4 ms·

that's an interesting analogy, i don't really think of Marxism as an ideology, but a critique of capitalism. people who berate it as an ideology are correct bec

that's an interesting analogy, i don't really think of Marxism as an ideology, but a critique of capitalism. people who berate it as an ideology are correct because they are berating Marxist–Leninism, but Marxism as a critique of capitalism is sound. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism > For the political ideology commonly associated with states governed by Communist parties, see Marxism–Leninism.

bunderbunder 12y ago
As long as we're devolving into argument by dictionary, we might as well cut straight to the root. A Google search for the term gives us: ideology (n) a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy Which I'd say is a pretty darn decent definition, and corresponds very well with vernacular usage.
- throwawayaway 12y ago
  i suppose you could call a critique or analysis a system of ideas and ideals, but it wouldn't be an "ideal" definition. vernacular refers to marxist-leninism.
disputin 12y ago
Could the people who voted down the above comment please explain why. I too understand Marxism as described above. I might amend it slightly from "people who berate it as an ideology are correct" to "people who berate it as an ideology would be correct if it were one", but otherwise what's the issue?
- steveklabnik 12y ago
  Don't expect the majority of Hacker News posters to understand anything regarding Marxism.
- bunderbunder 12y ago
  I didn't downvote (and I wish they'd just remove that silly feature from this site), but if I had to guess it would come down to a few things: 1. Ideology is not a dirty word. It's just a noun that describes any large-scale philosophy that focuses on political or economic issues. 2. Referring back to that definition, Marxism is very much an ideology. Claiming that it isn't is just playing word games. 3. All that aside, focusing in on quibbling over a word like that, to the exclusion of addressing any of the actual content of the statement that was being responded to, doesn't do much to add value to the conversation. Given the current context I don't think it would be unfair to suggest that it amounts to trying to meet a response to a courtier's reply with yet another courtier's reply.
  - throwawayaway 12y ago
    to me, ideology and marxism are loaded terms. i think the fact that you refer to marxism as a base class and marxist leninism as an instantiation mean that we fundamentally agree on the nature of the distinction between the two. i think the nub of our disagreement is whether ideology is a loaded term, and whether marxism meets our personal definition of that word.
jacques_chester 12y ago
It's generally considered unsound because it relies on the labour theory of value -- that "true" value comes from the labour expended during creation of a good. That was the state-of-the-art in classical economics when Marx branched from it. And his argument flows from it. But the LTV breeds paradoxes. That's why, when the concept of subjective value was introduced, economics left LTV behind. A thing is only valued according to what it is exchanged for. So a single good actually has different values, at different points in time and space. The value of the labourer's efforts are a distinct exchange from the value of the good to the manufacturer, which is distinct again from the value when sold to the wholesaler, distinct from the value at the retailer, distinct from the retailer to the consumer, distinct again the value between the buyer and the buyer's son who inherited it, distinct again to the value at a lawn sale, distinct again to the value at a swap meet, distinct again to the value at a recycling centre ... There was no "real" or "true" value to be expropriated here, so the Marxist critique basically falls to pieces. It continues to be attractive because it makes sense to people who are unaware of more modern economics, because it predicts cyclical behaviour in capitalist economies and because it finishes with some hand-wavy eschatological futurism that sounds really pleasant.

bunderbunder 12y ago

As long as we're devolving into argument by dictionary, we might as well cut straight to the root. A Google search for the term gives us: ideology (n) a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy Which I'd say is a pretty darn decent definition, and corresponds very well with vernacular usage.

throwawayaway 12y ago
i suppose you could call a critique or analysis a system of ideas and ideals, but it wouldn't be an "ideal" definition. vernacular refers to marxist-leninism.

disputin 12y ago

Could the people who voted down the above comment please explain why. I too understand Marxism as described above. I might amend it slightly from "people who berate it as an ideology are correct" to "people who berate it as an ideology would be correct if it were one", but otherwise what's the issue?

steveklabnik 12y ago
Don't expect the majority of Hacker News posters to understand anything regarding Marxism.
bunderbunder 12y ago
I didn't downvote (and I wish they'd just remove that silly feature from this site), but if I had to guess it would come down to a few things: 1. Ideology is not a dirty word. It's just a noun that describes any large-scale philosophy that focuses on political or economic issues. 2. Referring back to that definition, Marxism is very much an ideology. Claiming that it isn't is just playing word games. 3. All that aside, focusing in on quibbling over a word like that, to the exclusion of addressing any of the actual content of the statement that was being responded to, doesn't do much to add value to the conversation. Given the current context I don't think it would be unfair to suggest that it amounts to trying to meet a response to a courtier's reply with yet another courtier's reply.
- throwawayaway 12y ago
  to me, ideology and marxism are loaded terms. i think the fact that you refer to marxism as a base class and marxist leninism as an instantiation mean that we fundamentally agree on the nature of the distinction between the two. i think the nub of our disagreement is whether ideology is a loaded term, and whether marxism meets our personal definition of that word.

jacques_chester 12y ago

It's generally considered unsound because it relies on the labour theory of value -- that "true" value comes from the labour expended during creation of a good. That was the state-of-the-art in classical economics when Marx branched from it. And his argument flows from it. But the LTV breeds paradoxes. That's why, when the concept of subjective value was introduced, economics left LTV behind. A thing is only valued according to what it is exchanged for. So a single good actually has different values, at different points in time and space. The value of the labourer's efforts are a distinct exchange from the value of the good to the manufacturer, which is distinct again from the value when sold to the wholesaler, distinct from the value at the retailer, distinct from the retailer to the consumer, distinct again the value between the buyer and the buyer's son who inherited it, distinct again to the value at a lawn sale, distinct again to the value at a swap meet, distinct again to the value at a recycling centre ... There was no "real" or "true" value to be expropriated here, so the Marxist critique basically falls to pieces. It continues to be attractive because it makes sense to people who are unaware of more modern economics, because it predicts cyclical behaviour in capitalist economies and because it finishes with some hand-wavy eschatological futurism that sounds really pleasant.