Marxism?

[Jenny in Atl]

I always find it funny when people raise the "Marxist" specter. Folks, there has never been a country that followed "true" communism. Shoot, Jesus's teachings were almost Marxist, and how many Christians are living in communes besides some monks and nuns?

 

The Chinese, Vietnamese, etc are all moving more and more towards capitalism. Many are still totalitarian and many like Venezuela think they are trying out some of the old USSR type tricks, but in the end money talks. And if these players on the world's stage want their countries to grow and thrive, any of the pure "isims" will fail.

 

In the end it's about us. We are ultimately responsible electing and supporting this government which does not work. Big business wants it this way, and we seem to think we can do nothing about it. All the talk of indoctrination makes me laugh. I grew up with idealistic old beatniks/hippies, and I'm no Marxist. If my own parents could not lead me to the "dark" side, why on Earth would I fear an inept government of doing so?

 

Again, I'm holding up a mirror... are you looking in it?

[Starr]

I've recently visited with different friends children in their 20s and they are all over this stuff. I have to laugh.

I'm with you.

[dawn of ns]

To be fait to Marx, there hasn't been a government yet that truly followed his ideas either. Marxism isn't synonymous with communism.

[Zelda]

A government couldn't really "follow" Marxism as it was supposed to occur organically, without manipulation.

 

Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism etc. Adaptations of Marx. Those we've seen. Not pretty.

[Zelda]

And, I'll just say it, the Vietnam model isn't a great one either. I have some experience with this. It is, of course, anecdotal and related to the suffering of just one peasant family (mine, although I managed to spared any suffering due to my father being able to get us out) but it bears mentioning because it certainly must have some impact on my world view.

[PariSarah]

. . . at its most idealistic.

 

It still depends on a violent solution to the problem of economic inequity. (Aside: this is why I have a problem with people who portray Jesus as a proto-Marxist. His program for the redistribution of goods depended on the conversion, not the coercion, of the "haves." He made rich people want to reject their competitive acquisition of goods. The early church's communitarianism was likewise decentralized and voluntary.) The violent uprising is supposed to render a (marginally and temporarily) more just society, until, by successive violent uprisings, we finally arrive at economic justice. Even if you grant, for the sake of argument, the moral fitness of using violence in defense of justice, I do wonder at such blind faith in its effectiveness. The idea that humans are getting progressively more just is a fiction, and one that only the privileged get to indulge in; the idea that murder is helping us get there faster is an even stranger fiction.

 

Marxism also depends on the cultivation of class envy. Again, this is in sharp contrast with Jesus, whose idea of economic justice was based on responsibility and love. For Jesus, for Paul, for the early church, economic justice is absolutely possible even with an uneven distribution of goods and abilities, because all are anxious to care for each other.

 

For those two reasons, I do worry about the ideology of Marxism. Not about the spread of the ideals of economic parity and communitarianism--love those. When we get around to teaching Marx to the kids, we'll definitely highlight the ideals of justice Marx was aiming for. But Marxism, straight up, is morally worrisome for me.

 

Almost as worrisome as laissez-faire capitalism. ;)

[Debbie in OR]

. . . at its most idealistic.

 

It still depends on a violent solution to the problem of economic inequity. (Aside: this is why I have a problem with people who portray Jesus as a proto-Marxist. His program for the redistribution of goods depended on the conversion, not the coercion, of the "haves." He made rich people want to reject their competitive acquisition of goods. The early church's communitarianism was likewise decentralized and voluntary.) The violent uprising is supposed to render a (marginally and temporarily) more just society, until, by successive violent uprisings, we finally arrive at economic justice. Even if you grant, for the sake of argument, the moral fitness of using violence in defense of justice, I do wonder at such blind faith in its effectiveness. The idea that humans are getting progressively more just is a fiction, and one that only the privileged get to indulge in; the idea that murder is helping us get there faster is an even stranger fiction.

 

Marxism also depends on the cultivation of class envy. Again, this is in sharp contrast with Jesus, whose idea of economic justice was based on responsibility and love. For Jesus, for Paul, for the early church, economic justice is absolutely possible even with an uneven distribution of goods and abilities, because all are anxious to care for each other.

 

For those two reasons, I do worry about the ideology of Marxism. Not about the spread of the ideals of economic parity and communitarianism--love those. When we get around to teaching Marx to the kids, we'll definitely highlight the ideals of justice Marx was aiming for. But Marxism, straight up, is morally worrisome for me.

 

Almost as worrisome as laissez-faire capitalism. ;)

 

Wow. Just wow. I so wish I had written it.

[Michelle in MO]

. . . at its most idealistic.

 

It still depends on a violent solution to the problem of economic inequity. (Aside: this is why I have a problem with people who portray Jesus as a proto-Marxist. His program for the redistribution of goods depended on the conversion, not the coercion, of the "haves." He made rich people want to reject their competitive acquisition of goods. The early church's communitarianism was likewise decentralized and voluntary.) The violent uprising is supposed to render a (marginally and temporarily) more just society, until, by successive violent uprisings, we finally arrive at economic justice. Even if you grant, for the sake of argument, the moral fitness of using violence in defense of justice, I do wonder at such blind faith in its effectiveness. The idea that humans are getting progressively more just is a fiction, and one that only the privileged get to indulge in; the idea that murder is helping us get there faster is an even stranger fiction.

 

Marxism also depends on the cultivation of class envy. Again, this is in sharp contrast with Jesus, whose idea of economic justice was based on responsibility and love. For Jesus, for Paul, for the early church, economic justice is absolutely possible even with an uneven distribution of goods and abilities, because all are anxious to care for each other.

 

For those two reasons, I do worry about the ideology of Marxism. Not about the spread of the ideals of economic parity and communitarianism--love those. When we get around to teaching Marx to the kids, we'll definitely highlight the ideals of justice Marx was aiming for. But Marxism, straight up, is morally worrisome for me.

 

Almost as worrisome as laissez-faire capitalism. ;)

 

I couldn't agree with this more. Two completely different methods of motivation: one being class envy, and the other being a motivation of love.

 

Marx, of course, hated Christianity; I think the only positive thing he ever said about Christianity was that it "taught us to love children." And, given the fact that Christians have usually never prospered and have indeed been persecuted under Marxism, I would say that Marx's ideology and Christianity are quite at odds with one another.

 

So-called "liberation theology" which has been promulgated by some church members is generally not considered to be orthodox Christianity. And, for every statement like "All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need", which is found in the book of Acts (Acts 2:44-45)--written by Luke, of course, there are statements of reward according to faithfulness, i.e., the parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14-30).

 

Unbridled greed can be cultivated by capitalism, of course, so I would also agree with Parisarah on the second point she made. I would hold that the more people voluntarily give and care for others, the less need there is for coercion, whether through economic redistribution or legislation.

[Marie in Oh]

maybe I haven't read enough political posts. I have seen and used socialism though. That isn't the same bag of beans though.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

I always find it funny when people raise the "Marxist" specter. Folks, there has never been a country that followed "true" communism. Shoot, Jesus's teachings were almost Marxist, and how many Christians are living in communes besides some monks and nuns?

 

I think I love you. :001_smile: It always bothers me when people talk about Communism or Marx when they obviously have not read the Communist Manifesto or anything about economic or government theory.

[Karenciavo]

PariSarah,

I appreciate your intelligent, gracious responses.

Karen

 

. . . at its most idealistic.

 

It still depends on a violent solution to the problem of economic inequity. (Aside: this is why I have a problem with people who portray Jesus as a proto-Marxist. His program for the redistribution of goods depended on the conversion, not the coercion, of the "haves." He made rich people want to reject their competitive acquisition of goods. The early church's communitarianism was likewise decentralized and voluntary.) The violent uprising is supposed to render a (marginally and temporarily) more just society, until, by successive violent uprisings, we finally arrive at economic justice. Even if you grant, for the sake of argument, the moral fitness of using violence in defense of justice, I do wonder at such blind faith in its effectiveness. The idea that humans are getting progressively more just is a fiction, and one that only the privileged get to indulge in; the idea that murder is helping us get there faster is an even stranger fiction.

 

Marxism also depends on the cultivation of class envy. Again, this is in sharp contrast with Jesus, whose idea of economic justice was based on responsibility and love. For Jesus, for Paul, for the early church, economic justice is absolutely possible even with an uneven distribution of goods and abilities, because all are anxious to care for each other.

 

For those two reasons, I do worry about the ideology of Marxism. Not about the spread of the ideals of economic parity and communitarianism--love those. When we get around to teaching Marx to the kids, we'll definitely highlight the ideals of justice Marx was aiming for. But Marxism, straight up, is morally worrisome for me.

 

Almost as worrisome as laissez-faire capitalism. ;)

[Michelle in MO]

I think I love you. :001_smile: It always bothers me when people talk about Communism or Marx when they obviously have not read the Communist Manifesto or anything about economic or government theory.

 

I took an honors course in college called "Marx, Marxism, and Classical Antiquity", taught by a Marxist professor. We read The Communist Manifesto as well as other works by Marx, like Das Kapital (in German) and works by Friedrich Engels and others. The statements that I made in my post on the previous page were in response to this portion of Jenny's statement:

 

I always find it funny when people raise the "Marxist" specter. Folks, there has never been a country that followed "true" communism. Shoot, Jesus's teachings were almost Marxist, and how many Christians are living in communes besides some monks and nuns?

 

I'm not concerned about this country becoming Marxist, and I would definitely agree with Jenny that there never has truly been a country which was able to follow pure Marxist economic theory. My only disagreement with this statement was the comment that Jesus's teachings were almost Marxist. On that point I would have to differ, and I think the vast majority of Christians (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox) would agree.

[pqr]

I always find it funny when people raise the "Marxist" specter. Folks, there has never been a country that followed "true" communism.

 

 

With due respect, this is a wholly fallacious argument:

 

It is generally the realm of the apologist for Marxism to argue this point. Yes Marxism as envisioned by Marx was never fully attained, and never could be. In order to achieve what Marx advocated it was necessary that all “openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble”-Communist Manifesto. They would also have to deny the normal desire for self advancement from ones labors and abandon God.

 

However, just because something does not reach its purest form does not mean that it does not exist. Were this not true how many could claim to be whatever religion that adhere to. Just as failure to adhere to the 10 Commandments does not mean that one is not a Christian, failure to adhere to all the tenets of Marxism does not mean that one is not a Marxist.

 

Even homeschoolers have to live with the modern vernacular. When people speak of Marxism, they generally mean Marxism, Marxist-Leninism, Communism, Maoism, Stalinism and several other variants (including Marxist-Feminism)of belief that generally adhere to the ideas of class struggle, alienation (by capitalism), exploitation (by the ruling classes), opposition to religion (as a way of encouraging class consciousness and “the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions”

 

Remember this “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions”-. Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

 

Therefore when one speaks of Marxism, unless in the most esoteric terms, it includes those nightmares seen in the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Bela Kun’s Hungary, Albania and many other places.

 

 

Look at an example of “class struggle”

In Soviet Ukraine in the early 1930s, “wealthy” peasants (and this could mean one who owned a cow) were declared a class unto themselves (known as Kulaks) It was decided to eliminate this enemy class (to help force collectivization). Over the winter of 1932-33 over 3 million people were deliberately starved to death. Some who escaped to Soviet Georgia were captured and made to sell their clothes to pay for a ticket back to the starvation zones.

 

 

Look at the Gulags.

When paraphrasing Blanc, Marx wrote

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. - Critique of the Gotha Program

 

This “logic” was actually used in the gulags. The slaves (zheks) were expected to work (literally to death) or according to their “ability” and were provided barely enough to keep them alive (their needs were met). Marx was even quoted to prisoners and his words must have rung as hollow as Nazi camp signs stating "Arbeit Macht Frei" (work is liberty or work makes you free).

 

Defending Marxism as never fully having been implemented and therefore somehow free of the horror that Marx spawned reminds me of a tour I took of the Stalin Museum in Gori, Georgia where the guide stated “There were ‘excesses’ under Stalin, but that is because people did not understand what Stalin wanted.” What Marx wanted was class consciousness and class struggle, it was, somewhat, achieved in his name. Marxism was, and is, an evil. 50 plus million dead testify to that.

[Zelda]

With due respect, this is a wholly fallacious argument:

 

It is generally the realm of the apologist for Marxism to argue this point. Yes Marxism as envisioned by Marx was never fully attained, and never could be. In order to achieve what Marx advocated it was necessary that all “openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble”-Communist Manifesto. They would also have to deny the normal desire for self advancement from ones labors and abandon God.

 

However, just because something does not reach its purest form does not mean that it does not exist. Were this not true how many could claim to be whatever religion that adhere to. Just as failure to adhere to the 10 Commandments does not mean that one is not a Christian, failure to adhere to all the tenets of Marxism does not mean that one is not a Marxist...

 

Nicely done. I agree that it does sound flippant to call a concern about moving toward a communist society laughable if you have never seen the suffering of people who have lived under a regime inspired by the teachings of Marx. My grandfather spent 5 years in a communist prison camp.

 

I have read, "The Communist Manifesto".

Edited October 1, 2008 by Zelda

[Jenny in Atl]

Nicely done. I agree that it does sound flippant to call a concern about moving toward a communist society laughable if you have never seen the suffering of people who have lived under a regime inspired by the teachings of Marx. My grandfather spent 5 years in a communist prison camp.

 

I have read, "The Communist Manifesto".

 

You know, I had family who were killed under communist rule (Jews), kinda ironic given the fact Marx was a Jew. I'm no apologist! Do you and Prq call the US a Democracy? We are not! We are a Representative Republic, but how often are we "taught" the former?

 

Those who have lived under the USSR, China, etc live/d under dictatorships, in some cases brought on by democratic elections, as many theocracies like Iran or "scary" countries like Venezuela.

 

Yes, 50 million died under "Pinko" rule, and still many today are being killed, but is it a theory of government that is killing them or is it those who crave power and use a name/system/theory to do so? You could say the same for Democracy (three wolves and one sheep deciding what's for dinner). How many did we kill forming the US? How many have died in Africa over the years of colonial rule and now the never ending fallout/tribe conflicts/and dictatorships. There is enough blood to go around throughout man's history. Is see all governments as evil (some somewhat less than others).

 

True communism will never work on a large scale, needs everyone on to want it equally (live like those on a kibbutz). Do think people like each other enough to ever want to share the earth's bounties.

 

Is see many of our personal freedoms being taken away in our so-called battle against Islamic Fascist, as just as bad as many of the socialist/Marxist ideals so many fear. To me it's all the same, just called something different.

[Zelda]

Yes, 50 million died under "Pinko" rule, and still many today are being killed, but is it a theory of government that is killing them or is it those who crave power and use a name/system/theory to do so? You could say the same for Democracy (three wolves and one sheep deciding what's for dinner). How many did we kill forming the US? How many have died in Africa over the years of colonial rule and now the never ending fallout/tribe conflicts/and dictatorships. There is enough blood to go around throughout man's history. Is see all governments as evil (some somewhat less than others).

 

No one else here said that the imagined threat of a political philosophy was laughable. The "you too" argument isn't a particularly good one, especially in this case. 'Well, democracy kills people too so what's the problem?' We weren't discussing democracy. That can be a different topic but let's stick with this one.

 

No one used the term Pinko.

[Storm Bay]

I think I love you. :001_smile: It always bothers me when people talk about Communism or Marx when they obviously have not read the Communist Manifesto or anything about economic or government theory.

 

Well, I read & studied the Communist Manifesto, and later I read the Bible, so I can say I've read & studied both. I have to agree with the philosopher Karl Popper and say that Marxism is not scientific. I also studied related theories to those of Karl Marx (some of the prevalent feminist theory back in the early 1980s was linked to the philosophy of materialism, much like Marx, so we did study his Manifesto in one class), but even when I wasn't a Christian, I found the premises behind much of Marx's manifesto illogical and impossible to prove. In fact, it was the rejection of these and a number of other things that I studied in university that led me to seek God.

 

As for what Jesus taught, one of the major, and crucial differences is that Jesus taught people to worship God whereas Marx was opposed to all religion.

 

Not only is it a fact that pure Marxism has never been practiced, I think it is safe to say that pure Marxism, like pure Christianity, is unlikely to ever be practiced to to the fallible nature of humankind.

 

ETA 2 of my grandparents escaped the Ukraine during the communist revolution. It was illegal to worship God in any way other than the state allowed church. I'm surprised they even allowed that.

Edited October 2, 2008 by Karin