How will we get from the status quo to a classless

[ComradeRed]

Marx stated that capitalism would collapse and then would be socialism and everyone would be happy; however, it appears right now that capitalism won't collapse. Therefore, should we deviate from the path laid down from Marx's theory, or should we try to find another way to go to a classless society.

[apathy maybe]

Marx was wrong. What needs to be done (IMHO), is gradual reform. First we show everyone how much better their lives will be if we do this and this. Then once they see that yes their lives are better, then they shall be ready for the next stage.

First we build up the government and cut down on the (big) corperations.
Then we remove all capitalism (including those small business that we had as allies during step one).
We then make steps one and two global.
Then we remove the government structures that we had in place, that were weaning people of capitalism.
We then have a system of small loosly federated areas comprised of small loosly federated soviets.

That is how we must bring about global anarchism/communism.
Then there is step six ...

[apathy maybe]

But I forgot about the enviromental problems :(, we may not have enough time to implement the six step solution. What must be done is that we do something about the environment first. We force them to acknowledge (sp?) that they are screwing up the environment, then we make them fix it. While capitalism in general is bad for the environment, small parts can help fix it, or even prevent it.

[BOZG]

Marx stated that capitalism would collapse and then would be socialism and everyone would be happy; however, it appears right now that capitalism won't collapse.

I can't remember if Marx even bluntly said that socialism would come after the downfall of capitalism but rather that socialism would be the next progressive stage in society.

What proof exactly have you got that shows capitalism won't collapse?

[redstar2000]

Marx stated that capitalism would collapse and then would be socialism and everyone would be happy...

I missed the part about "everyone" being "happy".

But here are some reflections on the question of the collapse of capitalism...

Does Capitalism "Self-Destruct"? A Problem in Marxist Economics January 8, 2004 (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083546760&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)


What must be done is that we do something about the environment first. We force [the capitalist class] to acknowledge that they are screwing up the environment, then we make them fix it.

Neat trick.

It's certainly possible and has happened that people have mobilized around a specific (and usually small) environmental "problem" and "forced" the capitalists to "fix it"...or at least to stop making it worse.

But I don't think that "road" is likely to go anywhere significant. They may be willing, under public pressure, to "stop polluting"...there's no indication that they are willing to stop the reckless waste of natural resources in pursuit of short-term profits.


First we show everyone how much better their lives will be if we do this and this. Then once they see that, yes, their lives are better, then they shall be ready for the next stage.

Always sounds "plausible"...never works!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Wenty]

Capitalism has shown itself to be more robust and innovative than Marx said. I also feel we need to abandon Marx's dialectic. There is a kernel of truth in it but overall I don't think its true.

A.C Grayling mentioned that it seemed the only way great change would come about was if there was a global catastrophy.

[MiniOswald]

unfortunatly our hot headed cynical friend , redstar is right on this one, you can stop em polluting but they're still gonna waste the resources

[Rasta Sapian]

no your wrong, marx was right, only marx (a genius in terms of economics) would know that capitalism will collapse! It is happening now, I can feel it :)

Capitalism is based on politics and economics, and as the quality of life for the proletariot depletes, people will rise up, people are getting tired and sick of being exploited!

Jack is sick of jumping over the candle stick, after he burns his nuts, he is going to be pissed off, now thats radical!

peace yall

[gnuneo]

easy - first recognise that marx was a victorian, with victorian notions, such as social darwinism and materialism.

then bearing this in mind we can then scrap the notions of class warfare, division of capital into labour and finance, which are the major sticking points in his theories, and are preventing what he felt should happen, ie that capitalism should develop into socialism.


the critical first step is to enable, in fact aid, the workforces to purchase a controlling intrest in the companies they work in, up to the percentage of the company each worker should own if equally divided - this goes for managers also.

the next step is equally simple - to legislate that *only* the people working in that comapny can own shares in it - this will not only have the benefit of spreading produced wealth accross the population, but also of the equal benefit of removing the vampyres from the system, as they will be forced to work to maintain their social position... as long as they are taxed on their other income and accumulated capital :)

from here, and this is not really very radical, its an extemely short step to socialism, yet it also garantess private property, in fact it embodies it far better than the current system, as people are no longer able to be used as chattel to produce wealth for others.

voila!!! we have socialism.

and equally voila!!! its still capitalism.



to repeat, its a shame marx was educated to beleive in social darwinism, there is no need for the two 'classes' to struggle, although naturally those with privelleges will not see them easily reduced, and there is most *certainly* no need to hand everything to the State - whoever beleives that the elite in charge of States only ever operate in the best interests of the People, and that they will willingly give up total power once they have it needs to cut out the crackpipe and come back to reality.

as for environmental issues, once control of companies becomes local again instead of based in tax havens, there will be a very large interest in reducing enviornmental impact and decay - it all gos hand in hand.

[Debs'atron]

It's impossible to make a Socialist society from a capitalist society. Once people have lived in a capitalist state, its nearly impossible to make them content with socialism. Unless of course capitalism collapses in that country. And even then it will only be a matter of generations before people become fed up with socialism. The problem with my country is that most people are churned throught the public education system with a basic understanding of literature and mathmatics and absolutely no political views whatsoever. Nowadays the american lifestyle is as follows Work, TV , Sleep , Reproduction. Why think? Why worry? Hungry? Run down to BK. Never before in history have people been so stupid, so ignorant of the affairs of the community. People just don't care, and if they don't care, well there is nothing we CAN do to deviate from marx's theory. So besides some incredible techonological advancement or the rising of a new communist super power. we just have to wait.

[redstar2000]

The critical first step is to enable, in fact aid, the workforces to purchase a controlling interest in the companies they work in, up to the percentage of the company each worker should own if equally divided - this goes for managers also.

Another "Victorian" idea...the workers should "buy out" the capitalists.

Utterly preposterous.


voilà!!! we have socialism.

and equally voilà!!! it's still capitalism.

Attempts to "mix" socialism and capitalism always yield...capitalism.

"Market Socialism" -- Are We "For Sale"? (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083079914&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[gnuneo]

rubbish.

you appear to have fallen into the i'm helpless' fallacy - OK, so many people get nothing out of school - why do you assume nothing can be done about that? Become a teacher, or highlight the benefits of education in whatever profession you take up, make fun of brain-dead morons, rip stupidity apart *mercilessly* (this makes it cool looking in moronic 'gangsta' culture), even so little as ensuring your kids have access to good encyclopedias at home is an act against this 'Rise of the Morons'.

Everything *you* do has an impact in this world, you dint have to wait for govts to do something - take your power in your hands today, realise this is as much your world as it is bush's or bin ladens, and dont take any shit.


and now to your politics - can you say *why* people will not be happy in a state similar to now except they actuallly own the comanies they work in? What specific part of having democratic control over their own workplaces do you think will cause them unhapiness?

when 'capitalism' is expanded so as to include labour capital as well as finance capital, then it becomes rather clear that we need *more* capitalism, not less - the problem with now is that far too many people are accepting wage-slavery as the norm, instead of doing evrything in their power to end it.

[gnuneo]

the above was to debs'atron.


redstar - i have absolutely *no* problems with capitalism - however i detest feudal hierarchies of wage slavery.

once those are ended, most of the problems in the world dissappear.


please *do* explain how else capitalism shall change in socialism...?

[gnuneo]

and please dont try to use the skandinavian socialist welfare state model - this is just a stopgap method of redistributing the wealth stolen from the workers by the vampyres back to the system - it relies far too heavily on the vampyres not moving beyond the tax jurisdiction of the socialist state to be long-term viable. The only way to end this conundrum once and for all is simple:


stop working for other people.

[Debs'atron]

Thank you for highlighting my assumptions, and my mistakes. I am still developing as a socialist as i am only 16. Though i fully understand that if we teach our descendants, it would still take genrations for this to have any effect, and whos to say it will have any affect? What value do the wrods of the parents have in the minds of their children? And if what you say is true why wouldnt the same work for the wealthy as they indoctrinate their children. And if its the case then why wouldnt the descendants of the wealthy seek to return to privelage. Someone will always have a problem with the world. of course they would be a small minority. Aren't we socialists, if i may count myself among, the miority now? Most people are happy with their lives in America.

[Essential Insignificance]

first recognise that marx was a victorian, with victorian notions, such as social darwinism and materialism.

He was not a Victorian…he just ensued to subsist in England in the given era, how is materialism a Victorian "notion"…it is not.

Marx did not look at himself as a "Social Darwinist"…and if he was "labelled" so…I image that he would have become enraged with fury.

Most of Marx’s works were wrote and some published years (15) prior to the publishment of "The Origan of Species" (1859)…Which as first Marx did not take two much likening too, labelling it the work of an English "philistine"…and "the crude English manner of an Englishmen". :lol:

Although he did once say to Engel’s that is was the documentation that "contained the natural history basis of our view". And that "it might have had an unconscious socialist tendency".



to repeat, its a shame marx was educated to beleive in social darwinism,

No he didn’t…Social Darwinism did not exist, when Marx was in his schooling years…and for sometime afterward.

[gnuneo]

thank you for teaching humbleness :P


yes, indeed elites teach their children that they have some 'right' to be privileged - in fact they even have dedicated schools to teach this platonic BS.

and yes, any such changes you make will take generations - but democracy (and i'm *not* talking about a meaningless vote every few years) also took time to become rooted - and needs watering every generation, thats *our* task.

we can say we can *only* affect those around us - *or* we can say we *can* affect those around us, the difference is up to you. To be trite - "we must be the change we wish to see in the world" (thanks MWO if you ever come this way ;) ).

BTW, a small thing - may i suggest you try to limit your 'self definitions' as much as possible, try always to keep your own beleifs, and judge everything you hear not by whether they claim to have the same beleif structure (i'm a socialist, this book says socialists beleive this, therefore i must beleive this), but by whether you feel the messge is right - and never EVER stop being critical, especially of your own ideas.

and far be it for a rank newbie to take on this task, but i welcome you to the site. :rolleyes:

EI: WTF is it with this site? everyone is addicted to labels, instead of understandings... it is irrelevant whether marx did or did not have his schooling before darwin wrote his book - the *underlying assumptions* are the same, and it is that which allows us to justifiably use the term 'socail darwinism', even if it not 100% historically accurate.

[Essential Insignificance]

EI: WTF is it with this site? everyone is addicted to labels, instead of understandings... it is irrelevant whether marx did or did not have his schooling before darwin wrote his book - the *underlying assumptions* are the same, and it is that which allows us to justifiably use the term 'socail darwinism', even if it not 100% historically accurate.

Yes, it is because your saying other…you are deficient of historical ''accuracy''…it’s not a thing to be taken ''lightly'', its extremely significant.

What underlying assumption is the same.

[Debs'atron]

I doff my hat to you gnuneo, i sought not to lable my self but rather to give a name to this group of "radicals", couldnt think of much else to call it. Democracy took millenia, then it dissapeared then it reapeared. Democracy has had since before Athens, socialism has has since Marx. I honestly don't think we have the nessecary millenia to allow it to slowly settle in. Sure information is much easier to attain and people are "free'er" thinkers than they were 4000 years ago. But what kind of timeframe can we hope for? I can't possibly suggest any way to hasten the process, I just don think the, as I shall call it, "Wait and hope" idea of teaching descendants and hoping theyll do the same. Perhaps this is ENTIRELY irrelevant, I don't know.

[redstar2000]

redstar - I have absolutely *no* problems with capitalism - however I detest feudal hierarchies of wage slavery.

No, I think you do have a problem with capitalism...you don't understand it.

Wage slavery is capitalist...not "feudal".

Confusion of this sort coupled with the assertion that Marx was "victorian" and "social darwinist" suggest rather strongly that you have not read Marx and have no grasp of his ideas at all.

You might wish to begin with Wage Labor and Capital as well as Value, Price and Profit...two short pieces on Marxist economics.

Another recent and quite excellent (brief) summary is...

http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/pri...arx/ApxToC.html (http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/prin/txt/marx/ApxToC.html)


please *do* explain how else capitalism shall change in socialism...?

It's called proletarian revolution.

You may have heard of it.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[gnuneo]

actually, old chap, i do think you'll find that wage slavery is a *form* of capitalism... that we can call feudal capitalism.

i have read marx, a long time ago. I have little desire to repeat the experience. Its a bit like reading descartes - great ideas for the time, but dramatically flawed in many basic assumptions.


and a proletarian revolution huh? thats funny, becuase to have a prloterian revolution you have to have a class of people defining themselves as... drumroll... *proletarian*!!!! i havent seen them around for some time, how many do you know of?

get it through your head - political science has moved forward since karl bloody marx, to weight every 'left' idea with what this long dead guy did or dod not think about things is, simply, stunnigly stupid. We can be thankful for some of his ideas, much as we can be thankful for freuds ideas, as starting blocks from which we move forward, but to try to have a religious beleif in them is putting an albatross arund your neck.

instead fo doing the normal lefty 'lets spend our lives fighting over definitions', why dont you try looking at new ideas for once, seeing how old definitions can be c/ped to create new ways of mapping reality, and move forward into the 21st century.


just try it - imagine the term capital refers to labour as well as finance, imagine that capitalism refers to a state where the two are combined, this capitalism would then rather naturally evolve into a socialist state, *without* violent revolution, and *without* handing over all power to the political elite running the State.

dont you think if marx had considered this, he would likely have preferred it? remember that marx stated that *he* was not a marxist, and that he couldnt stand them - does *that* sound like someone who wanted his ideas slavishly followed, or someone who would prefer them to be constantly evolved and improved.

he certainly never beleived he was infallible - so why do others?


debs'atron: democracy comes about when *you* practice it - no more, and no less. You dont have to wait a millenium or more, you can just choose your own future, and work together harmoniously with others.

however you may find yourself running into difficulties with a bunch of people who are *not* dmocratic, who have decided that *they* have the right to invade your privacy, and perhaps even imprisson or kill you.

if you truly beleive in your ideals, then this is a hardship, and definitely not something to actively look for - it is the unfortuante side effect of having a bunch of people, be they fascists, bourgouie, socialist or stalinist, moslem or christian, or even proletarian 'vanguards', beleive they know better than you how you should live your life, and what you should think.

but *none, i repeat, *none* of them can evr make you forget who you are, and what you beleive in. They can only kill you.

The path to being a truly democratic person is a simple one - but is also one of the hardest paths. But what other choice is there, really?

(sorry for speechifying, its a terrible habit of mine :P)

[redstar2000]

Actually, old chap, I do think you'll find that wage slavery is a *form* of capitalism...that we can call feudal capitalism.

Actually, "old chap", you can call things by any name you wish...just as long as you wish to be constantly misunderstood.


And a proletarian revolution huh? that's funny, because to have a proletarian revolution, you have to have a class of people defining themselves as... drumroll... *proletarian*!!!! I haven't seen them around for some time, how many do you know of?

Quite a few. In modern (left) usage, "proletarian" is synonymous with "worker", "wage-slave", etc.

They (and their dependents) are the overwhelming majority of the population in the advanced capitalist countries...in case you hadn't noticed.


Get it through your head - political science has moved forward since Karl bloody Marx.

Well, I know bourgeois political "scientists" claim they've moved "forward"...but all I see is just recycled apologetics for class society. (And, of course, a lot of numbers...that rarely convey any useful insight.)


...to weigh every 'left' idea with what this long dead guy did or did not think about things is, simply, stunningly stupid.

Well, a matter of taste I suppose. Without endorsing everything that Marx ever said, it seems to me that the Marxist paradigm remains "the gold standard" for evaluating "left ideas".

Certainly far superior to the banalities of bourgeois political "science".


Why don't you try looking at new ideas for once, seeing how old definitions can be c/ped [sic ?] to create new ways of mapping reality, and move forward into the 21st century.

The problem with "new ideas" is that, so often, they turn out to be old ideas in fresh costumes.

And we all, of course, move forward into the 21st century whether we like it or not...the arrow of time is unidirectional.


Just try it - imagine the term capital refers to labour as well as finance; imagine that capitalism refers to a state where the two are combined; this capitalism would then rather naturally evolve into a socialist state, *without* violent revolution, and *without* handing over all power to the political elite running the State.

No, that would not happen. You cannot unify capital and labor by a change in vocabulary.

Your idea is impractical...but even if it were practical, it would devolve back into ordinary capitalism.


Don't you think if Marx had considered this, he would likely have preferred it?

No. Proudhon had some ideas along these lines -- the working class "buying out" the capitalist class -- and Marx thought it was nonsense.

So do I.


Remember that Marx stated that *he* was not a marxist, and that he couldn't stand them - does *that* sound like someone who wanted his ideas slavishly followed, or someone who would prefer them to be constantly evolved and improved.

He certainly wished for his ideas to be improved and even superceded...but with better ideas, not worse ones.

Your "idea" is worse...in fact it makes no sense at all.


He certainly never believed he was infallible - so why do others?

Beats me! But I don't think Marx was "infallible" and have said so on many occasions.

On the other hand, he approaches "infallibility" much closer than you or the bourgeois political "scientists" that you evidently admire.

Isaac Newton was "infallible"...compared to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[ComradeRed]

Redstar, before I forget, I was looking on your site, and the article "who will clean the sewers" and you said that people would receive "social awards", and they would go at the head of the list for desired goods; isn't this creating a class society? Doesn't it create a "special" elite of socially unpleasent job-holders which receive more? Just curious on the response... (BTW, where is redgreenleft?)

But is there any way that we could speed up the revolution, or a way to a socialist revolution?

[redstar2000]

Redstar, before I forget, I was looking on your site, and the article "who will clean the sewers" and you said that people would receive "social awards", and they would go at the head of the list for desired goods; isn't this creating a class society?

No, because (1) They would not get more than others or better than others...they'd just get their's sooner; and (2) they would have no "state power" to take from others more than their share.

Who Will Clean the Sewers? (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083202823&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

RedGreenLeft was a message board that no longer exists.


But is there any way that we could speed up the revolution, or a way to a socialist revolution?

There doesn't seem to be any way to "speed up" history in any more than marginal respects.

Sorry about that...but that seems the way things work.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[gnuneo]

Actually, "old chap", you can call things by any name you wish...just as long as you wish to be constantly misunderstood.


understanding has to be built - every generation, every group, every individual has to define what terms mean... otherwise no progress is ever made.

'democracy' would still mean the rule of the landed aristocrcy, for instance.


Quite a few. In modern (left) usage, "proletarian" is synonymous with "worker", "wage-slave", etc.

They (and their dependents) are the overwhelming majority of the population in the advanced capitalist countries...in case you hadn't noticed.


oh, i'm sorry i thought you understood marxist thought. did you skip the part of Class Awareness? *you* can call them what they wish, but if they are defining themselves as bourgiue then you can kiss your 'proletarian revolution' goodbye.

and, as i said, i havent met many proletarians recently, despite living in a 'socialist workers paradise'.


Well, I know bourgeois political "scientists" claim they've moved "forward"...but all I see is just recycled apologetics for class society. (And, of course, a lot of numbers...that rarely convey any useful insight.)

a lot of 'class enemy' polical and economic scientists have read marx, and learned what they need from him... your response of ignoring what your 'enemy' is doing is a prime example of why the 'Left' has lost so much ground in the last few decades.

Having said that i do actually agree with your main point, most 'scientists' are indeed just apologists for the status quo, partly perhaps becuase they havent been exposed to alternative views, partly becuase of the class bias inherent in education, and partly becuse of close minded idiots who dont tackle the mainstream ideas, instead rejecting them as 'bourguie' without contemplating if they have any merit.

but then dinosaurs died out as well.


Well, a matter of taste I suppose. Without endorsing everything that Marx ever said, it seems to me that the Marxist paradigm remains "the gold standard" for evaluating "left ideas".

Certainly far superior to the banalities of bourgeois political "science".


eerily enough, you just put your finger right on the button. The gold standard has been phased out, in case you hadnt noticed. Marx's ideas are only one set of values to interpret events and history - whilst they are superiior to many, they clealry had flaws - who in their right minds would actually want to be a proletariat under a 'vanguard of the revolution' taking all poewr into their hands?

such an idea deserves to die a death even more than the gold standard did.


The problem with "new ideas" is that, so often, they turn out to be old ideas in fresh costumes.

very true - as the saying goes, "there is nothing new under the sun", have you ever wondered which ideas marx plundered and redressed for his theories? dialectical struggle, vanguards of revolutions, state control - yuk.



And we all, of course, move forward into the 21st century whether we like it or not...the arrow of time is unidirectional.


no. most peoples minds are not in the 21st century, they are stuck in some past epoch, cold war, nationalism, racism, sexism, state control over all facets of life, christianity v islam - many are the stupidities of the past people still beleive in.

on top of which, modern physics teaches that time is not only not uni-directional, it is entirely individual, everyone expereinces different time/space.


or is this more bourguie philosphising that a good marxist materialist rejects?


No, that would not happen. You cannot unify capital and labor by a change in vocabulary.

actually, to refer to modern science again (sorry), second order cybernetics takes as its standopint that a change in vocabulary changes our beleif pattern, paradigms, and our paradigms determine what we beleive can be done, and what is impossible.

have you never wondered why the gay movements fought so hard to 'reclaim' the term gay back, when they could just make up new words?

our language, and our individual understand of what the words mean, determines our individual universe, to a very large degree.




Your idea is impractical...but even if it were practical, it would devolve back into ordinary capitalism.


why? if it were illegal to purchase others labour, as it is illegal to purchase slaves, then its quite hard to see how it would degenrate back into feudal capitalism... can you elaborate?


No. Proudhon had some ideas along these lines -- the working class "buying out" the capitalist class -- and Marx thought it was nonsense.

So do I.

ways and means. in todays largely small scale, largely service sector economies, it would appear to be quite easy - especially if the govt were supporting it. (admittedly, that is *the* sticking point, i do not dispute this).


He certainly wished for his ideas to be improved and even superceded...but with better ideas, not worse ones.

Your "idea" is worse...in fact it makes no sense at all.


many do not beleive so. you are entitled to your own opinions of course. Unlike in the few attempted 'marxist' states, i would not kill you for having different opinions to mine.

[Dune Dx]

gnuneo - what we do does not affect the world I know your a teacher so your paid to drill this into kids but its rubbish no individual can change the world.

And what people on this site regularily forget is what capatilism is it is the right to run your own business regretably this is inseprable from materialism. So inless your disagree with people running there own business stop saying its so bad - and to make things clear I disagree with capatilism and I dont think people should run their own businesses.

A proletariot revolt is not likely in the time of Marx the worker was very aware of his/her exploitation where as today workers are comftable with their exploitation.

[redstar2000]

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you understood marxist thought. Did you skip the part of Class Awareness? *You* can call them what they wish, but if they are defining themselves as bourgeois, then you can kiss your 'proletarian revolution' goodbye.

The Marxist paradigm posits that the proletariat will become "a class for itself" as a consequence of the normal course of capitalist development.

Up to now, we have seen, admittedly, very little of that.

Nevertheless, when people are given the opportunity to rank themselves and one of the choices is "working class", that's what most people (correctly) pick.

They only pick "middle class" when the working class option is excluded...inspite of decades of bourgeois propaganda to the contrary.

So we'll see what happens.


...your response of ignoring what your 'enemy' is doing is a prime example of why the 'Left' has lost so much ground in the last few decades.

Well, I try to "keep up"...but not very hard. For all the pretensions, the ideas of the class enemy are...not very original.


...and partly because of close-minded idiots who don't tackle the mainstream ideas, instead rejecting them as 'bourgeois' without contemplating if they have any merit.

Well, I am "close-minded" about the "ideas" of the class enemy. I never found any "merit" in their ideas...and after a few decades, one largely ceases to bother.

Besides, they change (at least their costumes) on an annual basis, as you know. This year's "blockbuster theory" will be next year's "old stuff".

Perhaps this is one of those things that can only be learned through experience.


But then dinosaurs died out as well.

Yeah, they argued with a meteor...and lost.


The gold standard has been phased out, in case you hadn't noticed.

Yes, they had to do that...in order to erect an enormous structure of financial "derivatives" -- in Marx's phrase "fictitious capital".

On the other hand, there's no requirement that we give up an "intellectual gold standard"...as we have no need to make idealistic fictions look "real".

In fact, it's very much in our interest to do the opposite -- to expose capitalism's version of "reality" as fictitious.


Marx's ideas are only one set of values to interpret events and history - whilst they are superior to many, they clearly had flaws - who in their right minds would actually want to be a proletariat under a 'vanguard of the revolution' taking all power into their hands?

A typical error: assuming the dictatorship of a Leninist vanguard party "is" "Marxist".

It's not.


Have you ever wondered which ideas Marx plundered and redressed for his theories? Dialectical struggle, vanguards of revolutions, state control - yuk.

Actually, many of his "core ideas" came from the bourgeois economists of his day -- their ideas were still new then.

The embarrassment of "dialectics" came from the Prussian windbag Hegel, of course. I don't accept that sort of mysticism any more and I don't think there are any serious Marxists that do.

The "vanguard" is a strictly Leninist idea.

The idea of "state control" of the economy was an extension of a prevailing idea of the bourgeois revolutions of the 19th century. It was thought then that a strong, centralized state would serve to break-down all the backwardness of isolated localities.

That's no longer a factor in modern capitalism of any consequence...hence "state control" is an anachronism.


...many are the stupidities of the past people still believe in.

True, but what about the stupidities of the present?


Actually, to refer to modern science again (sorry), second order cybernetics takes as its standpoint that a change in vocabulary changes our belief pattern, paradigms, and our paradigms determine what we believe can be done, and what is impossible.

One can only imagine what wonders are to be found lurking in "first order cybernetics". :lol:

Nevertheless, there is the little matter of objective material reality. What you "believe" is "possible" or "impossible" is a result, no doubt, of your paradigm...but that does not change what is really possible or impossible.

You may sincerely "believe" that you can unify capital and labor with a change in terminology...but material reality prevails.


If it were illegal to purchase others labour, as it is illegal to purchase slaves, then it's quite hard to see how it would degenerate back into feudal [sic] capitalism...can you elaborate?

Sure. The "devil" is in the mechanism of the market itself...no matter how you arrange your "starting point".

In any economy where "things" are bought and sold, each person has a clear and direct incentive to accumulate currency.

The more money you have or can obtain, the better you will live.

This applied in the old USSR with the same force that it applies in capitalist Russia today...or any country where commodity circulation takes place.

What you can do to get that money changes from place to place, according to the way you've arranged the details of your economy.

For example, consider an economy where the workers in each workplace actually own the workplace...but what they produce goes onto the "free market" and the profits, if any, are divided up equally among all the workers.

Within such a workplace, workers will have a direct incentive to "take more than their share" -- because the more you have, the better you will live. One can establish legal barriers to this, of course, but "laws are made to be broken" and human ingenuity should never be underestimated.

When this sort of system was actually attempted in Yugoslavia, the consequence was a "two-tier" labor force. The veteran workers at each workplace voted themselves "full shares" of the profits; the newbies were just paid an ordinary wage. It was a rare case of "workers exploiting workers" except that what was really happening is that the senior workers were transforming themselves into petty bourgeois...small capitalists.

And some were not so small. Workplaces in such a market economy vary in their profitability...and the more profitable begin to absorb the less profitable. The workers who get absorbed end up at the bottom while the workers who do the absorbing end up at the top.

Of course, those who like to "tinker" with market economies can always think of another ad hoc law to stop this or that abuse...what they can't stop is the constant regeneration of bourgeois ideology by the operation of a market economy.

And sooner or later, the logic of the market prevails...and capitalism is restored.

Unless you abolish the market, you'll end up with capitalism again.


Unlike in the few attempted 'marxist' states, I would not kill you for having different opinions to mine.

Your muddled conflation of the ideas of Marx and Lenin is, though not a capital offense, certainly regrettable.


In the time of Marx the worker was very aware of his/her exploitation whereas today, workers are comfortable with their exploitation.

Disputable. In the time of Marx, most workers were illiterate, superstitious, etc. I suspect that there is much more awareness of exploitation today...the obstacle is that very few have any idea what to do about it.

There are too few real communists around to tell them.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[pandora]

Originally posted by Rasta [email protected] 4 2004, 10:13 PM
no your wrong, marx was right, only marx (a genius in terms of economics) would know that capitalism will collapse! It is happening now, I can feel it :)

Capitalism is based on politics and economics, and as the quality of life for the proletariot depletes, people will rise up, people are getting tired and sick of being exploited!

Jack is sick of jumping over the candle stick, after he burns his nuts, he is going to be pissed off, now thats radical!

peace yall
I agree with you Rasta Sapien, I feel it too, whether or not it tries to destroy the planet on it's way out remains to be seen. I hope communism or at least socialism follows and not chaos ala French Revolution followed by facism.

Perhaps that's why boards like these are so important, so people today can work together to interpret Marx and other philosophers into a useable pedagogy for these times.

In some ways Marx was very much 19th Century, but he like other wise philosophers of our time had excellent ideas on land use.

I do worry when I look at corruption in Mexico, as a response to socialist procedures, but blame most of that on US interests.

Do not know if the solution will be more communal lands with limited plots or plots not larger than 140 acres. One thing ranchers have said to me which I agree with is the worst abusers of the land in the US are the government.

It doesn't matter if all the land is nationalized if the government has a bunch of selfish pigs like in Stalinist Russia only concerned with their own self interest, and not giving a shit for whole communities like the Ukraine.

I think Emma Goldman and Rosa Luxembourg were correct in their criticism of the USSR. Cuba has done better, but it is not a perfect system, we need to keep working.

The things we write, it we ever get this conversation more focused could support doctrines in the future, this support network is not empty drivel, it is the cafe for the future.

[gnuneo]

pandora, great words.

I truly think that internet forums are one of the greatest hopes for the future, in that they allow ideas to be transmitted over great distances, between the rare individuals who manage to question the status quo, and yet all too often fall into the trap of simply beleiving what they are informed are 'good' opinions to hold.


however i do not agree wthat we are living in 'capitalism' - we are instead living in feaudal capitalism, an intermediate stage before capitalism itself, a system where labour capital and finance capital are united, and cooperatives become the norm for our economies - handing the economic decision making to state beaurocrats, or to inherited, feudal style families, has been shown to be inneficient, and creates subhuman systems at worse - even initiating genocide, as you mentioned in stalinist ukraine.

power has to be embedded in those whose lives it affects, *all* of those people, and then we can possibly see the next evolution of the human race. (i've never understood how anyone could wish for events to REvovle - going back to where we started from seems a little retarded, stalins REvolution back to czarist principles, mao's REvolution back to imperial chinese principles --- surely its quite obvious that the term 'permanent revolution' is struggling to be understood as an 'evolution'?)

we have been sold the lie that capitalism is bad - and if we accept the definition of capitalism as "the system where economic power is transferred from generation to generation, like political power once was under kings", then its clear to see that it IS wrong.

but capitalism should not be definied as such - capitalism is where finance capital and labour capital become one and the same, no more stock markets, no more economic vampyrism by the super wealthy, and economic decicions are made by those whose lives they affect.

THIS is capitalism - the fact that such an obvious system has been almost entirely deleted from politcal discussion should indicate how deeply the ruling powers fear it.

socialism (like in sweden), where economic power is still in the hands of families, but they pay much of the wealth back to ensure anough consumption to enable the economy to grow and reduce poverty, is a VERY poor second place.