Why is Marxism so appealing to college/university students?
Why is Marxism so appealing to college/university students?
because it has nothing to do with lenin or stalin
Anything unfalsifiable also has the illusion of infinite explanatory power, since you can connect anything to it. It's the same thing with psychoanalysis and religion. That's not to say there are no merits to unfalsifiable things, but literally this is what makes them attractive. Once you have the gist of it you can speak "intellectually" about any subject. It's addictive.
How is marxism infalsifiable
Modern Marxism in the Frankfurt school and others has inoculated itself against all criticism. Theories of false consciousness can often lend themselves to unfalsifiability also.
College/university students hate rural hicks.
If they were part of a Communist regime, they could massacre rural hicks en masse.
Because it's the ideology of manchildren.
you must be a Nazi to think Marxism is dumb
this is your brain on leftism
please criticize marxism dialectical method of economic analysis user. enlighten us with your "intellect"
I don't believe your presumption to be accurate. Please provide a source that the majority of University or college students subscribe to Marxist beliefs
The burden of proof is on you.
Because Marxism strives towards virtuous goals and college students are idealistic. Plus in some sense they get to experience proletariat's struggle being poor students with shitty jobs at best. It's only later after they have lived in the real world for some time do the flaws of Marxism become obvious. That's why you're not going to find too many successful adults outside academia engaging in hardcore Marxism.
you forgot science for an unfalsifiable doctrine
You still didn't answer my post user
Marxism as a political philosophy is heavily idealistic. The Marxist-Leninist concept of the Vanguard Party is no different from Plato's philosopher king.
wtf I hate books now based as hell
Lenin didn't invent Marxism. Lenin invent Marxist-Leninism. You're discribing his shit not Marx you idiot hahaha!
gonna throw away my books and go out in the streets now thanks OP
Because universities allow freedom of speech and are less oppressive than "the real world" of wage slavery.
TL;DR the guy whose family dreads him at Thanksgiving read the wikipedia summary of Karl Popper so he can own libs on Twitter
because he is a retarded santa claus looking slav piece of shit revolutionary
No I've read Popper Selections and the Logic of Scientific discovery. Good eye though.
it's over, literature is FINISHED
I think it would be worth amending it to "why is Marxism more appealing to college/university students than to other people?". I agree that it's a huge stretch to pretend it appeals to the majority of them, but I'd gamble that per-capita there are more college enrolled Marxists than highschool-dropout trailer park Marxists, etc.
Honestly I think it isn't the case that people who go to college tend to come out as marxists, but that that people who tend towards Marxism usually to want to go to college. Noone says "I'm a Marxist and I've decided I want to be a McDonalds wageslave"; doing so would suggest you didn't actually sympathize with Marx.
How is the burden of proof on him? It's on OP if anyone here. Don't post "here's my opinion prove me wrong you literally can't" threads.
Whatever floats your boat.
ML is a variation of original marxist thought and one of the mainstream versions of it.
And still, Marxism itself is heavily idealistic and ideological.
Max Stirner didn't hated socialism/communism either tho. He just didn't like the sacred for of it, the one for "humanity" or "the collective". If it benefited him.
read Stirner Critics. He says clearly: "no sacred socialism, but socialism".
Ctrl + F that shit.
Yeah, I know. I just think Stirner is a better revolutionary because of the way his book is written and his thought articulated.
A lot of the appeal of socialism/communism has to do with dumping all your responsibilities on the state while also retaining all your rights, and perhaps even gaining more "rights" in the process. It provides a feeling of relief, since the state is now going to provide them with everything they need regardless of their own actions. That is very appealing to young minds realizing, consciously or not, that they are a few years from being thrust into the "real world", forced into competition with others, and into relying on themselves for their needs.
I believe that many countries have been able to mix personal liberty with socialism to an effective degree. We continuously demand more rights (free healthcare, free education, UBI, etc.) from the state while simultaneously gaining more freedoms (gay marriage, abortion, legalized drugs, etc.) It's great until you realize we lose economic freedom in the process (more services = more debt = more taxes), which is arguably more valuable than many of the personal liberties we seem to care so much about.
Because it promotes weakness and degeneracy and that's what majority of people today are - weak.
but he didn't care about these things, he just wanted to live his life comfy doing whatever the fuck he wanted. the poor dude was in debtors prison twice through, so it was convenient for him to hang with leftists who one day would make these prisons illegal. Such was the hard life of a German professor back in the 1800s.
the funny thing is that a pasty greasy nerd who plays Visual Novels in Steam is saying this lmao
don't worry man you're not alone in the world Elliot Rodger also had your ideology HAHAHAH!
Dumping all of your responsibilities on the state
Not sure you understand what the commune is comrade.
economic freedom more important
Neoliberalism has shown that increased economic freedom leads to increased inequality. Your post is shockingly ignorant.
Because the reader of Marxist texts envision that it would be he (that is, the reader) that would be in control of the new mode of production, and he can't fathom that anything under his control would spiral into chaos. Marxism appeals to the very spirit of youth: their vigour, and their relative ignorance
They allow freedom of speech for only the left, take one step out of the lefty echo chamber and you're in trouble.
u don't understand marx and engels lol
I know you never read them, just say it straight that you haven't no shame in that man better than looking stupid not having any idea about the literature you're talking about on a literature forum
thats because that "economic freedom" stands for freedom of the corporations. not freedom of the worker. the worker is still alienated from the product of his/her labor. sad but true. the economy hasn't evolved much since feudalism, we still see lords in most societies and the product of labor is his, he gets the fat profit
anybody who is not a marxist is a nazi
there's no personal liberty under capitalism. Under capitalism, only capital is free, humans are reduced to zombie status and alienated from he products of their labor. Even muh entrepreneur job creators(tm) are forced to act as a living personifications of capital.
Because it's inherently idealistic, and sheltered, privileged people tend to view the world through the lens of ideals rather than facts
there is but it's expensive. not accessible at all.
fact is I can sell myself what I produce in a factory to gain full profit out of it instead of a wage. but thats "stealing" from the boss and therefore illegal to the state.
'fascism' is inherent to capitalism, though. the fascist proclaims openly the ugly truths of bourgeois society which liberals make the greatest effort to conceal. In a sanitised world of gender diverse drone operators, all out fascism can feel like a relief, a refreshing outburst of honesty. That's what makes it so dangerous.
Same reason atheism appeals to them, these things were initially controversial and even abominable to the public they now occupy. Claiming them as they do gives them this sort of innocuous taboo, it's just something to set them apart and suggest they know things others do not. Of course the joke is there are countless "special" persons just such as that these days and it's far more rebellious to be a traditionalist, and even worse, the only ones truly impressed by this stance is the older dying generation, that is to say, it's all one desperate plea for attention from the very parental figures they scorn.
sheltered idiots who have never experienced the real world and been indoctrinated all their life with an overbearing respect for authority believe the government should do everything for them and can solve every problem
what could possibly explain it...
Diagnosing suffering caused by capitalism is "idealistic" how you mongoloid cuckold
Other than the fact Marxism is anti-government l o l
Theories of false consciousness can often lend themselves to unfalsifiability also.
Maybe if ad populum is the only thing you're capable of, but Marx makes plenty of formulaic assertions. Capital is full of them
Stirner is a better revolutionary
Do you know what revolutionary means? He was the worst one, his grasp of the real world was not even enough for him to run a socialist milk shop ffs. And what about his thoughts? What revolutions have they inspired?
As a revolutionary Stirner is worthless.
That quote is great.
he is just cool. but yes he won't even collectivize the proletarian, his stuff is more for individuals seeking autonomy and freedom from ideology, self ownership.
Not sure you understand what the commune is comrade.
Can you explain?
Neoliberalism has shown that increased economic freedom leads to increased inequality. Your post is shockingly ignorant.
What is wrong with inequality?
Isn't capital just a tool one uses to interact with the economy (other people and their capital)? If more limitations are put on your ability to use your capital then you are less free than if there were fewer limitation. It's an aspect of personal liberty, not separate from it.
meh. I grew up with druggie postcounterculture parents, 'tradition', and more so 'tradition's' debased fetish-form pushed by internet degenerates, always seemed completely alien to me. I always felt rather uneasy with the modern world,somewhere along the 2010s things degenerated into full atomised proto-cyberpunk panoptickon dystopia and I turned to critical theory in order to make sense of it all somehow. I see Marxism as a well developed set of tools that can be used to criticise capitalist modernity. Marxism's original critical dimension was displaced by the influx of
pseudo-darwinist and positivist ideas under the later Engels and the 2nd international, to degenerate into quasi religious state cult under Stalin. Occasionally some of the smarter right wingers (such as De Benoist for example) are able to produce poignant critiques of modernity, but the state of the right, specially in America, is beyond meme tier, nothing but market idolaters, neocon boomers and anime fash LARPers.
Pollack's aren't aware of the philosophical definition of idealism but still talk shit in a thread about it
Yeah, I wasn't trying to dismiss his entire ouvre, but seeing him painted as a revolutionary deserved a comment anyway.
google commune you're so fucking lazy.... holy shit
Because utopias come about in a vacuum?
no Stirner is not a revolutionary at all. He is a simple man with simple needs that just wants to get by. He is just himself. Period.
Inequality leads to certain groups of society having extremely limited "personal liberty" and others having masses. Use your brain. Central to capitalism is the illusion of liberty that the wage relation causes.
This ridiculous neoliberal cult of "personal freedom" just entrenches oligarchies while fucking over the majority as average wages go down causing you to have even less personal freedom to do anything in exchange for the same labour. Are you so fucking dense that you think "personal liberty" is divorced from systemic issues that cause capital to go increasingly to the few and not the many?
retard that has nothing of value to say points out that something wouldn't make sense if one deliberately uses another meaning of the word
Go away, contrarian pseud.
Catalonia didn't collapse, it was doing extremely well Geroge Orwell noticed it too. They were just murdered by Nazism.
But that happens everytime. Everytime some people are having a good time some Statist has to come to ruin the fun. Such is the struggle of the Anarch vs the Monarch. Forever and ever.
The state isn't going to do "everything for you" when your forced into collectives/forced labour to form the commune. It's anti-state in the traditional sense and the commune (which is a state of sorts) is not going to be this cushy liberal paradise by any state of the imagination. The revolutionary state is not the welfare state.
I love this image
shh she is not gonna get it. it's a brainlet.
do you know what the root word there is? it's another word for government, user...
clearly never been to a university in western California
Sure thing, user, sure.
trying to reason with retarded larping commies
What else did you expect from our retarded cousin /pol/?
A failure to preserve yourself is not the same thing as a collapse? I am pretty sure everyone refers to the Roman Empire's end as a collapse. Those Gaullic meanies just didn't play by the rules so it doesn't count?
these days and it's far more rebellious to be a traditionalist
this is true. now we have a new wave of traditionalist /pol/acks which is unfortunate seeing as traditionalism is even more retarded than being an atheits metro-sexual communist.
A lack of education.
aren't you just a tool capital uses to interact with the economy ( that is, capital's other humans)?
If more limitations are put on your ability to use your capital then you are less free than if there were fewer limitation. It's an aspect of personal liberty, not separate from it.
Capital has structural limitations of its own. I don't think a runaway cybernetic system driven by its very nature to unsustainable endless growth is a good vehicle for one's 'personal liberty'. Maybe you might have convinced me back in Locke's and Jefferson's time, but this is the 21st century, and yeoman farmer fantasies lie squarely in the dustbin of history. Capitalists have never been close to the majority of the population. Most people lack any capital of their own and are forced to sell their alienated labor power to survive, which isn't really much fun if you think about it. Contemporary post fordian capitalism is an absurd and deranged system based on surveillance, control and the production of representations. The hi-tech New Economy is a meme, a gigantic bubble bound to burst sooner or later, meanwhile, the real material basis of society is disintegrating. You might as well get used to constant riots and food shortages. I just think production should be geared towards meeting basic human needs, rather than towards the inhuman imperatives of endless profit maximisation.
This makes sense as long as any small country actually has the capabilities of defending itself. You are basically rationalizing "might is right" ending up claiming that no superpower deserves to be independent.
I mean, look at Catalonia: what chances they had? They had most of their national armies, immense international brigades, and then the USSR and every Western superpower against them: should I dismiss their political system only because a couple of millions of people can't fight against the entire world? Should I say "their ideology is a failure because 90 years ago there was no thing such as a nuclear deterrent? Give me a break.
What is wrong with inequality?
But if we can agree it's rising as a result of neoliberalism, that is, unfettered exchange of capital. It follows that capital begets more capital on the global markets, and since there is not an infinite amount of capital in the world you should be able to follow that thought to its logical conclusion.
The rich get richer and power concentrates until the only way to become predatory. See for example the massive expansion of credit in the past 20+ years
*The only way to get more
Should I say "their ideology is a failure
It doesn't need to be said, the results speak for themselves.
you don't have to explain obvious shit to brainlets they don't get it. you can't make brainlets read Das Kapital either it's too heavy for them
left marxists have written the best criticisms of the soviet union and the classical worker's movement, while the right can't get beyond muh 1000 gorillions!
Its the only way to be rebelious but not end up becoming a outcast. Its the vogue form of rebellion, everyone knows student activism is a sham.
That sounds like a reasoned and not at all jaundiced account.
emma goldman there is no communism is russia is great too user it's 11 pages. it's perfect for brainlets.
Retard discussing an author on a literature has absolutely no familiarity with what he's talking about
Marxism echews idealism for materialist analyses. It's even literally in the very first sentence of the Wikipedia article you lazy mong
Thinking everything is a problem of economics is exactly what has defeated Marxism. The idea that the material is what matters is at the heart of modern capitalism. You can't possibly refute such a system in such a way.
poverty is a problem of economics
Are you implying that economical exchange is a zero sum game? Because it isn't.
1. Secret knowledge: This is the core of its appeal to the academic and especially the aspiring academic. Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Muslims, the nuclear family, the nation, what if I told you there was a secret subconscious motive under all their actions? The only motivation is material interest, and the world you have known is merely the superstructure draped over the materialist base! The undergraduate is initated to the elect, sees the futility of the life he led before, and feels good because his investment into univeristy is justified. This all happens subconsciously.
2. An all-encompassing explanation of history: this is the core of its appeal to the pseudointellectual and the dilettante. Dialectical materialism is based on a simple view of history grounded in 19th c. academia. No professional Medievalist thinks there was a European "feudal system" and even "feudalism" generally is given little credit. Same story for primitive communism, oriental despotism, and even capitalism. But the pseudointellectual is lazy and cannot grasp the enormity of his own ignorance and so embraces Marxism, which explains all of history.
3. Immanent salvation: this is the core of its appeal to debtors and the poor. Like the first Christians believed the Revelation would occur in their lifetimes, so Marx believed the revolution would happen in his. Absolution is always just around the corner for the downtrodden, and the undergraduate finds himself out of the nest, in debt, with no savings, and a lifetime of toil between himself and retirement. Marxism offers a solution.
to be continued
ITT: People who haven't read Marx
They didn't write their critiques for reasons that appeal to my value judgements, so they don't count
So this is the power of the rational right...
Is it really though? All scarcity is in a sense artificial, the world can produce far more than its people need, yet people go needy. That the difficulties of distributing the world's resources is better resolved through ideals seems obvious.
“Nothing is more evident than that modern capitalism is just as subversive as Marxism. The materialistic view of life on which both systems are based is identical; both of their ideals are qualitatively identical, including the premises connected to a world the center of which is constituted of technology, science, production, ‘productivity,’ and ‘consumption.’ And as long as we only talk about economic classes, profit, salaries, and production, and as long as we believe that real human progress is determined by a particular system of distribution of wealth and goods, and that, generally speaking, human progress is measured by the degree of wealth or indigence — then we are not even close to what is essential.
a lot of different posters
three hours of quasi-coherent discussion
nothing of value or insight has been said
This is why Marxism is popular with humanities students.
I think the problem has less to do with capitalism and more to do with a monetary system in which money is just debt+interest.
expansion of credit is due to the fact that money is only issued by banks when someone is willing to take on a debt on which interest must be paid. So there is never enough money to pay off debt. Banks are the only winners since they have been permitted to siphon off productivity through interest payments.
Check out Ernst Bloch and Walter Benjamin if you are interested in Marxism but can't do without haschich driven esoteric memeing. Also chek out Nikolai Fyodorov, not a marxist, but his ideas influenced the early soviet futurists and the whole soviet space programme.
Are you implying the goal of business is to make friends with their competition? Because it isn't.
They don't make antitrust laws just for fun you know
Zizek is a shining beacon of light. Chomsky fags need not apply.
Banks are the only winners
Them and all the corporations who get by on the income from people being able to buy their shit despite wages not having kept up with productivity or inflation
Do you think there would be anywhere near as many BMWs and iPads in the world if suburbanites couldn't finance their entire lifestyle
Anarcho-communism is an oxymoron
Who are the Amish
Wat. I said economical exchange. The economy isn't a zero sum game. Have you ever opened a book on the subject?
Excuse my wording, I meant that Stirner's thought is more revolutionary than Marxism as it centers around the individual and its freedom rather than the collective. It is also revolutionary in the way language is used, as Stirner's use of the first person is not meant to be his voice, but that of the reader.
But yeah, no revolution was ever inspired by Stirner and there will be none because revolution is something spooky. I'm fine with revolts and riots though.
the real problem is wage labor and commodity production, Marx wrote back when the gold standard was still a thing and couldn't foresee fiat currency. He saw gold as an universal means of exchange, but true value as a product of the social totality. Debt predates capitalism, check out David Graeber's book Debt: the first 5000 years for a good overview. The world is essentially a human creation, everything you see was created by human labor, I feel like commodity production is a tremendous waste of our potential
We are bored in the city, there is no longer any Temple of the Sun. Between the legs of the women walking by, the dadaists imagined a monkey wrench and the surrealists a crystal cup. That’s lost. We know how to read every promise in faces — the latest stage of morphology. The poetry of the billboards lasted twenty years. We are bored in the city, we really have to strain to still discover mysteries on the sidewalk billboards, the latest state of humor and poetry:
They like Marxism because it's a great way of justifying their Christian-derived moral beliefs with pseudo-science. Marx did the same thing himself, miraculously discovering that the laws of economics and social development justified his own pre-existing political positions.
The explosive component in the contemporary scene is not the clamor of the masses but the self-righteous claims of a multitude of graduates from schools and universities. This army of scribes is clamoring for a society in which planning, regulation, and supervision are paramount and the prerogative of the educated. They hanker for the scribe's golden age, for a return to something like the scribe-dominated societies of ancient Egypt, China, and Europe of the Middle Ages. There is little doubt that the present trend in the new and renovated countries toward social regimentation stems partly from the need to create adequate employment for a large number of scribes. And since the tempo of the production of the literate is continually increasing, the prospect is of ever-swelling bureaucracies.
Gimme dat philosophical definiton of idealism, boi.
When talking about politics idealism has a different connotation than when you talk about epistemology or metaphysics.
Yes, Plato's politics were heavily idealistic because of his already idealistic metaphysics and epistemology, but that doesn't mean that political idealism is necessarily linked to metaphysical or epistemological idealism. Political idealism is (defining it in simple terms because after all this is Veeky Forums) a tendency towards utopical positions, while its counterpart, political realism, tends towards problem solving..
Idealism is the opposite of materialism you nonce
Students work shit jobs to pay for $500 textbooks while watching that one rich kid coast by despite doing no actual work because the science building is named after his family.
We live in a period where the dominant economic ideology has been roundly discredited. Populist demagogues are on the rise, the status quo has been rejected. Everyone who isn't the status quo feels they are being shafted.
Young people want alternatives, but naturally, they are too distracted by media or unintelligent to devise a novel solution. So they turn to the only existing counter-ideology for capitalism in the air these days which is some variant of communism.
because in theory it sounds like an utopia
If I bang my head against the wall hard enough I might become as smart as you :)
I'll let this great man break it down for you
might is right doesn't need rationaliszing. it simply is.
Because they don't have anything to lose
i hope this is bait lol
the jews carefully curate their tastes by associating certain causes célèbres with status
textbooks only cost $500 if you do stem, and stemlords arent marxists
I can't fucking stand how Americans have bastardized this word to have the exact opposite meaning of the dictionary definition.
(in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform.
Stop shitting all over the English language, you politically-illiterate mongoloids.
Because it's a great and humane ideology, but only in theory.
because they don't earn enough to pay taxes
Ah, the great Soviet whataboutism
Smug ad hom because I don't have an actual argument
If someone presses me, I'll either double down on projection and mischaracterization or claim that its not worth my time to respond with my great intellect and knowledge
I don't even know what that means. But if you mean the dialectical-materialist conception of history, I'd say it's somewhat damning that communism was attempted in less advanced countries before it naturally emerged in the most prosperous ones.
this thread fucking blows half of the posts is 1st year undergrads
stemfags are marxists but you don't have stem friends