10 Answers

  1. I would put it another way, that it is more correct to say that capital gains not so much from the surplus value created by the assembly shop workers, but rather from the prices created by marketers and technologists responsible for the demand (SP) and supply (PR) of goods. After all as you should know PRICES are related to COST by a coefficient equal to the ratio of SP/PR, i.e.


    where is the coefficient of SP/PR expresses the nature of USE VALUE, and its multiplier expresses the nature of EXCHANGE VALUE. This simple formula (the system triad) is the whole “theory of the law of value” discovered by Karl Marx in the political economy of the capitalist mode of production, which operates under both capitalism and socialism, and this law has not yet been “refuted”.

  2. It seems to me that today it is quite difficult to find a person who says “I am a Marxist”, and I am not ready to consider anyone who adheres to left-wing ideas as a Marxist. Therefore, for the broad masses of the people, Marxism is dead – it is not known (and loved) or known and disliked.

    Excluding third world countries, perhaps. I wrote about this in another answer:


    Where is communism popular now? Mostly in backward third world countries. Somewhere in Nepal, in South America. In developed post-industrial states, the main front line runs in completely different places. The left idea is much broader than communism. In Europe and Canada, leftists are popular, but they are not Communists at all. If Russia degrades to the level of Nepal, the Communists will probably have a chance here. Otherwise, they won't get anywhere. The popularity of communists in our country fluctuates around 1-2% (I do not consider the Communist Party of the Russian Federation communists and their popularity does not say anything about the popularity of communism).

    I'd rather quote an interesting opinion about the demand for Marxism among specialists:

    Marxism was one of the last major socio-economic theories that was characterized by the property of consistency. Many more modern theories do not have this quality. And that is why there are so many authors (hundreds of names)on the basis of Marxism they build their own variations. These numerous theories have some terminological similarities (family: Marxism), but in essence they are systemic theories of the socio-economic process. Some such theories are cryptohistorical (here at least Fursov), others are economic, some are sociological, and some are about social networks. of course, there is more about different things. The main thing is that there is a very complex whole built out of parts, a certain system view that cannot be reduced to components. This is the theory Arrigi built.

    That is, Marxism was the crystal that allows you to form your own systemic worldview-regardless of your attitude to Marxism. You can be a principled opponent of it, but to break it, to refute it, it was necessary to understand its system statements and put forward your own system laws. Therefore, the theories that were born in a society saturated with Marxism were systemic. They were very different – from literary studies to biology, they were in this sense of the same character, and nothing could relate to Marxism in the content sense at all, only the very nature of theoretical work. This quality of Marxism, of course, is not his own, it is not from Marx – it is completely drawn out in Hegel. This is the last glimmer of the great German philosophy, which, thanks to Marxist ideology, has affected a great many intellectual products. As it is clear, then they forgot how to think about great philosophy, and then the source of Marxism was overgrown with mud – and other theoretical products began to appear that did not have this property. And they have nowhere to take it – because the great German philosophy is still one. Well, two-actually, there were only two great philosophies, Greek and German, and that's for two thousand years and a half. So there's no one to learn from, and when something like this comes up again-well, presumably by the end of the third millennium.

  3. What is a “Marxist theory”??

    It was ” the Marxian doctrine.” This is not a theory. And not Marxist. This is like calling Buddhism (for example) Buddhist.

    Yes, the so-called classics of Marxism, including Marx, wrote a lot of letters. You can call it a theory, but it's very strange; Marx would probably have laughed himself. Or cried.

    Or both; the contradictory unity of theory (funny) and practice (sad).

    Theory is present in Marxism, but it is even” purely theoretically ” connected with practice, without practice it is not Marxism at all.

    Consistency (inspired by responses)? I'm begging you. From Hegel, yes. Is Hegel himself difficult to read? Did Marx make it clearer? So read Stalin, he is even clearer.

    Outside of practice, Marxism does not represent any system, it simply does not exist. Anyone who “relies” on it can safely pay a pension. For disability reasons. No offense, this is no IMHO.

    And finally.

    “Philosophers have only explained the world in various ways; but the point is to change it” – Do you seriously think that this process has been stopped?

    That among all the real philosophers of the world, there was no one who continued-and in the Soviet Union, including (above all) – and later?

    This is not about Marxism. Not in Marx's teaching itself.

    The fact is that development is unstoppable – and there are always people, thinkers, practitioners who are at the peak of it.

  4. What does this have to do with Marx and the laws of dialectics that were discovered before him? Marx actually followed in the footsteps of the so-called bourgeois economists and simply drew conclusions to which his predecessors were not prepared for objective time-determining reasons. Any science is difficult for untrained people to understand. And scientists should give an answer to why Marxism, as a theory, still excites the minds of citizens who are not indifferent to what is happening. Apparently, others that respond to the most pressing topics of our time do not fully meet the demand for knowledge of the world.

  5. Of course, it is in demand. There are people who sincerely believe that they live poorly not because they are lazy, incompetent and stupid, but solely because they were robbed by someone. And there are a huge number of such people. Therefore, the demand for Marxism will remain. Including in our country.

  6. I don't agree with Artem Yarenko. Karl Marx is statistically the most sought-after author among students in social and economic departments in the United States, according to Marketwatch magazine.

    Karl Marx is the most assigned economist in U.S. college classes.

    Follow the link to the English text, but the article contains a table of ratings of specific authors and works. a very entertaining picture for those who completely deny the importance of Marx as an economist.:)


    And the most “incredible” thing is that it is not Capital that comes first, but the Communist Manifesto. By the way, Vladimir Ilyich is also not in the last place there.:)

  7. “Marxist theory” has been studied very carefully and is still being studied, regardless of whether they are” capitalists “or”communists.” And it is generally stupid to discuss its relevance and implementation; look at the PRC under the leadership of the CCP. Consistent implementation of the “Marxist theory” has led to the fact that the PRC is the leader of the world economy, is developing rapidly, and the standard and quality of life of ordinary Chinese people is constantly and steadily growing. And another example is the modern criminal rfia, where they defiantly and consistently ignore and defame the “Marxist theory”. Results: the collapse of industry; the ever-increasing extinction of the indigenous population “naturally”; outright criminalization of foreign and domestic policy; widespread degradation. And to the question ” why ?” a good one (though somewhat poster-like ) The answer was in the USSR: “Marx's teaching is alive – because it is true.”

  8. As long as the task is to destroy another enemy state, Marxism, like any other anti-state ideology, will be in demand.

    Where did Marxism come from? – That's right, from England – our long-standing geopolitical competitor.

  9. These scribblers, like economists, sing the songs they get paid to sing. For other songs, not only do they not pay, but they can also kill you.
    But for them and their owners, it's best not to touch this topic at all. Or are these ideas already so popular that you are forced to talk this nonsense?
    Do you even know that many countries in Europe are ruled by socialists?
    And that these peoples are actually moving to socialism?
    And you all sing old songs.

  10. Here it is necessary to clarify in what sense-in demand? For scientists and economists, what is the actual scientific theory? Or among the broad masses of the people? If the former, the answer is: no, not in demand. If the latter, then the answer is, of course, yes.

    As a scientific political economic theory, Marxism, which was already very controversial in the nineteenth century, is completely dead and irrelevant in the twenty-first century-in the sense that no modern, say, factory manager, financial company economist, or minister uses categories such as “surplus value”, “money-commodity-money”, “exploitation”, or “downward trend in the rate of profit”, “productive forces” or “dialectical struggle of opposites”. These concepts do not describe anything that exists in the real world, do not help in any way in the work, and the modern economist does not need them.

    Similarly, modern sociologists, marketers, and PR specialists do not use concepts such as “class struggle”, “alienation”, “change of formation”, or “basis and superstructure” at all – for a practitioner, these are just meaningless spells.
    Nevertheless, the main, crystallized postulate of Marxism “your neighbor is richer than you, he should share with you” is still close to the poor person. There is a great temptation to believe in something like this-especially in poor and corrupt countries with poorly developed entrepreneurship and poorly functioning social elevators. Therefore, Marxism-usually in its most primitive and vulgar form – is still very popular in poor countries, and in the lower strata of the population – and will continue to be popular as long as there is poverty and corruption.

Leave a Reply