a list of reasons why Marxism is cool and fun

[Irish_Bebop]

The only other forum i frequent is a local South African one. http://new.prophecy.co.za/ and this was a post by a resident conservative on the site ( one of the many - and they're all irritating :rolleyes: )


Sorry, I usually make a point of NOT cross-posting between this forum and my website. It just seems a bit too shamelessly self-promoting to be in good taste. But with all the Marxists who post on this forum, I was curious to hear what you would have to say on my latest post, dealing with Marxism:

-----------

Here is a list of reasons why Marxism is cool and fun:

1. Marxism is simple. All Marxists theories sound exactly the same, so if you can memorise one, you've memorised them all. A Marxist theory on x is always "x is a mechanism that the bourgeoisie use to enrich themselves and keep the proletarian masses poor". Instead of x, write one of the following terms: democracy, international trade, banks, capitalism, political parties, the media, social stratification, social mobility, racism, the police, the military, printer cartridges, holidays to Florida, Nigerian e-mail scams, etc.

2. Marxist writing is impossible to understand. The second thing you must learn about Marxism is that Marxists write in their own language because they consider normal English beneath them. This is an example of what Marxist academic writing sounds like:

We must here return to one such “distortion”, the most important one for the understanding of the interaction between the African modelity and the international arena, i. e. the “inverted” societal structures with the resulting importance of superstructural factors. “The assumption... is not that there are specific socio-economic preconditions that have to be met before democracy becomes possible”, wrote the American political scientist, Marina Ottaway, “but that there are conditions that facilitate a democratic transition. If those conditions do not exist — and they do not in Africa — then democracy has to be attained purely through politics: political action by small democratic groups has to provide the leverage for change that has not been provided by social or economic transformation. Democratisation, in other words, takes a curious Leninist twist, becoming a process where political organising must make up for the unfavourable underlying socio-economic conditions”.*


"Help," you're thinking. "I don't know what this means." It doesn't matter, nobody else does either. Thus, any interpretation you make up is de facto the right answer. Just make sure you include lots of references to capital, the proletariat, etc. (See Point #1)

3. Marxism is immune to falsification. If you write like a Marxist, nobody can disprove what you're saying. Simply memorise the phrase "Yes, but that just shows how sneaky they are!" and use it to destroy any counter-argument. Let's say you're discussing social mobility in a capitalist system. You argue that the capitalist system does not allow class mobility. The person you're arguing with points out that some people do start out poor and become rich, and offers a few specific examples in support of this. Immediately respond with "Yes, but that just shows how sneaky [the capitalists] are! They allow a few people to get rich so that everyone else will labour under the illusion that they can get rich too instead of overthrowing the capitalist sytem!"

4. Karl Marx is an academic super-star. You will soon learn that Karl Marx is the single most important intellectual the human race has ever produced. Every department in the humanities and the social sciences claims that Karl Marx is one of their own. This is great, because it means you only have to learn one theory, and you've effectively studied for seven different subjects. Departments that prominently teach Marxism include sociology, philosophy, political science, international relations, economics, history, anthropology, English, and probably a lot of others I don't know about.

[Irish_Bebop]

This was my reply;


Im hesitant to give an answer, as responding to such a comment obviously posted as a comic commentary, seems to me a bit...sour, that and the very comic nature oft the peice flaws it, intelectualy speaking, from the start.

but hey if you want i'll give it ago;

1. Marxism revolves around a critical examination of the capitalist system which it sees as exploitive, therefore analysis is always taken in a similar tone.
In essence the Funcionalist perspective on society isn't much different from; " "x is a mechanism that the bourgeoisie use to enrich themselves and keep the proletarian masses poor". except that it tackles the example from an angle that confirms and justifies the current systems dominance. This example of course is a very broad summary of the base of alot of Marx's theories, but to truely debate them, you must examine social issues individually.
Now days, you must remember that much of Marx's writtings are outdated, as he wrote in reference to the trends he saw in the industrial revolution. the examination of neo-marxist theory is essential analysing modern marxism.

2. I personally find Marx's teachings to be very understandable, as do many others, when it comes to the example provided, complicated language is something that you can accuse all sociologists of. and if Marxism is so open to interpretation then why is there so much consensus over his teachings? Many differing schools exist, but the basic theory is the same, and these deviations, which are often compatible with core communism, are taken from the writtings of other Marxists, not interpretations of Marx's own teachings.

3. Again a simplified example of marxist theory, to examine this you need greater depth. But as Marxism goes detailed explainations are given to all theory, not just "oh how sneaky they are" , and when it comes to the ' they', Marxism usually refers to flaws and shortcomings within the system, not some shadowy Bourgousie committee. As for the example provided, Marx didn't write on the unforseen trend of embourgousiement, Neo-Marxists have written exensively on the topic though, the most notable example of this might be 'theories on false class conciousness', although personally i believe that Leninist writtings, when applied to this area prove fairly relevant. im writting this at 2 in the morning so you can look up your own damn theory relating to this topic, i have class in the morrow.


Every department in the humanities and the social sciences claims that Karl Marx is one of their own
As far as i know only one sociological school of thought claims Marx as its own - Marxism. Although Feminism is an offshoot of Marxist theory. Yes it does transend subjects, as Marxs wrote both as an economist, a historian and a sociologist - but all that means that you have to learn the same basic principles applied to the differing areas of study - in the same way you would many other sociological theorists (such as Parsons or Gibbins), and their social theories. Although im not sure what contribution a knowledge of Marxism will bring to your English mark.


Any comments, or suggestions? I have somewhat of a feud :blink: with these people so some input would be appreciated, thnx :)

[ComradeRed]

This is essentially an ad hominem and a straw man fused into one.


Marxism is simple. If you can read, it's even simpler :D


All Marxists theories sound exactly the same, so if you can memorise one, you've memorised them all. There's only one Marxist theory, this fellow is cheeky.


Instead of x, write one of the following terms: democracy, international trade, banks, capitalism, political parties, the media, social stratification, social mobility, racism, the police, the military, printer cartridges, holidays to Florida, Nigerian e-mail scams, etc. Actually, capitalism is inherently anti-Democratic. Communism, and subsequently Marxism, is definitively pro- democratic.


Marxist writing is impossible to understand. See point 1.


The second thing you must learn about Marxism is that Marxists write in their own language because they consider normal English beneath them. Considering Marx wrote in German, and comparing his works to other German works (ahem Hegel), Marx wrote very simply. If this fellow can't understand it, I would suggest for him or her to find something else to ***** about. Something where s/he could have a point in.


It doesn't matter, nobody else does either. Thus, any interpretation you make up is de facto the right answer. Again, see point 1. If you can read, understanding the writings of Marx is a lot easier.


Marxism is immune to falsification. If you write like a Marxist, nobody can disprove what you're saying. Simply memorise the phrase "Yes, but that just shows how sneaky they are!" and use it to destroy any counter-argument. Yes, but that just shows how sneaky they are! :rolleyes:

No, words have specific meanings. If you, as the lay person, choose not to understand what words mean, you come up with de facto points that are from the depths of the sea of stupidity.


Karl Marx is an academic super-star. You will soon learn that Karl Marx is the single most important intellectual the human race has ever produced. Every department in the humanities and the social sciences claims that Karl Marx is one of their own. This is great, because it means you only have to learn one theory, and you've effectively studied for seven different subjects. Departments that prominently teach Marxism include sociology, philosophy, political science, international relations, economics, history, anthropology, English, and probably a lot of others I don't know about. Marx wrote a "Unified Field Theory" of the social sciences. What do you expect it to be? Just applicable to one field and no others? Like how you can come up with only straw men?