How Is Marxism Theory Different From Communism
Marxism is a political and economic theory of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Later developed by followers to form the basis for the theory and practice of communism.
Does Marxism = Communism?
How it's related to other 'controversial terms' in America and why people tend to confuse it with Communism. It is named after a guy named Karl Marx, and his views on history from the lenses of class and social conflict.
When in fact, Marxism and Communism are not the same exactly. As the definition above clarifies, one is used us the stone that is built into the other. Kind of like the game Jenga; you need foundational blocks in order to build the tower.
However, the stigmatization of Communism is carried into Marxist theories. But as with all theories, they too can be applied to more than one concept.
Marxism is more of a thought process and not a political ideology like Communism. As we go forward, a reminder needs to be mentioned: Marxism is not Communism.
They are not one of the same; in fact, while the basis of Communism comes from aspects of Marxism; the end result goes against everything that Karl Marx intended others to learn.
When it comes to economics, Marx looks at how people can survive in the current condition. That condition being rooted in what a family may need to survive; basic human needs, social standing, the government, etc.
Marxism then can establish a basic network that combines economy and social structure. Marx mentions a 'force of production,' which is a fancy way of saying technology, and as it improves it creates an issue with that network or structure where some no longer are relevant.
A perfect example of this would be telephone operators. In the early days of the telephone, people needed someone to connect calls between two parties. But as technology in the phone systems got better; they automated the process; making their jobs obsolete.
Now there is a group of people who are no longer needed in the established structure of the economy. From a social perspective, there are people who are now unemployed and unable to contribute to the established structure that keeps their standard of living. If they have families the entire family is affected. Which leads to a decrease in social standing.
Marxism points out the problem that is created when there is an inequality of class structure a distance between those who have lost, and those who have yet (if at all) to be replaced by technology.
Essentially, Marxism shows the dark side of structures like Capitalism. Today this is definition boils down to equality for all sides. Poor become richer, rich become poorer on an equal standing. In reality, Marxism has many theories and positions based on how one thinks it can be most beneficial.
So what did it mean when the founders of BLM said they were Marxists? Since Marxism can be applied to all kinds of social constructs, it's most likely referring to Marxist Sociology; or Cultural Marxism.
What they were referring to is the breaking of the traditional norms that make up the current structure of America. The Capitalistic, definition of family and social status is prominent in the American system.
Essentially they are referring to the ability to express who they are, and not be stuck in the same box as others. Marxist Sociology leads into other views like Liberalism.
You could say they are Marxist Liberalists; they desire to be more than the norm or have no comparison to each other. On paper, it makes a good deal of sense.
So don't be too afraid of Marxism; it is way more complex than its reputation. The thing about political thought, ideologies, and theories is that if looked at close enough there are more connecting each one than separating them. One only needs to take the time to learn it.
Opinions and Perspectives
The relevance to modern automation and AI concerns is particularly interesting.
I like how this shows the complexity of these ideas without making them seem impenetrable.
The explanation about social structures and technology really hits home in our current situation.
I never understood the distinction between Marxism and Communism until reading this.
The article does a great job explaining how Marxist analysis can be separated from Communist politics.
This makes me want to learn more about how these ideas apply to current social issues.
The connection to modern economic inequality issues is particularly striking.
I appreciate how this breaks down complex ideas without oversimplifying them.
The explanation of how technology affects social structures is particularly relevant today.
This helped me understand why some academics use Marxist analysis in their research.
Interesting to see how these ideas apply to modern social movements and class struggles.
The article really clarifies the difference between analytical framework and political ideology.
I never thought about how automation creates the exact kind of disruption Marx described.
This explanation helps show why Marxist analysis can be useful even if you reject Communist solutions.
The distinction between theory and political practice is crucial to understanding this topic.
I'm surprised by how relevant some of these concepts still are to modern economic issues.
The connection between technological change and social disruption is particularly well explained.
This article helped me understand why some scholars still find value in Marxist analysis.
I find it interesting how Marxist analysis can be applied to modern social movements.
The explanation about class structure really resonated with my own observations of modern society.
Reading this made me realize how these ideas apply to current debates about automation and AI.
I appreciate how this article distinguishes between Marxism as analysis and Communism as political system.
The part about social structures changing with technology is particularly relevant today.
This helped me understand why some academics use Marxist analysis while rejecting Communist politics.
I work in manufacturing and see the effects of automation firsthand. Marx wasn't wrong about everything.
The comparison to Jenga really helped me understand the relationship between these concepts.
It's refreshing to see such a clear explanation without political bias getting in the way.
This makes me want to read more of Marx's original writings to better understand his actual ideas.
The article does a good job showing how Marxist ideas can be used as analytical tools without accepting the whole ideology.
I'm skeptical of any attempt to separate Marxism from its historical consequences.
The explanation about class structure and technology is particularly relevant in our current economic situation.
Important article. Too many people throw around terms like Marxism without understanding what they mean.
Reading this made me realize how often these terms get misused in political discussions.
The distinction between analysis and ideology is crucial here. You can use Marxist analysis without supporting Communist politics.
I never understood Cultural Marxism before. This explanation makes much more sense.
The part about how technology disrupts social structures is spot on. We're living through that right now.
This reminds me of discussions in my sociology class. We spent weeks unpacking these concepts.
Really interesting how Marxism points out capitalism's weak spots without necessarily offering a complete alternative.
I wish more people would take the time to understand these distinctions instead of just reacting to labels.
The explanation about BLM and Marxist sociology really cleared up some confusion for me.
Anyone else noticed how automation is creating exactly the kind of class disruption Marx wrote about?
This helped me understand why some academics find Marxist analysis useful without being Communists.
The article makes a good point about how Marxism can be applied to different social constructs.
I think we need to be careful about rehabilitating these ideas. They've caused a lot of harm.
Fascinating how relevant these ideas still are to modern economic inequality issues.
The force of production concept really resonates today. Just look at how automation is changing everything.
I've studied Marx extensively and this is one of the clearer explanations I've seen of the distinction between his analysis and later political movements.
My economics professor would love this article. It explains things better than my textbook did.
The part about Marxist Liberalism was eye-opening. Shows how these ideas can evolve beyond their original context.
I appreciate how this breaks down complex ideas into understandable chunks. Makes me want to learn more about political theory.
The distinction between Marxism as analysis versus Communism as ideology is crucial. We should be able to use his insights without adopting the whole package.
Actually the previous comment misses the point. The article clearly explains Marxism is an analytical framework, not a system of government.
Sorry, but I completely disagree. Marxism has failed everywhere it's been tried. Look at history.
Interesting perspective on BLM and Marxist sociology. Never thought about it that way before.
I work in tech and see this happening now with AI replacing jobs. Marx's observations about technological displacement seem more relevant than ever.
The Jenga block analogy made it much easier to understand the relationship between these concepts.
While I understand the theoretical distinctions, I still think Marxist ideas inevitably lead to Communist outcomes in practice.
The telephone operator example really hit home for me. It perfectly illustrates how technological advancement can disrupt social structures.
This article really helped clear up my misconceptions. I've been wrongly equating Marxism with Communist political systems for years.
I never realized there was such a distinct difference between Marxism and Communism. Always thought they were basically the same thing.