Why do so many in the USA equate Marxism with fallacious thinking?

[☭World Views]

In all of the economic textbooks I've seen, all of the economists that talk on college campus, and all of the handouts say that Marx advocated "government ownership" of property and that the government should be the "master" of the economy.


Why such slander? They point to selective text from the communist manifesto to "support" their position.

But then when I tell them otherwise they just look to textbooks and ignore me.


What to do in the face of such ignorance?

[ZeroNowhere]

Mainly due to Marxists, I would assume. Well, In Rubel's sense.

[☭World Views]

They sum up the ideology with one word "the government controlling everything for the benefit of the elite" then they cite North Korea as "evidence"

[Mephisto]

As marxist you can do nothing but to stay calm and invalidate their stupidities with competent logical arguments based on the real marxist theory.

Of course, you will not convince them, for they have no interest in the truth. But there is a chance that some others will be open for logical arguments and begin to think about it.

[willdw79]

In all of the economic textbooks I've seen, all of the economists that talk on college campus, and all of the handouts say that Marx advocated "government ownership" of property and that the government should be the "master" of the economy.


Why such slander? They point to selective text from the communist manifesto to "support" their position.

But then when I tell them otherwise they just look to textbooks and ignore me.


What to do in the face of such ignorance?
I think the answer is complicated and I have some guesses, I will try to keep it brief.

I think it has to do with a history of collective denial in the U.S. in general. Many people here deny that racism exists. Many people here deny that the invasion of Iraq was to secure new markets. Many of them are trying to hold on to what crumbs they have.

The U.S. was built on religion and slavery. The religious part, I think, is important in justifying most people's lack of a will to question authority. The people who founded this country were Puritans who operated in much the same way as the Taliban. They were extremely repressive and aggressive.

Their religious beliefs justified slavery which created an economically advantageous scenario for a large segment of the population. Therefore many of them resisted abolition of slavery. Also, typical capitalist conditions developed simultaneously.

After slavery and due to struggles by trade unionists and a reactionary but active liberal segment the social order in the U.S. included a larger than usual portion of the working class who had steady and fairly good paying jobs. The capitalists in the U.S. have historically been able to pay fairly high wages due to their imperialism, which I think most people are familiar with.

So, in part, the U.S. did not have a history that fits into a Marxist model, and this may be part of the reason. But the main reason is the conservative ideologies that brewed during its history.

With this larger than normal, steady, and highly paid working class, it became necessary for the people in this class and in the ruling class to justify the social order. They do this with a disingenuous blend of religious faith-based reasoning, conformity, and extremely insufficient arguments.

Religious faith-based reasoning
I believe that the religious elements in this country teach people not to fight against or for anything but instead to wait on a miracle to happen. This ideology is especially prevalent in poorer areas. I believe that most of the religious hierarchies have a vested interest in keeping things just like they are. Therefore, the religious institutions in the U.S. don't struggle to advance many positions (social justice etc.) they mainly fight to preserve the current structure (i.e. anti-abortion, no gay marriage, etc.).

Conformity
With such a large segment of the working class doing fairly well economically in the U.S. the ruling class stresses conformity and the workers who are doing well (let me call them middle class for simplicity's sake, although I do not believe that they are a real class), eat it right up, disingenuously. Historically, the economic plight of minority groups of people in this country gives the majority good reason to fear change including Marxism, they might end up like us if they buck the system! The ruling class and middle class have a vested monetary interest keeping things just like they are, conservatism!

Insufficient Arguments
Because of the ideas that I stated above the ruling and middle class form tiny little arguments that are easily refuted (i.e. bootstrap theories, blaming the victim, America is a meritocracy, preemptive war, domino theory, xenophobic arguments, scapegoating, anti-communism, etc).

Although these arguments are present in other places, Marxism does not seem to take hold very strongly here, in my opinion because the ruling class, the middle class, and the faith-based people make up the majority of the U.S. and they are not interested in Marxism, which could change so much. They are interested in preserving the status-quo.

I think this explains why rational arguments for Marxism seem impotent when used against many Americans.

I know that it is probably not a sufficient answer but I think that this is at least part of the problem.

[ComradeOm]

In all of the economic textbooks I've seen, all of the economists that talk on college campus, and all of the handouts say that Marx advocated "government ownership" of property and that the government should be the "master" of the economy"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas"
K Marx

[Hit The North]

I doubt there's a bigger collection of dimwits anywhere on the planet than these so-called economists.

[GPDP]

I had a similar experience back when I was first learning about Marx in my second semester of college. Interestingly enough, the class I took that introduced me to Marx, as well as Adam Smith (also, Milton Friedman and Michael Albert, curiously enough) was a class on professional ethics, which is a bit odd.

In any case, at the same time I was taking that class, I was also taking an introductory macroeconomics class. Obviously, it was the usual bourgeois neo-classical nonsense, and the professor did nothing but follow the orthodoxy. Eventually, she touched upon the "economic spectrum," which goes from "command economy" to "free market economy." She attributed the "invention" of the former to Karl Marx, and the later to Adam Smith.

At this point, having just recently learned that Karl Marx intended for democratic worker ownership and management of the economy, and not a "command" economy (i.e. top-down state ownership and management of the economy), I called her out on this. Instead of answering my criticism, she completely avoided it by saying Marx's true idea had never been fully realized, which is true, and that a pure command economy has never existed but that some countries had come close, which is disingenuous considering Marx never advocated a "pure command economy" in the first place, in the sense that she talks about such a concept. Basically, she used this to segue into her point about all the countries in the world having "mixed" economies that are in between pure command and pure free market economies, some closer to one end than to another.

I decided to drop it, since it was obvious she had no intention of tackling the issue, if she even knew the distinction between what she said Marx advocated and what he really advocated.

I'm sure it's typical in economics courses to say such drivel, with nary a peep from anyone to the contrary.

[Lymos]

I don't live in America so obviously my opinion doesn't hold any water at all however I'm a bit surprised that no one has brought up the simple idea that due McCarthyism, American education has a strong bias against Communism and since Marxism has never been realistically implemented in it's purest form, many have perceived Communism as the realistic application of Marxism and thus command economy doesn't sound far off.

It's not like this bias is Marxist only. Prior and even during this recession, America has never given much credit to Austrian economists either until Ron Paul blew the horn off to the mainstream about the upcoming financial crisis before any mainstream media reported it.

As for what to do, I would say it depends on what you want out of this. Most people studying already find these subjects boring and intolerable so some know it all shoving it in their face will hurt your intentions of educating them even if you do gather a few supporters to your cause.

As a person who's never been politically active, I would say this is really one of those case where you just let it go and just focus on the grander scale. (Going into politics, writing a well-informed book, yada yada.)

If you want to make a mark though, you could go into the entertainment angle. The popular "jester tells the truth more than the pundits" cliche that the Daily Show and the Colbert Report has made popular.

I'm not saying you should go out on expenses for these kinds of small fry issues though but something like phrasing it as an anonymous jab, a satirical theatre performance or an analogy to a separate issue when being part of the newspaper could get people to be educated more on what Marx actually meant from your perspective. The trick ultimately is not to defend Marxism but to define and hit home the definition of Marxism without using it as a phrase.

Basically in a nutshell, mimicking and modernizing what Marx did for his time.

From Wikipedia:


Marxism is the political philosophy and practice derived from the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, though the name 'Marxism' has been used by many with political perspectivesthose men would likely reject.