Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: What is your opinion about Marxism? [View all]joshcryer
(62,513 posts)75. "Marxism leads you to think long term"
Weve been doing this a long time. A thousand years. What did we want? We wanted freedom of thought, we wanted freedom of personal development, we wanted not to be held in serfdom, we wanted not to be tied to the land, we wanted not to be told that we must pursue the trade of our fathers, we wanted not to be told that we had to labor in somebody elses demesne six days a month. We wanted not to be told we couldnt go to gymnasium because we were Jews. We wanted not to be sent to the school for colored children. We wanted not to go to confession to have a responsibility to report to somebody corrupt about what it was we had done wrong. We wanted not to be told that we couldnt be saved unless we agreed. We struggled, that is, for a thousand years, for some simple things: For the freedom of thought, for the freedom of self-development, to be allowed to become. It was an impossible task. Tens of thousands of people died. Lots of people starved. Lots of people never had the chance.
All the way along, there were opportunities, and we tried to take them, and often they led us to violence because we didnt know how to avoid it, because we had to redistribute stuff with non-zero marginal cost, because we had to take a thing away from a rich man to give it to a poor man, and the rich man resented it and he fought back, and you cant win that fight, because even when you triumph the very thing you are trying to make gets killed in the struggle. And so, even when we won, we lost. And they wrote great stories about it, from both sides. And some excoriated us for the violence, and some wanted to make us noble for the ambition, and people learned that it was a great romantic episode that never went anywhere. And its different now.
Things have changed. Something is happening which has never happened before, and it changes the outcome of the game. We are exactly where we have always been, with respect to what we want, but the methods of gaining it have changed, and they are now possible in ways that they were never possible before. And the great riddle of romantic socialist politics, the great worry of the French revolution, the great difficulty that has presented itself to every struggle for human equality since the beginning of the struggle, has been lifted in substantial part. Because we now live in a world where we can make enough for everybody with our own hands. Because we are capable of achieving the relationship we needed to achieve: From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need.
I have heard all of this vehemently objected to because Karl Marx thought it was a good idea. (Laughter) This is a very peculiar form of argument, characteristic of the United States in the era of the cold war: You cannot want this, because the guy the other fellow likes also wanted it. Right? A very peculiar strategy, one we should no longer take the slightest concern for, for which we ought to be as scornful as it deserves. We are ready now.
That doesnt mean there isnt any work to do. Fortunately there is plenty of work to do. For lawyers, moreover.
But there is good news about it. Because we have been doing it for a very long time, and it has wearied many a loyal person, and it has worn out many a strong one. The difference is: This time we win.
All the way along, there were opportunities, and we tried to take them, and often they led us to violence because we didnt know how to avoid it, because we had to redistribute stuff with non-zero marginal cost, because we had to take a thing away from a rich man to give it to a poor man, and the rich man resented it and he fought back, and you cant win that fight, because even when you triumph the very thing you are trying to make gets killed in the struggle. And so, even when we won, we lost. And they wrote great stories about it, from both sides. And some excoriated us for the violence, and some wanted to make us noble for the ambition, and people learned that it was a great romantic episode that never went anywhere. And its different now.
Things have changed. Something is happening which has never happened before, and it changes the outcome of the game. We are exactly where we have always been, with respect to what we want, but the methods of gaining it have changed, and they are now possible in ways that they were never possible before. And the great riddle of romantic socialist politics, the great worry of the French revolution, the great difficulty that has presented itself to every struggle for human equality since the beginning of the struggle, has been lifted in substantial part. Because we now live in a world where we can make enough for everybody with our own hands. Because we are capable of achieving the relationship we needed to achieve: From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need.
I have heard all of this vehemently objected to because Karl Marx thought it was a good idea. (Laughter) This is a very peculiar form of argument, characteristic of the United States in the era of the cold war: You cannot want this, because the guy the other fellow likes also wanted it. Right? A very peculiar strategy, one we should no longer take the slightest concern for, for which we ought to be as scornful as it deserves. We are ready now.
That doesnt mean there isnt any work to do. Fortunately there is plenty of work to do. For lawyers, moreover.
But there is good news about it. Because we have been doing it for a very long time, and it has wearied many a loyal person, and it has worn out many a strong one. The difference is: This time we win.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Free_and_Open_Software:_Paradigm_for_a_New_Intellectual_Commons
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
106 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

How does it lead to inefficient economic models that make everyone poor?
Gravitycollapse
Mar 2014
#12
Capitalism serves to produce at whatever cost, regardless of actual demand.
Gravitycollapse
Mar 2014
#17
There are alternative explanations for the failure of certain states than "Marxism doesn't work"
DireStrike
Mar 2014
#40
It is the most important collection of socio-economic theory in human history.
Gravitycollapse
Mar 2014
#10
The same people who decry Marxist totalitarianism are perfectly OK with corporatist totalitarianism.
baldguy
Mar 2014
#19
I honestly didn't know what to expect. I am frankly surprised by both the number who think
Douglas Carpenter
Mar 2014
#31
Not me. Nothing surprises me about the result so far of this poll........
socialist_n_TN
Mar 2014
#45
I don't think they're very democratic at all. Maybe demaGOGIC, based on their tactics here.
DireStrike
Mar 2014
#60
Good at identifying the problem, less so at arriving at a realistic solution.
Tommy_Carcetti
Mar 2014
#32
Yes, the dialectical materialism is somewhat cartoonish and the predictions mostly wrong
Chathamization
Mar 2014
#80
Sometimes useful as an analytical tool, worthless as a source of solutions nt
geek tragedy
Mar 2014
#52
Marxism is the philosophical system responsible for the greatest death toll in human history
kwassa
Mar 2014
#63
Regardless of the variance in the numbers, Marxism still wins in the death category.
kwassa
Mar 2014
#84
Another in a long line of imaginary forces we predicate our decisions and our lives on.
LanternWaste
Mar 2014
#87