Is Legitimate Marxism (AKA, NOT north Korea or the USSR) moral?

Asked by: jackFergusen
  • Socialism works too

    Hey i mean i live in Germany. We have loads of socialist policies like dual education that make college unnecessary. And its Free!!
    So is the healthcare o.O
    which is also awesome...Just like in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and even Finland...Even Belgium with their socialist policies of housing, free education and dual education...Cheaper college, (almost free) and very little homelessness makes this section of Europe with the biggest middle class population in the world.
    The Netherlands for instance combined with Germany, produce more than American workers do...And yet work far less, are entitled to extensive vacation time, pensions, maternity and paternity leave..And American workers produce less, make less, and work far more.

    Not to mention most products in Europe aren't made with Asian suffering...And Germany has beaten the US in exporting and importing practically....And will surpass china probably soon. So i wouldn't really consider Marx evil or a crackpot

  • I Hold No Opinion

    HOWEVER, this is just to define what marxism is, because I know every republican who sees this is instantly going to hate. Anyway, Marxism is a classless society in which capitalism, religion, and private property is abolished. The system is defined by a rulership of the proletariat (The working class) through the eradication of the capitalist bourgeoisie (The opressive upper class) Marx claimed that the only way to acheive marxist utopia was through violent revolution leading to socialism, and if the socialism is successful, then it becomes a communism (AKA Marxism)

  • Marx was a crackpot..

    Really? You imagine that republicans are your biggest opposition? Marx was a crackpot and his convoluted writings were directly responsible for the 20th century bloodbaths that destroyed millions upon millions of lives while his collectivist policies lead to famines such as the famine of 1932-33 in Ukraine when Soviet grain production decline as a direct result of their collectivist agricultural policies and rationing that lead to the deaths of about 10 million people in the Ukraine. Of course these inconvenient facts don't trouble narrow-minded ideologues of the Marxist persuasion because they can just deny it is even "legitimate Marxism." You can also ignore early Marxist daydreamers like Robert Owen and his creation of a communal town (New Harmony), which took only about two years to fail and resident like Josiah Warren directly attributed this to lack of individual sovereignty and private property. He pointed out quite clearly how your utopian musings about a classless society are doomed to failure, which is precisely why regimes that embrace it resort to mass murder. I would also tend to think your list was a bit redundant considering private property is essentially a key aspect of capitalism. Seeing as how you are propagating Marxism, would you care to explain your view of the division of labor considering the best Marx could offer was daydreaming about it was "...Thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, with­out ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic." Really? Specialization will disappear and Joe Blow can be a heart surgeon in the morning, a mechanic in the afternoon, and an accountant by night? And there goes economic production and rational economic planning down the toilet.

  • The Myth of Collectivism

    Communal ownership is not possible. Such a notion is a violation of the inherent ability of any proprietor to exercise absolute utility of his/her article(s) of property.
    Let's take marriage as an example... First of all, a married couple cannot own anything. Each married individual, however, can. Take the family house for instance: If one spouse wanted to use 100% of the house at 5-o'clock in the afternoon for a particular purpose, then they would be well within their rights to assert that since the house is their property, they may do so not only in the physical sense, but also on safe moral grounds. But wait a sec... There is another individual to consider. So then what if the other spouse in this monogamous relationship also sought to use 100% of the same house at the same time for a different purpose?
    How do you solve this problem?
    - Without violating the property rights of atleast one of the spouses, you cannot do so realistically. There is no resolution, only an impasse which results from this process of thinking collectively.
    The myth of collectivism is the most commonly espoused social fallacy in human history, yet there are people too ignorant to be able to understand this mistake and too easily propagandized to believe it to be sacrosanct. Accordingly, there is no such thing as a "public good" as nothing can be owned by multiple persons. Statism is the rejection of property rights which define Capitalist economies. Capitalism is akin to Anarchism.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.