Marxists!

Post Reply New Topic

The Marxists do not know the true irony of what they say. Marxists claim that Nazi Germany was not Truly Socialist, because it turned out to be such an evil dictatorship. But guess what, people? There is one small problem with that. By the same line of reasoning, one could say that neither the Soviet Union nor the People's Republic of China were Truly Socialist either, since they turned out to be such evil dictatorships too.

Really, many of the very same types of military atrocities and crimes against Humanity, that one usually associates with Nazi Germany were also carried out by, of all people, the Soviet and Chinese Communists. The Soviets and the Chinese had their Prison Camps too, and they were every bit as vicious and lethal about coming up with ways to torture and butcher their victims therein.

Truly mind boggling, how much the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China resemble the Third Reich. Have the rest of you ever noticed that? I wonder. Suffice, nobody who actually knows what had been done, in the name of Communism, in Russia and China, would ever claim that the German people, as a People, are Uniquely Evil! But, I suppose, I should endeavor to educate others about Communist sins!

Captain Obvious has struck again!

Well, I would go even further. The very idea of Class War, and exterminating off entire Classes, is-- in principle-- just like Race War, and exterminating off entire Races. Can barely understand why anyone would feel that Marxism is any better, at all, than Nazism. Mind you, I hate Nazism as much as any. I simply do not understand why any would prefer Marxism. I really cannot stand Marxists, and what the Marxists did in the name of Communism.

One has to wonder: why do others not perceive the obvious analogy?

I have to wonder: Why beat this dead horse even further into the ground?

Marxism has been demonstrated over and over again to be a failed system that is based on a philosophy that does not take into account human vices like greed and pride, except to say that human vices can be forcibly evolved out of humanity in just a few generations.

Well, it seems that others actually believe that people, being people, with the exception of the Germans perhaps, are basically good. Others seem to believe that the Germans, and only the Germans, are truly evil. I am, of course, countering that entire conception, with the contrary view: rather that people are basically evil.

For indeed, before there ever was such a thing as German Nationalism, or even Germany itself, there was anti-German bigotry. Of course, it is literally Ancient History, but in Roman Times, they came up with a slur, a cruel slur, for those East of the Rhine and North of the Danube. They called such people Germanii. Of course, this is where such English words as German, and Germany originate. Still, Caesar's Legions were not merely referring to the ancestors of Modern Germans as such. They were referring to the ancestors of the Modern Germans, Modern Dutch, Modern Scandinavians, and even the Modern Poles and Russians, ironically enough.

where I live - Germany - no one thinks that the Nazi Regime was socialist. Not because it was a terror regime, but because it had almost no socialist characteristics. I asked my history teacher in school why it was called national-socialist and he answered that it meant it was geared towards a unity of the german people, but really had nothing to do with socialism, in the Marxian sense.
Socialist in name only, it was.

Ever since the cruelties of Stalin and Mao became public, western Marxists replied: well, then it's not really socialist- and one could argue about that. Really-existing communism had some aspects of Marx's ideas, but flat out failed at others.
So, if you ask a person whether these Communist Regimes were what Marx described, the correct answer would be: no.

btw.: marx' and lenin's critiques of capitalism are spot on and used to be taught to economists until about 1990 - after that, people stipped thinking about capitalism at universities, and were trained to become managers of the status quo.
The current crises however were to a large extent predictable, but between 1990 and 2008, students were taught that everything is fine and the market can provide a solution for everything. it can't. And Lenin described what that would lead to.

Wait, Metal Rat, are you actually claiming that the Nazi party was socialist because it was in their name? The Nazis infiltrated a more socialist party, the German Workers' Party, which changed its name to the National Socialist German Workers' Party against Hitler's at the time wishes, apparently as an attempt to appeal more to the left. Hitler was not always the leader but rose in it for his public speaking ability and strength with propaganda, but many of the original party did not like how Hitler was taking it. Hitler later had all the actual socialists killed in something known as the Night of the Long Knives.

This is correct; neither the Soviet Union nor China were "truly socialist" in the way Marx envisioned; but this does not conflict with saying Nazi Germany was not "truly socialist". Both claims are mutually consistent.



It's not "mind boggling": all three were evil dictatorships.



You should endeavor to educate yourself on Marx's critique of capitalism and his theory of alienation. When you finally do, you'll realize that nothing about Nazi Germany, the USSR, or the People's Republic of China was genuinely Marxian.

As I mentioned in my previous reply, you should endeavor to educate yourself on Marxism instead of making ill-founded claims about it. Distorted preconceptions are not good for any kind of rational debate.

Because it is invalid.

This is utterly false. To put it simply, Marx's philosophy is based on his observations that unchecked greed and pride in the capitalist system creates a sort of feedback loop in which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. He essentially identified an inherent contradiction between microeconomics and macroeconomics. I encourage you to read up on Marx's critique of capitalism. Not many people know this, but yes, it is possible to treat a subject matter fairly without actually endorsing it.

However, one criticism against Marx's labor theory of value is that it doesn't give enough attention to consumer preferences. Consumer preferences are not necessarily based on "greed" or "pride", but I think the idea you may have been trying to convey in your assertion may be similar to said criticism of the labor theory of value.

How so?  Each Marxist society so far has failed due to the greed and pride of those who placed themselves as "First Among Equals".  Had old Karl taken the inherent failings of human nature into account, and addressed them more effectively, we might all now be living in a glorious workers' collective, happy in our hovels, and pleased with the crumbs that fall from the tables of the ruling elite.

Odd. You ask for an explanation of why I think your assertion is false and at the same time completely ignore what I said in response to your assertion.

So, you're saying that being "happy in our hovels, and pleased with the crumbs that fall from the tables of the ruling elite" would be the result of Marx taking the "inherent failings of human nature into account and addressing them more effectively", and that this is a better result than not taking greed and pride into account? I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from.

Look, I'm just no fan of Marxism at all, so don't try to convert me to your cause. Karl Marx is dead, and so is his philosophy, plain and simple. Get used to it.

If this isn't a cop-out I don't know what it is. I'm not trying to convert you to any cause, other than to try to see this subject from a more informed and less biased perspective. I don't endorse Marxism.

I'm appalled at your narrowness. What are you even doing in the Philosophy subforum if you're not willing to question your own beliefs? Your attempt to shut down this debate is totally anti-intellectual and anti-philosophy.