Well-informed Arguments Against Marxism/Communism?

[ZvP]

I've been trying find the other side of the story, but it seems that every argument presented against Marxism and/or communism comes from someone who doesn't know much about it. I see the same misconceptions and straw-man arguments over and over, even from "experts". Does anyone know of a reasonable critique of marxism, or at least some arguments that make sense? I'm not insinuating that no reasonable arguments against marxism exist, I just can't find them.

[Fourth Internationalist]

None exist. ;)

[Red Economist]

I've been trying find the other side of the story, but it seems that every argument presented against Marxism and/or communism comes from someone who doesn't know much about it. I see the same misconceptions and straw-man arguments over and over, even from "experts". Does anyone know of a reasonable critique of marxism, or at least some arguments that make sense? I'm not insinuating that no reasonable arguments against marxism exist, I just can't find them. Marxism as an ideology is a 'paradigm'- once you're in the box, it's pretty difficult to see the other side of the argument, even if you can have some heretical thoughts now and then. This is because the ideology itself 'filters' out most criticisms by asserting materialism/dialectics as true from the outset. e.g. 'human nature' looks like a pretty poor argument but it has alot of history behind it; it really goes to the problem of the relationship between mind and body. It defines the moral nature of man as independent of his physical being and is therefore a similar concept to an immaterial soul.

If you use 'dialectical materialism', you can usually get round almost any criticism because the thought process is so flexible (Orwell referred to it in 1984 as 'double think'). This is simultaneously it's greatest strength and weakness- because your never 100% sure if what your saying is true- only that it fits the basic assumptions. Once you get an argument into the realm of highly subjective philosophy- it "cannot" be refuted by 'objective' evidence and depending on how well you argue something, you can usually walk away with a small 'victory' if the basic assumptions remain unchallenged. When the assumption are challenged- you reach deadlock and it ends in a pseudo-religious war.

Marxism rests on the belief on the fundamental 'dogmas' of materialism and dialectics (identified within Marxism as arising from 'class interest') and this is it's 'weak point' intellectually- as if you take them down, the whole structure follows. So just play around with the ideas, stretch them to their limits and you'll find out Marxism does have them- it's then up to you whether you cross over to something else or think that Marxism is on the 'right' side of the argument. The best thing to do is to get to know the fundamental assumptions of Marxism and then you'll start to figure out where the differences arise from.

[Sabot Cat]

The best arguments aren't against the morality or truth of Marxist theories, but the hope that they will ever be achieved or achieved well. The chances for a proletarian revolution over gradual, reformist methods embodied in democratic socialist thought is one of the greatest challenges the revolutionary left has to contend with. It seems a safer bet to just coddle the capitalist system and drain it of its worse excesses while swallowing its base inequalities. We as communists or anarcho-syndicalists or what have you, must assert that our work is not done until hierarchies symptomatic to the capitalist mode of production are abolished, and take the rougher, lonelier road to the future.

[helot]

I've been trying find the other side of the story, but it seems that every argument presented against Marxism and/or communism comes from someone who doesn't know much about it. I see the same misconceptions and straw-man arguments over and over, even from "experts". Does anyone know of a reasonable critique of marxism, or at least some arguments that make sense? I'm not insinuating that no reasonable arguments against marxism exist, I just can't find them.

The problem you're facing is that you're looking for a critique of marxism you should instead go for critiques of specific marxist tendencies because of course they vary and quite a few anarchists are fond of Marx. I'm not going to criticise council communists for example in the same way i'd criticise MLs because that wouldn't make sense.


That is unless you want a critique of dialectical materialism but i fear that's outside of everyone's powers as it seems the dialecticians are incapable of explaining what on earth they're on about in the first place.




None exist. ;)

quite ironic considering critiques by Trots tends to be lies and misinformation.

[liberlict]

What are the ones you've encountered / consider straw men? I have a few thoughts on things that I think communism doesn't / can't address, but I won't list them if you've already decided they are wrongheaded.

[DecimusBruta]

No where in Marxism is there any suggestions or forward planning against alien invasions.

[BIXX]

No where in Marxism is there any suggestions or forward planning against alien invasions.


Or zombie attacks!

Yeah take that Marxists.

[Sea]

I've been trying find the other side of the story, but it seems that every argument presented against Marxism and/or communism comes from someone who doesn't know much about it. I see the same misconceptions and straw-man arguments over and over, even from "experts". Does anyone know of a reasonable critique of marxism, or at least some arguments that make sense? I'm not insinuating that no reasonable arguments against marxism exist, I just can't find them.This might not be what you're looking for exactly, but you may find Karl Popper interesting.
The problem you're facing is that you're looking for a critique of marxism you should instead go for critiques of specific marxist tendencies because of course they vary and quite a few anarchists are fond of Marx. I'm not going to criticise council communists for example in the same way i'd criticise MLs because that wouldn't make sense. Haha, didn't think of this. Every tendency has something nasty to say about every other tendency, so after a few hundred million years of reading you might have most of Marxism covered!

[Sinister Intents]

Well... I can't think of anything at all.

[Captain Red]

According my international relations teacher the problems are:
That it leads to economic determinism, that the world has changed so much that it is no longer applicable, that Marxists have a hard time explaining why there hasn't been a revolution and also we can't explain why capitalist states have maintained peace but war and conflict has happened between socialist states

I don't agree with it though the only problem I see is that Marx didn't account for that capitalism might lead to the destruction of the planet and economic collapse before the proletariat overthrows the bourgeois

[SensibleLuxemburgist]

According my international relations teacher the problems are:
...also we can't explain why capitalist states have maintained peace but war and conflict has happened between socialist states



This.

http://www.war-memorial.net/wars_all.asp

I challenge him/her to find a single war in this list of 20th century wars that involved no capitalism or imperialism/colonialism whether instigated by the West or the Soviets.

[motion denied]

A great jab against Marxism is the apologetic discourse of 'end of the proletariat', 'end of centrality of labour', 'end of History' etc. So, as Captain Red says, that marxism cannot explain the world anymore. Nonsense.

[Marxaveli]

One ridiculous argument that I got recently is that the world is "divided into more than 2 classes" and that Marxism's notion of bourgeois vs. proletariat is absurd so the theory is discredited. The problem with this argument is that it assume that Marxism believes that capitalism is not dynamic and therefore doesn't develop over time, which of course any Marxist will admit it does - dialectics is in fact one of the central components of Marxist thought. Yes, there are some workers who are better off than others, and there are some capitalists who are more profitable than other capitalists than in the past, but this doesn't change the fundamental social relationship that most people have to sell their labor in order to survive, to a property owning parasitic class that produces no social value.

Generally most of the arguments I see are the same old strawmans, misconceptions, and bold assumptions.

[Marxaveli]

According my international relations teacher the problems are:
That it leads to economic determinism, that the world has changed so much that it is no longer applicable, that Marxists have a hard time explaining why there hasn't been a revolution and also we can't explain why capitalist states have maintained peace but war and conflict has happened between socialist states

I don't agree with it though the only problem I see is that Marx didn't account for that capitalism might lead to the destruction of the planet and economic collapse before the proletariat overthrows the bourgeois



Um, Arab Spring anyone?

And also, he is wrong that capitalist states have maintained peace with one another, very wrong in fact. Every single war fought in the last century was between capitalist states. There is no such thing as 'socialist states'.

[Fourth Internationalist]

quite ironic considering critiques by Trots tends to be lies and misinformation.1) This is unnecessary and out of nowhere.
2) It has nothing to do with the thread at all.
3) Critiques can only be critcized and be critiqued themselves on an individual basis, not on the ideology of writers.

[Sinister Intents]

1) This is unnecessary and out of nowhere.
2) It has nothing to do with the thread at all.
3) Critiques can only be critcized and be critiqued themselves on an individual basis, not on the ideology of writers.

Since you're voiced in Trotsky Link what would you say is a real critique ov Trotskyism?

[Radio Spartacus]

According my international relations teacher the problems are:
That it leads to economic determinism, that the world has changed so much that it is no longer applicable, that Marxists have a hard time explaining why there hasn't been a revolution and also we can't explain why capitalist states have maintained peace but war and conflict has happened between socialist states

I don't agree with it though the only problem I see is that Marx didn't account for that capitalism might lead to the destruction of the planet and economic collapse before the proletariat overthrows the bourgeois



In what fantasy world have capitalist nations been peaceful together, even in modern history? Look at the Congo wars, the world wars, fucking everything? Look at the Paris Commune, or at the response to German worker revolt before the rise of nazi germany...that's how these peaceful capitalist nations deal with anything that looks like what we actually advocate for as soon as it gets serious. Even if they were peaceful, what about this exploitation riddled peace is worth defending?

Economic determinism argument not worth addressing, not a criticism that even ventures to explain what is wrong with economic determinism anyway.

What's the world change argument even mean? I mean theory can be adapted worst case

Your teacher doesn't think very hard

[G4b3n]

The only decent arguments against Marxism that I know of are from an anarchist perspective. I have yet to see a considerable bourgeois argument.

[Diirez]

Since you're voiced in Trotsky Link what would you say is a real critique ov Trotskyism?
Critique of Trotskyism is the idea of democratic centralism (freedom of discussion and unity of action). Lenin was criticized as well on that one.

I've heard it said that Trotskyism is the same as Stalinism since they both originated in the same place. Also, I've heard people say that Trotsky had Napoleon in him and would've done a lot of wars.

When talking with a neo-conservative, he raised this point that the theory of permanent revolution is flawed and would never work.

[liberlict]

This might not be what you're looking for exactly, but you may find Karl Popper interesting!

I agree. Popper is very instructive.

Ironically, one if the best arguments against communism is its irrefutability. Because of the way the theory is set up, with data only being relevant to 'material conditions', it's impossible to discredit it. Two million people die in an artificial famine in China? Oh well, material conditions!

It also leads to some seriously dodgy moral reasoning:

Rosa: "dude, it's not cool to enslave people and work them to death".

Stalin: I know that *****, but it's necessary due to the historical conditions".

Rosa: "You're a moron".

Stalin: "Boris, please add Rosa to the execution list, she doesn't get the historical conditions".

Boris: "Sure Joe, but it might take a while, I've got a lot of murders to do this week."

Another irony, is that the "utopian" socialists ridiculed by Marx were actually the more scientific of the socialists. They actually went out and put their ideas into reality. Marx just sat on his ass all day smoking cigars and mystifying the future.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Ironically, one if the best arguments against communism is its irrefutability. Because of the way the theory is set up, with data only being relevant to 'material conditions', it's impossible to discredit it. Two million people die in an artificial famine in China? Oh well, material conditions!

So you're refuting communism by saying that it's irrefutable?

[Radio Spartacus]

I agree. Popper is very instructive.

Ironically, one if the best arguments against communism is its irrefutability. Because of the way the theory is set up, with data only being relevant to 'material conditions', it's impossible to discredit it. Two million people die in an artificial famine in China? Oh well, material conditions!

It also leads to some seriously dodgy moral reasoning:

Rosa: "dude, it's not cool to enslave people and work them to death".

Stalin: I know that *****, but it's necessary due to the historical conditions".

Rosa: "You're a moron".

Stalin: "Boris, please add Rosa to the execution list, she doesn't get the historical conditions".

Boris: "Sure Joe, but it might take a while, I've got a lot of murders to do this week."

Another irony, is that the "utopian" socialists ridiculed by Marx were actually the more scientific of the socialists. They actually went out and put their ideas into reality. Marx just sat on his ass all day smoking cigars and mystifying the future.

I don't think that's how materialism works bud.

[Queen Mab]

I agree. Popper is very instructive.

Ironically, one if the best arguments against communism is its irrefutability. Because of the way the theory is set up, with data only being relevant to 'material conditions', it's impossible to discredit it. Two million people die in an artificial famine in China? Oh well, material conditions!

It also leads to some seriously dodgy moral reasoning:

Rosa: "dude, it's not cool to enslave people and work them to death".

Stalin: I know that *****, but it's necessary due to the historical conditions".

Rosa: "You're a moron".

Stalin: "Boris, please add Rosa to the execution list, she doesn't get the historical conditions".

Boris: "Sure Joe, but it might take a while, I've got a lot of murders to do this week."

That's the dumbest caricature of materialism I've ever seen. Wtf is historical conditions? You can't even get the terminology right!


Another irony, is that the "utopian" socialists ridiculed by Marx were actually the more scientific of the socialists. They actually went out and put their ideas into reality. Marx just sat on his ass all day smoking cigars and mystifying the future.

Yes, Karl Marx, revolutionary in 1848 and one of the leaders of the International Workingmen's Association, sat on his arse all day and did less to further socialism than some weirdo cults in the backwoods of America. Scientific socialism is scientific because it has an understanding of why the utopian socialists were doomed to failure.

[tooAlive]

Best argument against Marxism?

The silliness of the notion that 7 billion people will all decide they all want the same things and peacefully work together to achieve them. It's hard enough getting a middle school class to do that, let alone the entire globe.

Marxism also assumes we're all wired the same way, and our current outcomes/personal traits/achievements are decided by our socioeconomic status. There's a huge amount of information to debunk this. You have countless accounts of kids growing up poor in ghettos, no access to education, capital, ect.. yet achieving huge amounts of success. And you also have kids growing up spoiled and rich, yet end up broke and homeless.

I won't argue about the failures about all other so called "communist nations" because first of all, I know you all believe there can be no "communist nation," as true communism doesn't have borders, and you all also believe that true communism has never been successfully implemented beyond the starting revolution.

I will just say that in practice, that is the inevitable outcome of trying to implement communism -- state capitalism.

And of course, it doesn't help your cause that countries like Cuba and North Korea are still widely associated with communism, and still claim to be (Cuba at least does). So that's a very big conception that the vast majority of the population still believes in, which is a huge setback for your movement. If you don't believe me, just look at money. Our money is fiat and technically not worth anything. The only reason it has so much value is because the people have faith in it. That's how important people's trust is -- enough to give incredible amounts of value to something that is essentially worthless. And they don't have much faith in communism.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

TooAlive do you think Capitalism is the last mode of production of humanity?

Because if you do, I think it's way more naive than believing in Communism.

[Dodo]

Marxism as an ideology is a 'paradigm'- once you're in the box, it's pretty difficult to see the other side of the argument, even if you can have some heretical thoughts now and then. This is because the ideology itself 'filters' out most criticisms by asserting materialism/dialectics as true from the outset. e.g. 'human nature' looks like a pretty poor argument but it has alot of history behind it; it really goes to the problem of the relationship between mind and body. It defines the moral nature of man as independent of his physical being and is therefore a similar concept to an immaterial soul.

If you use 'dialectical materialism', you can usually get round almost any criticism because the thought process is so flexible (Orwell referred to it in 1984 as 'double think'). This is simultaneously it's greatest strength and weakness- because your never 100% sure if what your saying is true- only that it fits the basic assumptions. Once you get an argument into the realm of highly subjective philosophy- it "cannot" be refuted by 'objective' evidence and depending on how well you argue something, you can usually walk away with a small 'victory' if the basic assumptions remain unchallenged. When the assumption are challenged- you reach deadlock and it ends in a pseudo-religious war.

Marxism rests on the belief on the fundamental 'dogmas' of materialism and dialectics (identified within Marxism as arising from 'class interest') and this is it's 'weak point' intellectually- as if you take them down, the whole structure follows. So just play around with the ideas, stretch them to their limits and you'll find out Marxism does have them- it's then up to you whether you cross over to something else or think that Marxism is on the 'right' side of the argument. The best thing to do is to get to know the fundamental assumptions of Marxism and then you'll start to figure out where the differences arise from.

I would like you to go on more about this. Recently I realized I sound like a religious zealot when I talk about anything since I always send up saying Marx/Marxism multiple times. I found myself reading for the sake of COUNTERING arguments against Marxism. I have been entrenching myself within this school of thinking so much now, despite the fact that I distance myself greatly from "dogmatic" past of the doctrines created by different interpretors.
Am I doing something wrong? How am I different from a religious fella? I can dodge certain things by saying "dialectics", which sounds like saying "god is beyond our understanding".
Even as I am writing this, I am hoping for someone to take me out of this so that I can keep being a Marxist.
Is this normal? :D

[Radio Spartacus]

Best argument against Marxism?

The silliness of the notion that 7 billion people will all decide they all want the same things and peacefully work together to achieve them. It's hard enough getting a middle school class to do that, let alone the entire globe.

Marxism also assumes we're all wired the same way, and our current outcomes/personal traits/achievements are decided by our socioeconomic status. There's a huge amount of information to debunk this. You have countless accounts of kids growing up poor in ghettos, no access to education, capital, ect.. yet achieving huge amounts of success. And you also have kids growing up spoiled and rich, yet end up broke and homeless.

I won't argue about the failures about all other so called "communist nations" because first of all, I know you all believe there can be no "communist nation," as true communism doesn't have borders, and you all also believe that true communism has never been successfully implemented beyond the starting revolution.

I will just say that in practice, that is the inevitable outcome of trying to implement communism -- state capitalism.

And of course, it doesn't help your cause that countries like Cuba and North Korea are still widely associated with communism, and still claim to be (Cuba at least does). So that's a very big conception that the vast majority of the population still believes in, which is a huge setback for your movement. If you don't believe me, just look at money. Our money is fiat and technically not worth anything. The only reason it has so much value is because the people have faith in it. That's how important people's trust is -- enough to give incredible amounts of value to something that is essentially worthless. And they don't have much faith in communism.

Paragraph 1: absurdly reductionist straw man

Paragraph 2: statistical outliers, possibly allowed privilege by the bourgeoise to make fools like you think this system is meritocratic. These stories do not speak to the experience of most people under capitalism, this is as useful as saying "capitalism works, just look at my uncle!"

Subsequent rambling: that's not really an argument that's you saying that it always leads to state capitalism because you don't want to read history and understand the actual conditions that led to the failures of the past.

Enjoy making axioms out of your limited understanding of isolated historical events

[Griswald]

I don't have anything bad to say about communes, but it's a fair critique of Communism to point out that the appropriation of the means of production is theft.

[robbo203]

I don't have anything bad to say about communes, but it's a fair critique of Communism to point out that the appropriation of the means of production is theft.


But it was the appropriation of the means of prpduction that got capitalism going in the first place, wasn't it? Its called primitive accumulation.

As for communism entailing "theft", this is absurd. Communism does not exclude the ex-capitalist class from enjoying ownership of the means of production. It merely extends ownership of those means to the whole community and in accordance with the fact that the very process of production today is a completely socialised one. There is literally nothing anyone can point to today and say "I made that all on my own". Even we as individuals are in a sense the products of socialised production.

Communism alone acknowleges the socialised character of modern society and production where all forms of private ownership - including, incidentally, state ownership - deny it. The ex capitalists and the ex-proletarians will, in communism, be part of one single community in which the means of production will be held in common and in which the very concept of "theft" in that sense will be rendered meaningless

[Queen Mab]

I don't have anything bad to say about communes, but it's a fair critique of Communism to point out that the appropriation of the means of production is theft.

To put it in a vulgar way, all private property is theft. When you claim a piece of property as your own, you are violently excluding all others from access to it. Time to quote Rousseau:


THE first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows, "Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody."

[Jimmie Higgins]

What are the ones you've encountered / consider straw men? I have a few thoughts on things that I think communism doesn't / can't address, but I won't list them if you've already decided they are wrongheaded.

Most of the straw men are pretty stale anticommunist tropes:

-Everyone has to think the same
-Everything is divided evenly or no property meaning someone can come in and nap on your bed and use your toothbrush
-equality of poverty, austerity-socialism... To be fair some marginally Marxist tradditions advocate this or supporters of dictatorships apologize for popular need by arguing for workers to sacrifice.
-liberalism is the same as Marxism, obama is a socialist
-socialists want to control induvidual lifestyles (this overlaps with the first one and the conflation of liberalism and socialism, but also gains some legitimacy because of dictatorships calling themselves Marxist).

[Yuppie Grinder]

I don't have anything bad to say about communes, but it's a fair critique of Communism to point out that the appropriation of the means of production is theft.

No. Wage labor is black mail. Workers are forced to work for capitalists in order to sustain their existences. The capitalist class through their control of the means of production and the state have exclusive control over the means with which human beings survive. That is a crime. Putting and end to that is justice. Not the other way around.

[Griswald]

The capitalist class through their control of the means of production and the state have exclusive control over the means with which human beings survive.
The state is not controlled by the capitalist class, but by the majority of voters through the democratic process. The rhetoric that you are putting forward is not in line with how most voters feel. In the context of this thread, "Arguments against Socialism?", if a Socialist were to go so far as to say that Property=Theft then that Socialist would also have to make a case against democracy, because the majority of people disagree.

[liberlict]

The rhetoric that you are putting forward is not in line with how most voters feel.

Yes but revolutionary leftists are smarter then everybody else. It is only they that are enlightened enough to penetrate the walls of ignorance that prevent the myopic masses from an authentic apprehension of reality.

[Schumpeter]

The fact that there is no ethical basis for Marxism and that Marx himself completely fails to address this perhaps? Marxism is wholly unethical. Marxism will never come about democratically as the slogan 'Marxism is immoral' would be far to easy to utilise. Not even Tony Blair's spin doctors could spin that around.

[Niccolo]

The fact that there is no ethical basis for Marxism and that Marx himself completely fails to address this perhaps? Marxism is wholly unethical. Marxism will never come about democratically as the slogan 'Marxism is immoral' would be far to easy to utilise. Not even Tony Blair's spin doctors could spin that around.

Marxism is a methodology. It is a method to understand society and social relations, as well as history, logic, and so on. Marxism says that a particular system of morality upheld by a society is a result of the material conditions and the relations of production present, just as the legal system and cultural norms are also determined by the forces and relations of production.

Feudal morality greatly differed from early industrial capitalist morality, and today our view of what is right or wrong is different from back then. When our economy's structure changes from capitalism to socialism, so too will our conception of morality.

Your objection is ultimately null. There is nothing 'unethical', even in the bourgeois sense, about freeing humankind from property relations. The capitalist state is one of the most violent and immoral entities in human history. Dismantling that violent state and transferring society's wealth into the hands of those who produce it is not immoral, and would only be thought of as such by those who appropriate the wealth produced today -- the bourgeoisie.

[Comrade #138672]

Most arguments directed against Marxism are based on ignorance. Other arguments are better informed, but at best only raise some difficulties [to be resolved by Marxism]. However, they do not "refute" Marxism.

For example, Okishio once "proved" with his famous theorem that the tendency of the rate of profit was not to fall but to rise, which was fully embraced by bourgeois economists for quite some time. However, as it turned out, Okishio made some crucial mistakes in his "proof", because of his own bourgeois point of view, and this was eventually refuted.

[Comrade #138672]

The fact that there is no ethical basis for Marxism and that Marx himself completely fails to address this perhaps? Marxism is wholly unethical. Marxism will never come about democratically as the slogan 'Marxism is immoral' would be far to easy to utilise. Not even Tony Blair's spin doctors could spin that around.You can do better than this. It is obvious that you are trolling. Even Baseball does not come up with this shit.

[Niccolo]

You can do better than this. It is obvious that you are trolling. Even Baseball does not come up with this shit.

I'm amused that he cries "Marxism cannot come democratically!" to a forum full of revolutionary leftists. Of all the angles to tackle us on...

[Rugged Collectivist]

I don't have anything bad to say about communes, but it's a fair critique of Communism to point out that the appropriation of the means of production is theft.

Even if that were true you'd still have to argue that theft is always wrong for it to be a proper critique.


The fact that there is no ethical basis for Marxism and that Marx himself completely fails to address this perhaps? Marxism is wholly unethical. Marxism will never come about democratically as the slogan 'Marxism is immoral' would be far to easy to utilise. Not even Tony Blair's spin doctors could spin that around.

So why is Marxism "unethical" exactly? You can't just call something unethical without explaining why.

[Ritzy Cat]

So why is Marxism "unethical" exactly? You can't just call something unethical without explaining why.

It's just a vague term to substitute for a comment that we can outright deny.

I think we should also call Marxism unscrupulous, corrupt, slick, two-faced, and crooked! Why? Because it is, here is my quantitative, concrete scientific evidence that gives it the exact notion of being slick and two-faced.

[Griswald]

Even if that were true you'd still have to argue that theft is always wrong for it to be a proper critique.
Successfully arguing that theft, as currently defined, is always wrong would be a very strong way to support the critique. But it is not the approach that I am going to take, because it is not what I believe.

Morality is neither objective nor purely subjective, but intersubjective thru consensus. In a democracy this consensus gets translated directly into politics and law. If most voters believed that factory ownership or absentee landlordism was comparable to theft then -- it would be! And, conversely, the appropriation/collectivization of said assets would not be considered theft (as it currently is). But, this is already sorted out and most voters, unfortunately, believe that property rights should be virtually limitless and that protection of those rights (and other things) should mostly be paid for by taxation on income/productivity. I don't like it any more than you do. But in the context of this thread, "Arguments against Marxism?", the simplest argument a person could put forward is "I stand with the majority and disagree with it on moral grounds."

There are many arguments a Marxist can make to first show an individual that property rights, and the morality surrounding them, are not objective, and why that individual should see it from the Marxist perspective.

But, until the Marxist perspective is the majority, society does not see it that way, and the moral argument against Marxism is "We disagree with you."

[Skyhilist]

This obviously doesn't apply as a critique of all communists, but one critique specifically for "orthodox" revolutionaries is that orthodox ideas, being older, tend not to take into account ecological concerns as much as they should and focus disproportionately on industries when adapted to modern material conditions.

Also, you could make a case against "orthodox" Marxism following the actual teachings of Marxism. For example, scientific socialism says that we ought to adjust our methodologies based on material conditions, where as "orthodox" Marxists tend to stick with more "orthodox" methods, lacking the adaptation to modern methodologies and changes in methodology demanded by scientific socialism. Also there are way to many dogmatic Marxists, when Marxism is explicitly intended NOT to be a dogma. So you could say that in practice many Marxists are hypocritical.

Revolutionaries, being the "extreme" might often view issues as more black and white than they really are and may sometimes be hesitant to take the middle ground based on strict adherence to more "radical" positions.

None of this really applies to all communists though. But you can pretty much find valid criticisms for every individual 'type' of socialist philosophy (e.g. MLs, trots, etc.).

[NGNM85]

I'm amused that he cries "Marxism cannot come democratically!" to a forum full of revolutionary leftists. Of all the angles to tackle us on...

It depends entirely on what he means by; 'democratically', which is by no means clear. If a working class revolution is to have any chance of success, it must be democratic in the sense of being led, and orchestrated by the workers, themselves. If he means that the hegemony of the capitalist class will never be overthrown by parliamentary means, (The definition of; 'reformism.'), I'd say that's probably correct.

[liberlict]

This obviously doesn't apply as a critique of all communists, but one critique specifically for "orthodox" revolutionaries is that orthodox ideas, being older, tend not to take into account ecological concerns as much as they should and focus disproportionately on industries when adapted to modern material conditions.

Marxists don't seem to have much reason to change their framework for ecological reasons, since capitalism is indifferent to environmental exploitation. They are right in that regard, I would say, but because they don't understand / won't surrender to the Economic Calculation Problem, they fail to comprehend that communism is worse for the environment than capitalism.


Also, you could make a case against "orthodox" Marxism following the actual teachings of Marxism. For example, scientific socialism says that we ought to adjust our methodologies based on material conditions, where as "orthodox" Marxists tend to stick with more "orthodox" methods, lacking the adaptation to modern methodologies and changes in methodology demanded by scientific socialism. Also there are way to many dogmatic Marxists, when Marxism is explicitly intended NOT to be a dogma. So you could say that in practice many Marxists are hypocritical.

This is an excellent point. No matter how brilliant a Nineteenth century thinker might have been, it would be unlikely, at least, that his/her insights would explain all the phenomena of centuries to follow. Sadly many communists are more interested in clinging to Marx's centuries old nutsack than understanding the world currently. You can see Marx's tyranny from the grave evident in the textural obsession Marxists have with working out what Marx *really* meant rather than participating in current politics.

Mainstream economists are consistently analysing current data to see how it explains economic activity. When it's wrong, they adduce new models. Marxians start with old writings a priori and reinterpret Capital to find a way to make it explain today. Take, for example, the 'emiseration of the workers'; "Oh no, he didn't really mean that workers would become more emiserated as capitalism progresses, he meant relative inequality", so now we are to expect that workers will unite to overthrow capitlism just because they are less rich than capitalists.

[Skyhilist]

Marxists don't seem to have much reason to change their framework for ecological reasons, since capitalism is indifferent to environmental exploitation.

No I agree that real environmental change needs to be anti-capitalist, what I mean is that traditionally many Marxists have focused on productivism, which can have negative ecological implications since it means consuming more resources generally to maximize production.

[liberlict]

No I agree that real environmental change needs to be anti-capitalist, what I mean is that traditionally many Marxists have focused on productivism, which can have negative ecological implications since it means consuming more resources generally to maximize production.

Yes that is true. I don't know where Marx EVER explained why communism would be more productive than capitalism. I think he just thought it would be because he thought central planning in the fashion of a capitalist firm would be applied in communism. (anyone who has any textural evidence of Marx being anti-central planning please chime in)

I am a Chomskyian too, but Chomskyites should know he has never endorsed a moneyless economy. There is very little in Chomsky that is incompatible with capitalist structures, sans 'private property' protection. But once you take 'private property' to mean property owned by worker collectives, with legal protections, it doesn't contradict anarcho-syndicalism at all.

[NGNM85]

Mainstream economists are consistently analysing current data to see how they explain economic activity. Marxians start with old writings apriori and then go back to reinterpret Capital to find a way to make it explain today. Take for example, the 'emiseration of the workers'; "Oh no, he didnt really mean that workers would become more emiserated as capitalism progresses, he meant relative inequality, so now we are to expect that workers will unite to overthrow capitalism just because they are less rich than capitalists.

Actually, Marx realized this miscalculation, and adjusted accordingly, however nobody reads the volume in which he did this;Theories of Surplus Value, which wasn't even published until ten years after he died, and that version was only printed in German, and it had passages missing. I don't think it was available in English, at all, until the 1950's. (!!!) This is why this misconception persists, even now.

[NGNM85]

I am a Chomskyian too, but Chomskyites should know he has never endorsed a moneyless economy. There is very little in Chomsky that is incompatible with capitalist structures, sans 'private property' protection. But once you take 'private property' to mean property owned by worker collectives it doesn't contradict anarcho-syndicalism at all.

A: 'Chomskyan' has absolutely no meaning outside of linguistics. Noam Chomsky's ideology is called; 'Anarchosyndicalism', and his interpretation is remarkable only in it's consistency.

B: There is no capitalism without private ownership, and control of the means of production, without exploitation. When the means of production are publicly owned, and controlled, by the workers themselves, that's called Socialism.

[Skyhilist]

Yes that is true. I don't know where Marx EVER explained why communism would be more productive than capitalism. I think he just thought it would be because he thought central planning in the fashion of a capitalist firm would be applied in communism. (anyone who has any textural evidence of Marx being anti-central planning please chime in)

I am a Chomskyian too, but Chomskyites should know he has never endorsed a moneyless economy. There is very little in Chomsky that is incompatible with capitalist structures, sans 'private property' protection. But once you take 'private property' to mean property owned by worker collectives, with legal protections, it doesn't contradict anarcho-syndicalism at all.

Yes it's my understanding that Chomsky currently supports Parecon (I've actually emailed him about this personally). I'd more consider myself an "anarchist without adjectives" currently (although I'm strongly influenced by anarcho-syndicalist and anarcho-communist philosophers), this username is mostly because it's supposed to sound like the hissing sound a snake makes (lame I know) because I like herpetology, although I do also really like a lot of Chomsky's work such as his critiques of imperialism, colonialism, media and state collusion, etc.

[NGNM85]

Yes it's my understanding that Chomsky currently supports Parecon (I've actually emailed him about this personally). I'd more consider myself an "anarchist without adjectives" currently (although I'm strongly influenced by anarcho-syndicalist and anarcho-communist philosophers), this username is mostly because it's supposed to sound like the hissing sound a snake makes (lame I know) because I like herpetology, although I do also really like a lot of Chomsky's work such as his critiques of imperialism, colonialism, media and state collusion, etc.

Chomsky praised Albert's work, but has always insisted that it's impossible to construct anything close to a complete model of how a Socialist society would function and that attempts to do so should be approached with a healthy skepticism. So, he doesn't really subscribe to Parecon.

[liberlict]

A: 'Chomskyan' has absolutely no meaning outside of linguistics. Noam Chomsky's ideology is called; 'Anarchosyndicalism', and his interpretation is remarkable only in it's consistency.

B: There is no capitalism without private ownership, and control of the means of production, without exploitation. When the means of production are publicly owned, and controlled, by the workers themselves, that's called Socialism.

Er, terminology is not so important is it? 'ian' as a suffix just means 'belonging to' it's subject, in this context obviously the political views of Chomsky. His linguistics contributions, I have never heard them called 'Chomsyism'; they go under the names 'nativism', 'rationalism (his preferred term)', or 'universal grammar'. I am a Chomskyite in both those senses, but only the political one is relevent in our context.

Ownership of the MOP has not been analysed in much depth by Chomsky, other that he advocates worker control of the places they work. In that respect I am a Chomskyist. He's very vague about a lot of details, but from all his elucidations I agree with him.


There is no capitalism without private ownership

In the Marxist sense this is true. In the Chomskyan sense, no. Where has he ever said that Capitalism is bad in principle (rather than in it's details?)


Actually, Marx realized this miscalculation, and adjusted accordingly, however nobody reads the volume in which he did this;Theories of Surplus Value, which wasn't even published until ten years after he died, and that version was only printed in German, and it had passages missing. I don't think it was available in English, at all, until the 1950's. (!!!) This is why this misconception persists, even now.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but I have a feeling that you mean Marx's patch on his first volume (in volume 3) where he explains how rates of profit and prices of production can be equalized. This is the topic Engels made into an essay contest, and Böhm Bawerk addressed in "Karl Marx and the Closing of his System'. Is that correct? If so, this has nothing to do with the 'emiseration of workers' prediction.

[liberlict]

Chomsky praised Albert's work, but has always insisted that it's impossible to construct anything close to a complete model of how a Socialist society would function and that attempts to do so should be approached with a healthy skepticism. So, he doesn't really subscribe to Parecon.

Albert is a central planner. Chomsky has said numerous times that centralism is anti-democratic. 'Understanding Power' is brilliant the work to read on this. Central planning is anti-democratic by nature.

[NGNM85]

I'm not sure what you mean here, but I have a feeling that you mean Marx's patch on his first volume (in volume 3) where he explains how rates of profit and prices of production can be equalized. This is the topic Engels made into an essay contest, and Böhm Bawerk addressed in "Karl Marx and the Closing of his System'. Is that correct? If so, this has nothing to do with the 'emiseration of workers' prediction.

No, again, I was referring to Theories of Surplus Value, where Marx acknowledged the schema presented in the Communist Manifesto, that capitalism was rapidly simplifying itself into a massive, impoverished, working class majority, and a tiny capitalist minority, was mistaken. He wrote that there was; 'a constant increase in the middle class which stands between the workmen on one side and the capitalist and landlord on the other, which becomes larger and larger and is fed from revenued that weigh as a burden on the working people beneath them and increase the social security and might of the upper ten thousand.'
Again, the problem is that everybody reads the Manifesto, but virtually no one reads, or has even heard of, Theories of Surplus Value.

[Niccolo]

It depends entirely on what he means by; 'democratically', which is by no means clear. If a working class revolution is to have any chance of success, it must be democratic in the sense of being led, and orchestrated by the workers, themselves. If he means that the hegemony of the capitalist class will never be overthrown by parliamentary means, (The definition of; 'reformism.'), I'd say that's probably correct.

He clearly meant the latter. Revolutionary socialists agree with the latter as well, hence it's a silly argument against us - we openly admit that parliamentary means are ultimately futile, and henceforth call for revolution.

[NGNM85]

He clearly meant the latter. Revolutionary socialists agree with the latter as well, hence it's a silly argument against us - we openly admit that parliamentary means are ultimately futile, and henceforth call for revolution.

Again, I think it's probably correct that socialism cannot be acheived entirely through parlianentary means. That being said, that does not mean that parliamentary politics are not integral to the socialist project, quite the contrary. Marx, and Engels, as well as Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, etc., considered this to be absolutely vital, and it most certainly is. Another thing I dislike about using the term; 'revolutionary', in this context, is that it implies that violence is not simply an unfortunate necessity, but that it is some kind of ideological commitment. This should never be the case. Only a sociopath, or a fool would employ violence when it is not warranted.

[liberlict]

No, again, I was referring to Theories of Surplus Value, where Marx acknowledged the schema presented in the Communist Manifesto, that capitalism was rapidly simplifying itself into a massive, impoverished, working class majority, and a tiny capitalist minority, was mistaken. He wrote that there was; 'a constant increase in the middle class which stands between the workmen on one side and the capitalist and landlord on the other, which becomes larger and larger and is fed from revenued that weigh as a burden on the working people beneath them and increase the social security and might of the upper ten thousand.'
Again, the problem is that everybody reads the Manifesto, but virtually no one reads, or has even heard of, Theories of Surplus Value.

Ahhh OK. Well yes. But the problem then becomes why the working class should be seen as the agent of potential revolution? It's hard to imagine workers are going to overthrow capitalism just because they only have 1 yacht each while employers have 5.

[Lowtech]

Capitalists reinforce some key misconceptions:

1. Markets, money, [need for] capital, are axioms of economics
2. Communism is a planned economy as described by Lenin, not Marx.
3. People are mostly dull-minded and NEED to be subjugated by the rich in exchange for plutocratic benevolence.

1.

This is debunked by the fact that the real economic process is the converting of raw resources into usable materials and items, and this basic process does not require money, markets, nor the rich. [Need for] Capital exists out of being denied the resources that are the common heritage of all life on earth (artificial scarcity). Attempting to justify capitalism based on the need for capital is circular reasoning because the need for capital is in fact a facet of artificial scarcity; a condition produced by capitalism.

Further, money at present does not measure value accurately (by design, as it has to allow artificial scarcity for concentration of wealth to occur), so no proper economy can exist under capitalism. A proper economy being one that meets the requirement of a public utility whose intended purpose is to sustain a civilization.

2.

Any study of Marx and Lenin will show the steep contrast between their ideologies. As long as Capitalists assert that communism is the Lenin model, they have a straw man to attack. They fail to justify capitalism so they'll instead stick with a straw man they can undermine.

3.

This last misconception really speaks to one's own level of arrogance. We know that each of us shares so much identical DNA that differences in IQ, performance cannot account for vast economic inequalities, yet the few plutocratic elite still believe otherwise. When someone tells you that you first need to convince the masses of communism, that is a fallacy itself because the only people that need convincing are the top 20% that perpetuate and reinforce capitalism.

[Marxaveli]

I've yet to see a well informed argument made against Marxism or communism. All I see are the same ideological strawmans that have no merit whatsoever and thus aren't even worth the time to address.