Marxism and the Frankfurt School

Yes I've read Marx's manifesto but I still find the ideas far too theoretical and impractical. The Soviet union was basically run off the ideals in the manifesto and look what happened. You can still never eliminate the top ruling class that has the access to capital, can make or change laws as they please, and enjoy perks like even drinking Champaign during receptions and sleeping in fine hotels even if say their official salary is equal to a peasant. A peasant/worker certainly wouldn't be afforded the same opportunity of tasting dom perignon or staying at the Ritz Carlton.

But when we tweak Marxism-leninism it can be a successful practical system. For example gaddafi's green book. He did not do away with religion, nor class, nor national identitity, nor gender roles and id argue that the average Libyan lived far better than an average soviet.

Also when you say that the social and cultural conditions are fast disappearing I agree but that is due to globalist capitalism. Also, Marxism tells peasants they essentially can't keep their crops since its owned by 'everyone.' I think you'd have trouble telling farmers they can't eat and sell their own cattle or potatoes. The means of production are a separate topic we can discuss though.

Perhaps one day instead of sending our computers to be burned for scrap copper in Ghana, the Ghanese will instead have a mix of whites blacks arabs Chinese etc all working in different fields inside this advanced economy. However this will take a very long time and many states will rather perish than give up their sovereignty like say north korea or russia. Even in the Soviet union everyone knew the Russians were in charge - even in the peoples assembly the Russians had more reps combined than say kazaks Uzbeks Estonians etc. It wasn't toll after gorby that started to change.

Maybe we will see a world where the us Ghana and poland are all relatively equal in terms of development. However that's going to take a lot of infrastructure investment and convincing of people to let go of millennia old ideologies like religion and the sovereign nation they identify with. Maybe that can be accomplished in western Europe and North America. Maybe even an African union like gaddafi attempted to create at least through his dinar currency. Nonetheless you'll always have someone leading the pack that's just a tad bit richer tad bit smarter tad bit more powerful and hence unequal.

The Marxist interpretation of history allows for this - capitalism can develop differently due to variable circumstances: technology, war, natural disasters shape the form in which it develops before it falls.


Actually it doesn't. He was very clear that the property of the affluent peasant or small artisan is theirs. Don't confuse Marxism with faulty interpretations of it - a common mistake.


This will certainly happen one day - the world is always changing, always moving to a new future.

"Workers of the world unite".

"Workers have no fatherland" yet in Venezuela north Korea Laos or any socialist nation their still receive their paychecks from their governments nation.

Also last time I checked the Russians slaughtered their own animals rather than allow Stalin to appropriate them. Was Stalin's interpretation of marxism-leninism faulty? So yes to someone who understands Marxism has read the manifesto and other socialist works i see historical examples as being rather contrary to doctrine.

Yes worldwide socialism CAN THEORETICALLY be achieved through a worldwide revolution I won't dispute that. However short of a worldwide genocide I don't see how that can happen. Stalin stated he was willing to kill half the ussr population to achieve his socialist utopia. He stopped short of that and before his death blamed his murders on his midget nkvd chief so history wouldn't judge him as a bloodthirsty monster.

Where do you draw the line in what is an acceptable death toll to achieve a worldwide revolution leading to socialist utopia? A few thousand? A million? A billion? In nearly every example of when socialists attempted to bring about their revolution there was an extreme death toll so what is an acceptable number. Is it Stalin's half the population?

Of course. Wages for work are a right. So are the full fruits of a worker's labour, without some capitalist skimming money off the top. This is in line with Christian teaching also.


'Marxism-Leninism' was a deeply flawed interpretation, as was Stalin's understanding of Marx's thought.


Even the highest of those numbers is far fewer than the number who died and will die earlier than they should because of capitalism.

Ah yes the same old tripe. Vladimir Mayakovsky - Our March
copy-pasted=deleted
-
Sound good apart from the fact that the reality of the commie ruled world is grim, bloody and damned. Careful what you wish for.


What that? what do you mean? You could elaborate a bit, rather than peddle that slogan?

You do realise that Marx book wasn't prescriptive but descriptive and history proved him wrong a long time ago. Only some other looser or couple of them took his book and made it into ideology and dogmas. Its worthless bc doesn't take into account the truth about human nature.


To do that you would need to stop all taxes.

Well sunny boy why don't you read what Marx had to say about Jews, an eye opener let me tell'ya. Marx is dead I don't know how he would react to the idea of extermination.


I tell you want is offensive in the extreme. Your an unspoken assumption that I must be somehow anti-Semitic. Is that bc you're a racist or is that bc you are a (male genitals). I know not. I don't asker to you and I already told you that I don't hold racial prejudices. I would 'kiss' your fat ass not bc of your DNA but due to your BS. Clear?

On the flip side your reaction proves you're not terribly bright. As you see I don't buy into a myth that Jews are somehow more intelligent on a whole, phew!

--

@Ironside

Yes that's what I mean by the manifesto and Marxism-leninism works great in theory but not in practice due to human nature. People are greedy, lazy and inept but also are ambitious and entrepreneurial. I think if Marx studied psychology a bit more he could've devised a more practical system. He certainly wasn't a dumb guy I don't agree with his politics but I can surely respect him for his accomplishments.

Marxism-leninism works great if in fact all humans were equal like Jon says and there weren't differences in tangible things like wealth, property, etc and intangible things like intellect, drive, etc. There's always going to be a group of people more intelligent/ambitious/lazy/greedy/wealthier than you hence humans are not equal. All you have to do is replace the adjective with any tangible or in tangible item.

But... Again when we tweak Marxism-leninism and the manifesto into the green book now we start seeing a more real life practical application of socialism. Gaddifs socialist revolution was essentially without casualty when he deposed long idris. Gaddafi did make the society more equal because the populace was given so much free or cheap stuff which basically eliminated poverty. However gaddafi and his cronies certainly lived better than the rest if the population. The same can be applied to any socialist state past or present - Stalin and the ussr, mao and china, the kims and no" etc etc. Basically they were not equal to the rest of the population.

In any political system there will always be inequality because the rulers and their cronies will always have it better than the general populous. Even if their income is identical their apartments are the same etc a ruler and his cronies will still have something that sets them apart from the rest whether its priority in a medical treatment sense, access to dom perignon during a reception, even nicer clothes to wear, and a less physically demanding job than sat a coal miner who will surely live shorter than say a politician who works in an office and will be given priority in treatment over one of the thousands of sick miners.

Short of eugenics, population control, censoring history and religion, total redistribution of wealth, erasing of borders and national identity, having the same infrastructure and economic opportunities everywhere there can't be total equality. You'd essentially have to reprogram the entire human race and unilaterally develop the world so all lands are at the same exact level. Until that happens a system like Marxism-leninism won't work as at the moment humans are not all equal in countless different ways.

@Ironside,

I don't buy into the myth of Jewish intellectual superiority either, smart guy! If I didn't think so, why would I be asking questions? I too have read Marx and we definitely come to different conclusions:-)

Not an economist, are you...

Money paid in tax belongs to the people who paid it, for the common use.


There is none, mainly because it was never truly Marxist.

None of them were 100% marxist-leninist because his theories had to be tweaked to be implemented in the real world. Not sure of the exact year Lenin was exiled by Stalin but regardless Bolsheviks went around burning churches and monastaries, killing kulaks (wealthy peasants), nationalizing everything (even the fabrege workshop) resulting in some 80% reduced output in oil alone and causing massive starvation everywhere especially ukraine. People refused to give up their homes, grain, livestock etc so they rather burn everything to the ground rather than have their 'enemy' take it. The Russians did the same when the polish invaded, they did that when the Germans invaded, and they'd do the same when their own government.

This is just two aspects of a socialist revolution - wiping out religion and redistributing wealth. I don't see how killing people who devote their lives to be religious and spiritual is a good thing regardless of what faith they practice. Same with confiscation - id burn my house to the ground too if I was forced out rather than let someone else enjoy the fruits of my labor.

Since you guys mentioned the original leaders Jewish roots I will point out that the Soviet union was one of the few (perhaps the only) country where being antisemitic was a crime. I believe punishable by death actually. So burning orthodox churches and monasteries was totally fine but not insulting a jew.

Tosh. Lenin tried to implement a move to fair ownership of the means of production far too early and in the pre-industrial society he came from.One very far from the context He envisaged, hence the Russian's perversion of His theories.

Marx would have been spinning in His grave, had He known that Russia tried it first.


Certainly not part of Marxist economic theory.


Doubtless a response to ingrained Russian anti-semitism. BTW, Marxist theory does not advocate atheism - some of the great Marxist thinkers are practising Catholics.

Marxism does not support religion - opium of the masses. Something that must be done away with according to marx, like opium. People in a Marxist society must have their loyalties to the people and the state - not to a religion or nationality. Hence the famous phrase workers have no fatherland.

This is why the commies feared pope john Paul ii so much. They knew the Roman catholic church would end them.

Russians are also prejudiced to Muslims yet no death penalty for insulting Muslims was around in the ussr. I think it was more because so much of the leadership happened to be Jewish albiet non practicing so they didn't want people to develop theories. This didn't stop Winnie Churchill from writing zionism vs bolshevism though.

And no killing people isn't part of Marxism but it is what the leadership which included Lenin decided to do to implement a Marxist economy.

But yes russia wouldn't of been a great place to start because it was so backwards. Stalin certainly turned it into a industrial power although tens of millions died in the process.

Don't confuse religious culture with faith or the possible existence of a transcendent deity. Marxism certainly allows for that and the pre-eminent Marxist scholar of today incidentally describes football as the modern day opium of the masses.


The Russians certainly disliked him. Communists in general were either ambivalent or positive.


More because of who lived in which parts of the former Tsarist Empire.

Guess ill have to re-read the manifesto again.. Good thing its a short read. I like the ideas in green book way more but that's just my opinion. Gaddafi wanted a middle ground - he found socialist to be too godless and capitalism to be too decadent. He made a sort of socialism unique to Libya with a sort of sharia law system. Yet gaddafis Libya seems to be one of the very few one party socialist countries where people didn't get killed by the millions during the transition and lived fantastically once the system was enacted.

Not my favourite book - it starts well enough and gets annoying. It should probably be read as a response to increasing industrialisation in Prussia and other parts of the Empire as well as a way to explain his ideas to the chattering classes of Berlin and London. I prefer Das Kapital, long and heavy economics treatise though it is. For a more enjoyable read, try Terry Eagleton on Marx. He's a Christian (specifically a Catholic) from Ireland and writes very well. A bit of a showman, but worth the effort. "Why Marx was right" analyses the various common criticisms and is very readable.


It was an interesting place to see, certainly not the Utopia some claim however he did try his best. In the end, the corruption inherent in an unstable authoritarian society (those awful sons for example as well as thousands of hangers on who knew how to work the system) brought him down, as did his own hubris and increasingly eccentric behaviour. The Libyan interpretation of Sharia was essentially stable, however the tribal system in that region was another weak point - all Middle eastern leaders favour their own tribe and would have no power base if they didn't. He went too far with that, excluding some of the more traditional tribes (ones with a tradition of education and overseas influence) from the oil wealth.

Peace will return there, but not just yet.

Wrong. Sport is not a casual hobby. It is BIG business; from football clubs to the Olympics. Both corporations and countries vie to cash in on humanity's innate need to compete. Even your revered but rightfully defunct USSR made sport a centerpiece of its communist propaganda and yes even its "national" pride. So much so that their long sports history is littered with doping and corruption scandals one right after another.


Oh, so how then do you reconcile your longing for a communist world with your stated and obsequious commitment to Zionism?

The opiate of the masses.

An opiate pushed by the Soviets and their satellite states.

So why did you dodge answering my very relevant question about your cognitive dissonance regarding your support for both Zionism and globalism for the rest of humanity? Did the contradiction never dawn on you or were just you hoping no one would notice and ask you about it?

Yes, those money belong to workers. To be spend on champagne consumed by representatives of the common men. . Those who understand best the Marxist idea. No, thank you.


There were plenty and still are. Look around.
They always say that. Every bloody murderous regime started with good intentions in the name of some lofty idea begins with - we'll get it right this time. No you won't sunshine, you need your head check.

Marxism is too extreme, Faschism was too extreme, ultra-liberal socialism also is too extreme. Centrism sounds boring, but it seems the only solution to moderation:-)

Mr Lyzko do you mean Marxism or Marxism Leninism ?

At the very beginning of this text, I stated that the abolition of the traditional family is one of the four main tasks of every Marxist. This was the aim and of the new, cultural Marxists. Marx wrote that patriarchal men view their wife and children as property. In Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, Friedrich Engels advocated one of the feminist beliefs that all discrimination against women stems from the patriarchal family. Erich Fromm argued that the differences between the sexes are not hereditary, but instead represent fabrications of European nations and cultures. According to Wilhelm Reich, "the authoritarian family is an authoritarian state in miniature. Family imperialism reproduces itself into national imperialism ". For Theodor Adorno, the patriarchal family represents the cradle of fascism.

In order to cripple a healthy family with the father at the helm, the Frankfurt School was in favor of and advocating alternatives such as matriarchy and "androgynous theory", where the roles of men and women within the family are interchangeable, and even reversed. Like Lukacs, Wilhelm Reich also believed that the family should be destroyed with the help of revolutionary sexual politics and early sexual education.

Millions of women in Europe and the West now share feminist hostility towards marriage, a healthy family and motherhood. Millions accept the ideas of this movement and have no intention of getting married or having children. Europeans more and more are using contraceptives. Contraception, sterilization and abortion are the three biggest dangers of the "culture of death".

To such an extinction had led the individualistic basis of Marxist doctrine. And today's cultural Marxists, the Jewish masters, do not intend to stop at this, but will go to the extreme limit, until they humiliate us completely. We can not allow that happen.

I mean both, Ms. Bristols:-) Either ideology is far afield from any middle-of-the-road type thinking which presumes that in life, things are always either one way or the other. Such is entirely unrealistic.Life is often neither extreme, but the rabid, die hard Communists, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, National Socialists, and croniest capitalists don't see things in their proper perspective, that's all.