The errors of Marxism

[Capitalist Fighter]

The common claim you will likely hear from a modern Marxist is that communism did not fail, it simply never existed. This goes contrary to history: Lenin and several others (Mao and Pol Pot most notably) did their best to bring about the supposed dialectical steps necessary for communism. Communism, or the attempt at bringing about it, did in fact fail, but not because of revolutions being "corrupted" ala Animal Farm, or because of the "invasion of capital" brought about by the West (had this reason been true, it would have disproved Marx's theory to a large extent since communism was supposed to outproduce capitalism), but rather because of philosophical flaws in Marxism.

Marxism is a Historicism. Historicists believe that history can largely be predicted through reason, and that it moves towards an absolute goal, which is preordained. Now there's a lot of problems with this idea, obviously. The first is that without a belief in God, there is no logical reasoning to hold this mess of a theory together. The German philosopher Hegel, who was a significant influence on Marx, largely justified the historicism by believing in God. Because Marx does not presuppose God, there is no way he can properly reason that there is an "end of history."

Further on this line of thinking is the Marxist determinism. For instance, a pro-Marxist reading my critique might say "he only believes that because he is bourgeoisie!" The problem with this is that, the Marxist was predetermined to believe in Marxism, and Marx was predetermined to believe the fundaments of his philosophy, etc. And belief provides no reason for thinking something is true. Thus determinism contradicts itself and under its own terms people have no reason to believe in Marxism.

Marxism is fundamentally a violent theory. Marx does not call for reform towards the end of history, he calls for violent class war. Thus a devout Marxist has no reason to listen to his opponents, the dialectic of history is on his side. He only has to shoot to kill and the utopia will follow. This has provided Communists with the philosophical justification to butcher over 100 million individuals.

Had Marx really wanted to prove his theory, then why did he not just found a worker-owned factory? Had he been right, it would have surely outproduced everyone else, and since capitalism follows the market, worker owned factories would have sprung up everywhere and peacefully attained victory. (this had already been attempted however, as those of you with a bit of history know. The people who tried this were the "utopian socialists" whom Marx argues, unconvincingly, against in the Manifesto. My question is, why did Marx still believe in socialism when he had seen it fail?)

Marx also had faulty notions of economics and human progress.

1) economics -- Marx believed that capitalism led to monopolies which would gradually grow in power and oppress the workers until finally being consumed in the revolution. This did not happen. Monopolies tend to collapse rather quickly in a capitalist system -- as soon as they fail to innovate. Take the example of IBM -- they had the computer platform everyone wanted, but succumbed to dozens of startup companies which were able to offer the equal or better computers at lower prices. Monopolies generally only thrive where they are supported by the state, which is supposedly a dialectical step towards communism (again, this didn't happen, it just helped the collapse of several economies, including Germany's, which led to the rise of Hitler). What must be noticed is that capitalism leads to a freer, wealthier, and less classed society. Look at what the poor of America have compared to what the rich of the Middle Ages had. Capitalism and Science better people's lives in ways that government programs never can or will. The modern capitalist society is pear shaped rather than pyramid shaped for a reason -- hard labor and serfdom aren't as necessary for a strong economy. Machinery is largely freeing up humans for more creative pursuits, not oppressing or impoverishing them.

2) human progress -- Marx misunderstands this too. He thinks that by increasing the power of the state to an almost total control of the citizens lives, the state will "wither away." Yeah, right. Look at Hitler and Stalin. Power is concentrated in the state, but nothing miraculous happens, the economy gets more and more unstable, the state has to take genocidal actions to quell revolt, and eventually the government falls due to internal and/or external pressure. Mass government power is not an advance, it is a backsliding. The conception of the state is largely that it represents a separation of public life and private life. Totalitarianism is a de-politization of society: in all respects, it is a neo-tribalism. In tribal societies, the individual is suppressed and order upheld. This is largely what Marx wanted. The great wonder is not why Marxism did not lead to greater production and progress, but why Marx thought it would.It is important that Marxism be studied, for it has not left us. It is still a dominant factor in many universities (outside of economics departments, where it is for the most part known as a discredited system,) and still exerts a massive influence on European and American politics (in America Marxists are incorrectly known as "liberals")

Marxism has led to the deaths of over 100 million. That's about 16 Holocausts.






(Edited by Capitalist Fighter at 6:55 am on May 30, 2002)

[Mac OS Revolutionary]

I wonder how many those deaths were actually caused by marxs doctrines? I wonder how many of those deaths were Indirectly caused by marxism? I wonder how many people died indirectly from capitalism?

[Capitalist Fighter]

Mac we'll discuss that last line later in another thread. Why don't you rejoinder the points made about Marxism and its flaws.

[peaccenicked]

Firstly,
Let me use my favorite Benjamin Quote.
"The tradition of the oppressed teaches us that the ‘state of emergency’ in which we live is not the exception but the rule. We must attain to a conception of history that is in keeping with this insight. Then we shall clearly realize that it is our task to bring about a real state of emergency, and this will improve our position in the struggle against Fascism. One reason why Fascism has a chance is that in the name of progress its opponents treat it as a historical norm. The current amazement that the things we are experiencing are ‘still’ possible in the twentieth century is not philosophical. This amazement is not the beginning of knowledge—unless it is the knowledge that the view of history which gives rise to it is untenable.''
What is fascism? It is counter revolution against socialism. Marx sought to express the interests of the working class. That is the core of marxism. You seem to be expousing the interests of the very small group of people who make up the capitalist class by making crude propaganda points that you have not backed up with any evidence. Have you actually read Marx or only what some right wing hack says.

[El Che]

CF, I really must say that you missed a good oportunity to be quiet. You presupose to descredit Marxism? I know that due to the constraintes of this discussion space there are many issues that can not be fully addressed, but please this is just mediocre. If anything you discredit your self with bulders such as this one. I sugest that you study Marxism again, and please dont be afaird to ask for help.

Certainly Marx made some mistakes, after all he was only a man, no man is perfect. But what is extraordinary, is that you dont manage to idenfity one single mistake he made, prefering instead to atribute flase mistakes unto Marx. Nothing, then, becomes easier than counter argumenting your ill directed efforts. The resulting being the apperance of a flawless work on the part of Marx, which is not correct but is of your responsibility since its you that are responsible for this inadequate atack, that can and does back fire.

" The common claim you will likely hear from a modern Marxist is that communism did not fail, it simply never existed. This goes contrary to history: Lenin and several others (Mao and Pol Pot most notably) did their best to bring about the supposed dialectical steps necessary for communism. Communism, or the attempt at bringing about it, did in fact fail, but not because of revolutions being "corrupted" ala Animal Farm, or because of the "invasion of capital" brought about by the West (had this reason been true, it would have disproved Marx's theory to a large extent since communism was supposed to outproduce capitalism), but rather because of philosophical flaws in Marxism."

If you recognise that totalitarianism is one of the importante reasons for the failure of socialist experiments, then why do presist later on in confusing errors and responsibilities of totalitarianism with suposed "errors of Marxism"? This is either an intellectual handy cap or an intellectual dishonesty on your part. Its importante to reject (or not) vanguardist, totalitarianist marxism, its importante to point out the responsibilities this frame work for the implementation of marxist proposals has in the faliure of those same proposals. But what is totaly ubsured and is try and reduce marxism to this totalitarian frame work, or to blame that philosophical theory for crimes and mistakes of others for the simple fact that those goverments where trying to implement socialist reformes.

So I`ll tell this once and once only: Totalitarianism is not Marxism, it is at best, a way some choose to implement Marxist projects. One can reject the means and uphold the rightful ends. And you, if you wish to point out the errors of Marxism must indict Marxism on charges against Marxism.

"Marxism is a Historicism. Historicists believe that history can largely be predicted through reason, and that it moves towards an absolute goal, which is preordained. Now there's a lot of problems with this idea, obviously. The first is that without a belief in God, there is no logical reasoning to hold this mess of a theory together. The German philosopher Hegel, who was a significant influence on Marx, largely justified the historicism by believing in God. Because Marx does not presuppose God, there is no way he can properly reason that there is an "end of history." "

Marx did not want to predict the future, I think your confusing Marxism with vodoo. The future is unknown to all, and nowhere does Marx presupose he has the capacity to predict the future. In statements such as this you display how little you know of the theory you question. Your confusing human evolution, a project for the future with a prediction of the future. How childish. Marxism is quite simply a theory of human social evolution that points the way foward, it doesn`t say what will happen in the future though. It could be that in future we will return to the dark ages in terms of social organisation, who knows? Whats your point? Do you even have one?

End of history? no. You mean freedom, you mean the highest stage of social evolution, you mean the end of class system, you mean final equality among men, you mean the end of that historical process that is the struggle of classes. Thats what you mean, but the problem is you dont even know what you mean, I have to tell you.

And about god, I dont even know what your talking about, how does "god" justify anything what so ever in phylosophy or in anything else? Marx needs god to help his thoery stand? I`m not even going there.

"Further on this line of thinking is the Marxist determinism. For instance, a pro-Marxist reading my critique might say "he only believes that because he is bourgeoisie!" The problem with this is that, the Marxist was predetermined to believe in Marxism, and Marx was predetermined to believe the fundaments of his philosophy, etc. And belief provides no reason for thinking something is true. Thus determinism contradicts itself and under its own terms people have no reason to believe in Marxism."

This makes no sense, I suspect because its nonsense. But in any case could you perhaps be more clear? Do you even know what determinism is? Like eveything else it can be well applied or not, when it is not well applied, when it is taken to an unreasonable extreme then it can be a source of theoritical errors, but you have to be contrete here, you have to speak of contrete cases of applied determinism so that we can judge each on its own merits. But your not doing that are you? nop, and why not? because what you are trying to do is put determinism in question which is of course obsurd. Its the iceing on your cake my friend.

"Marxism is fundamentally a violent theory. Marx does not call for reform towards the end of history, he calls for violent class war. Thus a devout Marxist has no reason to listen to his opponents, the dialectic of history is on his side. He only has to shoot to kill and the utopia will follow. This has provided Communists with the philosophical justification to butcher over 100 million individuals."

Ok now your just being silly. Se my first reply.

"Had Marx really wanted to prove his theory, then why did he not just found a worker-owned factory? Had he been right, it would have surely outproduced everyone else, and since capitalism follows the market, worker owned factories would have sprung up everywhere and peacefully attained victory. (this had already been attempted however, as those of you with a bit of history know. The people who tried this were the "utopian socialists" whom Marx argues, unconvincingly, against in the Manifesto. My question is, why did Marx still believe in socialism when he had seen it fail?)"

Worker owned factories are good! Its called socialism my friend, reformes in order to introduce at a later day communism. I`m sure Marx would approve for I`m sure Marx did not ignore that socialism is the road to communism. But what marx said is that that is not enough, and rightfuly so, that is no the end, the end is communism, the end is never for nothing is perfect and there is always room for improvement. And the object of socialists is not to outproduce capitalism, where did you get that from? thats bullshit. Another intellectual dishonesty. I think its clear that if you have to work 12 hours a day just to feed your family, you`ll produce more then you would in a humane system. We dont compete with capitalism in cruelty, our values and our superiority are elsewhere my child.

"1) economics -- Marx believed that capitalism led to monopolies which would gradually grow in power and oppress the workers until finally being consumed in the revolution. This did not happen. Monopolies tend to collapse rather quickly in a capitalist system -- as soon as they fail to innovate. Take the example of IBM -- they had the computer platform everyone wanted, but succumbed to dozens of startup companies which were able to offer the equal or better computers at lower prices. Monopolies generally only thrive where they are supported by the state, which is supposedly a dialectical step towards communism (again, this didn't happen, it just helped the collapse of several economies, including Germany's, which led to the rise of Hitler). What must be noticed is that capitalism leads to a freer, wealthier, and less classed society. Look at what the poor of America have compared to what the rich of the Middle Ages had. Capitalism and Science better people's lives in ways that government programs never can or will. The modern capitalist society is pear shaped rather than pyramid shaped for a reason -- hard labor and serfdom aren't as necessary for a strong economy. Machinery is largely freeing up humans for more creative pursuits, not oppressing or impoverishing them."

Like I said Marx couldn`t predict the future just like you cant either. So what?

"2) human progress -- Marx misunderstands this too. He thinks that by increasing the power of the state to an almost total control of the citizens lives, the state will "wither away." Yeah, right. Look at Hitler and Stalin. Power is concentrated in the state, but nothing miraculous happens, the economy gets more and more unstable, the state has to take genocidal actions to quell revolt, and eventually the government falls due to internal and/or external pressure. Mass government power is not an advance, it is a backsliding. The conception of the state is largely that it represents a separation of public life and private life. Totalitarianism is a de-politization of society: in all respects, it is a neo-tribalism. In tribal societies, the individual is suppressed and order upheld. This is largely what Marx wanted. The great wonder is not why Marxism did not lead to greater production and progress, but why Marx thought it would.It is important that Marxism be studied, for it has not left us. It is still a dominant factor in many universities (outside of economics departments, where it is for the most part known as a discredited system,) and still exerts a massive influence on European and American politics (in America Marxists are incorrectly known as "liberals"

What a crock of shi#, how you dont chock on ur lies is beyond me. I`ve already explained the difference between Marxism and totalitarianism as a way to implement Marxism. One is not the other and the latter is not the former, two different things, get that through your head. And in a classes egalitarian society the state would be greatly reduced in that the state is used by interest groups and social classes as a means to defend their interests.

Our interest is mankind.

[Nateddi]

CF you are full of shit and you should be banned

You got it from an amazon.com review; (view it Here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/cm/member-glance/-/ACPDMWMS8LKQX/ref=cm_fp_uc/104-4712522-8187137)) at the end it said: This is a dangerous book which has led to the deaths of over 100 million. That's about 16 Holocausts.

(referring to das kapital)

you changed it to "marxism led to the deaths"

No plagerizer escapes me :biggrin:




(Edited by Nateddi at 5:12 pm on May 30, 2002)

[El Che]

CF, nateddi has exposed you for what you are. I would appreciate it if in future you would not try to pass other peoples writings as your own. And I dare you to stand up and defend the crap you posted in ill faith.

[RedRevolutionary87]

lets compare actualy "communist" revolutions, to what marx said

case one: Russia. this country was under industrialised and a monarchy nota fully developed capitalist country.

marx said, that revolutions will take place in industrialised nations where capitalism is most rampant.

this was a major flaw in most revolutions.

also on another point, you said why not form worker owned factories? thats imposible in acapitalist society since someone has to buy the means of production in that factory, however if the government gives you your means, and you produce, only then can it work.

communism did not fail in some countries. yugoslavia for example was a near perfect case. at the time of the revolution the country was a constitutional monarchy, somewhat like britain. it was divided by nationalism because of the leaders own personal grudges. when tito came in the country was united, people lived better and together, it fell apart when the west decided to step in with millitary force, shortly after titos death, the west promoted some new nationalist leaders comming into the yugoslav scene, with this new nationalism breeding the country fell apart again, this a prime example where capitalism failed and communism didnt.

[Nateddi]

Dont bother convincing a plagerizer.

Its extremely ignorant to say that Marxism (or Capital as it was original stated in the pre-plagerized writting) caused 100 million deaths. Anyone who knows a thing or two about the basics of communism would be absurd to think that marxism had anything to do with it. So don't bother trying to explain yourself to ignorance, RR.

Enough said

[RedRevolutionary87]

i kno what you mean, but some else might read this post and it might change there outlook, i like to state the facts everytime i can, i dont lik eto see lie writen down and then not challanged.

[Needssomeconvincing]

So I suppose listing the flaws of capitalism is a lost cause.Surely the exploitation capitalism has caused to is far worse.

[Capitalist Fighter]

actually this review i got from borders.com under the capital section. I found it interesting and thought i would bring it up with the communists of this forum. That is hardly illegal. I never claimed it to be my own work, i used the term "exposed" under the sub heading to indicate that somebody has exposed or revealed the problems of this theory.
Now many of your replies relate to the theory itself which is fine, however i used modern day examples such as IBM and Stalin to show that Marxism in practice is different to marxism in theory. Marx's philosophies were pure, i acknowledge that and he was a brilliant man, however he did err when trying to predict the future and that should be pointed out. Hence the purpose of this post. The real life examples i have provided you can not be refuted.

[El Che]

And I thought your first post was mediocre, dishonest and outright untrue writing. But alas I had not yet seen ur third post, I wonder why I bother with you people...

[Capitalist Fighter]

Sorry we are not as good as your El Che. Freak dude that last post sounded really, really arrogant. Nobody is forcing you to debate here. Just calm down and address the points.

[RedRevolutionary87]

again you have refered to revolutions that werent communist, russia wasnt industrialised enough, this isnt a flaw in marx, its a flaw in lenin and his impatiance.

also ibm failed because they didnt evolve with thte market. marx said exactly that, he said that capitalism constantly needed to change the means of production to survive, ibm didnt change quick enough so it was left behind...

your own points are simply proving us right...

[El Che]

haha ok CF, whatever. I think this thread was just a bad idea and your probably sorry you started it by now. I`m not going to abstain from pointing out whats wrong with the picture you paint just to "be nice". Come on dont give me that! I`m sure if the situations were reversed you would give me no quarter. We all have to stand by what we post, and that means that when we make a mistake someone just might call us on it. Those are the rules of the game, if you cant handle them then dont play the game. Dont blame me for pointing out your errors, blame your self for their existence.

[Capitalist Fighter]

El Che what are you talking about? Get your feet back on the ground so we can debate again