• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Inaccuracies about Marxism, drawn from Twitter

Bordigist

Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Messages
110
Reaction score
16
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
In this thread I shall document and disprove various inaccuracies and misapprehensions about Marxism, as drawn from the good people of Twitter. I shall be quoting at length from the originators of Marxism and as little as possible from subsequent commentators, to avoid accusations of revisionism. I will further post as I find interesting takes to post about.


1. "... the opening premise of Marxism is that the private ownership of assets is theft and that the state should control all capital."

Capture+_2019-12-03-23-04-03.jpg

No. From Chapter III of Friedrich Engels' Socialism: Utopian & Scientific.

Capture+_2019-12-03-22-57-08.jpg]

... If the crises demonstrate the incapacity of the bourgeoisie for managing any longer modern productive forces, the transformation of the great establishments for production and distribution into joint-stock companies, trusts, and State property, show how unnecessary the bourgeoisie are for that purpose. All the social functions of the capitalist has no further social function than that of pocketing dividends, tearing off coupons, and gambling on the Stock Exchange, where the different capitalists despoil one another of their capital. At first, the capitalistic mode of production forces out the workers. Now, it forces out the capitalists, and reduces them, just as it reduced the workers, to the ranks of the surplus-population, although not immediately into those of the industrial reserve army.

But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.
 
So you are saying that Marxists don't advocate state ownership of all businesses and property? But Marxism does not allow ownership of anything by private individuals.

So WHAT did Marx advocate? Or was he mainly just a critic of the capitalism of his time? With no practical alternatives.

If the PEOPLE are the owners of everything, then the "people" are defined as their elected representatives -- in other words, the government, the state.

Is Marxism really just a lot of confusing nonsense? Or is there some kind of logic in it somewhere?
 
2. "... Marxism needs an oppressor for the oppressed in order to make sense. That can be millionaires, bosses, bankers, Jews, Muslims, immigrants, America. It's all about power through hate."

Capture+_2019-12-03-23-18-14.jpg

As we have demonstrated above, Marxists do not believe that the bourgeois are a prerequisite to the existence of capitalism, or rather that there are phases of capitalism in which the bourgeoisie will be underdeveloped or cease to exist. Marx goes a step further in §I of the Gothakritik and denies that capitalism is unjust in a moral sense at all.

Capture+_2019-12-03-23-20-16.jpg

What is "a fair distribution"?

Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is "fair"? And is it not, in fact, the only "fair" distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of economic ones? Have not also the socialist sectarians the most varied notions about "fair" distribution?
 
But Marxism does not allow ownership of anything by private individuals.

Marxism does not disallow anything. Rather, Marx claims - correctly - that the development of capitalism will produce conditions which require the abolition of bourgeois property as a human necessity. But this will be made clear as the thread develops.
 
Marxism does not disallow anything. Rather, Marx claims - correctly - that the development of capitalism will produce conditions which require the abolition of bourgeois property as a human necessity. But this will be made clear as the thread develops.

Uhhh ... how is that correct? Property will be abolished, but Marxism doesn't disallow private property. Is your post all about trying to confuse us?
 
Uhhh ... how is that correct? Property will be abolished, but Marxism doesn't disallow private property. Is your post all about trying to confuse us?

Property will be abolished as a consequence of the historical development of capitalism, not as a diktat from on high or as a moral imperative. When it occurs there will be no alternative to it on the basis of presently-existing property rights - there will be literally no way to retain them. But again, this shall be seen as the thread unfolds.
 
Property will be abolished as a consequence of the historical development of capitalism, not as a diktat from on high or as a moral imperative. When it occurs there will be no alternative to it on the basis of presently-existing property rights - there will be literally no way to retain them. But again, this shall be seen as the thread unfolds.

Hahahaha :party:lol: I love it.
 
I want to make sure I understand this so far. Capitalism evolves, somehow, and then we all decide we don't want to own anything. We give everything away -- who do we give it to? No one wants to own anything. Maybe we all just throw all our possession away. We burn our houses and our cars? Because we have lost the desire to own things.

How do we get food and shelter, without money or ownership of anything?
 
3. "... The ANC is a socialist/communist party whose manifesto is based in Marxism. Egalitarianism 'we are all equal' comes from there so does redistribution of wealth!"

Capture+_2019-12-03-23-39-45.jpg

This is objectively incorrect on several different levels.

We shall set aside, for the moment, this analysis of the African National Congress, which does indeed claim to be socialist, and instead analyze two different claims in the tweet.

"... Egalitarianism 'we are all equal' comes from (Marxism)"

This claim is demonstrably false, as can be seen in a casual reading of a letter from Friedrich Engels to August Bebel, dated March 1875.

Capture+_2019-12-03-21-05-12.jpg

... "The elimination of all social and political inequality,” rather than “the abolition of all class distinctions,” is similarly a most dubious expression. As between one country, one province and even one place and another, living conditions will always evince a certain inequality which may be reduced to a minimum but never wholly eliminated. The living conditions of Alpine dwellers will always be different from those of the plainsmen. The concept of a socialist society as a realm of equality is a one-sided French concept deriving from the old “liberty, equality, fraternity,” a concept which was justified in that, in its own time and place, it signified a phase of development, but which, like all the one-sided ideas of earlier socialist schools, ought now to be superseded, since they produce nothing but mental confusion, and more accurate ways of presenting the matter have been discovered.

Marx is even more aggressive on the subject of "egalitarianism" in the Gotha.

Capture+_2019-12-03-21-07-11.jpg

... But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored.

The second claim is even more egregiously ignorant of basic Marxist positions.

"... so does redistribution of wealth (come from Marxism)"

The redistribution of wealth is a capitalist phenomenon, identified by Marx as primary (or "primitive") Capital accumulation. Marx devoted an enite chapter in Das Kaptial to this subject.

Some choice excerpts.

Capture+_2019-12-03-23-53-50.jpg

We have seen how money is changed into capital; how through capital surplus-value is made, and from surplus-value more capital. But the accumulation of capital presupposes surplus-value; surplus-value presupposes capitalistic production; capitalistic production presupposes the pre-existence of considerable masses of capital and of labour power in the hands of producers of commodities. The whole movement, therefore, seems to turn in a vicious circle, out of which we can only get by supposing a primitive accumulation (previous accumulation of Adam Smith) preceding capitalistic accumulation; an accumulation not the result of the capitalistic mode of production, but its starting point.

Capitalism begins with - and is constantly reproduced thereafterr by - a Capital accumulation preceding exchange. This results from an initial redistribution of wealth.

Slavery redistributed the wealth of the slave to the colonist, for example. This redistribution is mirrored in all subsequent forms of wealth redistribution within capitalism.
 
From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need. And HOW does this get decided? Who decides what is the ability of each and what is the need of each?

There is no money, right? How do things and services get exchanged? And WHY does this all happen. How does it happen, and why does it happen, and who except die hard Marxists ever think that somehow this will all happen? And WHY do they continue to think this way?
 
Uhhh ... how is that correct? Property will be abolished, but Marxism doesn't disallow private property. Is your post all about trying to confuse us?

Marx was a philosopher who very strongly believed in technological determinism. His work applies that philosophy to socio-economic systems - specifically what happens to the socio-economic system of capitalism as technology advances. His answer was that it gradually implodes as human workers are replaced through technological advancement, rendering ownership so unprofitable as to be pointless, and brings down constructs such as social and economic classes and even the State with it.
 
This thread isn't a debate thread, and I'm not engaging you in it. Each and every one of your points will be addressed at length and in full, as I find good examples of them on Twitter.

I will engage you, because this cannot be addressed in 240 characters:

Marx was a philosopher who very strongly believed in technological determinism

This is wrong, too. Marx was a social and not a technological determinist: the motivating force of history are humans arrayed within social classes. Technology only creates the conditions those classes develop in and the range of options available to them. The prime actuating factor of history for Marx is mankind.

It is true, so far as goes, that Marx says

The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill society with the industrial capitalist.

He also however adds that

The same men who establish their social relations in conformity with the material productivity, produce also principles, ideas, and categories, in conformity with their social relations.

And Marx was not a hard determinist.
 
Last edited:
Marx was a philosopher who very strongly believed in technological determinism. His work applies that philosophy to socio-economic systems - specifically what happens to the socio-economic system of capitalism as technology advances. His answer was that it gradually implodes as human workers are replaced through technological advancement, rendering ownership so unprofitable as to be pointless, and brings down constructs such as social and economic classes and even the State with it.

:boohoo:

Philosophers are free to say whatever pops into their heads. No need for evidence, or even logic. Just think it and say it or write it.
 
This thread isn't a debate thread, and I'm not engaging you in it. Each and every one of your points will be addressed at length and in full, as I find good examples of them on Twitter.

Not a debate thread. How convenient for you. No need to provide us any logical reasons at all for Marxist nonsense.

Famous philosopher, must have known what he was talking about. Oh really, well show us something he said that makes sense.
 
Once more: this thread is not about you.
 
Once more: this thread is not about you.

Oh, not about me! Oh sorry! Who is it about? Am I allowed to comment? Maybe you only want approving comments. Or Marx-worshiping comments? He was famous, right? He must have said SOMETHING that made sense? Or maybe not?
 
:boohoo:

Philosophers are free to say whatever pops into their heads. No need for evidence, or even logic. Just think it and say it or write it.

There’s plenty of logic behind it. What do you think happens when human workers are replaced by technology? They’re no longer feeding a system dependent on the expenditure of wages they no longer earn. We’re living in a time where this is actually happening.
 
Marx does not believe that humans will be replaced by machines. Indeed, it would contradict his theory of value - for if value is derived from human labor (under capitalism), where does value come from in a fully-automated capitalist society?

Rather he believes that capitalism actually retards the integration of machinery (constant capital) into human labor.

We have seen (Buch I, Kap. VI) [English edition: Ch. VIII. — Ed.] that, in relation to the products toward the creation of which it contributes, a portion of the constant capital retains that definite use-form in which it enters into the process of production. Hence it performs the same functions for a longer or shorter period, in ever repeated labour-processes. This applies for instance to industrial buildings, machinery, etc. — in short to all things which we comprise under the name of instruments of labour. This part of constant capital yields up value to the product in proportion as it loses its own exchange-value together with its own use-value

...

The slower this value is yielded — and value is given up by the instrument of labour in every repetition of the labour-process — the larger is the fixed capital and the greater the difference between the capital employed in the process of production and the capital consumed in it. As soon as this difference has disappeared the instrument of labour has outlived its usefulness and has lost with its use-value also its value. It has ceased to be the depository of value. Since an instrument of labour, like every other material carrier of constant capital, parts with value to the product only to the extent that together with its use-value it loses its value, it is evident that the more slowly its use-value is lost, the longer it lasts in the process of production, the longer is the period in which constant capital-value remains fixed in it.

And also, humans cannot be removed from the system for other, practical reasons.

The fixed capital however requires also a positive expenditure of labour for its maintenance in good repair. The machinery must be cleaned from time to time. It is a question here of additional labour without which the machinery becomes useless, of merely warding off the noxious influences of the elements, which are inseparable from the process of production; hence it is a question of keeping the machinery literally in working order.
 
Marx does not believe that humans will be replaced by machines. Indeed, it would contradict his theory of value - for if value is derived from human labor (under capitalism), where does value come from in a fully-automated capitalist society?

Rather he believes that capitalism actually retards the integration of machinery (constant capital) into human labor.



And also, humans cannot be removed from the system for other, practical reasons.

Marx disagrees. The Fragment on Machines is all about what happens when human labor is replaced by machines and how our assessment of value changes as a result.

“Once adopted into the production process of capital, the means of labour passes through different metamorphoses, whose culmination is the… automatic system of machinery… set in motion by an automaton, a moving power that moves itself; this automaton consisting of numerous mechanical and intellectual organs, so that the workers themselves are cast merely as its conscious linkages.”

“Labour no longer appears so much to be included within the production process; rather, the human being comes to relate more as watchman and regulator to the production process itself… As soon as labour in the direct form has ceased to be the great well-spring of wealth, labour time ceases and must cease to be its measure.

Capitalism thus works towards its own dissolution as the form dominating production.”
 
In this thread I shall document and disprove various inaccuracies and misapprehensions about Marxism, as drawn from the good people of Twitter. I shall be quoting at length from the originators of Marxism and as little as possible from subsequent commentators, to avoid accusations of revisionism. I will further post as I find interesting takes to post about.


1. "... the opening premise of Marxism is that the private ownership of assets is theft and that the state should control all capital."

View attachment 67269292

No. From Chapter III of Friedrich Engels' Socialism: Utopian & Scientific.

View attachment 67269291]

Communism doesn't work, and never will end of story.
 
As always, those who identify as communists must control the conversation, and insist upon only discussing the theoretical framework of the ideology, while ignoring every instance in history where it was put into application and failed miserably. Another trick is to alternate between quoting Marx and Engels, depending upon which one authored the more digestible text about a given issue people have with Marxism.

The reality is that Marx and Engels were both born into wealth and privilege. Marx ended up broke, relying upon inheritance from his uncle, and then the charity of Engels. Marx never had to man-up and face the world for himself ironically- the great champion of the proletariat never actually worked a day in his life. Engels was another glaring hypocrite, running what amounted to sweat shops in his native England. He milked the proletariat for all it was worth, and died a rich man, leaving a large estate to his heirs, and the children of Karl Marx who received nothing when Marx died. It tells you much about the age we live in when some of Karl Marx' ideas have become mainsteam- we're chasing the ideals of a man who failed repeatedly in life, and was rescued each time by the rewards produced by capitalism. :shrug:
 
As always, those who identify as communists must control the conversation, and insist upon only discussing the theoretical framework of the ideology,

Capitalist apologists have held the floor for three decades. The time has come to yield it, and it will be yielded.

while ignoring every instance in history where it was put into application and failed miserably.

Oh, you mean this application, and all others deriving from it?

No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, had denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Socialist Soviet Republic implies the determination of Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the new economic system is recognized as a socialist order.

The Tax in Kind

While the revolution in Germany is still slow in “coming forth”, our task is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it. Our task is to hasten this copying even more than Peter hastened the copying of Western culture by barbarian Russia, and we must not hesitate to use barbarous methods in fighting barbarism.

“Left-Wing” Childishness

Another trick is to alternate between quoting Marx and Engels, depending upon which one authored the more digestible text about a given issue people have with Marxism.

Citing sources is a bad habit, it seems.

The reality is that Marx and Engels were both born into wealth and privilege.

And? Thomas Jefferson went bankruot on three separate occasions. Who cares?

[/moralism]
 
There is less need for physical labor, and more need for mental labor.
 
As always, those who identify as communists must control the conversation, and insist upon only discussing the theoretical framework of the ideology, while ignoring every instance in history where it was put into application and failed miserably. Another trick is to alternate between quoting Marx and Engels, depending upon which one authored the more digestible text about a given issue people have with Marxism.

The reality is that Marx and Engels were both born into wealth and privilege. Marx ended up broke, relying upon inheritance from his uncle, and then the charity of Engels. Marx never had to man-up and face the world for himself ironically- the great champion of the proletariat never actually worked a day in his life. Engels was another glaring hypocrite, running what amounted to sweat shops in his native England. He milked the proletariat for all it was worth, and died a rich man, leaving a large estate to his heirs, and the children of Karl Marx who received nothing when Marx died. It tells you much about the age we live in when some of Karl Marx' ideas have become mainsteam- we're chasing the ideals of a man who failed repeatedly in life, and was rescued each time by the rewards produced by capitalism. :shrug:

But that is not what is the real problem with Marxism. The real problem is that he was free to say whatever he thought, without caring about evidence or reality. There was no requirement to make sense. Trying to create practical systems based on his ideas has failed completely, every time.

And yet, Marxism is extremely popular among academics! I think there is only one possible explanation. Academics like to have heroes to worship. Someone who seems to be convincing and rational, a good writer and/or speaker. Once this person becomes famous among academics, they will never stop worshiping him.

This happened with Freud, for example, and later on with Noam Chomsky.
 
Back
Top Bottom