Similarites between Marxism and Capitalism?





I need only a few similarities between Marxism and Capitalism 4 an essay. Can any1 help me our with this?



Similar Asks:





Both comments and pings are currently closed.

3 Responses to “Similarites between Marxism and Capitalism?”

  1. ungentled says:

    About as opposite as you can get, except that they are both forms of government. Maybe that both forms of governing consider the politicians to be above the common man, and make laws to protect them from revolution.

  2. blobule says:

    the answer is here [external link] …

  3. resonatory says:

    I think both are “universalistic” rather than tribalistic or nationalistic in their views on the world economy, for starters. Both Marxists and capitalists can be kind of nationalistic and patriotic — probably more capitalists than Marxists, actually, since Marx wrote that “the workers have no country” – - but both groups tend to have an internationalistic outlook. And purely as Marxists and purely as capitalists, neither group is necessarily committed to a racist or a particular religious view of the world. “Workers of the world, unite!” is the Marxist slogan; “consumers of the world – buy from us!” is the capitalist slogan. Unlike, say, German Naziism, which believed in “Deutschland Uber Alles.” And unlike radical Islam, evangelical Christianity etc. that focus on spreading a particular religion.2. Traditional Marxism and traditional capitalism, in somewhat different ways, are both generally positive about modern science and technology. True, Marx in “Capital” and in the “Grundrisse” did portray modern industrial technology as being used to destroy people’s jobs and to make human beings into little more than appendages to big machines and big mechanical systems. But he thought that the productivity power that the big machines represented was a wonderful progressive force, and one that could become the basis for an ideal society — if, that is, a “communist” rather than a “capitalist” society could control it. And he thought that although modern industrial machinery destroys traditional crafts and traditional kinds of skilled labor, on the positive side it would make it possible for any given worker to do almost anything, so long as he or she could have access to the right technology and the right machinery.Most advocates of capitalism have similarly optimistic ideas about industry and technology, but without the pessimism about what they do in capitalist hands. Traditionally, then, both capitalists and Marxists have tended to cheer for modern industry as it displaces traditional handicraft labor and displaces traditional subsistence famers in “less developed” societies. Contrast this with the Indian nationalism of Mahatma Gandhi, say, who had some socialistic ideas about economics, but who chose the simple spinning wheel — the symbol of pre-industrial Indian manufacturing — as his symbol. Or contrast both the Marxist and the capitalist optimism about technology with that of the English Luddites, a group of English handicraft laborers in the 1810-1813 period who went around smashing power looms in the textile industry because they saw the power looms as threatening their jobs.Another contrast with both the Marxist and the capitalist approach to technology: consider Native American or “American Indian” cultures that during the 1800s strongly resisted white society’s efforts to build railroad lines and telegraph lines across their lands.3. Traditionally, both Marxism and capitalism also have been more or less committed to the “conquest of nature” by human beings. Some modern environmental critics would say that they share the same “instrumentalist” view of nature and science that they inherited from the European Enlightenment. “Instrumental” or “instrumentalist” science and/or reason is committed to the idea that human beings can make use of nature as an instrument, as a tool for achieving human goals. Again, this is a very different attitude from that embraced by many traditional societies, such as that of the American Indians or that which exists in many traditional non-western societies. Rather than thinking of the “Earth, our mother,” and considering the Earth to be sacred, people with an instrumental view of science and reason tend to think that it’s legitimate for human beings to exploit the earth using various scientific and technological tools. Some historians (e.g. Lynn White) think that this worldview really originates in Judaeo Christian culture, with God’s commandment to Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.” But whatever the origins of instrumental reason, it’s a way of thinking favored by many capitalist businessmen and by many Marxist socialists, and arguably this makes both capitalism and traditional Marxism fairly anti-environmental in thrust.A caveat here, because I am a leftist: Marx was a “philosophical materialist,” which meant that in a philosophical sense he clearly recognized that human beings are part of nature. As Marx’s friend Engels wrote in “The Dialectics of Nature,” this implies that in the last analysis, humans can never fully “conquer” nature, because this would mean we were conquering ourselves. So Engels, rather late in life, woke up to the threat to nature posed by modern civilization that George Perkins Marsh had already outlined in a book on the subject. And as a German leftist named Alfred Schmidt points out in a book called “The Concept of Nature in Marx,” where are many passages in Marx’s works, including “Capital,” whereit’s clear that Marx recognized the essential role that nature plays in creating real value for consumers and in forming the real basis for civilization. So as a leftist, I think Marx was not as big a dummy about the environment — at least in theory — as some capitalist economists and businessmen have been. But Marx did take a completely “instrumentalist” approach to nature, and sometimes wrote about the “conquest” of nature, and I think this puts him closer to many capitalists than he was to Gandhi or to American Indian civilization.4. In a funny way — some people will say this idea is outrageous — capitalists and Marxists both say they are committed to human “freedom.” Marx actually wrote a fair amount this in the “Grundrisse” and in some of his other more philosophical works. Capitalists and Marxists both also have tended to see “freedom” as being perfected or at least advanced through the development of modern industrial technology. However, Marx in the “Grundrisse” puts forth a really different view of freedom than the one you will find in most works by capitalists and supporters of capitalism. In a way that most Americans will probably find hard to understand — and that I, although a leftist, don’t really quite accept — Marx thought that “freedom” would be perfected through communism. Of course the communism that Marx had in mind would — in theory, at least — involve the establishment of a very high standard of living and the use of labor-saving machinery to make a big reduction in the average work week. The people of his ideal communist future .therefore would be prosperous, they would work relatively little and have lots of leisure time for self-expression, and they would not be involved in economic conflicts with one another, and so they would — in theory — be freer than any previous people in human history. The capitalist idea of freedom, of course, only has some of these features, although I think many capitalists would share Marx’s enthusiasm for a high standard of living and the use of labor-saving machinery. Those are a few similarities worth mentioning. I do hope you’ll look into these topics yourself, though. If you just take the word of an old leftist like me who tells you stuff over the internet, you’re crazy. :-) Also, to get the most out of your education, you really do need to learn this stuff for yourself.