APP - Marxism - What is it really?

[Uncensored2008]

As those like Zohran Mamdani and Alexandria Occasio Cortez rise in influence over the rapidly collapsing, Marxism has come to define the American democrat party.

So what exactly defines Marxism? Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. The definition of Marxism is;

https://www.marxists.org/admin/books/manifesto/Manifesto.pdf

The opening lines of the Manifesto read;

{The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master‡ and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.}

This statement by Marx is called "Critical Theory." The dialectical contest between oppressed and oppressor. Critical theory and dialectical materialism are the foundation of Marxism and all forms of socialism/collectivism - including the democrat party of 2025.

democrats have put a racist spin and created "Critical Race Theory" which automatically designates white people as oppressors regardless of economic strata, a racist presentation to appeal to American leftists who couldn't relate to the rigid class structures of Europe. American economic classes are in a constant state of flux, generational wealth is rare as is poverty.

The great American middle class has dominated America since the Market Revolution and is the primary impediment to the adoption of Marxism, explaining why the middle class is the primary target of the democrat party to be eradicated.

This debate is directly targeted at @Jake Starkey - but all are welcome to join in. Remember that this is APP and this is actual, scholarly debate.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Marx continues; {The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms} except that America indeed did away with class antagonism with the Market Revolution and the rise of the American middle class, which quickly became the dominant economic force in America, sapping the Aristocracy of the economic dominance it enjoyed in Europe and the rest of the world.

Socialists have struggled to gain relevancy absent a dominant Aristocracy to exploit the lower class. With most capital in the hands of small business and middle class owners, Critical Theory fails. Rather than concentrating capital in the hands of a few, the American middle class diversified capital in the hands of the masses. Empowering the middle as the dominant economic power.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The next serious mistake by Marx is the misguided view of labor itself;

{Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour,10 is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. }

The primary misstep by Communists here is the attempt to divide the bourgeois - the middle class - from the proletarians - the labor class. Particularly in America, the working class IS the middle class and vice versa. The socialist goal of pitting workers against the middle, the entrepreneurs and proprietors of small business is hence doomed to failure. Socialists seek to pit the same people against themselves in order to secure position and wealth for the aristocracy.

Capitalist society - free markets, by nature cause capital to flow to the middle. In a free market there is no protection for aristocrats and Oligarchs based on family name or societal position. Innovators incessantly arise, new wealth is created as old wealth is squandered by those who inherit rather than create. Hence one of the primary objectives of socialism, the protection of the aristocracy, fairs badly in free market societies. The left will do all possible to regulate and cripple free markets in order to combat the flow to the middle, but the more open an economy, the more futile efforts by socialists are.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Communism in relation to the American Democratic Party:

Marx writes further;
{The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement. The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere are present the interests of the movement as a whole.}

Here we get to the meat that insofar as the perspective of the democrat party in America, they are we and we are them. That is, as Marx states there is no distinction between Communist and democrat, the Communists do not separate themselves from the left as a whole, but essentially infest any and all left leaning causes and parties. In America this is primarily the democrat party. This heralds back to those such as Mamdani, AOC, Tlaib, Gavin Newson, et al. Per Marxist doctrine, these are not infiltrators who have seized control of the party, but in fact the very definition of the party. The democrat party in inseparable from communism as Marx has molded the proletarian movement of the party.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Leftism and the assault on family;

Marx wrote;

{The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property – historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production – this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you.

What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property. Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family!

Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based?On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.}

Marx and Engels have a particular hatred for the family. Families represent units of loyalty which usually supercede obedience and subservience to the state. This is intolerable to the totalitarian state. Marx, Hitler, and Mussolini all wrote of the problem of family as parents and siblings will cling to their own in defiance of rulers.

Marx has no idea how to overcome the family unit and starts with the absurd claim that "In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie." But of course not only do the Aristocrats and Oligarchs have families, so do the lower classes. Note again that Marx complains that the Middle Class is allowed families, never mentioning the ruling Aristocracy. The family must be eradicated in the Middle Class to ensure absolute rule by the Aristocracy,

We see this in the democrat party with focus on mechanism that dissolve and dissuade familial ties. The welfare system that is designed to keep fathers out of the home. The LGBT obsession of the democrats, the need to promote non-traditional relationships. The rise of easy divorce. democrats again show absolute fealty to Communism in their prolonged war on nuclear families.

 

[IBDaMann]

Marxism - What is it really?​

Marxism is Karl Marx's ideology, as defined in The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. Any idea that is part of this ideology is a Marxist idea; for example the US income tax is Marxist, as is compulsory public education for children, taken right out of the Communist Manifesto:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Marx and Engels expound upon individuality and the concept of rights;

{In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past.}

This is a profound statement.

George Orwell brought this out in the novel "1984" with the idea that "those who control the past, control the present." Marx makes clear that the modern left will distort and pervert history without restraint to further the goals of the all powerful state.

Marx continues,

{ In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality. And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.}

Marxism, Communism, any form of progressivism have no tolerance for individuals, individual freedom, or independence of thought and action. Once again this ties directly to the democrat party and the propensity of the party to promote privilege based on group identification. Gay rights, black rights, women's rights. etc. These are the substitute for the individual rights that were promoted by the enlightenment and which the United States is based on. The democrats, as with all collectivists, view "rights" only in the lens of groups that find favor in the party. The individual provides no advantage for the party, hence the party eschews the individual and attempts to force all persons into designated groups that are either in favor with the party and granted privilege over others, or out of favor to be persecuted by the party and the groups the party supports.

Marx continues with a statement that would be at home in any speech by Mamdani or Gavin Newsom;

{You must, therefore, confess that by ―individual, you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.}

The moves in California to end single property family homes is the principle of ending middle-class property ownership in action. The success of such actions will be the precursor to nationwide action of similar vein. The eradication of middle class home ownership is not something democrats will achieve overnight, it is a generational program dependant on propaganda as much as on coercion. Convincing the next generation that they cannot own property as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Communism and Socialism, in all forms requires one thing to work:

That everyone in society be altruistic. That is, every person in a society is selfless and will willingly give away to others the fruits of their labor while continuing to produce to their ability. It's that simple, that's all it requires to work.

Put another way, you have to be willing to work for the good of society even when you get little or nothing in return for it.

Of course, the reality is that the vast majority of people are not going to be altruistic. Nor will people work hard to have that hard work taken from them to give to others who do little or nothing. This means the only way socialism can operate in a society is by force of government. Thus, a socialist society must in turn become a dictatorship in one form or another that enforces work on individuals collecting that output and then distributing it. Altruism becomes forced labor instead.

Of course, this in turn, means those placed in a position to decide for society will eventually become corrupt and the system broken. Those with initiative and drive will become economic criminals who work and produce outside the system. Corruption and black markets become endemic to a socialist society.

This fundamental truth about human nature and social interaction escaped Marx and Engels, and escapes those today preaching Socialism.

 

[IBDaMann]

This means the only way socialism can operate in a society is by force of government.

... and the winning pearl of wisdom in all this is that communism has no government to force anyone to do anything or to prevent anyone from doing anything, and truly requires all people to be altruistic 24/7. The first person to get a firearm and say "Fuck this!" becomes instant dictator, and his friends become the ruling oligarchy.

Thus, a socialist society must in turn become a dictatorship in one form or another that enforces work on individuals

This is the definition of the socialism stage of the "natural progression" towards communism. Society forms into a socialist oligarchy that centrally plans the restructuring of society, i.e. a complete dictatorship. The problem comes when said oligarchy is supposed to "step down", i.e. abdicate all power and join the rest of the people in the now government-free, police-free, military-free society; that never seems to happen. Those in power become paranoid and start killing all potential future opponents. Elections become rigged by default. The Utopia is never delivered.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Destruction of Existing Culture:

As we have seen with the democrat led "Counter Culture," one of the primary means of furthering the agenda of Socialism is the destruction of the existing society and the cultural underpinnings of same.

Marx writes;

{But these Socialist and Communist publications contain also a critical element. They attack every principle of existing society. Hence, they are full of the most valuable materials for the enlightenment of the working class. The practical measures proposed in them – such as the abolition of the distinction between town and country, of the family, of the carryingon of industries for the account of private individuals, and of the wage system, the proclamation of social harmony, the conversion of the function of the state into a more superintendence of production}

This is a lot to unpack. Marx advocates the attack on "every principle of existing society." We see this in leftist movement from the militant trans movement to the BLM insurrection of 2019-20. The Socialists are not particularly interested in the actual issue involved, the goal is to attack and tear down existing society.

We also see the attempts by Socialists to eradicate regional identity and even rural versus urban sensibility. Socialism depends on the erasure of individualism and identity. The populace must be compliant cogs in the wheel of the state without any sense of worth beyond that as tools of the state.

Again we see this in action through the democrats as the erasure of difference between men and women. The androgyny we see daily among Socialists is manifestation of the erasure of identity is absolute subservience to the party and the state.


{ – all these proposals point solely to the disappearance of class antagonisms which were, at that time, only just cropping up, and which, in these publications, are recognised in their earliest indistinct and undefined forms only. These proposals, therefore, are of a purely Utopian character.}

Marx here pontificates that such actions will will lead to the utopia of Communism, that as individualism and identity are erased, people can function more as insects in a well organized hive without and sense of self.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Actually, it doesn't "escape" me. In fact, it is one of the reasons why I would never advocate for a change to a socialistic system here in America. So, essentially, I agree with you on this, TA. Unfettered socialism (or communism) fail because of human nature.

However, there is a similar liability for capitalism and free enterprise that I think ought be considered. A "human nature" type of fundamental truth that escapes those espousing that socialistic ideas be dismissed out of hand. I will refrain from discussing that truth (those truths) because I do not want to run afoul of rules about not derailing the conversation.

Would you consider a discussion of the other side of this issue to be a derailment of your post?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually, it doesn't "escape" me. In fact, it is one of the reasons why I would never advocate for a change to a socialistic system here in America. So, essentially, I agree with you on this, TA. Unfettered socialism (or communism) fail because of human nature.

However, there is a similar liability for capitalism and free enterprise that I think ought be considered. A "human nature" type of fundamental truth that escapes those espousing that socialistic ideas be dismissed out of hand. I will refrain from discussing that truth (those truths) because I do not want to run afoul of rules about not derailing the conversation.

Would you consider a discussion of the other side of this issue to be a derailment of your post?

Yes, but would be happy to engage in a thread you start about Capitalism. I think that would be a good addition.

I want to keep this about Marx and Engels due to the pervasive misconceptions on both sides about what Marxism actually teaches. I've done my best to present the Manifesto and only comment on the contents of the actual document.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Actually, it doesn't "escape" me. In fact, it is one of the reasons why I would never advocate for a change to a socialistic system here in America. So, essentially, I agree with you on this, TA. Unfettered socialism (or communism) fail because of human nature.

That's the failure of Socialism and Communism.

However, there is a similar liability for capitalism and free enterprise that I think ought be considered. A "human nature" type of fundamental truth that escapes those espousing that socialistic ideas be dismissed out of hand. I will refrain from discussing that truth (those truths) because I do not want to run afoul of rules about not derailing the conversation.

With Capitalism, in its unfettered form it allows rapaciousness. It feeds to human nature at its worst, but at least it is hewing to human nature. What happens in a Capitalist society is that the majority of people won't tolerate unfettered rapaciousness and collectively put limits on it. Sure, there are still those that will operate outside of those rules--take the Somali fraud stuff going on right now as one example--but at least society, as a whole, works to keep a lid on that kind of thing.

Rather than starting from failure like Socialism does and trying to make it work, Capitalism starts from excessive success and tries to make it tolerable.

Would you consider a discussion of the other side of this issue to be a derailment of your post?

Not at all. As you can see from the above, I'm willing to look at the whole of human economic systems and assess their successes and failures.

I would say on the whole, looking at the Big Picture, all of history shows that nations and societies start out with unfettered Capitalism and move towards Socialism. When Socialism overtakes a society, it eventually collapses, or fails, economically and the cycle repeats. The trick is to find the perfect balance point between Capitalism and Socialism and keep the economy at that point. I don't think that's realistically possible, but that seems to be what we as a species needs when it comes to economic systems.

 

[Ross Dolan]

That's the failure of Socialism and Communism.


With Capitalism, in its unfettered form it allows rapaciousness. It feeds to human nature at its worst, but at least it is hewing to human nature. What happens in a Capitalist society is that the majority of people won't tolerate unfettered rapaciousness and collectively put limits on it. Sure, there are still those that will operate outside of those rules--take the Somali fraud stuff going on right now as one example--but at least society, as a whole, works to keep a lid on that kind of thing.

Rather than starting from failure like Socialism does and trying to make it work, Capitalism starts from excessive success and tries to make it tolerable.

Not at all. As you can see from the above, I'm willing to look at the whole of human economic systems and assess their successes and failures.

I would say on the whole, looking at the Big Picture, all of history shows that nations and societies start out with unfettered Capitalism and move towards Socialism. When Socialism overtakes a society, it eventually collapses, or fails, economically and the cycle repeats. The trick is to find the perfect balance point between Capitalism and Socialism and keep the economy at that point. I don't think that's realistically possible, but that seems to be what we as a species needs when it comes to economic systems.

The problem with capitalism, which is every bit as degrading as the problem with socialism, is that in its unfettered condition (which, despite what you mentioned, it always is) is that it eventually leads to a very few having such a marked advantage over the masses, that it eventually becomes monarchial.

The rich have ways to stop any laws that are designed to limit how much wealth they are allow to obtain and accumulate...PERIOD. Some might think the desire to become THE RICHEST can be "contained" but you cannot stop people for whom the pursuit of money is a compulsion...from pursuing it.

There are a few questions I often ask of people who see this problem differently from how I see it...who see that it can be contained. Here they are with a reasonable predicate:

THE PREDICATE: The top 10% of families now own 60% of the total wealth of the US; the bottom 50% owns 6%; the top 1% of families own between 30% - 40% of all the wealth. (All this from 2022...with almost certainty that the wealth percentage numbers have increased for the top 10% and 1%...with the percentage of wealth percentage for the bottom 50% decreasing in the intervening years.)

THE QUESTIONS: At what point do you think that the disparity requires significant "containment by law?"

How much would you say that the top 10% have to own of the nation's wealth before that containment by law be applied?

How much would you say that the top 1% have to own of the nation's wealth before that should happen?

I have asked these questions on the Internet dozens of times...and never had a response that truly dealt with them. Would you?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The problem with capitalism, which is every bit as degrading as the problem with socialism, is that in its unfettered condition (which, despite what you mentioned, it always is) is that it eventually leads to a very few having such a marked advantage over the masses, that it eventually becomes monarchial.

What you are describing is the move from Capitalism to Socialism. A monarchy is essentially a Socialist economy. The monarch owns everything and decides who gets what. The only distinction is the monarch doesn't distribute wealth evenly as Marxism would argue should occur.

That said, Capitalism has the advantage that because it doesn't go against human nature, it works. Yes, the lazy and stupid get less and the intelligent and hard working get more. You still have those, like in Socialism or Communism who game the system.

That's where society as a whole steps in and puts limits on Capitalism. The system is restrained. This is the opposite of a Socialist system where you have government forcing participation because people refuse to work for nothing or little.

The rich have ways to stop any laws that are designed to limit how much wealth they are allow to obtain and accumulate...PERIOD. Some might think the desire to become THE RICHEST can be "contained" but you cannot stop people for whom the pursuit of money is a compulsion...from pursuing it.

The rich occur even in Communism or Socialism. Again, you simply cannot beat human nature. You can restrain it, but you can't stop it.

There are a few questions I often ask of people who see this problem differently from how I see it...who see that it can be contained. Here they are with a reasonable predicate:

THE PREDICATE: The top 10% of families now own 60% of the total wealth of the US; the bottom 50% owns 6%; the top 1% of families own between 30% - 40% of all the wealth. (All this from 2022...with almost certainty that the wealth percentage numbers have increased for the top 10% and 1%...with the percentage of wealth percentage for the bottom 50% decreasing in the intervening years.)

THE QUESTIONS: At what point do you think that the disparity requires significant "containment by law?"

It doesn't. That disparity is often caused by the law. For example, if those in a particular industry get laws passed to raise the bar of entry into a particular field or job, they can create artificial scarcity and thus those in that field become rich. The government and legal system often work to advantage the rich over others. Thus, more government can result in creating the disparity in incomes you decry.

What you need are laws that make everyone play to the same rules but don't favor anyone. For example, ensuring weights and measures are uniform, and that there is truth in product labeling, or that products are reasonably (note that, not completely) safe.

What you don't want are laws that mass spending on regulatory nonsense to get into a field or things that limit entry into a job like closed shop unions.

How much would you say that the top 10% have to own of the nation's wealth before that containment by law be applied?

The trick here is to find the right balance of law versus free market to make things work most efficiently. I don't know if anyone can point to the correct balance there. But if you let government grow unfettered, you end up with a system that benefits the few and screws the vast majority.

How much would you say that the top 1% have to own of the nation's wealth before that should happen?

I think what you want, optimally, is something approaching a bell curve of wealth distribution. That is, about 2 out of 3 are what would be the "Middle Class." That is they make enough wealth, or own enough, to be comfortable within the economic standards of the day. The other third is roughly evenly split between the Poor and the Rich. So, that gives about one-sixth (~17%) being somewhere in the Rich category and another one-sixth being Poor.

Of course, I'm giving what I'd call the "Perfect world" version there, versus reality, but the big factor is a very large and preferably growing Middle Class. Having a relative handful of 'robber barons' or desperately poor isn't really a big issue so long as the vast majority of people are doing reasonably well with their standard of living.

Socialism creates a shrinking Middle-Class while producing an increasing number of what I'll call, "Satisfied Poor." That is, government using Socialist programs creates a growing portion of society that is being given enough to get by at the low end of comfort without being particularly productive. The Rich avoid being taxed out of existence by a combination of avoidance and cronyism with government. That is, they either find a way not to pay, or they buddy up to government to ensure they don't have to pay.

I have asked these questions on the Internet dozens of times...and never had a response that truly dealt with them. Would you?

I've tried here, at least as a starter position.

 

[TravisBickle]

Marxism is very simple. Suck the resources out of the productive and give it to the non-productive. Recipe for FAIL.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Marxism is very simple. Suck the resources out of the productive and give it to the non-productive. Recipe for FAIL.

Not true! Marxism argues that humanity can become altruistic. But what actually happens is Marxism sucks the life out of the productive reducing a society and economy to the least-common-denominator, universal poverty. It is not so much a recipe for failure as a recipe for unrelenting misery.

 

[TravisBickle]

Not true! Marxism argues that humanity can become altruistic. But what actually happens is Marxism sucks the life out of the productive reducing a society and economy to the least-common-denominator, universal poverty. It is not so much a recipe for failure as a recipe for unrelenting misery.

Um.... a.... isn't that what I said?

 

[Ross Dolan]

What you are describing is the move from Capitalism to Socialism. A monarchy is essentially a Socialist economy. The monarch owns everything and decides who gets what. The only distinction is the monarch doesn't distribute wealth evenly as Marxism would argue should occur.

I did not use the word "monarch." I said "monarchial." There is a difference.

I think Marxism does not want wealth distributed evenly...and if it does, it would be another reason why I do not advocate for Marxism.

I am a capitalist. But just as some socialistic societies have adopted features of capitalism (to great advantage), I think we should incorporate some socialistic features into our capitalistic society.

There will always be some people with more than others...and some with MUCH more than others. Fine by me.

Let's discuss this point...and then go on to the other comments you made.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I did not use the word "monarch." I said "monarchial." There is a difference.

"Monarchial" is defined as Related to a monarchy or monarch. There is no difference.

I think Marxism does not want wealth distributed evenly...and if it does, it would be another reason why I do not advocate for Marxism.

I would say that's true to an extent. From each according to their ability. To each according to their needs. That would imply some equal distribution baseline on things like food, clothing, shelter, and the like. The problem becomes any "needs" beyond that. Then you end up with the question of who deserves what and how much and as we've seen, that ends up being a small oligarchy that runs things deciding among themselves what everyone gets, which is mostly they get everything.

I am a capitalist. But just as some socialistic societies have adopted features of capitalism (to great advantage), I think we should incorporate some socialistic features into our capitalistic society.

I'd agree. Europe and much of the West is too Socialized in my opinion. The way I see it is Socialism in society should provide the bare minimum for everyone. Beyond that, you provide for yourself--that is you participate in the economy and that economy is Capitalist in nature.

There will always be some people with more than others...and some with MUCH more than others. Fine by me.

I can agree to that. What I want is that those with much more cannot manipulate the system to keep those who aren't in that group from entering.