YEBIGA's comment that:

"Most intelligent people would concede Marx's class struggle is a false dichotomy."

is fallacious. Maybe they do not know what dichotomy means.

Marxism is not a threat to capitalism. Capitalism threatens itself. Marxism only exposes the inherent tendencies within capitalism that lead to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, and then to final economic crisis.

Marxism supports social movements that seek to alleviate the injustices that mount within capitalism - particularly low wages, unemployment, cheap working conditions, and homelessness.

Marxism points to obvious and fundamental crisis tendencies within capitalism - declining factor share going to labour - ballooning debt - ecological suicide.

Marxism argues that this can be solved, and must be solved, only by;

"...a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large"

Marxism suggests that where there are appropriate democratic institutions, this process will be entirely peaceful, and this is the political practice of almost all of the various communists parties in the West - eg: Communist Party of Japan.

Marxism-Leninism also suggests that where there are appropriate democratic institutions, there is no need of a dictatorship of the proletariat [ http://tinyurl.com/No-dictatorship ].

Marxist theory is merely the continuation of political economy from Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, Malthus and others, taken to its logical conclusion, once countervailing tendencies are exhausted.

For Marxists, the key to solving the economic crisis, is to ensure that all workers receive purchasing power (wages) equal to the full value of their product. This is the only way the so-called "circular flow" can balance without increasing debt or importing low wages, as currently applies.

In essence, this results in proposals for cooperative enterprises, seeking normal profits and strict injunctions against monopoly. As any economist will tell you, normal profits are necessary to send price signals in markets and are always competed away in the long run.

Naturally today's capitalist pundits are aghast at this, and try all manner of baiting and spurious diversions, to disrupt Marxism.

Andrew Bolt is a capitalist.

Hi Joe (Loudmouth),

Many people have serious reservations about Marx's theory.
He was no doubt correct that a major function of the state
is to protect the interests of the ruling class. In all
societies the rulling class is the economically dominant
class as well. Institutions and other cultural arrangements
do, indeed, generally support the status quo, and therefore
the interests of the class that beneifts from it.

But Marx failed to recognise that the state has many functions
that are not necessarily related to class conflict - functions
that would have to be fulfilled in any modern society, with
or without classes. Moder conflict theorists have broadened
Marx's focus from class conflict to social conflict in
general.

They point out that the state is the main arena of conflict
among a variety of competing groups - for example, among
racial and ethnic groups, officials and citizens,
inner-city residents and suburbanites,
consumers and producers, conservatives and progressives,
social movements for and
against the right to abortion, same-sex marriage,
and so on.

Usually, the outcome of any conflict favours the wealthier
group, but ongoing conflict can lead to shifts in the
distribution of power, and thus can bring about social change.

Over 2,000 years ago, the philosopher Aristotle observed that
we are political animals. We are indeed, and necessarily so,
for politics is an inevitable consequence of social living.
In every society valued resources are scarce, and politics is
essentially the process of deciding, "who gets what, when, and
how."

The character of political institutions and behaviour varies a
great deal from one society or group to another, but the political
process is universal.

The theory of marxism is great, the only problem is it assumes that humans are inherently good and are happy to work hard for the community above themselves. The reality is that while most people are community minded, they are primarily driven by self interest and are not inclined to push themselves without real personal gains.

The result is that every Marxist state ever, has had to be a totalitarian state to force people to fit into mold. This leads to a lack of innovation and a stagnant or shrinking economy, and eventual collapse.

The great post war socialist experiment in the UK brought the UK economy to the point of bankruptcy until Thatcher tore down the rotting structure, put through sweeping reforms and made the UK the envy of the rest of Europe, and motivated the rest of the world to change.

I have no problem in teaching about Marxism or National Socialism as long as no one takes them seriously as viable social structures

Firstly there was the suggestion that Marx would be 'aghast' being characterised as a social democrat. But social democracy had its origins in the 19th Century as a movement of Marxists and Lassalleans. Later on Marxism became hegemonic in the social democratic movement. The social democratic/communist divide only occurred after 1914 because of the War; and even then radical Marxist social democrats remained. (Kautsky, Martov etc)

Also Marxism influenced Social Democratic and Democratic Socialist movements throughout the 20th century and even to an extent today. You could hardly call the social democratic governments of the 20th Century "totalitarian". There were no 'gulags' under these governments. Indeed, the Marxists within these administrations would have been amongst the most passionate democrats.

Attempts have also been made here to equate Marxism with extreme collectivism. That was so for some. But take the recent writings of former Communist Party of Australia Secretary Eric Aarons where he wrestles with Hayek and comes out in favour of a BALANCE between individualism and collectivism. Marxists were PASSIONATE about INDIVIDUAL SELF REALISATION. (I've published a blog on his work "Hayek versus Marx" which people are welcome to read and respond to) Bourgeois capitalists are held as a model of individual self-realisation. But it is a self-realisation limited only to the few. Democratic Marxists by contrast wish to provide cultural, sporting, political, creative opportunities for EVERYONE. Democratic Marxism is a about opportunity and self-realisation for ALL.

And again - if people want to link Marxism with state authoritarianism look to my quotes earlier in this thread from Rosa Luxemburg. Yes there were authoritarian strands. And there were those (inc Marx) who believed a TEMPORARY period of 'proletarian dictatorship' would be necessary. But note this was also couched in terms of "winning the battle of democracy" (ie: majority rule), and as a temporary measure in circumstances where failure to deal with counter-revolution could mean death. NOTE that the democratic Marxists Kautsky, Luxemburg etc defended the Russian constituent assembly, participatory democracy and civil freedoms etc at the same time as Bolshevist desperation led them down the path of centralism and authoritarianism.

BTW Chris Warren; You list Romero in El Salvador. Wasn't Archbishop Romero a liberation theologian who was murdered for standing up for the poor in that country, and opposing authoritarian rule?

All these lefties screeching this garbage about the rich getting richer, & the poor poorer. What utter twaddle.

At no time in history, & no where on earth, has the average peasant been so well off, healthy, or had so many options.

About the only difference in ideology is that Marxists hate anyone else getting more than them, or richer. They hate the Clive Palmers on principle.

Capitalists, even us peasants don't give a damn how rich the Palmers of this world get, as long as we get richer along with them.

Well this old peasant is a damn site richer than his father was, who in turn was a damn site richer than his father.

Go back a few generations more, & the peasant's life was a tough & miserable one, a bit like it was under communism in Russia, China & other command economies. I guess that proves you should always keep the intellectuals & academics locked up in their ivory towers, where they can do little harm.

What ever we do, we must avoid ever letting these fool dreamers get control of anything more dangerous than a motor car, & even then, that may be too much for them to actually handle.