And anyone who disagrees with Marx on hearing his ideas is suffering from False Consciousness and needs to be Re-Educated, perhaps in a Camp somewhere.
You do not need to be a marxist to agree one some of the basic principles put forward.
Marx was not 100% wrong, he was just wrong some very specific and important places.
The Gulag Archipelago.
> Marx was not 100% wrong, he was just wrong some very specific and important places.
Of course he wasn't 100% wrong. All modern developed countries have adopted some of his ideas, such as public schools and laws against child labor.
His notions of an Apocalyptic struggle between Labor and Management, his totalizing philosophy which seeks to explain all social conditions through one dialectic, and his refusal to admit that capitalist countries could adopt some of his ideas and stay capitalist, however, lead to some of the worst regimes in history, and we can't forget that.
Yeah, because without his ideas, Russia would have turned into a well functioning capitalist democracy. The past 20 years have been pure bliss now that the burden of communism has been cast off- since there is now no way for power hungry leaders to control the nation.
The past 20 years were directly preceded by 70 years of the USSR. If modern race relations in the US can be blamed on slavery and Jim Crow, both of which have been dead for longer than the USSR has, then Russia's modern problems can be blamed on Marxism and Leninism.
Well yeah, you can blame it. Doesn't make it true. Of course a country can't magically be divorced from what happened 20 years ago, but the point behind my sarcasm was it is exceptionally naive to assume Russia's problems were caused solely because it was nominally communist.
Not just nominally. It went down the list of the Communist Manifesto and implemented things, and it wound up with Stalin.
Could I prove to you, even in theory, that Communism has bad outcomes? What kind of evidence would I need?
Marx analysed quite correctly the era he lived in and the problem with capitalism. He was just wrong to think that this would never change.
For instance today may of us are the owners of our own means of production. You don't need your employer to buy you a machine and they can't just replace you without having lost the knowledge that you represent.
Marx didn't live in such a world and thus his premise wasn't universal enough.
Of course not. Marx was directly responsible for Communism because he laid the blueprints, and the USSR implemented them. Therefore, Marx is responsible for the USSR.
You can go down the list of things the Communist Manifesto proposed and see that the USSR did all of them: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Marxism.html
I think you need to read up on history my friend. And perhaps read the actual work of Marx before being so cock sure about what you are claiming.
Then we can have an adult discussion about the many issues with communism.
Do you have any objective arguments against this statement?
Class lines are not well-defined. A CEO may share certain interests with shareholders but their interests are not all identical. By using the frame of class you create a situation in which those without power pit themselves against those with power, and encourage those with power to reciprocate. That is a horrifically bad position for those without power to be in because you're de facto creating two teams where one of them has an insurmountable initial advantage.
The better strategy is to break the "classes" apart so that you can pit the different powerful interests against each other rather than uniting them against you. There is a subset of the wealthy who benefit from a basic income. The masses would do better to ally with that subset and combine their money with your votes to achieve the common goal, than to keep painting them as the enemy for long enough that they start fighting you too.
And while thinking about Marx one needs to keep in mind, that Marx did analyse the mid 19th century economy. Your example of a CEO is actually a quite good one, since a CEO is controlling capital which he does not own, a arrangement that essentially did not exist in the middle of the 19th century. And I think that this split between capital control and ownership of capital is one of the most important theoretical difficulties in applying Marxist analysis to 21st century finance capitalism. The other problem is, that in the 19th century Labor movement the workers had a nuclear option: If the workers just refuse to work, they will be as broke and unemployed as the capitalist they refuse to work for.