Welcome to Gaia! ::

I have a 10-page ds on Marxism due Tuesday. I can write on pretty much anything, so what I am needing is perhaps some ideas.

Here is what I have so far:

An Analysis of Marxism
Marxism is perhaps the most misunderstood political theory in America today. Some of the misconceptions stem from the smear campaign done by the capitalists of the Western world. The misconceptions stem from the loss of religion, loss of private property, the loss of individual choice, and the right of the capitalist to own the means of production. Communism failing because of human nature is probably the cornerstone misconception. I will attempt to examine these misconceptions and form an argument for Marx’s ideas. I will also examine some potential flaws in the system that may arise, independent of the capitalist claims against the system.
Religion is very important to many people, and they consider it to be a key component of their lives. People associated Marx with saying “Religion is the opiate of the people,” but this quote is misleading. What Marx said, in his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of the Right was:

“Religious misery is in one mouth the expression of real misery, and in another is a protestation against real misery. Religion is the moan of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion, as the illusory happiness of the people, is the demand for their real happiness. The demand to abandon the illusions about their condition is a demand to abandon a condition which requires illusions. The criticism of religion therefore contains potentially the criticism of the Vale of Tears whose aureole is religion.” (Critique of Hegel)

Essentially, Marx argues that religion is the outlet for the misery suffered by the working class. As religion is illusory, it must be abolished in order for real happiness to be achieved. This does seem to make sense as people are more likely to accept misery in this life if they believe that they will receive blessings in the next. If it must, this can be proven by asking a religious person if their faith makes them happy. Undoubtedly, they will say that it does. Thus, Marx’s consideration of religion as an escape from reality for the poor is at least plausible.
Marx sees religion not as a cancer but as a symptom of a cancer. Capitalism is a multi-headed hydra and religion is but one head of the beast. Marx was anti-Capitalist; being anti-religion was just a byproduct of his critique of Capitalism. Thus, merely removing religion is not sufficient though it is necessary for solving the problem according to Marx.
The truth value of any religious proposition is beyond the scope of this paper. Marx was a materialist, meaning that only that which can be perceived empirically can be considered. Thus, if religion has a positive truth value, Marx’s critique of Capitalism could be invalidated. If there really is a pie in the sky, perhaps it is worth bearing the lash of the oppressor to reach that reward, if shaking off means forsaking your eternal reward.
Marx viewed private property as perhaps the worst aspect of capitalism. Marx, in the Manifesto of the Communist Party, wrote:
The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. (Manifesto)
This suggests that people would be able to own their own clothes, shoes, food, and other necessities. They would not be able to own Hummers and Corvettes. Essentially, the maxim “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” would be adopted in a Communist society. (Gotha) If Communism was adopted worldwide, the majority of the population would see their possessions stay the same or even increase. This claim is made based on the fact that, according to the UN, 1% of the world’s population owns 40% of all wealth. (Randerson) Of course, through the media, people seem to believe that Communism would take away all of their property.
A common misconception is that a Communist government would put people into particular career paths, but this is not true. Marx even said so in The German Ideology:
In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."
If anything, Communism gives more freedom to the individual. Capitalism forces the individual into particular career paths based upon their class. All the lower class workers cannot choose to be capitalists as for there to be a small number of capitalists, there must, by necessity, be a large working population. Under a Communist system, people are free to work for what pleases them. If a person wanted to change careers, they could easily switch just like the freedom of mobility under the capitalist system. As long as the system produced what everyone needed, the jobs wouldn’t be as important. I suppose the problem of no one wanted to be a farmer or some other necessary job might arise, but that could be solved through social incentives and the media. If you glorify the job of the farmer, then people will want to do it. Communism operates from the collective so “Farmers needed for the common good” would be an effective slogan. People would take pride in working at a job that best helps their fellow man. That is another difference between capitalism and Communism, people work together rather than as enemies. When you work collectively rather than opposed to one another, logically things get done faster.
One of the most frequent arguments against Communism I hear deals with the right of the capitalist to own the means of production. The argument goes, the capitalist are investing their money and accepting the risk involved in starting the business; therefore, they should be allowed to make money off of their investment. That argument seems pretty solid, and under a capitalist system it is. However, the argument that a slave owner should stand to profit off of his slaves because he invested in them is just as strong, and just as wrong. There is no amount of capital investment that justifies the exploitation of human beings. That is like asking how much money justifies killing a newborn infant. Reducing humans to a commodity to be bought and sold is the ultimate infraction of capitalism.
The basic argument of why Communism cannot work stems from the fact that human nature is to be lazy and greedy. On the first charge, Marx vies human nature as being one of producing. In the 1844 Manuscripts, Marx writes:
It is true that animals also produce. They build nests and dwellings, like the bee, the beaver, the ant, etc. But they produce only their own immediate needs or those of their young; they produce only when immediate physical need compels them to do so, while man produces even when he is free from physical need and truly produces only in freedom from such need; they produce only themselves, while man reproduces the whole of nature; their products belong immediately to their physical bodies, while man freely confronts his own product. Animals produce only according to the standards and needs of the species to which they belong, while man is capable of producing according to the standards of every species and of applying to each object its inherent standard; hence, man also produces in accordance with the laws of beauty. (1844)

Marx’s view of human nature is that we have to produce. A person cannot simply allow their life to go to waste and sloth. When a person’s production is converted into profit for a capitalist, they are perhaps not as likely to produce as they would be if their work was being properly appreciated. If you are producing tomatoes for the sake of producing good tomatoes, then you will produce better tomatoes than if you were producing tomatoes for the sake of producing the most tomatoes. To shore up any weaknesses, there could be rewards given out for the people that produce the most of something. People would take pride in their work rather than dreading their job, they may even brag about how much that contributed to the collective.
Communism must be implemented worldwide, as Capitalism and Communism are two independent systems, and a person seeking to maximize person gain will naturally be drawn towards a capitalist system. If you are educated for free in a Communist system, you are expected to make $1 an hour under that system as a doctor. Over the border, doctors with your level of education make $450 an hour. The draw and allure of money will naturally bleed any Communist system that is near a capitalist system.
Even with all the incentives, some people may not work. Of course, these people will be ostracized. If all the technological advances cause people to only need to work for 10 hours a day for 2 or 3 days a week, anyone not working would be viewed as extremely lazy. Thus, it stands to reason that even the biggest sloth would cave to the social pressure to work. Of course, if they are unable to work, they would not be required to work.

I'd agree with TJ, except instead of talking about Utopian and Scientific socialism, I'd just follow the dialectic progression as Marx outlines it, and then describe communism as the completion of the dialectic as per the German Ideology.

If you need any help or further suggestions, send me a message or IM me, and I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

First sentence, first paragraph - rather than using the phrase "political theory" to describe Marxism is a little bit off center - we go into every realm of the sciences, and Marx himself disdained politics. Suggestions would be something like "world view" or "science." In the second of the same paragraph "done" isn't the right word to use, suggestions include "carried out by", "coming from", "promulgated by", I would also remove western - as capitalists all over the world oppose Marxism. I would also rephrase your thesis statement to something like "Often these campaigns center around various misconceptions, primarily: abolishion of religion, private property, and the right of individuals to own capital. I will thereby show that Marx's ideas are not the malevolent spectre they are thought to be."

Also some of your quotations are a little bit different than how they appear in the Marx and Engels Collected Works "Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

You quote further "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo." This is how it appears in the MECW.

You also incorrectly interpreted this. Marx isn't saying that religion is the thing which is to be abolished - he is saying that the material conditions, from which religion is spawned, are to be abolished! - but perhaps this is a typo as later you give a sem-correct analysis.

Marx supports this in Das Kapital Vol. 1 "The religious world is but the reflex of the real world.," and further more that "The religious reflex of the real world can, in any case, only then finally vanish, when the practical relations of every-day life offer to man none but perfectly intelligible and reasonable relations with regard to his fellowmen and to Nature."

Later, you suggestion that private property was thought of as the "worst" aspect of capitalism - I would tend to disagree, but we'lll leave it alone.

You then say that people couldn't own hummers and corvettes - this is not what Marx is saying. Marx is saying that *capital* will not be owned by individuals, but rather by society as a whole. Bourgeois private property is capital - not luxury items, as they do no encourage, in and of themselves, the exploitation of man by man - though the capital which produced them does.

Your "image" of communism at the end is also incorrect. Money doesn't exist in communism, nor do wages. This is quite clearly expressed in all of Marx's works dealing with the subject. If you are mentioning the socialist stage, nearly all Marxists DO NOT advocate the leveling of wages - incentives remain for highly skilled and highly productive workers! In communist society a doctor doesn't receive 1$ an hour or any wage - he/she simply receives, in exchange for having worked (at a socially acceptable level of time and quality) everything that he or she needs and much of what they desire (what the society is capable of produciving).

Likewise, I would encourage you to look at how laziness was dealt with in many North American Native American communities. Howard Zinn's "A Peoples History of the United States" is a good place.