What were the strengths/weaknesses of marxism?
The strengths of marxism is that the rhetoric is pretty good.
As a system of allocating resources it has no redeeming qualities.
This is a GD or an IMHO (or a Pit thread), but I think I can give an overview of the weaknesses as I see them:
Marxism, and State Communism in general, has no way to make sure shortages never happen. In a Market Economy, shortages are remedied by the market itself by simple supply-and-demand economics (if you will buy it, someone will sell it to you). In a Centrally Controlled economy (like State Communism), where the means of production are owned by “the people” (actually a strong government), shortages can last for decades if the government either does not realize they exist, does not acknowledge them (No Poverty in the Worker’s Paradise!), or thinks they are unimportant.
It’s easier than you think to inadvertantly create a shortage if you control production. Raising the production of cars, for example, uses up steel, a limited resource (steel mills only have so much capacity). So you feed the mills more coal, which causes a fuel shortage. Assign more people to the mines and maybe essential services go undone (too few doctors or police officers). Plus, all the steel used in cars is steel not used in tanks, depressing military readiness. That is ultra-simplified, but you get the idea.
In short, a Centrally Controlled economy can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.
Economies are complex beasts, and they rely on intricate webs of cause-and-effect chains and feedback loops to keep things working right. Installing a central control is disastrous: No central authority could hope to keep up with a real economy. In a Market Economy, this is all invisible to most people, but it’s also protected from harm: Nobody has enough clout to strangle a whole country’s economy. In State Communism, the government (often a rather brutal police state) has that power. History shows it does not, can not, use it wisely.
This is more of a Great Debate than a General Question, so I’ll ship this over that way.
The non-statist version of Marxist communism believes that production will be plentiful as each person will be a “new moral being” who will produce what others require because they want to. However, it does not give a convincing explanation for human nature to change in this way. The non-statist version also believes that a non-centralised production system can meet all needs, without explaining how areas rich in one resource can address and trade with areas rich in other resources.
The non-statist version of Marxist communism believes that production will be plentiful as each person will be a “new moral being” who will produce what others require because they want to. However, it does not give a convincing explanation for human nature to change in this way. The non-statist version also believes that a non-centralised production system can meet all needs, without explaining how areas rich in one resource can address and trade with areas rich in other resources.
No doubt economies are so complex that central control can’t possibly work for the general welfare of the populace. That is why the direction we are heading, i.e. central control by bureaucracy consisting of the executives of huge conglomerates, is no better than central control by a government bureaucracy.
Central control by business bureaucracies works fine for top executives though and is hard to stop once the leaders of those bureaucracies gather enough economic clout to buy politicians.
I’m about half-way thru a biography about Marx. Extremely interesting. I’m gonna do an OP here on what I find in the book, when I’m done, but just now, it feels a little premature.
In the foreword, the author says something like: “Marx bashing is popular now. People say ‘Look, it failed!’ and miss the point completely. No single philosopher has had such an impact on the world during the 20th century. Even if some of his theories are obsolete, it’s amazing that part of them are still valid today. Not many things written in the 1840’s stand up to the critical eye today.”
For now I’ll give you a tidbit: While Marx and Engels were looking forward to The Revolution they were both totally bourgeois and in one letter to Engels, Marx himself wrote that for his own life and family, he hoped for the revolution to come after his lifetime, since it would be unbearable to live under the new regime.
Marx was also always short on money, owing to just about everyone. He lived off Engels fortune for most of his life.
Except when you factor in the fact that corporations are accountable to the market itself: If they become big and bloated, and they lie about their earnings to keep the shareholders happy … well, I think the modern term is to “Pull an Enron”. 
Governments are accountable to nobody until their citizens decide the system is no longer working and overthrow it. Dictatorship moderated by assassination is no way to run a country.
Central control works for nobody very long, especially if there is competition around, either in the polls or in the supermarket.
I’d love to see what retread stuff of Marx’ is still around today. It sure isn’t his economics.
As for Marx’ theories, most of it was other people’s work. He took what he wanted from different people and put it together to make up his own world view. He took over the Classical economic theory of Ricardo and Mill for example (his use of the labor theory of value for example).
What are the weaknesses of Marxism?
IMHO it is lack of research.
Adam Smith spent years studying free market interaction before publishing his dry “Wealth of Nations.” Hardly a potboiler, but it interested Tom Jefferson.
Karl had an advance and a deadline to meet (which he missed). He produced a nice book of soundbites (again, IMHO) that are quotable but flawed. He also spends a good portion of his book ranting against capitalists. All of that is well and good, but while you’re ranting against the bad guys you aren’t advancing any economic theory about your own system, either.
It is becoming more and more a fiction that something called a “market” exists in, for example, farm products outside ADM or Cargill.
Competition? What’s that? - Say the increasingly concentrated global conglomerates.
Enron? Enron is rapidly slipping below the horizon and the same accounting and auditing practices continue.
Kesagirl and Doug Bowe:
Marx predicted capitalistic globlisation. He predicted a shift in economic powerto the Pacific Rim. His studies of capitalism are often on the mark (even if I don’t agree with his conclusions - i.e. revolution). To say that “He produced a nice book of soundbites” when he wrote some 50 volumes on economics, philosophy, literary critisism, is certainly to make it easy on yourself.
This is what the communist countries did, thier leaders quoted him out of context, and read his works the way nutty religious extremists read their respective holy scripture.
The question is still valid, and therefor Marx is worthy of study: Can you mention a single person and a single work (The communist manifesto) that had a larger impact on the 20th century? Would even the U.S. be what it is today, without having a clearcut enemy in USSR, driving research and economy?
Didn’t one of Karl Marx’s ideas mention that Socialism would eventually just happen without it beind thrust upon people? I don’t know where I heard that (probably picked it up from one of the Marx diehard friends I know), but if that’s what he thought it would put a whole new spin on his theories.
Sort of the difference between “this will happen” and
this should happen"…
Then again, I could have been given completely false information.
Really quick, here’s what I found to be the biggest problem with Marx, though the problem is not necessarily specific to Marx.
Many philosphers who create intricate systems of mechanics, like Marx, and Hegel, generally see their own theory as outside of the system it’s prescribing.
So, Marx has a model in his mind of what the world looks like. But, the problem is that he’s using a Marxist lens to look at the world. Marxism, however, is very much a part of the world, and just a theory which can be used to see the world, rather than some inherent, a priori law.
So, Marx gives the world a prescription for why Marxism is good, but he uses Marxist vocabulary and a Marxist persepctive to do this. See the problem? It’s like if someone asked you "What does the word ‘apologetic’ mean? And then you answer “Well, it’s when someone apologizes a lot.”
So, Marxism preaches revolution, but it sees itself as immune to being able to be overturned by revolution.
Marxism is fascinating, but as with any belief system/ideology, it’s dangerous to wholly subscribe to another person’s philosophy.
As for the strengths, well, as I just said, it’s fascinating. It’s one of the most influential philosophical theories (along with Freud) of the past 150 years. I’d say a bit more, but I’m super-hungry. Have to go eat.
-TGD
Given that ADM and Cargill are two of the most heavily state-subsidized corporations in the United States outside the defense industry, I would say this is not a terribly damning indictment of free market capitalism. Without all the handouts, tariffs, concessions, and legislative assistance their bobos in Congress give them, given a free market to work in, ADM and Cargill would not be the oligopoly they are.
Karl Marx?
Great social critic, lousy prophet.
I agree and even spoke about corporations like those “buying politicians” in a previous post. Nobody is damning the free market system. My claim is that the economic power of worldwide corporations won’t allow it to operate.
“Marx predicted capitalistic globlisation. He predicted a shift in economic power to the Pacific Rim.”
Gee that musta been really hard. For the former, it had been a slowly accumulating force since long, long before Marx. Midwestern Farmers before the Civil War knew darn well they were tied to the international markets and banking system. It didn’t take a genius to see the pattern.
As for the latter, people had being pissing themselves white over the theoretical markets in China, Japan, Korea, etc. and so forth. Again, Marx predicted nothing. This is like saying Star Trek writers predicted a bunch of things because they jumped on a scientific bandwagon or two back in the 50’s.
Can you give me a cite for this?
Are you aware of when China and Japan opened up to the rest of the world for ‘capitalistic’ style business? And BTW, Marx was not talking about markets (as a place to sell our stuff) but of their coming strength as economical forces. Do you really say that it was a widespread belief - in the middle of the 19th century - that the American West Coast would become an economic hotspot?
Can you show anyone else, writing in the 1840’s - 1870’s who put this on paper and got it published?
You might not like the man and his philosophy. But to say that an american, midwest farmer was as savy in political, economical and social theory as he… Pah!