true meaning of marxism?

[CheVolution]

The true meaning of marxism means denying all things that cost money aka luxuries for oneself and living like a ordinary person? or is that going to the extreme? I mean I am sure you have all seen the comments that people make about Che and his Rolex watches given to him as a gift! example of what I mean they see the photos of his expensive watch isn't that a little bourgeoisie they say odd thing for I hate saying it "An Commie" to own

[Christopher Hill]

I wouldn't say that one would need to deny themselves things per se, but that is not to say a Spartan lifestyle is not the choice of some.

[CheVolution]

so us Marxists are allowed to over indulge a little bit in nice things? I mean I don't want to seem bourgeoisie but I am a woman and like expensive things comes with the terroritory I guess but if it is aganist Marxism I guess I can't do this I won't I don't know are we allowed nice things sometimes?

[Christopher Hill]

I do not think that anyone would fault you for having prized possessions (A favorite necklace given to you by a lover or loved one, or something of that nature) or for occasionally drinking your favorite soda for example, but if you were to walk around covered in gold and jewels, just to make yourself feel better than others, that is when you would be viewed as a hypocrite.

[CheVolution]

I would never do that one day in my life sick

[Antonio Balmer]

I'm pretty sure having personal possessions is no contradiction to Marxism. I mean we're against private control of the means of production, because we want every one to have democratic control over these means for producing wealth. In this sense everyone would be wealthy in Socialism, and not just a minority. So of course we do not want common ownership of personal posessions like your clothes, house, transportation, objects etc. We want common ownership of capital like factories, machinery, land, natural resources, energy, agriculture, and the technology to produce wealth. Now on the question of lifestyle, I think there's nothing wrong with wanting some luxury and living comfortably, I mean we all want this don't we? This is partly why we organize and fight for better conditions, so we can obtain a better standard of living and a better livelihood. And I think dedicated socialists with incomes that afford luxuries would want to make larger contributions to the organization. If I were making big bucks I know I'd be paying big time dues into the WIL.

[Joshua Purcell]

This is a good topic, and one that I think about every once in a while... mainly around the time that I drop good money on something that I really don't need. Am I being a hypocrite when I do this? I've decided that I'm not, because I've made some important decisions about what I want to do with my life and I'm working towards those goals however far off they may be. Purchasing something (a smartphone for instance), while it's true I don't need it, is something I can live with for a couple of reasons: 1) it is a small thing in comparison to the long-term goals I have for myself and 2) it is a small price in terms of how much I am donating to the multiple worthy causes through monthly dues, book purchases, subscriptions, etc. I also hope that this smartphone opens up other avenues for me to help with relevant goals, since having certain types of applications available to you in your pocket at any time can go a long way towards improving organization and mobilization during various social events (among other important and useful functions). I really like the potential of the Android platform, since these devices are continue to get more and more powerful while at the same time continuing to drop in price.

I'm working towards getting away from just monetary donations though. I would like to give my time and energy in a much more direct way. I'm working on making that happen, all the while juggling a family and the priorities that come with that. Everybody lives in this society and is apart of the capitalist system, and we all do what we can given our individual situations.

EDIT: This thread should be in some forum other than introductions.

[Christopher Hill]

I'm pretty sure having personal possessions is no contradiction to Marxism. I mean we're against private control of the means of production, because we want every one to have democratic control over these means for producing wealth. In this sense everyone would be wealthy in Socialism, and not just a minority. So of course we do not want common ownership of personal posessions like your clothes, house, transportation, objects etc. We want common ownership of capital like factories, machinery, land, natural resources, energy, agriculture, and the technology to produce wealth. Now on the question of lifestyle, I think there's nothing wrong with wanting some luxury and living comfortably, I mean we all want this don't we? This is partly why we organize and fight for better conditions, so we can obtain a better standard of living and a better livelihood. And I think dedicated socialists with incomes that afford luxuries would want to make larger contributions to the organization. If I were making big bucks I know I'd be paying big time dues into the WIL.

This is exactly how I feel regarding this, this is also the reason that I myself do not fault small business owners or anyone who strives for material things in order to make a better life for themselves and their family, but this is getting increasingly difficult under the current system which is why things need to change.

[JJM 777]

I think there's nothing wrong with wanting some luxury and living comfortably, I mean we all want this don't we?

The resources for standard of living are limited. It is a cake that we humans will share between us.

The question is: should we share the cake equally between everyone, or should we play casino with the pot, so some will get more and some will get less?

Some people (especially the Capitalist-minded) prefer the casino version, some others (like me) prefer the equal share version.

The answer to the question "we all want this don't we?" is "no". Some want it this way, and some want it the other way.

[Paula Marx]

Marxists are not labours. So there's a difference between marxism and labourism. I may be not a marxist, but I understand Marx's politics and philosophy. Every socialist wants the land of Utopia, not the poor country with anything.

[Joshua Purcell]

Every socialist wants the land of Utopia, not the poor country with anything.

I don't know how else to say this without potentially offending, but if it wasn't clear before it is completely clear that you don't know what you are talking about. I don't know how or why you believe socialists want a "land of Utopia". Socialists want something better than our current system; they want progress. This isn't Utopian.

[Christopher Hill]

Every socialist wants the land of Utopia, not the poor country with anything.

I don't know how else to say this without potentially offending, but if it wasn't clear before it is completely clear that you don't know what you are talking about. I don't know how or why you believe socialists want a "land of Utopia". Socialists want something better than our current system; they want progress. This isn't Utopian.

Exactly, most of us here are Scientific Socialists (Marxists) and not Utopians, that means that our ideology is firmly based in science and logic, rather than just our hopes and dreams, Paula on the other hand is a Utopian.
Here is an explanation about why Socialism (And Communism) are not Utopian.
http://www.youtube.com/user/heikokhoo#p/u/7/HH4PT3q3GeI

[Joshua Purcell]

http://www.youtube.com/user/heikokhoo#p/u/7/HH4PT3q3GeI

That is a very good youtube channel... I've watched many of the videos there!

[Christopher Hill]

http://www.youtube.com/user/heikokhoo#p/u/7/HH4PT3q3GeI

That is a very good youtube channel... I've watched many of the videos there!

Yes, and he is a very nice guy as well..but he has had some issues lately..

[Paula Marx]

Every socialist wants the land of Utopia, not the poor country with anything.

I don't know how else to say this without potentially offending, but if it wasn't clear before it is completely clear that you don't know what you are talking about. I don't know how or why you believe socialists want a "land of Utopia". Socialists want something better than our current system; they want progress. This isn't Utopian.

Exactly, most of us here are Scientific Socialists (Marxists) and not Utopians, that means that our ideology is firmly based in science and logic, rather than just our hopes and dreams, Paula on the other hand is a Utopian.
Here is an explanation about why Socialism (And Communism) are not Utopian.
http://www.youtube.com/user/heikokhoo#p/u/7/HH4PT3q3GeI

Alright, I know most of communists insist they're not ideologists but realists, but honestly I don't know how is it possible to get any socialistic real plan without becoming a bolshevik or stalinist. I Some of you may not realize that, but ideals are not real. While you're having an ideal without violent army and politics, your aim is to keep fighting for it and you mustn't think that's impossible. You've got to have faith and hope in winning, no matter how you're telling world about the right view.

You won't get anything by insulting or fighting with other communists, because that's what imperialists and fascists do want - they want us not to string along because then it's easier for them to beat us.
Isn't it?