5 ms·

I think that's a massive oversimplification. You could definitely say that people starving feel entitled to food, and feel justified in stealing it. You could

by x220 8y ago

I think that's a massive oversimplification. You could definitely say that people starving feel entitled to food, and feel justified in stealing it. You could also say that an ideology that can be used to explain every power struggle and social ill is very attractive to those who are too smart for their own good.

edoo 8y ago
Most Marxist revolutions involved attacking the producers which did lead to starvation. Just because there are people in the world doing better than you does not automatically mean you are being oppressed. The idea you are entitled to what other people have is absolutely the root of Marxism.
- tomhoward 8y ago
  I don't think entitlement is as tightly coupled with a single economic philosophy as you'd like to think. Yes there is entitlement evident in the example you're citing, but there's plenty of entitlement evident in other scenarios – e.g., colonialism, feudalism, the behaviour of banking executives in the 2008 financial crisis. It'd be neat if we could simply assign a single political/economic philosophy as being the one that's characterised by entitlement, but like most things in life, the reality is rather more complex.
- x220 8y ago
  >Most Marxist revolutions involved attacking the producers which did lead to starvation. Yes. > Just because there are people in the world doing better than you does not automatically mean you are being oppressed. Certainly. >The idea you are entitled to what other people have is absolutely the root of Marxism. Here is where I disagree. I think Marxism is fundamentally the idea that all significant suffering in the world is caused by wealthy elites exploiting common people, and that sufficiently eliminating this exploitation will lead to a utopia. It's more than a simple "Give me that!" urge. How else could it be so superficially appealing to naive college students for centuries of history? Don't take this as justification for Marxism. It's not. Marxism is one level above Nazism in a level of evil (if it's not evil, what else could you call evil?) since Nazism eventually demonizes everyone who looks or acts differently than you, but Marxism eventually demonizes (and kills) everyone.
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    >I think Marxism is fundamentally Did you get this from reading the works Marx and Engels (that is to say, the founders of Marxism), or elsewhere? >caused by wealthy elites exploiting common people No. Even a cursory reading of Marx (other than the Manifesto, which is a propaganda pamphlet he wrote) would suggest that Marx's issue is with capital and abstract labour. The title of his magnum opus is: Capital, a critical analysis of capitalist production. If you read it, the references to actualized instances of "wealthy elites" is paltry in comparison to his references to society, political economy, abstract structures and history. In fact, there's a wonderful little quote from the man himself demonstrating this: "To prevent possible misunderstanding, a word. I paint the capitalist and the landlord in no sense couleur de rose [i.e., seen through rose-tinted glasses]. But here individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the personifications of economic categories, embodiments of particular class-relations and class-interests. My standpoint, from which the evolution of the economic formation of society is viewed as a process of natural history, can less than any other make the individual responsible for relations whose creature he socially remains, however much he may subjectively raise himself above them." This is from the preface, by the way. You don't even have to open the book properly to read this. >sufficiently eliminating this exploitation will lead to a utopia No. There is no "sufficiently" about it; the Marxist project is to eliminate what Marx sees as the class structure, present in "all societies hitherto" which leads to such exploitation. Beware that "exploitation" is a technical term, not a moral one. Marx does not mean to cast any moral judgement on the fact. >How else could it be so superficially appealing to naive college students for centuries of history? Marx was generally not appealing to college students around the time of his death in 1883. One century from then makes 1983, so you're right for about one century. Since then the popularity has generally declined, only recently seeing a resurgence. I question why you brought up "naive college students" when academics at the forefront of sociology, philosophy and political economy describe themselves as Marxists or at least influenced by his ideas. The student protests in May '68 France were joined by academics and the massive French trade unionist movement. >Marxism is one level above Nazism in a level of evil Marxism does not prescribe the indiscriminate murder of people (including capitalists!) due to their inherent characteristics. Although we'd both agree that the actions of the 20th c. Communist dictators were horrific, Badiou and Zizek question whether these are "inherent" to the Marxist project at all, or even the Marxist-Leninist project.

by x220 8y ago

edoo 8y ago

Most Marxist revolutions involved attacking the producers which did lead to starvation. Just because there are people in the world doing better than you does not automatically mean you are being oppressed. The idea you are entitled to what other people have is absolutely the root of Marxism.

tomhoward 8y ago
I don't think entitlement is as tightly coupled with a single economic philosophy as you'd like to think. Yes there is entitlement evident in the example you're citing, but there's plenty of entitlement evident in other scenarios – e.g., colonialism, feudalism, the behaviour of banking executives in the 2008 financial crisis. It'd be neat if we could simply assign a single political/economic philosophy as being the one that's characterised by entitlement, but like most things in life, the reality is rather more complex.
x220 8y ago
>Most Marxist revolutions involved attacking the producers which did lead to starvation. Yes. > Just because there are people in the world doing better than you does not automatically mean you are being oppressed. Certainly. >The idea you are entitled to what other people have is absolutely the root of Marxism. Here is where I disagree. I think Marxism is fundamentally the idea that all significant suffering in the world is caused by wealthy elites exploiting common people, and that sufficiently eliminating this exploitation will lead to a utopia. It's more than a simple "Give me that!" urge. How else could it be so superficially appealing to naive college students for centuries of history? Don't take this as justification for Marxism. It's not. Marxism is one level above Nazism in a level of evil (if it's not evil, what else could you call evil?) since Nazism eventually demonizes everyone who looks or acts differently than you, but Marxism eventually demonizes (and kills) everyone.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  >I think Marxism is fundamentally Did you get this from reading the works Marx and Engels (that is to say, the founders of Marxism), or elsewhere? >caused by wealthy elites exploiting common people No. Even a cursory reading of Marx (other than the Manifesto, which is a propaganda pamphlet he wrote) would suggest that Marx's issue is with capital and abstract labour. The title of his magnum opus is: Capital, a critical analysis of capitalist production. If you read it, the references to actualized instances of "wealthy elites" is paltry in comparison to his references to society, political economy, abstract structures and history. In fact, there's a wonderful little quote from the man himself demonstrating this: "To prevent possible misunderstanding, a word. I paint the capitalist and the landlord in no sense couleur de rose [i.e., seen through rose-tinted glasses]. But here individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the personifications of economic categories, embodiments of particular class-relations and class-interests. My standpoint, from which the evolution of the economic formation of society is viewed as a process of natural history, can less than any other make the individual responsible for relations whose creature he socially remains, however much he may subjectively raise himself above them." This is from the preface, by the way. You don't even have to open the book properly to read this. >sufficiently eliminating this exploitation will lead to a utopia No. There is no "sufficiently" about it; the Marxist project is to eliminate what Marx sees as the class structure, present in "all societies hitherto" which leads to such exploitation. Beware that "exploitation" is a technical term, not a moral one. Marx does not mean to cast any moral judgement on the fact. >How else could it be so superficially appealing to naive college students for centuries of history? Marx was generally not appealing to college students around the time of his death in 1883. One century from then makes 1983, so you're right for about one century. Since then the popularity has generally declined, only recently seeing a resurgence. I question why you brought up "naive college students" when academics at the forefront of sociology, philosophy and political economy describe themselves as Marxists or at least influenced by his ideas. The student protests in May '68 France were joined by academics and the massive French trade unionist movement. >Marxism is one level above Nazism in a level of evil Marxism does not prescribe the indiscriminate murder of people (including capitalists!) due to their inherent characteristics. Although we'd both agree that the actions of the 20th c. Communist dictators were horrific, Badiou and Zizek question whether these are "inherent" to the Marxist project at all, or even the Marxist-Leninist project.