• Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Genuinely, though. You describe democratic worker councils, large public programs, criticize Capitalism, even point out Imperialism, and everyone agrees with you and what you want, as long as you don't call yourself a Marxist.

    I see this a ton on Lemmy, if I describe what I want and how I want to get there, very few people openly disagree unless I add that this is Marxism. So, I've stopped trying to hide that these ideas are Marxist and instead focus on correcting misconceptions about Marxism, like thinking Communism would have no government because Marx used the word "stateless" when describing it, not realizing he meant things like Private Property Rights and other statist means of upholding Capitalism. Marx wasn't an Anarchist nor did he want Anarchism.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      hexagon
      ·
      2 months ago

      Indeed, as soon as you mention Marxism then the whole conversation becomes about that. Simply discussing the concepts with people without using trigger words tends to be a lot more productive. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what people want to call it, as long as they can understand what course of action is desirable.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        ·
        2 months ago

        I do think it's useful to dispel the veil, though. People simply agreeing with concepts doesn't mean they will pursue action, it's important that people actually understand Marxism, at least in my opinion. Agitprop is good.

    • Samsy@lemmy.ml
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The problem is, Marxism was created over 100 years ago. I bet Karl Marx wouldn't agree to his own theorem for the world we live actually. It needs upgrades, and an other name and shouldn't be set in comparison with the systems which tried to be marxism / communism.

      Smaller steps would be a good start, why not take a closer look at Portugal? A left government recreate the whole state in just a few years and save the country from being bankrupt. This wasn't Marxism, but it was a left wing party with really good ideas.

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
        ·
        2 months ago

        You haven't seriously engaged with Marx if you think the stuff he wrote isn't still relevant.

        Not meant as a diss, but please actually engage with his body of work before making this criticism.

      • happybadger [he/him]
        ·
        2 months ago

        Describe "Marx's theorem" without paraphrasing wikipedia. This is nonsensical and as an adult you're supposed to read about the things you choose to talk about. Linnaeus lived three centuries ago, but would you throw out taxonomy? Is the scientific method outdated because Francis Bacon wouldn't know a thing about modern science? People build on the epistomological and ontological frameworks to make a living tradition.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        ·
        2 months ago

        The problem is, Marxism was created over 100 years ago. I bet Karl Marx wouldn't agree to his own theorem for the world we live actually. It needs upgrades, and an other name and shouldn't be set in comparison with the systems which tried to be marxism / communism.

        On what grounds do you think he wouldn't agree? Marxists since Marx have expanded on his ideas, like analysis of Imperialism, but Marxism is stronger than ever and consistently proved correct.

        Smaller steps would be a good start, why not take a closer look at Portugal? A left government recreate the whole state in just a few years and save the country from being bankrupt. This wasn't Marxism, but it was a left wing party with really good ideas.

        I don't see what this has to do with Marxism.

        • MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip
          ·
          2 months ago

          Well, the general form of Marxist ideology in the population is not so much. But some elements of this ideology are so strong that the Republican Party uses this model of discourse for its voters.

          • GarbageShoot [he/him]
            ·
            2 months ago

            Have I finally met that unicorn of perfect ignorance for whom the "Trump Is a Leninist" thinkpieces were written for? I'm just dying to know what part of Marx is used by Republicans!

            • MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip
              ·
              2 months ago

              This article explains it better, although it is from 2017. Link

              And the MAGAs are against big business, just like some of the Democrats.

              • carl_marks[use name]@lemmy.ml
                ·
                2 months ago

                And the MAGAs are against big business, just like some of the Democrats.

                Lmao. That's why they stan a billionaire and Peter Thiel vice that fucks couched

              • GarbageShoot [he/him]
                ·
                2 months ago

                I called it! Though I suppose it was plain enough by the time I came across it.

                Faux-populist rhetoric is not a Marx thing and Magats are absolutely not opposed to big business. It's like Trump's only thing that he's a billionaire due to real estate and other related fields.

          • happybadger [he/him]
            ·
            2 months ago

            I had a premonition that you will one day drown taking a bath because you're too stupid to know which way is up.

        • MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip
          ·
          2 months ago

          An ideology has to evolve over time in order to remain relevant to the generations that come and go from time to time. If you don't do that, you will stagnate with a small group of people.

          To gather more people, you have to find a common ground of the groups that are marginalized from society at that time, and you have to lead them to achieve that goal.

            • MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip
              ·
              2 months ago

              They should have a Marxist ideology that is friendly to a large part of the population or marginalized groups in order to achieve relevance.

              Adapt new technologies to their ideology and not come into conflict.

      • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Marxism is a living, constantly evolving science, so it very much adapts with the times.

        It's best to think of Marx and Engels as the Newton of political science and sociology... did they get everything right, and should we treat their words as gospel? Of course not, but their central tenets and ideas stand, and they built a solid foundation for others to build on.

        We can recommend a lot of works on how marxism has evolved as a science, and how modern marxists view class struggle in the 21st century.

      • linkhidalgogato@lemmy.ml
        ·
        2 months ago

        yeah thats why we read the works of other theorists that have lived since him and have taken his ideas an updated them and applied them to new circumstances at every moment since he wrote his books, for fucks sakes most communist dont even call themselves Marxists most of us call ourselves Marxists Leninist. Also if u actually read anything Marks wrote u would realize that while specifics are almost all outdated the ideas themselves and methods of analyzing and understanding things hold up just fine.

  • umbrella@lemmy.ml
    ·
    2 months ago

    this one drives me up walls omg.

    how did they manage to demonize something thats so common sense.

  • curiousaur@reddthat.com
    ·
    2 months ago

    Socialism and communism would also have been accepted.

    I usually hate your biased posts, but this is fire.

      • Tak@lemmy.ml
        ·
        2 months ago

        Honestly it's always so weird to hear complaints of bias. The languages you speak, cultures you engage with, class you were born into, and so many other factors will give you a natural bias that you can't avoid. I am naturally biased to find eating bugs, repulsive but the massive water bugs (lobsters) are classy.

        There is no such thing as unbiased and the closest we get is though science.