What aspects of Marxist theory seem to have proven correct over the past century and a half? And Not?

Answer 1

It is almost a paradox that Marx's earlier writings, from around 1840-50, were more prophetic than his later writings, such as Das Kapital, 1867. These earlier writings are extremely well thought out and contain many of the theses by which Marx will begin to identify historical events as proof for what he thought. In Das Kapital, of course, Marx believed that capitalism would quickly collapse under its own weight. Perhaps he was rushing things a bit.
However it was in the earlier writings where Marx perhaps learned from his anti-Hegelian stance. nevertheless, he used the dialectic method of Hegel and would often say that hegel had things upside down. He owed a lot to the great man who died in 1831, I think.
The early writings, the result of his outgrowing The Essence of Christianity's materialism (Feuerbach) talk about the efforts of the naturally alienated aristocracy to rid themselves of the middle class. The middle class, no longer assured of survival, would then rise up and achieve control, turning government into a perfect democracy. Marx uses the word "democracy" with great ease and equates it with his concept of communism. This is interesting stuff, especially "The Poverty of Philosophy" in which he notes the limitations of philosophy to be able to make any real change! Also read "The Jewish Question."
Marx's dream almost came about in the European revolutions of 1848. It was that year that he published the Communist Manifesto with Engels. (Somehow I doubt whether Engels wrote much of anything in this or later works for which he received credit, but I may be wrong.)

However the revolution was put down, country by country and things settled down to pretty much the same way things had been, except that this was probably the early origins of various Europeans pushing each other around a bit.
Marx kept writing these idealized articles, centered around the recognition of equality of all peoples and the use in history of the Hegelian dialectic. Marx was kicked out of Prussia, France and Belgium, I think, and went to England. After 1850, Marx took a decidedly different turn: he began to use historical records to prove the truth of what he was espousing. In writing Das Kapital, Marx put the final touches on all the historical reasons as to how and why Capitalism would collapse and the workers woud rise up in unison and share the wealth fairly for the first time. Das Kapital is an exceedingly boring book except to scholars who have nothing else to do. Marx essentially let his family starve in order to write it. I seem to recall he even used the American Civil War as a precedent for the fall of capitalism. He was much better at philosphical theory than he was at interpreting historical events.
Ultimately, one might say that Marx might be partially vindicated as we begin to have a one world economy. As the United States exports more and more of its manufacturing and middle class jobs, the middle class is eroding at an alarming rate. Marx believed that there was a limited supply of capital and he may have been right. However if one views the Mexicans (et al) who come across the border to work as nothing much more than slave labor, that shows that the world has a bit more cheap labor it will exploit before the great revolution.
If there is one thing that Marx understood concerning economic principles, it was that the three parts of economics consisted of production, distribution and consumption. It was Marx who pinpointed the crux of the difficulty in this as distribution.
One can say what one wants about his later explanations of history.. and he was clearly mistaken about so many instances he tried to use....those early writings are just as sharp and clear and on the mark as any philosophical writings since Hegel.

Answer 2

Marxist theories for social upheaval and revolution work more or less as he said, except when there is a strong middle class. That's the biggest flaw in his writings overall. He apparently had no grasp whatsoever of the stability that the middle class gives a society as a whole. And in a free enterprise system, he never fully appreciated the ability of a person to change classes by hard work, education, and/or a bit of luck.

Answer 3

i do no longer think of it has something to do with faith, I accept as true with you that it truly is a lust for capacity, persons are people and all of us have particular undesirable character characteristics, mendacity, cheating, killing, greed, egomania, sexual lust, lust for capacity, etc. those issues have no longer something to do with ideals on something. faith or the shortcoming of does not mitigate those characteristics. it truly is as much as us as persons to maintain the undesirable needs at bay, or at a healthful point.. occasion what if the Christians that bomb abortion clinics used that hobby for their faith for some thing else, like offering the health center's sufferers techniques to abortion, truly than basically blowing them up... and that i comprehend particularly some athiests and am acquaintances with them and that they look basically sturdy people, they save their lusts and needs under administration, no longer with the aid of fact they think of God or Allah or whoever will knock them upside the top in the event that they do no longer, yet with the aid of fact they adhere to society's regulations. Even athiests comprehend good from incorrect.

Answer 4

I think where we're at now, historical determinism has been discredited. There's nothing sure in this world.