• Samsy
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    The problem is, Marxism was created over 100 years ago. I bet Karl Marx wouldn’t agree to his own theorem for the world we live actually. It needs upgrades, and an other name and shouldn’t be set in comparison with the systems which tried to be marxism / communism.

    Smaller steps would be a good start, why not take a closer look at Portugal? A left government recreate the whole state in just a few years and save the country from being bankrupt. This wasn’t Marxism, but it was a left wing party with really good ideas.

    • OurToothbrush
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      You haven’t seriously engaged with Marx if you think the stuff he wrote isn’t still relevant.

      Not meant as a diss, but please actually engage with his body of work before making this criticism.

    • happybadger [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Describe “Marx’s theorem” without paraphrasing wikipedia. This is nonsensical and as an adult you’re supposed to read about the things you choose to talk about. Linnaeus lived three centuries ago, but would you throw out taxonomy? Is the scientific method outdated because Francis Bacon wouldn’t know a thing about modern science? People build on the epistomological and ontological frameworks to make a living tradition.

    • Cowbee [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      The problem is, Marxism was created over 100 years ago. I bet Karl Marx wouldn’t agree to his own theorem for the world we live actually. It needs upgrades, and an other name and shouldn’t be set in comparison with the systems which tried to be marxism / communism.

      On what grounds do you think he wouldn’t agree? Marxists since Marx have expanded on his ideas, like analysis of Imperialism, but Marxism is stronger than ever and consistently proved correct.

      Smaller steps would be a good start, why not take a closer look at Portugal? A left government recreate the whole state in just a few years and save the country from being bankrupt. This wasn’t Marxism, but it was a left wing party with really good ideas.

      I don’t see what this has to do with Marxism.

      • MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 month ago

        Well, the general form of Marxist ideology in the population is not so much. But some elements of this ideology are so strong that the Republican Party uses this model of discourse for its voters.

        • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Have I finally met that unicorn of perfect ignorance for whom the “Trump Is a Leninist” thinkpieces were written for? I’m just dying to know what part of Marx is used by Republicans!

          • MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            1 month ago

            This article explains it better, although it is from 2017. Link

            And the MAGAs are against big business, just like some of the Democrats.

            • carl_marks[use name]
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              And the MAGAs are against big business, just like some of the Democrats.

              Lmao. That’s why they stan a billionaire and Peter Thiel vice that fucks couched

            • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              I called it! Though I suppose it was plain enough by the time I came across it.

              Faux-populist rhetoric is not a Marx thing and Magats are absolutely not opposed to big business. It’s like Trump’s only thing that he’s a billionaire due to real estate and other related fields.

    • DessalinesA
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Marxism is a living, constantly evolving science, so it very much adapts with the times.

      It’s best to think of Marx and Engels as the Newton of political science and sociology… did they get everything right, and should we treat their words as gospel? Of course not, but their central tenets and ideas stand, and they built a solid foundation for others to build on.

      We can recommend a lot of works on how marxism has evolved as a science, and how modern marxists view class struggle in the 21st century.

    • linkhidalgogato
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      yeah thats why we read the works of other theorists that have lived since him and have taken his ideas an updated them and applied them to new circumstances at every moment since he wrote his books, for fucks sakes most communist dont even call themselves Marxists most of us call ourselves Marxists Leninist. Also if u actually read anything Marks wrote u would realize that while specifics are almost all outdated the ideas themselves and methods of analyzing and understanding things hold up just fine.

      • MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 month ago

        An ideology has to evolve over time in order to remain relevant to the generations that come and go from time to time. If you don’t do that, you will stagnate with a small group of people.

        To gather more people, you have to find a common ground of the groups that are marginalized from society at that time, and you have to lead them to achieve that goal.

          • MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 month ago

            They should have a Marxist ideology that is friendly to a large part of the population or marginalized groups in order to achieve relevance.

            Adapt new technologies to their ideology and not come into conflict.

            • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              The word ‘Marxism’ means five different things in five different fields. You’ll need to be clearer about what exactly you feel should change.

              From what I understand, the core ideas of Marxism - the ones about epistemiology, metaphysics, sociology and history - are more or less universally accepted in those fields (to the point that a student of, say, history may learn Marx’s theories as revealed truth, without even questioning them). His writings on economics are controversial, but again the core of it has remained largely unchanged.

              Also, Marx thought of sociology, economics and so on as sciences, meaning that a theory is either right or wrong (or partially right). How many people believe in them has no effect on their truth value. So I don’t get what you mean by an ‘ideology that is friendly to a large part of the population or marginalized groups’.