I genuinely can't comprehend how anyone can advocate Marxism. Do any of you want to explain?

I hear you, OP. It doesn't even work on paper, never mind in practice. They've never fixed their problem with regard to how they would calculate supply and demand in a Marxist society other than hand-waving it away.

Another meme! You're in, pal!

the hell does that have to do with his economic policy

economics affects people of race and gender, so it influenced his rules

You're one of those that spout these generic phrases which shows the dullness of your mind akin to a 12-year-old or redditor. Either way, leave.

>His economic policy
>WORKERS DO EVERYTHING FOR FREE AND SOMEHOW EVERYTHING GETS DISTRIBUTED TO EVERYONE AND WORKERS PARADISE
It's literally the flat earth theory of economics.

Well, Karl Marx in his writings seems to make some good points, along with Engels. Maybe you should try those out OP.

>seems to make some good points, along with Engels.
Such as?

Intelligence does not imply someone would say "leave" and think that it has any power whatsoever.

Fail is awesome so you are allowed to stay.

SNIF

I'm not much aware of Marxism, nor do I advocate it, but I'm pretty positive that neither race nor gender come into the equation.

Being racist/sexist does not invalidate one's ideas. That's a logical fallacy.

You'll eventually leave because you'll eventually die, so in the end it's me who wins.

Beliefs of course will infect your philosophy.

It's a logical fallacy to assume race and gender are divorced from class.

If I am the source of your winning, I am gratified to be very important to you.

Barely anyone, even Marxist, advocates for communist societies. Marxists are more concerned with power relationships based on class and various kinds of capital. Marx was wrong on a lot of stuff, just like most philosophers from that time, and a lot of what he wrote about doesn't apply to modern society, but that doesn't mean all his ideas were worthless, they certainly weren't. Many were insightful and he basically started the field of sociology.

Marxism is a valid to use as a tool of analysis, and a lot of contemporary theory is based on some of its observations. Most of what people call Marxists now don't read much Marx, they read later thinkers in that tradition. Marx is just the historical starting point.

Really, it shouldn't be fucking called Marxism. It's a terrible idea.

not at all, you can't pick and choose shit from a theory and expect that to hold up in real life.

Ah, yes. The all or nothing. The black and white theory.

It must be nice being a human lightswitch.

Are you familiar with what get say about babies and bathwater?

agreed, but to a measurable degree it will be apparent and refutable.
If Marx states something to the effect of this: how does race and sex come into play?

Of course one could state some broad and limp argument like this:, but it's the same playing field.
No matter what sort of policy you inact, class will always have a racial/gender demographic.

Saying "Marxism is wrong because Marx was a racist and sexist asshole" does not tell anyone anything about the fallibility of Marxism. You've answered zero questions, it just sounds like a butthurt pseudo-political tumblr post.

Is Marxism itself a racist/sexist policy? (relative to the inherently class-based economic systems)

Thank you. It's nice to know that one other sane thinker is in here.

Which part of Marxism OP?

Are we talking about critique of ideology? Because I think that's fucking essential to being a remotely intelligent human being.

Are you talking about his early edicts of dialectical materialism? Because they're common sense arguments.

Are you talking about his bet on communism? Well, that's where things get a bit shaky. I'm more interested in a revolution leading to a state of anarchy that would more than likely end in a communist state, but there's always the chance humans could just restart the whole household-->tribe-->village-->city-state-->empire meme until we get back to oligarchic control of the means of production.

Marx is not nearly as inflammatory or far-fetched ideas wise as he is talked about. It's usually the whacky spin-offs, bad misreadings, and post-Leninist jargon that fucks over any good discussion of his actual thought.

Though let's be real
>Just said Marx isn't inflammatory when half the German Ideology is dedicated to shitting on German thought.

tl;dr Just read Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations, Marx's German Ideology and Manifesto, some selections in Das Kapital on ideology, and then Dewey's lecture notes compiled into Liberalism and Social Action. The latter salvages the good parts of Marx, dismisses the destructive bullshit, and formulates a hopeful view of the left that is respectable from any developed political perspective.

Is Marxism even relevant to modern day politics anymore or are you all just history enthusiasts?

Great arguments bud.

it's impossible to understand society and economics without class analysis.

Define class analysis.

analysis of power dynamics between groups of people as defined by their relation to the means of production

right wingers prefer race analysis

you are so fucking stupid

Why the fuck do I have to defend the arguments of a man who has already made his own arguments. Fuck off and go read the goddamn books. They'll either convince you or they won't. And bits and pieces convinced me, bits and pieces didn't.

Cheap pseud labels like "Marxism" don't do justice to the fact that Marx had a lot to say, so much to say that it couldn't possibly be summarized in a few ready-made labels or defended with fucking image board typed,"muh communism because capitalism is bad," arguments. If you think anybody is about to get a greater understanding of why Marxism is or is not bad from shitposting on this board (after the ten millionth fucking bait thread on Marxism) you are a certified dumbass.

I was merely relating my problems with the initial question, my impressions, and my general advice for someone who legitimately wants to take a crack at Marx at least enough to see if he is convincing or not.

its easier to shit on people when you do so through purportedly analytic categories, rather than objectively synthetic, and therefore mutable, ones.

Its aims align with common morality and for some people that's enough, regardless of what it actually delivers or how.