Would any true Marxist promote laissez faire capitalism?

Question

How would you go about determining what a "true Marxist" was? Or will some people say that this is a "true Scotsman fallacy" even though Marxism (like Christianity) is a belief rather than a nationality?

Yep, there IS a reason why this question is in R&S.

To those who said "yes", I meant as the ultimate end, not as a means.

And the question has to do with the "true Scotsman" fallacy as applied to Christianity.

Answer 1

My gosh, the Marxists in my community would vehemently say that there is such a thing as a true marxist and that capitalism is the real devil. One of them won't even go on vacation without taking all of his literature/pamphlets with him. I find the idea of Marxism to be intriguing but no one would ever call me a marxist. I honestly don't know the answer but I'll ask them when I see them. Namaste

Answer 2

Some might. In true Hegellian fashion, real Marxism teaches the progression of History. Therefor, Capitalism isn't just A precursor of Socialism, but is the NECESSARY precursor of it. Some have held that the laissez fair capitalism that arose in Russia after the February Revolution was a necessity, so that class consiousness could build and the antagonism would create a greater Revolutionary atmosphere. This combined with the industrialization that is brought by capitalism, another necessity in orthadox Marxism, would begin to create a viable proletariat. Many Marxist theoraticions have said that because Lenin forced the Revolution in October, he didn't allow for a proper progression into Socialism. He was so focused on setting up Socialism, that he neglected to set the foundation for it. Thus, they would argue, Socialism in this case needs to let Capitalism rise so that Communism can overthrough it, as it must surely do to arrive at Socialism.

Answer 3

Of course a true marxist would promote laissez faire (is that spelled right?) capitalism. Marxism teaches that the seeds of failure are inherent in capitalism. Govt programs like welfare, unemployment and food stamps soften the harsh realities of capitalism, and keep workers complacent. Without these programs, cyclical market downturns would have a more catastrophic effect on the proletariat, making them more radical. That's the reason a real leftist would be opposed to the Democratic (or labor) party platform. Of course, most leftists in America have given up economic reform for a radcal social agenda of "victim" identity politics. It's much easier controlling victim groups than allying with ignorant working class folks.

Answer 4

Uh, the U.S. had no longer something to do with Marxism; there are nevertheless American Marxists, as neither communism nor socialism have been truly discredited by skill of the state-owned capitalism of the Soviet Union's fall. i think of that's sparkling to maximum folk that deregulation is a nightmare, and there are incredibly few incredibly organic capitalists. human beings, however objecting to the be conscious, have been transforming into to be a transforming into form of socialist in truly some approaches. nevertheless twitching, extra suitable than truly alive and kicking.

Answer 5

Marxist have a set idiology including abolishing religion and forcing Socialism on the entire world.

Answer 6

No. I do not think they would. Simply because a true Marxist must have central control.

Answer 7

Marxism is good in theory, but in practice, it fails.

Answer 8

I'd be interested to see how, from any yes answers.
And it doesn't strike me as odd that you ask in R&S, as some seem to.

Answer 9

are you talking about the book of Acts?

Answer 10

I think you're in the wrong category.