What exactly is Marxsim? What makes Karl Marx a bad guy?

[Cicero]

So I'm currently reading Capital: The Communist manifesto and other writings and I haven't really gotten to anything I already didnt know. For me, it's pretty complex reading lol, I'm definitely using quite a bit of brain power. But I'm understanding 85% of it :D

Like some of the examples he says is if a coat is worth $25, and its sold for $27.50, then the manufacturer gets a 10% profit and from there if its resold, that person will bring the price up 10% from $27.50. He then mentioned that if a manufacturer sells a product for $25, that product is worth less than said price. He also talks about 3 different classes, and how the capitalist is apart of all three different classes (or something with the word capital).

So far, I really don't see what was so bad about Marx, he seemed like a VERY smart guy who was like a modern day philosopher. Perhaps I have not gotten to the parts he's seen as a bad guy? Also, what is a commodity? He mentions this a lot but I don't know what it is in an understandable manner. Have you read any of his work? If so, opinions?

[anyone50]

So I'm currently reading Capital: The Communist manifesto and other writings and I haven't really gotten to anything I already didnt know. For me, it's pretty complex reading lol, I'm definitely using quite a bit of brain power. But I'm understanding 85% of it :D

Like some of the examples he says is if a coat is worth $25, and its sold for $27.50, then the manufacturer gets a 10% profit and from there if its resold, that person will bring the price up 10% from $27.50. He then mentioned that if a manufacturer sells a product for $25, that product is worth less than said price. He also talks about 3 different classes, and how the capitalist is apart of all three different classes (or something with the word capital).

So far, I really don't see what was so bad about Marx, he seemed like a VERY smart guy who was like a modern day philosopher. Perhaps I have not gotten to the parts he's seen as a bad guy? Also, what is a commodity? He mentions this a lot but I don't know what it is in an understandable manner. Have you read any of his work? If so, opinions?

To answer your last question first, In economics, a commodity is a marketable item produced to satisfy wants or needs. An example of economic commodities comprise goods and services. The more specific meaning of the term commodity is applied to goods only. It is used to describe a class of goods for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market. Here in the U.S. commodities are traded on the stock market in most cases.

As for Marxism It is based on a materialist understanding of societal development, taking as its starting point the necessary economic activities required by human society to provide for its material needs. Is it bad? thats pretty much to the individual and the same goes for Karl Marx the man who even after some 130 years after his death is hailed by many still today to be one of historys greatest philosophers. After reading all you can about him and his ideas It's still comes down to a personal choice as to if he was bad, good or misunderstood. I personally don't belive anyone is all bad or good and that every individulual has some varying degree of both charateristics and when a persons good outwieghs the bad it's normally how we judge that person to be.

[Skyline]

I think that this would fit better in ROTW

The white Padded Room :arrow: Ramblings of the Wise

[workingatperfect]

I haven't read any of his work, but I studied him briefly in Government and Sociology.

The part about price and worth, that's just explaining how manufactures make a profit. If $25 worth of labor and material go into making a single coat, they have to sell the coat for more than that or they won't be making any money. So, when you buy anything, it's guaranteed that it's not actually worth what you're paying. You're paying that much so that the people making that product can earn a living.

What were the 3 classes he named? He has a few different class systems that he's named. The most popular is the Proletariat (working) and Bourgeoisie (wealthy.) Capitalism does pay a part in the classes. Capitalism is an economic system based around private ownership and profits I believe. The upper class controls the manufacturing of goods. They pay the working class to make them. But how do they pay them? From the profits they make by selling those commodities at a higher price than what it takes to make them. For example, my dad used to work for one of the bigger cabinetry companies in the country. He complained that the cabinets cost so much, but really, if they didn't he wouldn't have been making $18 an hour.

The problem comes in when businesses take advantage of this and raise the prices and unnecessary amount, without raises wages. Then the working class is paying more for the products, but it's not being reflected in their paychecks, because the upper class business owners are taking all the profit for themselves. This brings us to one of the main ideas of Marxism, revolution. He believed that after too much of this behavior, the proletariat with revolt and together will take over the bourgeoisie, creating a classless, communist system. Communism is looked down on in general because it can't really work. In theory, it's a good enough system (though socialism is a bit better) but, like socialism, only works in theory. In a real society, both will fail.

Another Marxist theory that is a cause for him being looked down upon because of the Marxist-Leninist Atheism, which basically promoted atheism, saying that religion was "an opiate to the masses." I think I read that he believed atheism would eventually be the most popular religion (or lack thereof anyway.)

He was a smart guy. He created one of the main Sociological Perspectives, the conflict theory. It's by far the best perspective to describe modern day society in developed countries. Basically it states that society is run by competition and there's a constant struggle for power. This is the basis of his revolution theory.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

No, Marx wasn't a bad guy. But, capitalists want to paint him as some Communist monster, because his ideas messed with their profits. Marx was a very smart guy, and I think of him one of the smartest sociologists in history.

He says that the capitalist society is made of 3 classes: Upper Class, Middle Class, and Lower Class. The Lower Class fights to climb up the social ladder and become part of the Middle Class, while the Middle Class wants to do the same and become a part of the Upper Class. And the Upper Class wants to prevent both of them from climbing up, so they can exploit them and further their own ambitions.
Those struggles are present, in one way or another, in every political system, except communism, which would be classless society working on the principle of " Work as much as you can, take as much as you need ".

You haven't gotten to the parts where you see him as a bad guy because he's not a bad guy. Capitalists are taught to hate him, and everyone like him. But, if you can look past the brainwashing, you'll see that what Marx was talking about actually makes a lot of sense.

Commodity means tradable goods. It's something that's produced to satisfy the needs, or wants, rather, of other people.

Bottom line: Marxism is a good concept, but it can never work because everyone is greedy. Everyone wants more money, to be better than the rest. Capitalism is perfect for that. A few live in the lap of luxury, while the masses can barely meet end's meet.

[Prodigy17]

So I'm currently reading Capital: The Communist manifesto and other writings and I haven't really gotten to anything I already didnt know. For me, it's pretty complex reading lol, I'm definitely using quite a bit of brain power. But I'm understanding 85% of it :D

Like some of the examples he says is if a coat is worth $25, and its sold for $27.50, then the manufacturer gets a 10% profit and from there if its resold, that person will bring the price up 10% from $27.50. He then mentioned that if a manufacturer sells a product for $25, that product is worth less than said price. He also talks about 3 different classes, and how the capitalist is apart of all three different classes (or something with the word capital).

So far, I really don't see what was so bad about Marx, he seemed like a VERY smart guy who was like a modern day philosopher. Perhaps I have not gotten to the parts he's seen as a bad guy? Also, what is a commodity? He mentions this a lot but I don't know what it is in an understandable manner. Have you read any of his work? If so, opinions?

I don't think Marx was a bad guy or for that matter a smart guy. He had some ideas but he was incredibly niave to think they'd work in the real world. Obviously history proved his ideas to be totally unworkable.

In Marx's context a commodity is a material, steel, wood, leather etc than can be made into a product by employing labour.

Say I own a steel works - I employ workers to produce steel. Say it costs me $100 to produce one ton, I then sell that ton of steel to Ford for $150 who make it into a car. I've made $50 profit - obviously I'm richer than the workers. Marx sees this as totally wrong, as the workers put the effort in and I'm just sat in my office smoking cigars it's wrong for me to profit from their efforts.

Obviously Marx is ignoring the fact that management provide the most important role. Workers are ten a penny but the manager needs the skills to produce the steel on time and on budget, sell it in the market etc and provide the capital to run the whole enterprise. If the workers left the manager would employ more - if the manager left the workers would be out of a job :)

[Zaposchk]

the only place I disagree with our good friend Karl is the establishment of a centralised state-run command economy. what tends to happen there is the formation of a one-party dictatorship, i.e. China under Mao, Cuba under Castro, Russia under Stalin et al. soo yeah. i lean more towards the ideas of Bakunin, Kropotkin and Rudolf Rocker.

[Horatio Nelson]

He wasn't a bad guy per say, nor is communism a bad thing, but the greed of mankind is what makes it bad, communism is where the public/government owns everything, and in that scenario, it's easy for leaders to become dictators. Just look at history, heck, look at North Korea! The people are malnourished, they are under martial law and their leader is a pig that lives to stuff his own face.

[Harry Smith]

His work was much more ideologically based, just like the Keynes theory on capitalism. Its only when you apply it to a market and to government do you see whether or not the idea is workable. I also think that whilst Marx's ideas had some correct points I think that it was largely negative due to the fact that there is no one definitive Marxist theory; Marxist analysis has been applied to a variety of different subjects and has been modified during the course of its development, resulting in multiple theories that fall under the title of Marxism. Look what has evolved from Marxism- Leninism, stalinism, Maoism. All different branches of Communism which all differ greatly

[Prodigy17]

Not sure how you can mention Keynes and Marx in the same breath.

1/ Keynes was an economist - how can you describe his ideas as idealism?
2/ Marx's ideas have never been adopted successfully by any country - you could even argue the implementation of his ideas led to the cold war. The world would have been better off without him

Keynes on the other hand has had huge influence on the economies of the west, even though he was out of fashion for a long time the financial crisis has changed thinking more toward what he advocated.

Of course the bottom line is that Keynes ideas have never been proved wrong by events whereas Marx's obviously have.

[Harry Smith]

Not sure how you can mention Keynes and Marx in the same breath.

1/ Keynes was an economist - how can you describe his ideas as idealism?
2/ Marx's ideas have never been adopted successfully by any country - you could even argue the implementation of his ideas led to the cold war. The world would have been better off without him

Keynes on the other hand has had huge influence on the economies of the west, even though he was out of fashion for a long time the financial crisis has changed thinking more toward what he advocated.

Of course the bottom line is that Keynes ideas have never been proved wrong by events whereas Marx's obviously have.

Actually the Keynes idea's are being proven wrong right now, Germany is introducing an austerity type program, which includes cut's to public services to lower the deficit. Whereas France have attempted to use Keynes idea's of introducing large amounts of funds to front line services and businesses to kick start the economy. Germany experienced 0.2% growth in this certain sector of time ( when I heard the news story) but france had dropped 0.3%.

Your wrong about Keynes, if anything the financial crisis has made people oppose his economic plan, we have done the very opposite of what he proposed.

Also I'm a very strong capitalist but your wrong in suggesting Karl Marx caused the cold war to start, if you look at Stalin's economic and social policy then you'll see how different it was to Marx's ideas.

[Prodigy17]

Your wrong about Keynes, if anything the financial crisis has made people oppose his economic plan, we have done the very opposite of what he proposed.

Not sure I'd agree with you. Keynes idea was that classical economists were wrong in thinking the free market would automatically allow everyone to prosper - this basic premise has obviously been proved right.

He said the government needed to control the economy to some extent to mitigate the ups and downs of the business cycle. He was right that the free market wouldn't allow everyone to prosper but his mistake was to over-estimate the ability of government to exert control. He was almost a stauch opponent of speculation - this idea was certainly proved right with the financial crisis.

Just because a country (eg France) follows his idea by injecting funds into their economy and then fails it does not automatically mean the idea was wrong - it means their execution of the idea was wrong. France does not have a sound enough economic base so injecting funds was throwing good money after bad.

Since the financial crisis prety much every country in the world has attempted to stimulate the economy by injecting funds - which is obviously a Keynesian policy. Why do you think countries have done the opposite of what he proposed when it's obvious there was huge stimulation of the world economy after 2008. If that isn't Keynesian thinking what the heck would be?

My other point was he was in no way was he an idealist like Marx - he was a pragmatist.

Also I'm a very strong capitalist but your wrong in suggesting Karl Marx caused the cold war to start, if you look at Stalin's economic and social policy then you'll see how different it was to Marx's ideas.

I wasn't blaming Marx for the cold war obviously. I was suggesting that had Russia not tried to adopt his ideas the cold war would (arguably) not have started. Clearly our "quarrel" with the Russians was their belief in world wide communism. Also of course I realise Marx would not have wanted the cold war

In the final analysis I can't see any rational man would compare Marx with Keynes in terms of their influence or the (successful) adoption of their ideas.

If you were to score each in terms of the positive influence that came from their ideas I'd say
Keynes - 60/100
Marx - 0/100

[Harry Smith]

Not sure I'd agree with you. Keynes idea was that classical economists were wrong in thinking the free market would automatically allow everyone to prosper - this basic premise has obviously been proved right.

He said the government needed to control the economy to some extent to mitigate the ups and downs of the business cycle. He was right that the free market wouldn't allow everyone to prosper but his mistake was to over-estimate the ability of government to exert control. He was almost a stauch opponent of speculation - this idea was certainly proved right with the financial crisis.

Just because a country (eg France) follows his idea by injecting funds into their economy and then fails it does not automatically mean the idea was wrong - it means their execution of the idea was wrong. France does not have a sound enough economic base so injecting funds was throwing good money after bad.

Since the financial crisis prety much every country in the world has attempted to stimulate the economy by injecting funds - which is obviously a Keynesian policy. Why do you think countries have done the opposite of what he proposed when it's obvious there was huge stimulation of the world economy after 2008. If that isn't Keynesian thinking what the heck would be?

My other point was he was in no way was he an idealist like Marx - he was a pragmatist.



I wasn't blaming Marx for the cold war obviously. I was suggesting that had Russia not tried to adopt his ideas the cold war would (arguably) not have started. Clearly our "quarrel" with the Russians was their belief in world wide communism. Also of course I realise Marx would not have wanted the cold war

In the final analysis I can't see any rational man would compare Marx with Keynes in terms of their influence or the (successful) adoption of their ideas.

If you were to score each in terms of the positive influence that came from their ideas I'd say
Keynes - 60/100
Marx - 0/100

Firstly I love the personal Jab towards me at the end, you just couldn't resist it could you.

Firstly albeit it that Communism failed in the east but it had a very strong influence over the last 100 years of History. So by that Judgement Marx helped mold a theory which pretty much governed most of eastern Europe for about 40 years. I'm no fan of Communism but I see how it must of appealed to the people of Russia in the 1917.

I'll agree with you that we followed a Keynes idea in the bank bailout I have to argue that we are moving further away from the idea that an injection of wealth will help improve our economy because Britain and Germany are both moving away from that idea. We're making drastic cuts to our public services and reducing our deficit. That is not a Keynes policy.

Id say for impact and infleunce

Keynes-6/10
Marx- 8/10

As said above I disagree with his teachings and ideals but I think that his ideas must have been like gold dust for the working class man in Tsarist Russia.

[Prodigy17]

sorry I didn't even intend there to be a jab in my post and still don't see it - where was it?

I don't dispute that Marx influenced history - I was grading him on POSITIVE influence. Hitler certainly influenced history but influence in itself is not always a good thing :)

Are you suggesting anything good has come from Marx and his theories?

And yes in the UK we are (wisely in my view) moving away from Keynes as are the Germans. I agree with Keynes that government should influence the economy were I disagree is in governments ability to do so effectively.

With that said government influence of the economy certainly didn't hurt the Germans or the Japanese after the last war. They were fortunate to have good governments who took the long term view.

[Human]

closing thread by request