Thank you for the excellent description of Marxist theory, it's been awhile. I appreciate that you didn't reply to the commentor with "eat shit". I suppose it's still not too uneducated to assume that Marxism and communism relate, given that Karl Marx is often referred to as the father of communism.
The problem with Marxism is that most of it has been thoroughly disproved or is outdated and the world is just better explained by normie economics. It is a theory still fundamentally stuck in the 19th century, while the rest of the economic field has consistently progressed.
Materialism is still useful, even though it was immediately shown to have limitations with its failure to predict nationalism/populism/facism and just how fragile to non existent class solidarity is (I’d even go so far to say it’s a non factor in the US). The Frankfurt school subsequently tried to fix this issue by adding culture into Marxism analysis with very meh success.
It’s unclear what the paragraph about Keynesian is suppose to convey, but Marxists does not have a point. It makes specific claim - “labour theory of value” about why wages do not keep up, and the theory has been repeatedly shown to be false (thanks Alfred marshal). You could make the argument that Marxism might get the details wrong but the broader belief that capitalists take more and more is correct, but that analysis is also readily available in normie economics. Indeed Piketty is a normal economist and unlike Marxists, is able to accurately predict outcomes and have workable solutions (never mind that Piketty’s work is heavily disputed and there is a bunch of debate around it) that fit largely into normie economics.
It’s not to say that one shouldn’t analyze problems through a Marxist lens. It can be a fun exercise. It’s to say that there are just better tools that exist. We do not see the world through his lens. We are not bound to his vision, and most of us aren’t Marxist at all
Thank you for attempting to engage rather than dismiss.
Thank you for the excellent description of Marxist theory, it's been awhile. I appreciate that you didn't reply to the commentor with "eat shit". I suppose it's still not too uneducated to assume that Marxism and communism relate, given that Karl Marx is often referred to as the father of communism.
Right, communism is the goal of Marxist analysis, so they are related, but you don’t have to support the goal to accept the truth of the analysis.
Who/where is the artwork from?
The problem with Marxism is that most of it has been thoroughly disproved or is outdated and the world is just better explained by normie economics. It is a theory still fundamentally stuck in the 19th century, while the rest of the economic field has consistently progressed.
Materialism is still useful, even though it was immediately shown to have limitations with its failure to predict nationalism/populism/facism and just how fragile to non existent class solidarity is (I’d even go so far to say it’s a non factor in the US). The Frankfurt school subsequently tried to fix this issue by adding culture into Marxism analysis with very meh success.
It’s unclear what the paragraph about Keynesian is suppose to convey, but Marxists does not have a point. It makes specific claim - “labour theory of value” about why wages do not keep up, and the theory has been repeatedly shown to be false (thanks Alfred marshal). You could make the argument that Marxism might get the details wrong but the broader belief that capitalists take more and more is correct, but that analysis is also readily available in normie economics. Indeed Piketty is a normal economist and unlike Marxists, is able to accurately predict outcomes and have workable solutions (never mind that Piketty’s work is heavily disputed and there is a bunch of debate around it) that fit largely into normie economics.
Many of the other specific Marxists claims have been mostly been disproven (highly recommend this link which goes through better than I can https://open.substack.com/pub/josephheath/p/key-stages-in-the-decline-of-academic?r=1gv518&utm_medium=ios)
And Marxism is decidedly not an egalitarian philosophy (Deboer wrote about this! https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/liberalism-cannot-produce-outcomes). Marx did not preach for an equitable world.
It’s not to say that one shouldn’t analyze problems through a Marxist lens. It can be a fun exercise. It’s to say that there are just better tools that exist. We do not see the world through his lens. We are not bound to his vision, and most of us aren’t Marxist at all