None exist.
Results 1 to 20 of 60
Well-informed Arguments Against Marxism/Communism?
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.
None exist.
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.
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.
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.
quite ironic considering critiques by Trots tends to be lies and misinformation.None exist.
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.
http://ppe.mercatus.org/
No where in Marxism is there any suggestions or forward planning against alien invasions.
"It can also be argued that DNA is nothing more than a program designed to preserve itself... So man is an individual only because of his intangible memory. But memory cannot be defined, yet it defines mankind."
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.67
Well-informed Arguments Against Marxism/Communism?
Or zombie attacks!
Yeah take that Marxists.
"I'm not interested in indulging whims from members of your faction."
Seeing as this is seen as acceptable by an admin, from here on out when I have a disagreement with someone I will be asking them to reference this. If you want an explanation of my views, too bad.
This might not be what you're looking for exactly, but you may find Karl Popper interesting.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!
BANS GOT YOU PARANOID? I MADE A GROUP FOR YOU! http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1349 NOW OPEN FOR EVERYBODY!!!
"Think for yourself; question authority." - Timothy Lenin
Well... I can't think of anything at all.
"But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first free-thinker and emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge." ~Mikhail Bakunin
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
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.
Last edited by SensibleLuxemburgist; 31st December 2013 at 23:24. Reason: Pointing fingers incorrectly
"Without general elections, without freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, without the free battle of opinions... bureaucracy rises as the only deciding factor." - Rosa Luxemburg
"The capitalist class is represented by the Republican, Democratic, Populist and Prohibition parties, all of which stand for private ownership of the means of production..." - Eugene Victor "Gene" Debs
"...a democratic, national government that is revolutionary and popular. That is how socialism begins, not with decrees." - Salvador Allende Gossens
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.
"We have seen: a social revolution possesses a total point of view because – even if it is confined to only one factory district – it represents a protest by man against a dehumanized life" - Marx
"But to push ahead to the victory of socialism we need a strong, activist, educated proletariat, and masses whose power lies in intellectual culture as well as numbers." - Luxemburg
fka the greatest Czech player of all time, aka Pavel Nedved
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.
Last edited by Marxaveli; 2nd January 2014 at 01:00.
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'.
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?
"But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first free-thinker and emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge." ~Mikhail Bakunin
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
The only decent arguments against Marxism that I know of are from an anarchist perspective. I have yet to see a considerable bourgeois argument.
"The people have proved that they can run it... They (the pigs) can call it what they want to, they can talk about it. They can call it communism, and think that that's gonna scare somebody, but it ain't gonna scare nobody" ― Fred Hampton
“Mao Zedong said that power grows from the barrel of a gun. He never said that power was a gun. This is why I don't need no gun to do my thing. What I need is some freedom and the power to determine my destiny” ― Huey P. Newton
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.
Economic Left/Right: -8.75Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.08
"Freedom in a Capitalist society always remains about the same as it did in the ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners." Vladimir Lenin.
"Communism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen." Leon Trotsky.
