A lot of material I have read on Marxism seems to relate to industrial production and whatnot. Anyone have any thoughts on how it applies to the IT industry?

not really , except that in embodies all job markets as a whole. not much help though.

I can’t think of that many… And I need to write an argument about how Marxism is economically better than capitalism, etc during the Russian Revolution
I have a bunch of points but I can’t think of any for Marxism… Please help?
Here’s some basic information about Marxism
-Private property is abolished
-Universal suffrage (everyone can vote)
- Workers will overthrow the owners.
Thank you!

Most people’s ideas about Marxism come from the capitalist propaganda machine which says that nothing is good about it. To understand what it is about you would have to read Marx, and no one wants to do that.

Marxism seems to have arose as an opposite to capitalism because at that time the world was starkly divided between a small ultra rich class and a huge mass of people who lived in abject poverty and worked at subsistence wages with little hope of a better existence. The general belief of the rich was that if the workers were paid more they would reproduce faster and end up in poverty anyway. Capitalism was seen as a system that was driven only by profit that rewarded the few at the top and left the workers starving. Which was pretty much the case. (if you have a chance, read the first part of John Kenneth Galbraith’s classic book, "The Affluent Society – it is very informative of conditions at that time. It is still in print and can be found at libraries and book stores). We are so removed now from that period of time that we have no concept of how degrading the life of most people was during the early part of the industrial revolution.

Marxism saw itself as a liberation for the common people and as a system based on the moral principle that all people are entitled to share in the products of society, not just a few at the top. It said that capitalism did not fairly reward people on how hard they worked or their contributions to society, that the products produced by workers were the source of the industrialists wealth, and that the wealth should be shared with them. "From each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs." It was very idealistic in theory, stressing the dignity of man, as opposed to the capitalist treatment of people as nothing more than tools. It was the direct opposite of Ayn Rand’s philosophy that greed is the ultimate virtue, because it taught that society should care for its people and their needs.

It has been demonstrated time and again that unrestrained capitalism does lead to great inequalities in society, and produces a large segment of people whose contributions to the productivity are greatly less rewarded than their importance and participation in that production.
The communist party had a significant following in the United States in the early part of the 20th century because of that problem. It was solved mostly by three things, the development of efficient mass production that produced lots of goods and turned the working class into a valued consumer population which needed to be paid well in order to buy the goods, the rise of labor unions and the growth of government regulation that redistributed part of the wealth from the upper class.

Marxism failed because it did not provide the incentives for individual initiative that capitalism did, and because human nature will always impose some form of economic and social bias. But it left its mark on modern society by showing that restraint on pure capitalism is needed, even essential in order to keep the country from becoming a land of haves and have-nots. The European countries have adopted more of that philosophy; still far from the pure Marxism where the State owned the means of production but a culture where the wealth is more evenly shared, and they seem to be happy with it.

This is your chance, buddy. Hardly anyone knows anything about Marxism except the cliches that come from the politicians. You can tell them something real. Do a little reading.

To what extent was the 1848 revolution in France influenced by Marxism?

No influence because Marx wasn’t well known in this early time . The 1848 rev. was a consequence of 1830 rev which had only led to a constitutional monarchy in France . In 1848 the secound republic was founded . The difference is in 1830 the working class hadn’t a clear conscience of itself and was used by bourgeoisie to get rid of absolutism before bourgeoisie slaughtered the working class . In 1848 there was a clear split between the two, because people learn by experience . The most advanced socialist leader in Paris was Auguste Blanqui and wasn’t a marxist .
There were many socialist theories in France, then in Germany, before Marx established scientifical socialism . The Blanquism was one of them .
Marx used the 4 French revolutions ( 1789, 1830,1848,1871 ) to set his theories from what he could have observed, and he only founded the first International in 1864, and did some major adjustments after the failure of the Commune of Paris in 1871 .

I would like a quote from a famous or well-known person saying that the ideology of Marxism will always lead to totalitarianism or a dictatorship or something of the like. Please provide a source, don’t just guess.

Thank you, I appreciate it!
Okay, just to clarify, I want this quote for an essay where I am going to argue that Marxism can be seperated from the ways in which it was put to use by dictators such as Stalin.

I want this quote so I can refute it in my essay.

Thanks again.

We don’t need a Quote,we have decades of History and over 100 million dead human beings,murdered by their own Governments,that proves it.

RWE

I know there is a difference between Marxism and socialism. I just think I see alot of both in the democrat party. I am not ready to give up my constitutional rights.

Just like the democrats, the old socialist hope was a mass prosperity that would free all people from the burden of laboring for others, and place them in a position to pursue higer ends, such as in the arts and philosophy, in a conflict-free society.

But there was a practical problem: The Marxist prediction of a revolution that would bring about this good society rested on the assumption that the working classes would grow ever worse under Capitalism.

By the early twentieth century it was clear that this assumption was wrong, completely wrong. As a matter of fact, the reverse was occuring: As wealth grew through capitalist means, the standard of living for all was improving.

The Liberals would have us turn back the clocks, but historians will tell you that even in the early years of the Industrial Revolution, workers were becoming better off.
Prices were falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improved. Even diets became more varied, and working conditions improved.

The new wealth created by capitalism dramatically lengthened lifespans, and decreased child mortality rates.

Regrettably the Democrats want us to regress into a socialism/Marxism where living standards are lower. They oppose capitalist excess, disparaging the mass availability of goods, and services. They seek to restrict freedom to produce and enjoy wealth. Consider for instance the wrath that socialists feel toward fast food, Wal-Mart, and specialty financial services for the poor.

They accuse the consumer market of institutionalizing false needs, glorifying the banal,–all at the expense of the environment and equality of condition. That is the highest socialist goal. Improving our standards of living is far down on the list of socialist priorities.

~

Are you "anti-racist"?

Cultural Marxism argues that like class, race has no biological basis. That race merely a social construct for the minority elite to divide, oppress and exploit other races.

The Elite are White Heterosexual Males.

The same also applies to feminism, cultural Marxism like anti-racism is the basis for feminism.

It also argues that racial inequality is not biological rather oppression and racism alone are responsible for racial inequality.

For example:

Lower IQ’s, Higher tenancy towards criminal behavior and lack of success exhibited in the Black race. Cultural Marxists argue that this is simply the result of oppressing the black race. It argues that racism is the only reason for their failure.

it therefor argues that racial inequality can be achieved by taking power of away from White heterosexual males and redistributing it elsewhere.

Where do you think "positive discrimination" comes from? Cultural Marxism.

Bottom Line: Despite your political affiliations whether you be a liberal or conservative, if you agree with this theory than you subscribe to cultural Marxism. it is therefor accurate to call you a Marxist.

I judge a person based on how HARD they WORK. Also, because I judge a person and not a people I almost find this disturbing. I will say an explicitly bad part of town will be judged as a singular entity, as anyone would, and my brain will instinctively say that sucks over there I do not want to be around there or the people from there.
The political correctness that our government is currently adopting is actively pursuing what you spoke about in your "Question" is an ugly thing. Trying to degrade white men, trying to promote rap (you seen that silly census commercial) , and teach kids that there are no winners or losers. We are all equal. I FREAKING LAUGH

We are EQUAL, only under the law. How are you and I similar? What should we reserve for each other Nothing.

I think I speak for everyone when I say America is so done with moving ahead only as fast as the slowest person, because the people is charge try to act as if we are one unit.

America was founded out of a revolution to separate from a monarch in order to establish the first bit of freedom for humanity. Because for the majority of human history, people have been enslaved by either the church or the state. Everyone was enslaved, yet it was big white hard working men that made this wonderful country for EVERYONE (eventually) to enjoy. No one else did this for the world. Who else is as inviting as the U.S.A.? No one. Big White Men braved, suffered, died, killed, starved, bled, plowed, built, and risked everything for us.

I guess where I am getting at is people who wanna play that whole race game, just imagine the suffering those people went through and died during. Slothiness in hard places only gives the reward of death. A man who works for his keep, also makes sure to sew up a whole in his pocket. A man who needs to remain healthy while exploring untraveled lands removes parasites when he crosses the creek. Yet today we work to make our money and pay what we earn to upkeep parasites.

Marxist society does not work, because there is not an incentive to work. The fact that we have programs like we do kinda proves what you say. That Marxism is prevalent is the West. And any is to much.

What’s the difference between Communism and Marxism? HOw does it affect society, does it do good or bad in today’s ever corrupted and chaoticly fragile world.

. Google both of these philosphies.

I’m writing an essay on communism and how the practice fail in most country, particular USSR. Beside human nature, how else does it fail? Also how does communism are form? Is it by Marxism?

Most often, Marxism refers to a belief in a set of economic theories or a kind of materialist view of the world that Marx seemed to adopt. It’s not really a type of government in that sense. It could only fail if scientific evidence demonstrates that it is factually untrue.

According to Marxism, communism is an inevitable social development… so people often confuse the two terms. There are, however, plenty of communists who aren’t Marxists at all and some Marxists who aren’t necessarily interested in hurrying things along.

George Orwell’s book "Animal Farm" is basically a long analysis of why the Russian Revolution failed to produce a truly communist state, an outcome that he thought was tragic. He portrays corrupt leaders quirking the system and too-trusting common folk giving them too much slack until its too late. Arguably, though, this is a danger of almost any system.

Some have suggested that organizational difficulties are too large to surmount for all but tiny communes. Many historical communes fell apart when the second generation failed to hold all the ideals of their parents. And it’s worth noting that most of the so-called communist governments were really nothing but tyrannies from beginning to end… ones that wanted to seem better than they were.

As an economic theory, Marxism isn’t completely devoid of merit yet. Marx predicted a growth of intermediate ’socialist’ enterprises which would bridge the gap between capitalism and communism. And we are seeing that in many countries in the world, even in the long hold-out of America. Only time will tell if these come to dominate the economic landscape or if they will instead lapse or find a different kind of balance.

I’m making a research on how marxism as an ideology in totalitarian states (such as former USSR for instance) influences family law. I would be happy to know your ideas and thoughts about it.

There is no peaceful co-existence between Communism and bourgeois law, and its social forms like the family.

The family plants the seeds of anti-social feelings and actions, because it attaches interest to a particular circle of accidental relationships at the expense of communitarian living.

The abolishment of private private was not only material, but legal, social, cultural as well. That’s what a revolutionary change means: the complete removal of private barriers and locations.

The factory unit was the ideal form of social living, not the isolated, private family.

In fact, the early Reds were great advocates of abortion, abolishing marriage, dissolving families into communal units, moving women into full labor equality, having work place units provide child care.

Capitalism says that the "commons" would become a destroyed land and that this could be prevented by creating private property. Would Marxism argue that nature can not be privatized? Would it say that we all would have to sacrifice?

How many people can you fit in a tiny stateroom. Marxism has the answer! Viva Groucho!