Deadly twaddle is the best description of this idealogy.

I refer you to The Black Book of Communism, published by the Harvard University Press for the startling statistic that Communism killed about 100 million people in the 20th Century. It is amazing that at the end of the 20th century, hundreds of thousands were still starving to death in North Korea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Comm unism

Born in Communisit Society, I was forced to study Marx works intensively. And, I hate him for that. For the matter of the theory content, it is an average-significance economic research, one of many. Average writing style. If that would stay as a pure theory, it would deserve the rating 2. But, since all the anti-humanistic communist theory was based on Marxism, this item deserves a lowest possible grade on the scale.

Probably the least understood, and most heavily misinterpreted ideology on this list, both by its supporters and detractors.

Far from evil, but very much a theory in progress, as Marx was constantly asserting. There are some serious flaws in this theory, given the benefit of hindsight, but no more than in Keynes, Hobbes, Mills, etc. etc. etc.

Let's reward the stupid and lazy!

One of the most useless theories in world history. Along with Darwin, Karl Marx was one of the most useless human beings who did nothing to benefit society.

Marxist philosophy holds that the most important problem does not lie in understanding the laws of the objective world and thus being able to explain it, but in applying the knowledge of these laws actively to change the world.

Ibid. p. 304.

Where Do Correct Ideas Come from? (May 1963), 1st pocket ed., p. 1.

So said the mighty butcher of millions  .....

and they still believe it today ... such a sad state of affairs, and are they to be the mighty leaders of the future with this in their hearts and a gun in their hands???

A bright lister mentions a spectacular book ("Black Book of Communism") which is a spectacular read. . .but a common mistake is made with calling 'Marxism' and 'Communism' the same thing- even Marx probably felt that Russia was a sh#thole that should have been the last place where his grand philosophical experiment would succeed. . .Nations never really followed a Marxist principle and simply made police-states called "Communism" that wasn't what granddaddy Karl had in mind. . .still, Marxism as a concept has holes you could drive a truck through. . .

Maxism is a mish-mash of British political economy (from Marx's studies in the British Library), German philosophical romanticism (from his university days) and half-secularized Judaisim/Lutherism (from his childhood upbringing). Marx's labor theory of value was already obsolete when he borrowed it from the early British economists; the dialectic is simply Hegelian mysticism. The class struggle (hell), dictatorship of the proletariat (purgatory) and classless society (heaven) is both a secularized theology and an excuse for ambitious intellectuals (messiahs) to wreck havoc in the name of 'the oppressed'. Historical materialism (borrowed from the now-forgotten French positivists) offers a grossly inaccurate interpretation of history, as it ignores the power of ideas (cognition) and political/military power (coercion). In short, Marx merely borrowed and mingled the flawed ideas of other (greater) thinkers to create a completely incoherent-indeed, self-contradictory-'Frankenstein' ideology. Marxism does not even provide a clear explanation of how Communist regimes functioned, as Marxism merely provided the theology of Communism. Communism's political organization was Lenninist, while its practical economy policies were inspired by the German 'state capitalism' of WWI-which Lenin freely admitted. Marxism was hugely popular in Western universities from roughly 1930-1990, and has nearly ruined the reputation of the social sciences (of the countless Marxist scholars that infested academia, only Perry Anderson is worth reading today-mainly because he was more of a Weberian than a Marxist). Marx was a brilliant journalist-maybe the greatest of his time-and a talented polemicist; but Marxism, as an ideology, remains the most incoherent system of thought (secular or religious) ever to shape the course of human history.

Responsible for almost 148,000,000 dead in the 20th century. Enough said.

The ideas behind Marxism do indeed have some merit. Recent evens in particular continue to demonstrate that Marx was correct in asserting that the wealthy do indeed dominate the political system in this country. Marx's solution to the problem, in essence to create a state of equality among all citizens, ironically does nothing to solve it. Even with equality, there must still be a government. That government, even in a "state of equality," is still likely to be controlled by a small group of individuals with a plethora of wealth and influence. Marxism is a vicious cycle because it relies on the government to ensure equality, something that no government has ever been able to do successfully because of presence of perpertual corruption. The only alternative is anarachy, and history has shown that lawlessness and the absence of government is the natural predecessor to oppression and inequality. Marxism is, in the final analysis, a viable idea in theory, but in practice it would most certainly fall victim to the demons of human nature.

This pile of hot bull manure is a bunch of ideas dreamt up by idiots for other idiots.The profit motive exists and will do so for years and no pseudointellectual dribbling will change it.

Not as completely dead as it looked like it was in the early 90's. Much of what Western European countries have (and what Hillary Clinton would love to reproduce on this side of the Atlantic) has its roots in the concept(s) of a wealth-sharing paradise.

Marxism = Hillary Clinton.

The most astute analysis of CAPITALISM to date.

it should have worked, too bad it didnt. maybe we can give it another go-around some day.

Let's face reality. Communism is not bad, but can be percieved as bad. I am actually in a college class that deals with this topic. Communism is for the people, but hold on. What about Hitler you say? Hitler was a bad man, but if you look at what he did, it was all for the recovery of his country. Sick people do sick things, and this is where I think communism gets a bad rap. Just because Hitler praised his Communistic government, doesn't mean communism in itself is bad. Again, Communism, when dealt with the right authority, can be a decent thing.

hey hey hey...Theres a lot of confusion in this forum, and not a lot of objectivity. Some of you criticize Marxs ideology speaking about his private life, but it shows a lack of arguments from your side. If I put five stars, its because you must not confuse Marx theory. He was the analysor of capitalism, not the creator of a new system, this begins seriously with Lenin. But as an analysor of the capitalism, he still today the greatest one and he has perfectly analysed the capitalist system (even if today we have to rethink it, but the facts have only moved in the space with the globalization (Samir Amin and his analysis North/South for exemple). I recommend you to read the Capital (neutraly please...) or the 1844 Manuscrits (marxism humanism where he speaks about the alienation produced by the capitalism) to understand more marxs theory. If nobody make this work, this forum will stay as it is, with a big lack of objectivity. So please, dont make a confusion between Marx theory and Real Socialism. I put five stars to Marx, as a great sociologist and because capitalism is a system which cant help humanity, or a little minority of it (when I see that people dont want to sell AIDS medicine in Africa because they cant make benefits with this trade...it makes me sick). But if I had to judge Stalins socialism or Cambodias one for exemple, my opinion would be very different and I understand why people who had lived in these systems criticize it (as I have lot of friends from Eastern Europe). And to finish, I wanted to tell owl1962 that his comment is the poorest comment in this forum (I think your commentary is a losers one) and Im not wishing you to experiment that but if you say that, its because you were born in a social middle where you should not have a lot of difficulties to go to the hospital, or to go to school or basically, to feed you (I dont think youre a poor worker of Bolivia for exemple) and if you say that marxists are losers, you are speaking of a lot of respectfull people who fight, in this moment, risking their life for more justice in this world, and Im not speaking about the Stalins and cie, but of common people, like you and me. Hopefull people. I dont know if you would have done the same...

I agree with Miss Perverse, many a comminist leader has used the fact that few people are well informed to turn the ideals of communism into a means of financial gain. I must say im rather pleased that there is someone else out there who is decently intelligent enough to realize that communism is not bad, but just has not yet been implemented correctly!

Karl Marx envisioned the proletariat (working-class) forcing a revolution on the bourgeoisie (middle-class). Marxism was designed to overthrow the inequality of capitalism. Unfortunately, it instigated leaders and factions with despotic desires, to bastardise it into their designed communism. Marxism has been frequently misunderstood and misapplied. It was/is idealistic and unsustainable in the contemporary world. Study it before you declare it evil.

In the McCarthyish hysteria surrounding Stalinism, China and baby eating communists most people fail to understand what essence of Marxism is - the understanding of what drives history forward and the conclusions which can be drawn from such understanding. Not how to kill people, organise cultural revolutions or even how to redistribute property. According to Marx, capitalism is just another stage in history, just like feudalism, with a news ruling class, the merchant class. Every historical stage before capitalism and every stage after it will be determined by the struggle between the ruling class and the opposing (or revolutionary) class. Thus, capitalism came about because of the merchant class victory over the aristocrat class and socialism will come about when the working class (the great majority off all people) is victorious over the merchant class. Marxists acknowledge that capitalist has brought important advantages to the world, increased living standards, the industrial revolution, education and so on. However, the world is always changing and the next step for the world is towards a socialist society. This Hegelian understanding of history separates Marxism from other ideologies which are only concerned with the presence liberalism with the market, federalism with the separation of powers and conservatism with the halting of developments. Marxism is therefore the only scientific ideology and the only one based on facts and conclusions, not moral dogmas or preconceived ideals. It is important to remember that liberalism was once a revolutionary idea just like Marxism and socialism is now.

Brilliant ideology that would eliminate poverty One flaw though! It cannot exist alongside with capitalism!

Proven failure, still clung to by losers and by professors who are hopelessly stuck in the 1960s.

I read Capital. Marx may have had some good intentions, but he didn't know a bloody thing about economics.

Marx is interesting to read and I love many of his ideas, but one idea I cannot get used to is materialism. I simply disagree with it; being an idealist in both senses. ~ Also, historical inevitability is a pretty bankrupt argument. If Socialism is an inevitable step-up from Capitalism, why then did regions that were still largely feudal experience the first Socialist revolutions, and not more industrialized, capitalist nations, and why did they eventually go back to the (lower) capitalism rather than Communism? This is because political systems are dynamic and subject to change either 'backward' or 'forward'; just look at the United States. They are brought about by circumstance and not inevitability. ~ Marx has also imposed a misconception regarding idealism. Idealism vs. pragmatism is very different from idealism vs. materialism; Marxists are materialists, but they are also idealistic rather than pragmatic, because they see things in terms of how they SHOULD be rather than how they ARE. Try telling this to a Marxist and they'll bite your head off, saying that they're a staunch materialist. Every Marxist I know suffers from this confusion regarding idealism vs. materialism and idealism vs. pragmatism. ~ Marx's philosophy gets four stars!

a tiny step up from communism. So what if everybody gets a loaf of bread ? Even though people get by, they barely get by and everybody is still poor. I do not think life's worth living if you don't have tthe chance to live big. That's why i love america. If you work hard, you can make a lot of money, buy a big house, etc. When you are a communist or marxist, you won't live a good life. I'd rather not live then spend my whole life in the gutter.

I was forced to study marxism at school in Cuba. It is really a piece of crap.

Marxism first took root in the 1930s, and was the brainstorm of an iconoclastic group of men who advocated chaos and anarchy. These nonconforming individuals opposed societal institutions, and encouraged free thinking and uninhibited behavior. The ringleader of this scrappy little gang distrusted all organizations, no matter how trivial, stating that he wouldn't trust any group that would solicit his membership. Although the leaders of this groundbreaking political cause have long since left the building, traces of their ideology can still be found in the 21st century in the most unexpected places.

Marx spent all of his time in a library, theorizing, which explains how he could be such a bad guy who knew nothing about life.

I do wonder what Marx would make of social inequalities today. In the mid 19th century Europe's industrial centres were squalid it's working class citizens impoverished and exploited. Now corporations look to the the third world for cheap labour so that we can have cheap consumer goods. However the result of this is marked economic growth in these countries and increased prosperity. A study by Engels on the working class of Manchester show just how poor it's workers were. However 150 or so years later, it's largely a booming and proserous city. My point being that industrialisation is an integral part of a countries social and economic development. Interferring with this prevents this process from happening and could be arguably claimed to exacerbate it. Marx hypothesised that a society would develop in stages, the pinnacle being a communist one. The problem being that this sort of process can only happen organically and can't be forced. In the same way that free and open democracy for all was thought of at least 350 years ago, but didn't truly take root until much later. In the same way any form of true social equality will only form slowly over a long timescale.

Its funny how anmalone pulls strange figures out of the air with no actual knowledge of the facts. Cuba - 3 million dead?!?! Where did you pull that one out of? 3 million was half of Cubas population at the time of the revolution, I think someone would have noticed if Marxism killed HALF THE PEOPLE ON HIS ISLAND. It's absoloutely laughable anmalone says that Marxism is voilent and inhuman while shortly afterwards saying Marxists should be jailed for life. Certainly Marxism is a little antiquated and needs to be revised to iron out the bumps in its ideals but most modern Marxists have moved on from elements of thier past. Persecuting Marxists for crimes commited by Stalin is like persecuting Jews for crucifying Jesus. Christianity also used to previously advocate the prosecution of homosexuals and voilence against Muslims and a modern day Christian would be quick to shoot these down as not being main tenants of christianity (quite rightly as well). My point is that bunching Marxists together under the umbrella of Stalin and Pol Pot is prejudice. My criticisms of Marxism are that its too quick to declare a certain segment of the populace the evil ruling classes that need to be defeated to solve everything (like Keynes said it was rather simplistic and dull). Of course there was plenty of truth amongst Marx's scribblings (Money concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, upheavals in industrial production etc) he just did not have the benefit of hindsight (ie: not realising that Communist revolutions would occur primarily in fuedalist agrarian societies rather then capitalist industrial ones).

put brakes on the ruthless march of capitalism..viz tsar of russia etc etc

Twice as restrictive as Nazism and Fascism as well as being ecconomicly inefficient. Marx said that inferiors should be exterminated 'for the good of society'

Hard-line!

Marxism is the both the progenitor and a variant of socialism and Communism. Karl Marx was a vile, filthy worthless degenerate (He raped his mentally defective serving girl and had a child by her then abandoned her and the child while he refused to work and support his own extensive family.) This man whose envy filled hatred of mankind was so extreme that he desired nothing by the bloody overthrow of any established order and the exaltation of the redundant class (over educated shiftless lazy dregs.) to which he belonged. Marxism is the polity of envy and bloody murder while pretending compassion. Those who find Marx intelligent probably read any thing he wrote aside from the Communist Manifesto. In the final assay you be the judge. (Non-War Dead) National Socialism Germany - 20 Million Dead. International Socialism: China - 72 Million Dead. Russia - 68 Million Dead. Cuba - 3 Million Dead. Cambodia - 3 Million Dead. Korea - 8 Million Dead. The collective minor players - 30 Million. What one benighted fool calls the success of Socialism in Western Europe over looks the obvious decrepitude of Mixed Capitalist/Socialist economies in France, Germany, England and Sweden. Socialism is the most violent inhuman political system ever conceived by a shiftless retard raping misanthrope. If it were a just world, the mere support of it should be considered an offense against humanity and the person incarcerated for life

Marx is a truly revolutionary genius. He actually was an anti-utopian. I can claim I most certainly know it from recently reading a rather lengthy biography of him. He was brilliant, but was so stubborn and had basically no friends, thinking he was always right. He wrote the most revolutionary political work ever published in The Manifesto of the Communist Party with his only friend, Friederich Engels. His radicalism caused him to be basically banned from every European country except for England. He was a great man.

Marx was a smart guy, but his ideas have virtually no application in modern society, not to mention, Marxist communism is highly unrealistic, to the point of being utopian.

I don't have the strength to re-type the rant that I just left under "communism" -- especially at 1:30 in the morning -- but let me be clear in saying that Marx deserves a "1-Terrible!" rating like nobody's business.