Current Events > Is Marxism a viable ideology?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I recently got into a debate with not just one but two different users who were defending Marxism and Communism as if the 20th century never happened. So I'm trying to find out just how prominent that belief is here. Do you believe that Marxism/Communism is still a viable ideology?

There's no shame in selecting "Not sure" if you're not knowledgeable on the subject.
---

I haven't read Marx so I cannot say.
---

Verdekal posted...

I haven't read Marx so I cannot say.

No shame in saying Not sure.

Though I would like to point out that you don't need to have read Marx to have an opinion on Marxism, you can form your opinion based on the multiple instances of Marxism being implemented across the globe.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfEYKSxXC5o
---

I've researched marxism for 20 years

it was is one of the most harmful ideologies in human history
---

slave owners were capitalists

if capitalism gets a pass for that, why doesn't communism get a pass for its atrocities? it's almost as if political ideologies develop and grow and evolve along with the people that implement them

EDIT: to add onto this point, capitalism had hundreds of years to develop. communism was in effect for less than a century.
---

Have you heard about Karl Marx's grave? It's a Communist plot.

OT; It seems that any form of governance that takes control out of the peoples hands is doomed to failure, if you don't have a voice, where is your motivation to make your country a better place?
---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

slave owners were capitalists

if capitalism gets a pass for that, why doesn't communism get a pass for its atrocities? it's almost as if political ideologies develop and grow and evolve along with the people that implement them

Its not about getting a pass for atrocities. Sure atrocities play a part, but I'm asking strictly about its viability. Capitalism is still alive and going strong, so you can't really compare that to say Communist Russia (or Stalinist Russia for the semantics Nazis) which was why I was asking.

Marxism hasn't grown and evolved along with the people that implemented it, so Idk what you're even trying to say, but I do now have you tagged as a Marxist.
---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

slave owners were capitalists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awQDLoOnkdI

@MedeaLysistrata
---

Sounds good on paper, but human nature makes it even worse than the things that sound bad on paper.

As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
---

RedWhiteBlue posted...

With how humans are, Marxism and communism can not succeed.

It goes against human nature, that's pretty much been established through every single one of its incarnations. But for some reason people still cling to it and Idk why.
---

nicklebro posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

slave owners were capitalists

if capitalism gets a pass for that, why doesn't communism get a pass for its atrocities? it's almost as if political ideologies develop and grow and evolve along with the people that implement them

Its not about getting a pass for atrocities. Sure atrocities play a part, but I'm asking strictly about its viability. Capitalism is still alive and going strong, so you can't really compare that to say Communist Russia (or Stalinist Russia for the semantics Nazis) which was why I was asking.

Marxism hasn't grown and evolved along with the people that implemented it, so Idk what you're even trying to say, but I do now have you tagged as a Marxist.

a command economy is extremely viable, and as technology develops it becomes even more viable.

remember, socialism brought Russia to the status of an economic superpower in the period of a few decades. before that, it was a backwater agricultural country. Cuba developed one of the greatest healthcare systems in the world.

Marxism hasn't grown because it was virtually abandoned, and any country that tries to be socialist gets shit on by the global community. capitalism is bound to do better as it stands because the global system is set up for capitalism already.

also i'm not a 'marxist', i just think command economies aren't given their due.
---

SpiralDrift posted...

Sounds good on paper, but human nature makes it even worse than the things that sound bad on paper.

As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The Gulag Archipelago details this to a T. Its a completely theoretical form of governance, it did not develop naturally like capitalism did. That's why Marxism only works in theory and fails miserably every time its attempted.
---

Every attempt of implementation in practice so far has devolved into the exact opposite of the theory - a goal of a stateless, classless society inevitably turns into a society run by the state with very clear class boundaries. Ironic that it turns into a representation of the worst criticisms of capitalism.

So long as there's a power vacuum to be abused (and there always is), it's not viable. Hell, it won't ever match up with the theory.

Interesting thought experiment. Would only work if all people were morally good, unselfish, willing to work for the common good, and didn't lust for power. Considering that's nowhere on Earth, it's not worth another try.

I guess one could say there've been hybrid "social democracies" that've been working decently, but still squarely capitalist - just with more government involvement in the welfare of its citizenry. But that's another matter, and depends on your position on the political spectrum.
---

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
---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

a command economy is extremely viable, and as technology develops it becomes even more viable.

remember, socialism brought Russia to the status of an economic superpower in the period of a few decades. before that, it was a backwater agricultural country. Cuba developed one of the greatest healthcare systems in the world.

Marxism hasn't grown because it was virtually abandoned, and any country that tries to be socialist gets shit on by the global community. capitalism is bound to do better as it stands because the global system is set up for capitalism already.

also i'm not a 'marxist', i just think command economies aren't given their due.

I'm asking you to assess the viability of Marxism specifically. You are defending Marxism, so in my eyes that makes you a Marxist. And you talk about Russia being an economic superpower while completely ignoring how that was built on labor camps and forced slave labor of its innocent citizens, which ended up killing 10s of millions of people, and ultimately failed completely which led to the dissolution of the USSR. Idk how you could possibly speak on the "successes" of Marxism without also acknowledging how it proved to be completely unsustainable.
---

nicklebro posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

a command economy is extremely viable, and as technology develops it becomes even more viable.

remember, socialism brought Russia to the status of an economic superpower in the period of a few decades. before that, it was a backwater agricultural country. Cuba developed one of the greatest healthcare systems in the world.

Marxism hasn't grown because it was virtually abandoned, and any country that tries to be socialist gets shit on by the global community. capitalism is bound to do better as it stands because the global system is set up for capitalism already.

also i'm not a 'marxist', i just think command economies aren't given their due.

I'm asking you to assess the viability of Marxism specifically. You are defending Marxism, so in my eyes that makes you a Marxist. And you talk about Russia being an economic superpower while completely ignoring how that was built on labor camps and forced slave labor of its innocent citizens, which ended up killing 10s of millions of people, and ultimately failed completely which led to the dissolution of the USSR. Idk how you could possibly speak on the "successes" of Marxism without also acknowledging how it proved to be completely unsustainable.

i'm sorry, i thought this wasn't about atrocities? why do you think the US is such a successful country? surely because all those white people spent hours in the cotton fields.
---

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

Sure but that isn't the question. The XFL gave the NFL the idea of the skycam along with other ideas they still implement today, but that doesn't mean the XFL is a viable league capable of sustaining itself.
---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

i'm sorry, i thought this wasn't about atrocities? why do you think the US is such a successful country? surely because all those white people spent hours in the cotton fields.

It isn't about atrocities, its about sustainability. And the US has literally 0 slaves and we are more powerful now than we ever were when we did have slaves. So exactly what is your point?
---

You can discuss the advantages of an idea that you ultimately disagree with, especially if the advantages are grossly outweighed by the disadvantages.

Yes, command economies can be extremely efficient - but so far, only short-term. Russia had an enormous boom that led to a catastrophic bust. And that leaves out who it was on the backs of.
---

The23rdMagus posted...

You can discuss the advantages of an idea that you ultimately disagree with, especially if the advantages are grossly outweighed by the disadvantages.

Yes, command economies can be extremely efficient - but so far, only short-term. Russia had an enormous boom that led to a catastrophic bust. And that leaves out who it was on the backs of.

Same thing with North Korea, I believe they were initially far more successful a country than South Korea. But short term gains have literally nothing to do with sustainability which is what determines something's viability.

I have no idea why people think that pointing out that certain instances of Marxism were not complete failures from start to finish somehow negates the fact that they all ended as abject failures.
---

nicklebro posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

i'm sorry, i thought this wasn't about atrocities? why do you think the US is such a successful country? surely because all those white people spent hours in the cotton fields.

It isn't about atrocities, its about sustainability. And the US has literally 0 slaves and we are more powerful now than we ever were when we did have slaves. So exactly what is your point?

you realize one of the claims of Marxism is that money makes more money, right? the USA is successful because it made a ton of money from slavery, and has basically been coasting on that boon ever since. don't believe me? then why are poor African capitalist countries still poor?

here are my main points:
-any economic system will be successful if it exploits people
-an economic system won't be as successful if it doesn't exploit people
-an economic system is more likely to succeed if the world order is built to support it
-an economic system will likely fail if the world order is not built to support it
-an economic system is more likely to succeed if it has ample time to develop and grow
---

nicklebro posted...

The23rdMagus posted...

You can discuss the advantages of an idea that you ultimately disagree with, especially if the advantages are grossly outweighed by the disadvantages.

Yes, command economies can be extremely efficient - but so far, only short-term. Russia had an enormous boom that led to a catastrophic bust. And that leaves out who it was on the backs of.

Same thing with North Korea, I believe they were initially far more successful a country than South Korea. But short term gains have literally nothing to do with sustainability which is what determines something's viability.

I have no idea why people think that pointing out that certain instances of Marxism were not complete failures from start to finish somehow negates the fact that they all ended as abject failures.

They very quickly ceased to be anything close to Marxism, to be fair. I doubt that any society could "stick to the plan", or even be viable if they did. I don't think we'll ever know, but at least early on there was inspiration in other countries for laborers' rights and such.

Best thing I can say about the whole idea from a practical standpoint.
---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

you realize one of the claims of Marxism is that money makes more money, right? the USA is successful because it made a ton of money from slavery, and has basically been coasting on that boon ever since. don't believe me? then why are poor African capitalist countries still poor?

here are my main points:
-any economic system will be successful if it exploits people
-an economic system won't be as successful if it doesn't exploit people
-an economic system is more likely to succeed if the world order is built to support it
-an economic system will likely fail if the world order is not built to support it
-an economic system is more likely to succeed if it has ample time to develop and grow

Well you're quite obviously dead wrong about the reason behind the USA's success. Sure slavery helped us at the time, but to say we've been riding that wave for over 100 years and that we've somehow been able to exponentially increase not only our wealth, but our GDP since that time solely off of money made during slavery is laughably ignorant.

Basically claiming that the US owes its wealth to slavery is objectively incorrect and common sense is more than enough to prove that. As for your "main points" Idk what the actual point of that list is, so maybe scale it down to one point and actually prove that, and if at all possible make it actually relevant to the discussion at hand.

The23rdMagus posted...

I doubt that any society could "stick to the plan",

That doubt is very well founded and basically the point of this topic. Capitalism developed organically which is why it works. Marxism and Communism were pipe dreams planned out theoretically from the top down which is why they will never work.
---

nicklebro posted...

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

Sure but that isn't the question. The XFL gave the NFL the idea of the skycam along with other ideas they still implement today, but that doesn't mean the XFL is a viable league capable of sustaining itself.

Well, unlike the XFL, Marxism has left its stamp on history both intellectually and at the physical level, for better or worse. My point is, you shouldnt judge any single political idea by its viability factor, because no single idea idea has ever been viable on its own. Please tell me one idea that has been viable by itself to sustain the type of civilization and society we have now? Or rather has it been a hodgepodge of different political and philosophical ideas that has led us to point in history we are now? The American political system just doesnt draw from one intellectual tradition, but multiple, especially the way the modern economy is set up.

My point is, its really a narrow minded way to look at historically significant ideas merely within the confines of the logic of the idea itself. Engaging with it in a way that highlights its place in the continuation of human history and relation to other more developed ideas is a much more open minded way of looking at things. You can easily disregard reading about some very interesting ideas with the former mindset(Im willing to bet you havent read Marx) and I personally dont believe in having such a mindset towards knowledge
---

nicklebro posted...

Well you're quite obviously dead wrong about the reason behind the USA's success. Sure slavery helped us at the time, but to say we've been riding that wave for over 100 years and that we've somehow been able to exponentially increase not only our wealth, but our GDP since that time solely off of money made during slavery is laughably ignorant.

Basically claiming that the US owes its wealth to slavery is objectively incorrect and common sense is more than enough to prove that. As for your "main points" Idk what the actual point of that list is, so maybe scale it down to one point and actually prove that, and if at all possible make it actually relevant to the discussion at hand.

so you're not going to explain how most capitalist countries that weren't colonies, or financed by the US almost entirely, are still poor?

EDIT: as i'm sure you've been able to deduce from the points I listed, no I don't think socialism is viable. fwiw "Marxism" refers to the economic theory, not the political model.
---

Marxism has shaped the capitalism we have today. The gains made by the working classes over the past 150 years are in large part due to class struggle, and the efforts by people who would have been familiar with his work or ideas, if they weren't out and out socialists themselves. The eight-hour workday, the weekend, those are the products of class struggle.
---

Antifar posted...

Marxism has shaped the capitalism we have today. The gains made by the working classes over the past 150 years are in large part due to class struggle, and the efforts by people who would have been familiar with his work or ideas, if they weren't out and out socialists themselves. The eight-hour workday, the weekend, those are the products of class struggle.

Precisely. People just dont see how political ideas of magnitude such as Marxism has forever changed how states and economies are run
---

Kazi1212 posted...

Well, unlike the XFL, Marxism has left its stamp on history both intellectually and at the physical level, for better or worse. My point is, you shouldnt judge any single political idea by its viability factor, because no single idea idea has ever been viable in its own. Please tell me one idea that has been viable by itself to sustain the type of civilization and society we have now? Or rather has it been a hodgepodge of different political and philosophical ideas that has led us to point in history we are now? The American political system just doesnt jus draw from one intellectual tradition, but multiple, especially the way the modern economy is set up.

My point is, its really a narrow minded way to look at historically significant ideas merely within the confines of the logic of the idea itself. Engaging with it in a way that highlights its place in the continuation of human history and relation to other more developed ideas is a much more open minded way of looking at things. You can easily disregard read some very interesting ideas with the former mindset(Im willing to bet you havent read Marx) and I personally dont believe in having such a mindset towards knowledge

Actually the NFL still utilizes the sky cam and other things it picked up from the XFL so it indeed did leave its stamp on the NFL.

And you're seriously telling me that you shouldn't judge a form of governance on its viability? Lol so it doesn't matter if something is destined to fail? I mean dude I get what you're trying to say, that there are good things we shouldn't just completely dismiss solely because they were borne out of an ultimately unsustainable ideology. But that's not what this topic is about at all. I'm asking about Marxism as a whole because there are people who are literally arguing that Marxism as a whole is still a viable ideology that is worthy of yet another attempt at implementation. The fact that you don't seem to understand how absolutely dangerous that idea is and how it needs to be addressed ASAP before it actually manages to get a foothold is mind boggling. Over 100 million people were needlessly murdered all in the name of a completely unsustainable form of governance and you seem to think its more important that we acknowledge that it may have had a good idea or two than to acknowledge its inevitable murderous outcome.

Really think about what you're saying now man and ask yourself if its somehow more important than avoiding another 100 million unnecessary deaths of innocent people.
---

Are these needless deaths the fault of capitalism?
http://cw33.com/2018/01/22/dad-daughter-found-dead-in-home-sought-help-to-fix-furnace/
---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

so you're not going to explain how most capitalist countries that weren't colonies, or financed by the US almost entirely, are still poor?

EDIT: as i'm sure you've been able to deduce from the points I listed, no I don't think socialism is viable. fwiw "Marxism" refers to the economic theory, not the political model.

You want me to get into the geopolitical reasons that explain why some countries are still poor? Lol sorry but that's such an involved question that I'm not going to just jump on command, especially since it has nothing to do with the topic.

Antifar posted...

Marxism has shaped the capitalism we have today. The gains made by the working classes over the past 150 years are in large part due to class struggle, and the efforts by people who would have been familiar with his work or ideas, if they weren't out and out socialists themselves. The eight-hour workday, the weekend, those are the products of class struggle.

Marxism does not own class struggle. We would have class struggle and the fight for worker's rights even if Marxism never existed. Regardless, this is completely irrelevant to the topic as it says absolutely nothing about the viability of Marxism.

Kazi1212 posted...

Precisely. People just dont see how political ideas of magnitude such as Marxism has forever changed how states and economies are run

Sure if you want to project those ideas onto Marxism as if they were the only source of such ideas. But again, irrelevant to the topic, which is solely asking if Marxism is viable.
---

Intro2Logic posted...

Are these needless deaths the fault of capitalism?
http://cw33.com/2018/01/22/dad-daughter-found-dead-in-home-sought-help-to-fix-furnace/

No.
---

@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?
---

nicklebro posted...

Kazi1212 posted...

Well, unlike the XFL, Marxism has left its stamp on history both intellectually and at the physical level, for better or worse. My point is, you shouldnt judge any single political idea by its viability factor, because no single idea idea has ever been viable in its own. Please tell me one idea that has been viable by itself to sustain the type of civilization and society we have now? Or rather has it been a hodgepodge of different political and philosophical ideas that has led us to point in history we are now? The American political system just doesnt jus draw from one intellectual tradition, but multiple, especially the way the modern economy is set up.

My point is, its really a narrow minded way to look at historically significant ideas merely within the confines of the logic of the idea itself. Engaging with it in a way that highlights its place in the continuation of human history and relation to other more developed ideas is a much more open minded way of looking at things. You can easily disregard read some very interesting ideas with the former mindset(Im willing to bet you havent read Marx) and I personally dont believe in having such a mindset towards knowledge

Actually the NFL still utilizes the sky cam and other things it picked up from the XFL so it indeed did leave its stamp on the NFL.

And you're seriously telling me that you shouldn't judge a form of governance on its viability? Lol so it doesn't matter if something is destined to fail? I mean dude I get what you're trying to say, that there are good things we shouldn't just completely dismiss solely because they were borne out of an ultimately unsustainable ideology. But that's not what this topic is about at all. I'm asking about Marxism as a whole because there are people who are literally arguing that Marxism as a whole is still a viable ideology that is worthy of yet another attempt at implementation. The fact that you don't seem to understand how absolutely dangerous that idea is and how it needs to be addressed ASAP before it actually manages to get a foothold is mind boggling. Over 100 million people were needlessly murdered all in the name of a completely unsustainable form of governance and you seem to think its more important that we acknowledge that it may have had a good idea or two than to acknowledge its inevitable murderous outcome.

Really think about what you're saying now man and ask yourself if its somehow more important than avoiding another 100 million unnecessary deaths of innocent people.

I suppose youre trying to argue, whereas Im trying to have a discussion. Listen, I dont believe Marxism is viable, I never argued that. my judgment of it as political system is that a system which solely relies on marxist principles of economics is destined to fail. However, I do see the uses of Marxist ideas helping implement the kind of society I want to live in, which is exactly what has happened in modern society, some Marxist ideas have indeed been implemented. From that perspective Marxism has tremendous value to human history. My thinking on the issue isnt as binary and based on fear mongerinng as yours.

By the way, lets not pretend other political ideas throughout history havent also lead to mass deaths and suffering, including capitalism. And furthermore, let me I said earlier, every successful sustainable society today has drawn from multiple intellectual traditions, including Marxism
---

Kazi1212 posted...

I suppose youre trying to argue, whereas Im trying to have a discussion. Listen, I dont believe Marxism is viable, I never argued that. my judgment of it as political system is that a system which solely relies on marxist principles of economics is destined to fail. However, I do see the uses of Marxist ideas helping implement the kind of society I want to live in, which is exactly what has happened in modern society, some Marxist ideas have indeed been implemented. From that perspective Marxism has tremendous value to human history. My thinking on the issue isnt as binary and based on fear lingering as yours.

By the way, lets not pretend other political ideas throughout history havent also lead to mass deaths and suffering, including capitalism. And furthermore, let me I said earlier, every successful sustainable society today has drawn from multiple intellectual traditions, including Marxism

Well I agree with you on that end dude, its just that you told me that I shouldn't be judging Marxism on its viability when I created this topic because there were people that were literally arguing that Marxism is still valid and completely sustainable if implemented correctly. That should strike fear in your heart and feels a lot more important than what you're trying to talk about, but that's just me wanting to talk about what I want to talk about rather than listening to your completely valid point, so I guess my bad on that.
---

-Gavirulax- posted...

Love capitalism too much. :D

It is literally the best thing we've come up with so far, so I don't blame you.

Something not being perfect doesn't preclude it from being the best option available. Marxist seem to not understand that fact. Which is why all Marxists are utopians.
---

nicklebro posted...

Kazi1212 posted...

I suppose youre trying to argue, whereas Im trying to have a discussion. Listen, I dont believe Marxism is viable, I never argued that. my judgment of it as political system is that a system which solely relies on marxist principles of economics is destined to fail. However, I do see the uses of Marxist ideas helping implement the kind of society I want to live in, which is exactly what has happened in modern society, some Marxist ideas have indeed been implemented. From that perspective Marxism has tremendous value to human history. My thinking on the issue isnt as binary and based on fear lingering as yours.

By the way, lets not pretend other political ideas throughout history havent also lead to mass deaths and suffering, including capitalism. And furthermore, let me I said earlier, every successful sustainable society today has drawn from multiple intellectual traditions, including Marxism

Well I agree with you on that end dude, its just that you told me that I shouldn't be judging Marxism on its viability when I created this topic because there were people that were literally arguing that Marxism is still valid and completely sustainable if implemented correctly. That should strike fear in your heart and feels a lot more important than what you're trying to talk about, but that's just me wanting to talk about what I want to talk about rather than listening to your completely valid point, so I guess my bad on that.

I suppose I just think the idea that Marxists will somehow gain traction in popular political culture and could be a potential danger as ridiculous. They hold even significantly less power than the Evangelists and its not like evangelicals hold much power to worry about them to begin with
---

I'm gonna go finish a podcast and possibly ingest some substances, I might be in a different frame of mind when I return but keep the shots coming fellas.
---

I'm sensing some very black-and-white thinking here. It's very much possible to acknowledge the cultural significance of a philosophy towards society as a whole, while at the same time acknowledging that the whole-hog implementation is impossible, impractical, dangerous, and questionably viable.

Some parts of its influence, in the vein of workers' rights, have turned out to be good for capitalism. It's okay to just take the good parts out of an otherwise flawed idea.
---

Kazi1212 posted...

I suppose I just think the idea that Marxists will somehow gain traction in popular political culture and could be a potential danger as ridiculous. They hold even significantly less power than the Evangelists and its not like evangelicals hold much power to worry about them to begin with

Its not nearly as ridiculous as you'd think. Especially when you look at where these Marxists are located.

https://www.academia.org/self-identifying-marxist-professors-outnumber-conservatives-as-college-professors/

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1.html

Postmodernism is a real threat to democracy and they are attacking it in a very organized manner. I'll be back to discuss this in a little bit.
---

Sounds nice on paper but tends to go against human nature and so needs to be propped up with authoritarian nationalism, which has a habit of leading to really bad shit. A lot of Marxist criticisms of capitalism are fairly accurate but in a lot of cases Marxism falls at the same hurdles.

jijijiji
---

MedeaLysistrata posted...
Kazi1212 posted...
Antifar posted...

Must be the yes votes.

MedeaLysistrata posted...

the USA is successful because it made a ton of money from slavery, and has basically been coasting on that boon ever since. don't believe me? then why are poor African capitalist countries still poor?

Don't many of those countries still have slavery? Haven't they had slavery since before the USA existed? Genuine questions.

The23rdMagus posted...

I'm sensing some very black-and-white thinking here. It's very much possible to acknowledge the cultural significance of a philosophy towards society as a whole, while at the same time acknowledging that the whole-hog implementation is impossible, impractical, dangerous, and questionably viable.

Some parts of its influence, in the vein of workers' rights, have turned out to be good for capitalism. It's okay to just take the good parts out of an otherwise flawed idea.

I think you're giving far too much credit to Marxism for introducing things like workers rights to capitalism. The US having democratic elections would ensure workers got their rights, Marxism had little to no effect on that. In fact communism was so despised that suggesting the US adopt some of it's policies was more likely to end up with you in a prison cell (or worse) than enacting any progressive change.
---

Workers rights by far predates Marxism/socialism and more or less share the same roots as capitalism IE the black death.

Its viable as a theory of history and a potential future but not as a political ideology
---

Absolutely not.
---

Newhopes posted...

Workers rights by far predates Marxism/socialism and more or less share the same roots as capitalism IE the black death.

Get outta here with your facts and logic and historical accuracy and refusal to suck Marx's fat D.
---