Being a Marxist is wrong?

[MekongFisher]

First of all, I would like to note that I myself is not a Marxist in a political or economic stance. I believe in free market.

However, somehow I find the notion of general public casually using term "communist" to describe someone vile and dangerous, as Nazis, very irrational.

I don't expect much knowledge from the media and the general public which casually go around using political terms without not knowing a thing about it anyway, but communism/socialism/Marxism is defined by its economic nature. And knowing that sociopolitical liberty does not necessarily parallel economic liberty, if we presume that political epithets such as "Nazi", "Fascist", or "communist" is offensive due to their characteristics that suppress sociopolitical liberty, I find using terms aligned with leftist politics in such manner as illogical, since those terms are strictly defined by their economic viewpoints, not sociopolitical. Numerous historical instances, such as democratically-elected and managed Spanish Republic or Allende's Chile which were economically socialist proves my thesis that sociopolitical liberties and economic liberties are not on the same boat.

Of course, most people couldn't really care less about those academic technicalities anyway, so people just automatically connect leftist ideas with sociopolitical oppressions that had been committed by regimes with leftists economics, and they just use those terms in such manners casually.

On more life-based cases, when I ask people "what is wrong with being a communist", the answers are quite generic.

1. Because they are oppressive.
2. Because communism is flawed.

I just disapproved claimant #1 above, so I won't go in depth again. No, communism isn't oppressive. It's just that oppressive regimes like to use communist titles just as they like to use nationalist, patriotic, religious, and anti-communist rhetoric.

Second point argues that because communism have been proven flawed in real life, it is just as flawed to promote it as well. However, again, form a historian's perspective, despite the massive effect of political ideologies in modern world, leftist politics have actually been experimented in surprisingly limited circumstances and instances. There have been largely only two cases of communist experiments that lasted enough time and have received enough public attention for academics to critique upon: old Eastern Bloc's state capitalism, and modified economics, or "closet capitalism", as I like to call it, of post-Cold War leftist regimes. Ironically, none of those economic policies are in accordance with egalitarian principles that Marxist economics is really all about. Certain historical experiments that neared this fundamental nature of Marxist economics all ended due to physical pressure before the experiment could bloom to full extent. Then I believe that at this point, I am safe to claim that it is historically too premature to claim leftist economics to be entirely flawed. In a sense, current North European welfare states can be labeled socialist as well based upon their policies of heavily taxing the rich to provide government funds for social welfare policies. No one condemns them of being oppressive.

Political science is not a natural science. The validity of ideologies cannot be measured cut-and-clear like scientific facts. In that sense, due to its lacking in historical substances, I find the argument that "because it doesn't work" not too much more logical either.

So in conclusion, I think it is really a factual and logical flaw to use leftist political terms in derogatory connotations along with terms that are explicitly opposed to sociopolitical liberty and universal human rights, the standard of "wellness" in politics, such as Nazism or Fascism, to condemn someone based upon political grounds. Now, terms like Bolshevism or Maoism, which were equally explicit in opposing the principles of democratic republic by promoting single party state can be used in that manner. However, this entire general notion of being a communist being wrong really seems to be a fallacy if not an outright stupidity. Again, in a democracy, you are allowed to promote any ideas as long as they don't breech the equal rights of others. And socialism/communism/Marxism/Texas-Engelism or whatever the similar variants don't. Things like Bolshevism, Nazism, Fascism, or theocracy do.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

People associate National Socialism (Nazism) and Facism with Hitler and Communism with Stalin.

[MaximiIian]

People associate National Socialism (Nazism) and Facism with Hitler and Communism with Stalin.

Well, National Socialism is rightly associated with Hitler, as he was the guy that founded and organized that ideology. Though he was not a fascist, so associating fascism with Hitler and Nazism is imprecise.
And Stalinism isn't really communism, so when people conflate the two, it is also erroneous.

whats the difference between communism and fascism? not much, the real kicker is fascism is racist in believing in only its own nationality while communism is internationalist bringing itself to every corner of the world.

Not quite. Mussolini made it abundantly clear that Fascism was not racist, and it was instead geared towards cultural supremacy and the welfare of the state.
While I do not like fascism, I think that the guy that founded it has the last say in how it's defined, and Mussolini defined it as above.

[Panzerbear]

People associate National Socialism (Nazism) and Facism with Hitler and Communism with Stalin.

Nationalists - with Hitler and Mussolini.
Commies - with Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc.

not a company of people I would personally like to associate myself with .

is being Marxist wrong? well, it depends on how you are looking at it. if you are a Marxist, then, first of all, you are utopian. i.e. already by definition can not be taken seriously by any reasonable person. if you are, lets say, a teenager, a Marxist and wear a Che Guevara t-shirt, then I wouldnt say there is something terribly wrong with you. but if you are an adult of ~25 years of age, then I would already have a problem with that...

every rebellious commie in his youth usually becomes somebody he despised the most at his older age, a conservative and cynical old fart with capitalist beliefs .

[BNS]

I agree with you and I'm always sure to separate the sociopolitical and economic liberties when looking at ideologies. But what you just mentioned happens with the right wing too. Too often have I heard that ultra conservativisim and fascism (wtf how is this right wing?) are the only products of the far right. This conveniently ignores the plethora of the more socially free ideologies that exist in the right in an attempt to downplay the right wing as ignorant and intolerant.

Again, in a democracy, you are allowed to promote any ideas as long as they don't breech the equal rights of others. And socialism/communism/Marxism/Texas-Engelism or whatever the similar variants don't. Things like Bolshevism, Nazism, Fascism, or theocracy do.

To be fair socialism/communism/Marxism/Texas-Engelism do cut into your right to own what you produce. That is my fundamental grievance with those ideologies.

[MekongFisher]

I agree with you and I'm always sure to separate the sociopolitical and economic liberties when looking at ideologies. But what you just mentioned happens with the right wing too. Too often have I heard that ultra conservativisim and fascism (wtf how is this right wing?) are the only products of the far right. This conveniently ignores the plethora of the more socially free ideologies that exist in the right in an attempt to downplay the right wing as ignorant and intolerant.
To be fair socialism/communism/Marxism/Texas-Engelism do cut into your right to own what you produce. That is my fundamental grievance with those ideologies.

You are right. Fascism and related totalitarianism things really are not products of conservatism or traditionalism. Totalitarian thoughts specifically have oppression of liberties in their mind while that's not always the case for conservatism. However, due to their tendencies to adhere to status quo, it is difficult to deny when totalitarian agenda arises in a society, conservative elements within society are more prone to fall under totalitarian rhetoric, though.

[zerathule]

To be fair socialism/communism/Marxism/Texas-Engelism do cut into your right to own what you produce. That is my fundamental grievance with those ideologies.

This is partially false : principle of communism is that it is the person that produces a good that owns it, not the one owning the factory.
Its not getting rid of private property, just abolishing property of means of production.
That way, workers would own the fruit of their work.

This is the founding principle of communism, and actually the only idea unifying the various communist groups around the world (they usually fight more among themselves than against capitalists, because well they have a higher purpose : proving that they are more communist than the other communist group ...)

Now you should have defined what means being a marxist, because i'm prety sure if you ask a 100 people you'll get a 100 different answers.
Oh, and besides, communism predates Karl Marx.

For theists (whatever religion), communism is viewed as evil, because Karl Marx was anti-clerical to the nails.
Its funny, because christians, muslims and jews have in their books an interdiction to practice usury (and in fact all activities that create money with money).
Also, the first christians groups had social organisation that could be described as communists (when they where not planning "terrorist" attacks to destroy "pagan and heretic" temples).

So my answer to your question is : yes it is bad to be a marxist, because you can be sure you'll get hunted whatever country you live in (especially china, cuba and north korea by the way).

Besides, tyranny by the capital, or by the workers, is still tyranny.
For those interested in such subjects, read Bakounine and Proudon(by the way, the one eyed killer in Lost is called Mikhail Bakounine, who is one of the major Anarchist writer).

mate, chicks dig communism. so its time go get your red flags to get laid

In witch country ?

[Da Skinna]

That people have to begin with announcing they are not this or that before they talk about this or that goes to show the prevailing attitude.

Attitude does not make right.

If you were to ask the average fervently anti-communist American just what Marx spoke out against, you wouldn't get a real answer.

Most people just hate things because they've grown up to hate things.

[Kiljan Arslan]

That people have to begin with announcing they are not this or that before they talk about this or that goes to show the prevailing attitude.

Attitude does not make right.

If you were to ask the average fervently anti-communist American just what Marx spoke out against, you wouldn't get a real answer.

Most people just hate things because they've grown up to hate things.

He spoke out against the exploitation of the workers.

I am against it because of in practice its really never worked.

[Hound of Ulster]

Marxism has the same basic problem that libetarianism has; both make the fatal assumpation that human beings are better then they actually are.

Marxism also has a bit of a P.R problem in that every country it was the governing philosophy of had long history dictatorship of one form or another, which also doesn't help it.

Fasicism's problem is, well, its fasicism

[Belphegor]

I would not say that Marxism is wrong. On paper it is a very interesting theory, but a flawed one.

The main problem is that people associate bolshevism or communism, as many people use, directly with Marx. The Russia bolshevik experiment, and all it's consenquences, were mostly a work of Lenin and Trotsky, who changed several very important points in Marxist theory.
The whole communisms is evil theory (by communism anything that is left or left/liberal) is a work mostly of American propaganda. The fact is that the US has always been more of a frightened of the left, than of fascists. People see left wing ideas as a opposition towards freedom. In the case of totalitarian communism that is absolutely true, as those ideas and regimes rank up there with fascism and the Nazis. The problem is few really understand socialism as a school of thought and it's many branches.

I would not say that marxism is wrong, but it is certainly flawed. I too do not support marxism, and also believe in a free market (not a capitalist one though). Marxism has two branches one being the economical the second socio-political.
The socio-political part of marxism, presents it self as libertarian and anti-authoritarian, but has major flaws. It has a authoritarian undertone and leaves options open for totalitarians. There are several points: the revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat are a breeding ground for authoritarin ideas. This was pointed out to Marx during his life, by the libertarian branch of socialism.

What needs to be remembered, is that eventhough bolshevism (as a theory) and it's consenquences are a work of Lenin and Trotsky, they used the options that Marxism left for them. Marxism can be understood by more people in a different way and it leaves room for an authoritarian deffinition. That can be seen to this day. But I know many marxists that are anti-authoritarian and libertarian and they too base their views in Marxs.
To sum it up, Marxism is not evil, but flawed.

[Pickle_mole]

whats the difference between communism and fascism? not much, the real kicker is fascism is racist in believing in only its own nationality while communism is internationalist bringing itself to every corner of the world.

[Behind The Mask]

whats the difference between communism and fascism? not much, the real kicker is fascism is racist in believing in only its own nationality while communism is internationalist bringing itself to every corner of the world.

I disagree, while Communism in its current forms tends to be somewhat like that, I believe that Communism does not have to abide simply to the standards set by Marx... In this variation the ideals of world wide revolution may be dropped.

I consider myself a Communist though I have worked (though, rather lazily) to somewhat reform the idea of Communism into a more social standard then a political or economic one, Blue Communism being my product with the intention of the preservation of rights and liberty... while still under-developed, I do believe that an idea of Blue Communism (Contrary to Red Communism, red being a somewhat more aggressive color while blue leans towards nuetriality) I believe it could work, realistically in some way...

Though, I'm just a minor who am I to attempt to understand politics and dive into it, I could argue all day with the members of this forum but the sheer point that I am largely ignorant on the issues of politics will mean I will always lose those arguements.

But ultimately I believe the problem with a dislike for Communism (Marxism/ect.) Is that while they hold a common point on centralization issues, the variations are ill defined and in the end round up into Communism, the Red Threat!

[Alkarin]

I disagree, while Communism in its current forms tends to be somewhat like that, I believe that Communism does not have to abide simply to the standards set by Marx... In this variation the ideals of world wide revolution may be dropped.

I consider myself a Communist though I have worked (though, rather lazily) to somewhat reform the idea of Communism into a more social standard then a political or economic one, Blue Communism being my product with the intention of the preservation of rights and liberty... while still under-developed, I do believe that an idea of Blue Communism (Contrary to Red Communism, red being a somewhat more aggressive color while blue leans towards nuetriality) I believe it could work, realistically in some way...

Though, I'm just a minor who am I to attempt to understand politics and dive into it, I could argue all day with the members of this forum but the sheer point that I am largely ignorant on the issues of politics will mean I will always lose those arguements.

But ultimately I believe the problem with a dislike for Communism (Marxism/ect.) Is that while they hold a common point on centralization issues, the variations are ill defined and in the end round up into Communism, the Red Threat!

correct me if i read this wrong. you yourself have tried to found out how to make the best form of communism by yourself and call it blue communism? i would like to hear your data/concepts so far (although i love the color red )

well, Platon, I hate to dissapoint you, but you're a utopian as well .

is it odd that im probably the most radical left winger here yet i dont believe in Utopianism? i believe we should get as close to it as we can but not fully. then we will just go back to tribalism and start all over again

[BNS]

If you were to ask the average fervently anti-communist American just what Marx spoke out against, you wouldn't get a real answer.

Most people just hate things because they've grown up to hate things.

Same can be said of some one who has grown up in a far left country to regards to the right wing. Of coarse if you think I'm the typical ignorant anti-communist American you can try me .

[MekongFisher]

The simple, fundamental, and most definitive point is that communism/socialism/Marxism/Texas Baconism or whatsoever can exist within democratic system. Fascism and other branches of totalitarianism (Bolshevism and Maoism included) don't.

[Bovril]

The fundemental tenant of Marxist revolution was that it would/had to occur in the most develloped industrial societies such as Germany and the UK first, and be spread from there. A lot of Bolshevics, being orthodox Marxists at first, saw the Russian revolution as not being either Communist or Socialistic, although for propaganda purposes they had to continue using those terms. Still a carefull reading of Lenin shows that that he saw the Russian revolution as creating a state that would agitate for the real Revolution in industrialised countries whilst working towards the industrialisation of Russia. Certainly not a Marxist state. Stalin gave up on the whole idea and in no way can be called a Marxist.

The idea that revolutions would occur in industrial countries was reasonable in the mid to late 19th century, where this was indeed where the most revolutionary activity occured, however, things didn't work out that way, and that's why orthodox Marxism is not really a vaible belief these days. Marx made the mistake of believing that class consciousness was a product of education, rather than class strugle, and that peasants could not be class conscious. Later revolutionary activity in places like China, Vietnam, Cuba and so on have proved the opposite to be true. However, he was absolutely right in thinking that real socialism in develloping countries was impossible when develloped countries are still agressively capitalist.

[Beeeno]

I'm sure Marxism has a fundamental importance in early '900 years history but I think today it is something out of time!! Just my opinion anyway!!
Ciao.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

mate, chicks dig communism. so its time go get your red flags to get laid

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

In witch country ?

Cuba?

I don't know, I just want to post something diffrent from the OH NOEZ COMMUNISM IS EVIL 1111!!!!111eleven, that this thread is and will be full of.