Any opposing ideologies for Marxism coursework?

[RedStarMilitia]

Hi. I'm doing sociology at school (before you criticise school read my post on the hideen curriculum in practice) and you are allowed to choose what coursework you will do. My topic will be "To what extent can the principles of Marxism be applied to today's society". I am already reading the communist manifesto and plan to talk about classical Marxism, modern Marxism, che's revolution, feminist Marxism and opposing ideologies (I will also post this in the opposing ideologies section.
I was wondering would anyone have any advice on how the principles of marxism can be applied to today's society and on the other hand how they coul not (it must be a balanced argument).
Although I am left-wing i want to do this and find out information on what opposers to Marxism believe; through this i can learn how to tackle and win an argument in the future.
Anyone got any good arguments?

Remember, the coursework will include traditional Marxism, modern Marxism, che's revolution, feminist Marxism - other theories are welcome. (remember I am fairly new to this - I am not sure on what all the theories entail)

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

[Publius]

Sure, I'll help you out.

Lay down some basic Marxist claims.

[Publius]

To help you out, I'll give you some capitalist stuff to read.

For free, you can read the daily article on www.mises.org. It's false to say they speak for every capitalist, but their articles always promote liberty and are often good.

You can also read many of the Austrian economists' books for free on the site.

You should subscribe to the Economist magazine, www.economist.com, as it is currently the best 'capitalist' news source in existance, and quite possibly the best news source, period. It's not overtly capitalist, but it always promotes capitalist or market liberal policies, and is relatively liberal on social issues.

You should also read some of the classic capitalist books:

The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith

The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek

and although I've yet to read it,

Socialism by Ludwig von Mises is supposed to be good refuation of, obviously, socialism.

[RedStarMilitia]

thanks for the help, but no way will i subscribe to the magazine, it opposes my views but i will use the sources.

thanks

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

crud.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 12:03 AM
I was wondering would anyone have any advice on how the principles of marxism can be applied to today's society
Hmm well. Many things in today's society are socialist ideas. This is of course, if you live in the UK. The NHS (National Health Service), The Welfare state, perhaps you could even write about the length of the working day and how unions came about.

All of these are somewhat Socialist ideas, that are applied to today's society. If you want I can go into this a bit further, but you could just use google :D

[bed_of_nails]

Here are some opposing ideologies:

Capitalism
Fascism
Nazism
Stalinism :lol:

[Publius]

thanks for the help, but no way will i subscribe to the magazine, it opposes my views but i will use the sources.

thanks

It's quite simply the best news magazine/paper in existence, for it's writing, reporting, and cover stories.

At least pick up a newstand issue.

[Zingu]

The Communist Manifesto won't give you a clear picture of Marxism; it was primarily written as a revolutionary platform for Communists to follow in 1848.

[Kitbag]

It's quite simply the best news magazine/paper in existence, for it's writing, reporting, and cover stories.

I had a look at that. The writing is bollocks, quite simply. I'm not going to penalize you for being right-wing because everyone should have their own opinions, unfortunately, but I will say this: you don't know good jounalism. Good journalism will find and whole truth and show both sides of an arguement, in an un-biased way, which The Economist does not. Unfortunately, it's hard to find real good journalism any more. I pity you.

[Publius]

I had a look at that. The writing is bollocks, quite simply. I'm not going to penalize you for being right-wing because everyone should have their own opinions, unfortunately, but I will say this: you don't know good jounalism. Good journalism will find and whole truth and show both sides of an arguement, in an un-biased way, which The Economist does not. Unfortunately, it's hard to find real good journalism any more. I pity you.

Why show both sides, when one side is wrong?

:)

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Von Misses is an idjit . . .

But, I strongly encourage you to get a subscription to The Economist.

[Publius]

Von Misses is an idjit . . .

But, I strongly encourage you to get a subscription to The Economist.

What are some faults in his prexeology, than?

[GoaRedStar]

This is a good and well written article on Socialism's past and its current state

The Monthly Review

http://monthlyreview.org/0705jbf.htm


Its a long article but its a pretty goods article.

I would suggest we put this on the learning thread.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 07:31 PM

Von Misses is an idjit . . .

But, I strongly encourage you to get a subscription to The Economist.

What are some faults in his prexeology, than?
He's a fucking ideologue. His entire theory of human action (and its economic implication) arises entirely from his unashedly capitalist preconceptions. It's ahistorical, it . . . well, actually, you should start an Austrian Economics thread so the rest of the board can piss on subjective theory of value. It'll be fun.

[Publius]

He's a fucking ideologue.

Of course.

Sort of like Trotsky, Che and Marx.



His entire theory of human action (and its economic implication) arises entirely from his unashedly capitalist preconceptions.

Obviously he's going to disagree with you on just about every single point.

He's a laissez-faire capitalist and you're a communist.

It's like me saying Das Kapital is flawed, using the exact same reasons.

It's not something that's going to be resolved here, in all liklihood. We simply disagree.



It's ahistorical, it . . . well, actually, you should start an Austrian Economics thread so the rest of the board can piss on subjective theory of value. It'll be fun.

I'm sure that would be productive.

I'll just leave you with this:

"Those who measure the just price by the labour, costs, and risk incurred by the person who deals in the merchandise or produces it, or by the cost of transport or the expense of traveling...or by what he has to pay the factors for their industry, risk, and labour, are greatly in error.... For the just price arises from the abundance or scarcity of goods, merchants, and money...and not from costs, labour, and risk.... Why should a bale of linen brought overland from Brittany at great expense be worth more than one which is transported cheaply by sea?... Why should a book written out by hand be worth more than one which is printed, when the latter is better though it costs less to produce?... The just price is found not by counting the cost but by the common estimation." - Luis Saravia de la Calle

[red_orchestra]

RedStarMilitia: some thoughts.

a collection of Right-Wing views on Left-Wing ideologies:

•Socialism takes away from individuality and forces everyone under a 1 banner system
•State economy is driven by private enterprise not public sector jobs.
•The competitive nature of buisness stimulates an economy. Socialism takes away the competitive edge needed to drive a solid economy and waters down competition.
•Unions hurt everyone and prevents employee turn over from occuring- this hurts buisness.
•Socialism that eveyone is equal. This is untrue. In reality a natural hiarchy exists--survival of the fittest. The weak ones die, the strong survive.
•Money is more important than the needs of the a few individuals. Put yourself first. In Socialist State you would be putting the interests of the state first before yourself.
-------------------

I feel that right wingers tend to be self focused and not particularly interested in the good of a community.