, i literally had people PMing me telling me you were going to do exactly what you ended up doing.

COVxy posted...

If there was actually good evidence of it, yes, I would have no problem. There's really no evidence either way, so as stated earlier, I'm at a resounding "meh".

Except for its history and how it contradicts basic human nature.

You're literally shilling for Marxism. Lol and trying to insult my reading comprehension to do it. Pathetic.
---

I'm not nitpicking, I literally said pretty much the opposite of what you claimed I had said, lmao.

nicklebro posted...

Except for its history and how it contradicts basic human nature.

The first is piss poor evidence, and the latter doesn't have any meat. Like I literally cannot evaluate the second part because it means almost nothing without context and more direct claims.
---

nicklebro posted...

This is an example of someone who never has anything of substance to add to discussions but writes meaningless posts anyways. Thanks for your opinion, I'm sure everyone appreciates it.

You're welcome. If you yearn so much for something of substance, here you go:

Your argument presupposes a notion of "basic human nature" that conveniently seems to be some arbitrary concept that just happens to align with your opinion. There's no real knowledge of what actually constitutes "basic human nature", and how much influence society has. Because it would be quite tricky to ascertain such distinctions, heck some would say even impossible. Still it's one of the cornerstones of your argument.
Which brings me back to my original point - you don't really care about the soundness or validity of your argument. That's clearly evidenced by your refusal to take COVxy's points at face value. You simply care about getting the last word, because that's your idea of "winning an argument".
---

COVxy posted...

The first is piss poor evidence, and the latter doesn't have any meat. Like I literally cannot evaluate the second part because it means almost nothing without context and more direct claims.

Oh so you're incapable of assessing the evidence given to you. Makes sense. Maybe when you learn more about the subject you'll be able to finally assess the viability of Marxism and come to a rational conclusion. Sucks for you that that day just isn't today.

scar the 1 posted...

Your argument presupposes a notion of "basic human nature" that conveniently seems to be some arbitrary concept that just happens to align with your opinion. There's no real knowledge of what actually constitutes "basic human nature", and how much influence society has. Because it would be quite tricky to ascertain such distinctions, heck some would say even impossible. Still it's one of the cornerstones of your argument.

You think basic human nature is a arbitrary concept? Lmao and you think there's no real knowledge of what constitutes basic human nature? Have you ever even heard of the field of psychology? Man... This sad attempt at a serious post backfired immediately lol.

scar the 1 posted...

Which brings me back to my original point - you don't really care about the soundness or validity of your argument. That's clearly evidenced by your refusal to take COVxy's points at face value. You simply care about getting the last word, because that's your idea of "winning an argument".

COVxy doesn't have an argument, you heard him say himself he isn't asserting that Marxism is a sustainable ideology. And if you had been paying attention you'd know that we'd already been down this road and everything he had said had been refuted by not just me, but Romes and Proudclad as well. You really need to learn to keep up in these conversations. As for having the last word, I'm not nearly as insecure as people like you who value that kind of thing, and since I've made you look silly enough already, the last word is all yours. Lmao there's literally no coming back from this abortion of a post you've made, so I couldn't really care less what you have to say to in your attempt to save face.

But really, nice job siding with the Marxists. Really shows you're a critical thinker LOL.
---

interesting that you completely ignored everything I said on the subject while mindlessly accepting everything anyone says against Marxism.

I've literally addressed every single one of the points in this topic before
---

The fundamental problem with Marxism is that the sort of people needed for the revolution to succeed are also the people who'd betray the revolution and seize power.
---

nicklebro posted...

You think basic human nature is a arbitrary concept? Lmao and you think there's no real knowledge of what constitutes basic human nature? Have you ever even heard of the field of psychology? Man... This sad attempt at a serious post backfired immediately lol.

You mentioning that psychology exists does not in any way make your notion of "basic human nature" more of a fact. I mean, feel free to elaborate! What is the consensus within the field of psychology as to what defines basic human nature? Bonus points if you can justify why any definition within psychology is more "correct" than, say, a definition within anthropology.

nicklebro posted...

But really, nice job siding with the Marxists. Really shows you're a critical thinker LOL.

See this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're not interested in making sound arguments, it's perfectly good enough for you to resort to name calling whenever someone criticizes the soundness of your argument.
---

Kazi1212 posted...

The viability of Marxism is not what attests to its value. There are lot of critical concepts within Marxism which has greatly influenced much of modern political philosophy in some way shape or form. The way we study sociology today for instance, such as looking at the societal issues through the lens of class structures is heavily influenced by the Marxist tradition. Its funny, I believe Marx thought himself more of an economist but nobody respects his ideas as an economist anymore, his main works helped develop methodologies for sociology and philosophy

Economists and sociologists both study human behavior(and in reality are actually the same thing), so that makes a lot of sense.
---

Godnorgosh posted...

We live in a globally capitalist economy, yet for some reason folks wonder why any particular society that attempts to resist that preexisting and predominant force fails.

people seem to forget that:
1. there was a nazi disinformation campaign which peddled lies about socialists, and most of what they learned in school and see on the news is ultimately based on this, partly because...
2. operation paperclip happened
3. the major imperialist powers (the US, Britain, France) did everything in their power to prevent socialism from taking root
---