Also do you think it can be related to quadra values and/or quadral complexes?
Also do you think it can be related to quadra values and/or quadral complexes?
Last edited by Tommy; 06-17-2020 at 07:50 PM.
a) they've read Marx's theory, books and find its observations valuable (especially if it does align with their personal experience; bonus points if they study philosophy or alike)
b) they've been influenced by Marxist thought, usually via some websites and groups (if you are more liberal socially, it is very likely you will encounter economical leftists that way and they tend to be more 'reasonable' - in my experience - than socially liberal libertarians, who often are not even that socially liberal)
c) they have friends into that and think it is cool/take this as a 'word' by proxy (someone I know became a tankie just like that)
It's a process.
For what is worth I respect Marx and I'm a leftist, but I wouldn't call myself a Marxist. Also Marxists are pretty diverse, they are many scholars that base on Marx and they very often quarrel/disagree with one another.
I mean more like, what are the motivations of the ppl who believes that marxism is the solution to economic problems.
I think as system is pretty idealistic and doesn't take into account human nature and it results in repression and tyranny. And I think it limits human rights in the most basic levels.
Last edited by Tommy; 06-27-2020 at 06:06 PM.
I think it's mostly angry people from low income backgrounds that feel that the system has betrayed or rejected them. I think the far left is driven by outrage, and a feeling of alienation. Extreme ideologies are very attractive to these people because it provides an easy overarching solution to all their problems
because they're gay with aids
Not all ppl who believes in marxism or communism are from low income background. But Marx was from low income background. However some atheists believes that an utopy as marxism is possible and desirable for getting a fair and ethical distribution of resources.
I don't see how atheism has anything to do with marxism. I'm an atheist and I'm not a marxist
Someone becomes a Marxist because they don't understand mathematics.
Model X Will Save Us!
Economics is a complicated field at that sweet intersection of mathematics and human factor., with, imho, the second being much more visible and important.
Your 'argument' would be much better if you had argued about the human component as Marxism only addresses that, not math. You can say 'Marxist don't really into people and their behavior' or 'Marxists make unfalsifable claims about people's behavior/false claims' (like Tommy said) but to say 'Marxists cannot into math' is just, whoa, dude. The math is here to follow a model, whether that model is Marxist, Austrian or written by Keynes.
Also, I haven't even gotten into how Keynesian economics fucks up the economy.
Last edited by Hitta; 06-18-2020 at 01:00 AM.
Model X Will Save Us!
You can believe in an economic-reductionist view of history without sharing Marx's vision. That economic reductionism is "marxist," even though many people who reject marx's vision of the future also take this lens. In the same way, you can believe Nietzsche's view of historical values having been split between master and slave, without sharing his master-moralist views, and aligning yourself with slave-morality instead. The framework describes how you believe the world to be ordered as a matter of fact, but you can still apply your own values within that framework. What most people identify as marxists are those who share marxian visions, not all economic-reductionists, which fit under the technical umbrella of "marxism" even if we wouldn't call them that.
Alternatives to economic reduction include religious-reduction like Max Weber's type, and the Great Man theory of history, which is factually wrong and shouldn't require justifying.
Ahem. From someone who sounds like a "Marxist," people from well off backgrounds are not likely to come up with ideas that work because they can only imagine class oppression. Then there are those from lower classes who make it "big" and then sell out. We humans are weak.
More serious answer. I imagine what people are calling Marxism (though that may be the wrong label) has already won. The overlords aren't coming, they are already here. The time to fight them was years ago and the only way to fight them was to do equality better. No one did.
It's because I think all that math stuff is over my head that I'm NOT Marxist (or an adherent to any economic system), but having lived all my life under capitalism, its easier to see the flaws and have a soft spot for presented alternatives. And NOT having had exposure to other environments makes it easier to justify or overlook potential flaws. I think this explains the "why," along with more confidence about all that math stuff, lol. I don't wanna dismiss anybody's thoughts by tossing out the phrase "grass is greener," but I think that's part of understanding the motivation.
I'm not a Marxist, but I can describe some of my own motivations for being to the left of social democrats:
I believe in worker ownership for large firms — barring that, some form of worker representation or stake-ownership. I believe that this is desirable to the same extent that representative democracy is a more desirable form of government than benevolent oligarchy.
What is social democracy in a nutshell? Better regulated markets and higher taxes on the rich to fund social programs. That's nice, but social democracy remains a two-tier society with a class of leaders held accountable by shareholders rather than workers. There is a degree of social mobility, but the class of leaders is only accountable to other members of that class, and remains more-or-less hereditary.
Consider how the same logic would be received if it were applied to our political system. Would anyone seriously argue to have an unimpeachable monarch that is 'regulated' by a legal constitution? Politicians worked extremely hard to succeed — just as hard as businessmen — and continue to work hard to pass laws, yet the same argument is never used to justify giving them a permanent or semi-permanent station. There is a democratic premise that politicians can be removed by their constituents on election day; these are constituents by virtue of simply being citizens, not by virtue of being other members of the political class.
Last edited by xerxe; 06-21-2020 at 04:57 AM. Reason: Removed unnecessary trailing sentence
you'd be hard pressed to find mainland Europeans who aren't socialist & authoritarian to some degree tho (including me). It comes with the geopolitical situation (constant invasion & war), much like how the British & Americans have a predisposition towards liberty & capitalism (partially or entirely easy to defend island nations with access to the ocean)
Its interesting to see tho how rampant capitalism always warrants a socialist backlash, even in the US.
There's also another kind of Marxist, the one who wants to dominate and rule over others and be the benevolent wise and allknowing Parent or older sibling who occasionally has to punish the children for their own good.
In either case the appeal of Marxism comes from a deep unconscious desire to return to an idealized version of childhood.
Honestly I'm not even sure I am a "Marxist." I'm not very good at political philosophy. I mainly just want money out of politics so the government represents the voters not corporate interests. I want more regulations for corporations as driven by the people's vote. I want corporations to have to pay their workers a lot more and see it as unjust they CEOs sit all fat and rich at the top while their workers do the heavy lifting and CEOs soak up money off of things like our internet data. The rich are not exemplars of justice, quite the opposite, and this is seen as acceptable while people are actually starving and dying on the streets. It's sick. Much of society exists to serve all the people with the most money, and the pandemic has exposed the sheer heartlessness of their class. I want low cost healthcare for everyone and lower cost education. Basically, I want the US to invest in the majority of its people rather than a minority of its people, and I don't think this is some radical terrible idea. Can it be done the wrong way? Certainly and I'm worried it's being done the wrong way now (the left's movement), though I'm ambivalent, because I'm also worried it's just a bunch of lip service and nothing will really change to end inequality in society, it will just rearrange it or tweak it and give some feel good words.
I'm politically risky, though my favorite candidate was Andrew Yang, mainly because he was proposing changes within capitalism and since our system is capitalist, I thought that might be a less destabilizing approach. However, I did have several issues with him. For one I didn't see how UBI would end poverty as he said he wanted to do because for, say, a single parent with several kids in the poor class, they would only get $1000/per month UBI (their number of kids won't matter) AND they would have to choose between government benefits and UBI, whereas I think they would need both. So mainly it seemed to me the UBI would help people like the homeless and it would certainly help the lower and middle class, but I was afraid the poor would actually not be that helped by it. Yang also was reticent on the topic of reparations for African Americans, which I think is unwise since the majority of African Americans support reparations. I am not sure we can unite the poor and working class without reparations because I think it's needed to turn system racism around--and as long as the poor and working class are divided they can always be pitted against each other by the people at the top who want nothing to change. I don't think poverty can be ended without reparations. Also, he seemed very ignorant on foreign policy, and less concerned about climate change seemingly than I would prefer. I don't really care about arguments like "how will we pay for it?" because the US government is good at dumping tons of money into their priorities while increasing the national debt.
But I will vote for social democrats, which maybe is being called "Marxist," because everyone else just seems to want to keep up the status quo which is watching income inequality increase every year and bemoaning the loss of life on earth knowing it will eventually collapse the food chains and displace millions of people instead of doing something about it.
Last edited by inumbra; 06-19-2020 at 06:48 PM.
I take it that you want the personal motivations of Marxists (or of activists on the radical left). I can give you an anecdotal answer based on the Marxists that I've read and have personally known.
They have tended to be very scholarly individual; better-educated than average, especially in fields like history. They're more likely to be sympathetic to people's suffering, even if it's at an abstract level. They're more opinionated than average, and more willing to dissent. They tend to be more excitable, and quicker to want decisive action against what they regard as unjustness or unfairness. They're more likely to have very rigid convictions about right and wrong.
That's the gist of it. Some of this description may be applicable to radicals of most kinds (Islamist, Anarchist, etc...)
Last edited by xerxe; 06-19-2020 at 08:09 PM.
Because that is the push for the near future. Marxism, then communism, worldwide. Its not good and we can see it coming. It's easy to look around and see methods that can be used for this change of regime. It was foretold that without much prayer and without the consecrations of Russia by the Pope and Bishops that Russia would spread its errors throughout the world. That was foretold in Fatima in 1917 and, our infiltrated Church has never allowed that consecration to happen. So now it is easy to see that that is our future. Communism throughout the whole world. That is what the Blessed Mother foretold in Fatima, that day of the biggest miracle witnessed by the most people since the parting of the Red Sea. In the end, her Immaculate Heart will triumph - but not without some very painful times, first. Persecution and much blood of martyrs. Much loss of life.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
As the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset once said: left and right are just two of the many ways for a person to be imbecile.
There are two things: there is Marx and there is Marxism. Marx once said that he was not a Marxist himself. So we can safely conclude that Marxism, like any dogmatic stand in life, is just another way to be imbecile.
With that out of the way, perhaps there is the possibility of giving Marx some credit for some of his ideas, or perhaps for his theory at large. I, for one, am as much an admirer of Marx as I am an admirer of Friedrich Hayek. Only ignorant people with self-serving tunnel vision (which is 99% of humanity) fail to see that both have valuable insights to offer.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
This is not a fact that I've known to be empirically verified by psychologists, but I believe that people formulate their world view based on how they feel. I'm willing to brook some deviation from the general rule, but I agree with Hume's dictum that "reason is the slave of the passions", though it could be the case that passions change throughout someone's lifetime. Better education gives someone the rhetorical tools to construct a stronger edifice to support one's beliefs as opposed to tearing them down.
The main thing that really works to change people's minds is the seizure of political power. Legislation can change the incentive structure; for instance, to make abortion more desirable or less desirable. The impression that laws and customs are set in stone primes people to accept (even defend) the new reality, and to make dissent pointless without needing to make it punishable.
Currently, there is a lively debate surrounding freedom of speech. A premise used throughout the debate is that dissenting opinions should be debated rather than immediately vilified and dismissed by political correctness. I happen to support this premise because I get pleasure from hearing provocative opinions, and because I believe that dissent is a necessary component of a free society. But, the insistence on 'freedom of speech' and 'reasonable debate' is itself a form of political correctness that primes people to moderate their rhetoric and lower their ambitions.
EDIT: The free speech debate is a lopsided one, though, because some of the parties insist on reasonable debate only when their ideas are being attacked. "Freedom, bitch!" is a frequently-employed rhetorical trick used to avoid having to justify their ideas.
Last edited by xerxe; 06-27-2020 at 06:10 PM.
I think we need to turn the free speech debate towards protecting obscenities. If you defend only slurs that serve one's side's interests on the basis of free speech, then one's principle is transparent and self-serving, but once you defend the type of communication that no one would consider moral, then you've protected free speech when it's hard to do so. I don't think enough people care about that.
Why someone becomes a Marxist?
They born into the Angry Anarchist quadrant. ENFJ, ESTP, ISTP, INFJ
The Angry Anarchist Quadrant: ENFJ(Beta), ESTP(Beta), ISTP(Delta), INFJ(Delta)