I strongly encourage ACTUALLY reading Marx and not just the facebook post equivalents that various influencers love to spout.
But, at a very high level: Marxism is largely built around communism (well, the other way around, but just roll with it). Which does have implications for governing and decision making, but is largely a socioeconomic system. So the better “opposite” would be Capitalism. Although, even that is a pretty reductive approach and is arguably wrong.
That said: Communism requires some form of centralized planning. And while there is nothing that says that can’t come from a true Democracy, it tends to favor republics which may or may not use democracy to select. The US, as the chuds so often like to exclaim, is a Democratic Republic (sort of) in that we use Democracy-ish to select our representatives.
I think there are a LOT more problems than just that, but yeah.
You can more or less “break” libertarianism and many anarchies by asking about “what happens to the orphans?”. For Communism and its derivatives, the question is usually “Who gets to be a scientist, a doctor, a movie star, and the person who cleans out the sewers? And do they all get the same benefits?”
Personally? I think the bigger issue is women’s rights. If you consider sex work to be work, how do you figure out who is most suited to be a sex worker? And, regardless, how do you decide who is best suited to be a mother and how that impacts the centralized planning?
It is one of the many reasons that what we truly need are hybrid socioeconomic models.
Computers and databases with logistics didn’t exist in 1918. Walmart and Amazon have strong central planning. Chile began to do it in 1971 with Project CyberSyn, but the CIA and capitalism couldn’t have that in their backyard.
I strongly encourage ACTUALLY reading Marx and not just the facebook post equivalents that various influencers love to spout.
But, at a very high level: Marxism is largely built around communism (well, the other way around, but just roll with it). Which does have implications for governing and decision making, but is largely a socioeconomic system. So the better “opposite” would be Capitalism. Although, even that is a pretty reductive approach and is arguably wrong.
That said: Communism requires some form of centralized planning. And while there is nothing that says that can’t come from a true Democracy, it tends to favor republics which may or may not use democracy to select. The US, as the chuds so often like to exclaim, is a Democratic Republic (sort of) in that we use Democracy-ish to select our representatives.
The problem with communism is bcz it requires strong central planning it tends to devolve into authoritarianism quickly.
I think there are a LOT more problems than just that, but yeah.
You can more or less “break” libertarianism and many anarchies by asking about “what happens to the orphans?”. For Communism and its derivatives, the question is usually “Who gets to be a scientist, a doctor, a movie star, and the person who cleans out the sewers? And do they all get the same benefits?”
Personally? I think the bigger issue is women’s rights. If you consider sex work to be work, how do you figure out who is most suited to be a sex worker? And, regardless, how do you decide who is best suited to be a mother and how that impacts the centralized planning?
It is one of the many reasons that what we truly need are hybrid socioeconomic models.
Computers and databases with logistics didn’t exist in 1918. Walmart and Amazon have strong central planning. Chile began to do it in 1971 with Project CyberSyn, but the CIA and capitalism couldn’t have that in their backyard.