The Failings Of Marx

[kylieII]

This board is made up of Marxists. So I would assume you agree with what he wrote and thought. Therefore how do you address the areas where he failed, there is a number of other smaller areas such as religion, but in particular there are four important places in his theory where he was wrong I feel.


Firstly Marx claimed that the increased urbanisation of workers would lead to greater awareness and movements against the bourgeiosie, because the proletariat would be in contact with many people in the same situation as him. This has not come true at all, Marx failed to realise how cut off everyone remains when in towns, as Simmel around the same time-period explained.

Secondly that conditions would worsen for the proletariat, as the bourgeiosie became more efficiant(and supposedly closer to their own demise). Living conditions have improved tremendously in the last century, socially societies are more liberal, matierally there is now the welfare state in most developed countries, and wages have increased even after taking into account inflation. Working conditions too, have improved, businesses now far more regulated as to how they can treat workers.

Thirdly that as a result of the second prediction I listed, that the gap between the two classes would become bigger and bigger, and importantly more and more noticable. The opposite again has happened. The petty bourgeiosie as Marx called them have in fact increased in numbers, not dissappeared into the proletariat as he thought. The property market and financial markets in particular being places they have sought refuge.
And as for the second part of his prediction, less are aware of class differences, in fact a large school of thought now argue that there are no classes. Whether thats true or not, still many think it, oppossed to what Marx thought would occur.

And finally Marx felt the arrival of modernity would be the cause of the bourgeiosies downfall, that society constantly questioning itself would result in it turning its gaze to the ruling class. Now this did occur around the rise of the soviet union, but since then less and less interest has been put into examining the ruling class.

[STI]

1)Er... are you aware of, you know, all that trade unionism stuff and all those rebellions that the proletarians had (ie: Paris Commune)?

2)Conditions DID get worse - for a while. Then reforms started happening. Those reforms are left & leaving, as it were. Things are worse now for the workers than in, say, the early 70s. That trend will continue.

3)Nonsense. The "average" yearly income in Canada, for example, is $50 000. Compare this to, say, Donald Trump or Bill Gates. The gap is widening, it's just that the guys on top do a better job of making it appear otherwise.

4)Well, without the internet (highly modern), I probably wouldn't be a leftist right now. If I was anyway, I wouldn't be as "mature" a leftist as I am now. Modernization helps.


So I would assume you agree with what he wrote and thought

On some of the "main things", yes. Marxism, however, is not a religion. We don't have to accept *everythign* Marx said just becaue "Marx said it". We're able to throw away the crap.

[kylieII]

1)Er... are you aware of, you know, all that trade unionism stuff and all those rebellions that the proletarians had (ie: Paris Commune)?
Trade unions are very unpopular nowadays, and while there have been some riots in cities in recent years, most of them are not from people talking and plotting with each other but mob action.


2)Conditions DID get worse - for a while. Then reforms started happening. Those reforms are left & leaving, as it were. Things are worse now for the workers than in, say, the early 70s. That trend will continue.


Things are worse now for the workers than in, say, the early 70s.

Workers earn more now than in the 70's. There is less unemployment than in the 70's. Growth and interest rates are more stable now than in the 70's. Thanks to GDP growth being positive, our overall wealth has increased since the 70's. Better legislation protecting workers rights have been brought in since the 70's. Consumer watchdogs have been brought in to monitor unfair advertising, collusion, and mistreatment of consumers since the 70's.
What indicator are you using to tell if things are better or worse for workers, may I ask?


3)Nonsense. The "average" yearly income in Canada, for example, is $50 000. Compare this to, say, Donald Trump or Bill Gates. The gap is widening, it's just that the guys on top do a better job of making it appear otherwise.

One example does not prove the gap is widening.
Here are the statistics for Britain:
1949 - top 10% hold 33.2% of the wealth in the country. Middle 60% hold 54.1% of wealth. Bottom 30% hold 12.7%.
1979 - top 10% hold 26% of the wealth.
1976 - most ealthy 1% hold 21% of entire countries wealth.
1991 - Most ealthy 1% hold 17% of the entire countries wealth.
The two sets of statistics don't go right through from the 50's to the 90's, so I had to use both. But still you can see, the richest are not widening the gap.


)Well, without the internet (highly modern), I probably wouldn't be a leftist right now. If I was anyway, I wouldn't be as "mature" a leftist as I am now. Modernization helps.
I don't mean modernization, sorry. I mean modernity, the term used for the way of thinking in modern society. The idea of not accepting something just because it has always been that way, or accepting god as an excuse to do something. It's one of the defining features of the move from feudalism to capitalism, the new idea of constantly questioning and assessing everything. What Marx felt would assist the bourgeiousies downfall as well as be what they used to constantly improve profits.

[NovelGentry]

Trade unions are very unpopular nowadays, and while there have been some riots in cities in recent years, most of them are not from people talking and plotting with each other but mob action.

Actually, lots of people would really be interested in them, but they're afraid of losing their jobs or being persecuted under laws like the Taft-Hartley Act (I'm not sure how many times I have to bring this up before people realize unions are effectively illegal, at least here in the states).


Workers earn more now than in the 70's. There is less unemployment than in the 70's. Growth and interest rates are more stable now than in the 70's. Thanks to GDP growth being positive, our overall wealth has increased since the 70's. Better legislation protecting workers rights have been brought in since the 70's. Consumer watchdogs have been brought in to monitor unfair advertising, collusion, and mistreatment of consumers since the 70's.
What indicator are you using to tell if things are better or worse for workers, may I ask?

Actually, when you judge for inflation the minimum wage has gone down... this page has some proof of that aswell as other statistics. Also, this page goes as far as to take into account what is considered the average minimum wage, federally speaking, the minimum wage is even lower.

http://www.adaction.org/mwbook.html

Unemployment is .7% higher than it was in the 1970s.

If by interest rates being stable you mean they've gone DOWN then yes, they are. But interests rates are not stable, they actually shot down quite a bit because we needed something to jumpstart our economy.

Overall wealth will increase from the 1970s just because the population will increase. 10 years from now our overall wealth will have increased too... the question isn't whether ot not the wealth is increasing, it's whose hands is it going into.

What legislation are you talking about?

We all know how good consumer watchdogs are... you remember that itme Enron robbed thousands of stock holders? how bout that time the justice department (aswell as every state but massachusetts) dropped it's lawsuit against the monopolistic practices of Microsoft?

I don't think I need any more indicators than what I have already shown.


The two sets of statistics don't go right through from the 50's to the 90's, so I had to use both. But still you can see, the richest are not widening the gap.

Your statistics show little more than two years differences, they do not show the general nature of things. Nor do they show a vastly decreased gap.


1979 - top 10% hold 26% of the wealth.
1991 - Most ealthy 1% hold 17% of the entire countries wealth.

10% owning 26% is not better than 1% holding 17%, in fact, it's worse.

Edit: Oh, and btw, that bill they talk about to raise the minimum wage by $1 in that link.... it never happened.

[Monty Cantsin]

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29795

talks about the points you've made.

Don’t you hate it how people try and say History has proved Marx Wrong? It’s like calling the game before it over.

[kylieII]

Actually, lots of people would really be interested in them, but they're afraid of losing their jobs or being persecuted under laws like the Taft-Hartley Act (I'm not sure how many times I have to bring this up before people realize unions are effectively illegal, at least here in the states).
I don't specifically know about the USA, but in the UK many industries have unions set up, but simply few people wish to join them. And certainly they are not illegal, thre is regulations regarding giving notice on strikes and so on, but as long as these are followed they are perfectly legal.
The laws that have been passed to restrict them are alot in response to how unions abused their power, trying to restrict who could be employed in an industry, effectivelly trying to create a monopoly on labour.





Actually, when you judge for inflation the minimum wage has gone down... this page has some proof of that aswell as other statistics. Also, this page goes as far as to take into account what is considered the average minimum wage, federally speaking, the minimum wage is even lower.

http://www.adaction.org/mwbook.html

The minimum wage is no indication of peoples wages - people do not all earn just the minimum wage.


Unemployment is .7% higher than it was in the 1970s.
My mistake. Still it has stabilized compared to recent decades.


If by interest rates being stable you mean they've gone DOWN then yes, they are. But interests rates are not stable, they actually shot down quite a bit because we needed something to jumpstart our economy.

Perhaps in the US, I don't know specifics about the US economy, but in the UK interest rates have held stable for quite some time now. This being good for both the consumer and businesses who do not have to worry about higher costs on loans, etc.



Overall wealth will increase from the 1970s just because the population will increase. 10 years from now our overall wealth will have increased too... the question isn't whether ot not the wealth is increasing, it's whose hands is it going into
Ok then, Real GDP per capita in the US for 1970 = $18,394
Real GDP per capita for the US in 2000 = $34,758
That takes into account both population and inflation.
Real GDP per capita in the Uk 1970 = £7,611
Real GDP per capita in the UK 2000 = £14,145



What legislation are you talking about?

We all know how good consumer watchdogs are... you remember that itme Enron robbed thousands of stock holders? how bout that time the justice department (aswell as every state but massachusetts) dropped it's lawsuit against the monopolistic practices of Microsoft?
You are right they're not perfect, but certainly compared to a few decades ago things have improved.
Specific legislation? The creation of the Competition Commision in 1998 to look into mergers, take-overs, and general markets to investigate any possible collusion. Quite a good job they are doing too, considering the breadth of what is asked of them. As I write this they are investigating 14 possible cases of unfair trade.




Your statistics show little more than two years differences, they do not show the general nature of things. Nor do they show a vastly decreased gap.
10% owning 26% is not better than 1% holding 17%, in fact, it's worse.
How is it that is it worse, it shows that wealth in the top percentages is falling as a proportion of overall wealth. They also do not show the gap widening, as Marx claimed, which is the point of my original post. That simply important predictions Marx made have not become true.


http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29795

talks about the points you've made.

Don’t you hate it how people try and say History has proved Marx Wrong? It’s like calling the game before it over.
What is to say it isn't over. People such as Fukuyama(possibly spelt wrong), have indeed claimed that we are at the 'end of history'. And that while what Marx said about alienation may be true, his predictions about how modernity would cause yet another change in society and the mode of production were wrong. And thus there will not be a further development in society from capitalism, ie history having ended. Essentially what I think too.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Monty [email protected] 15 2004, 10:12 PM
http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29795

talks about the points you've made.

Don’t you hate it how people try and say History has proved Marx Wrong? It’s like calling the game before it over.
Dude, take a look around you. Not only is the game over, but even the people who stay after to clean the stadium have gone home.

[God of Imperia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 04:17 PM
Ok then, Real GDP per capita in the US for 1970 = $18,394
Real GDP per capita for the US in 2000 = $34,758
That takes into account both population and inflation.
Real GDP per capita in the Uk 1970 = £7,611
Real GDP per capita in the UK 2000 = £14,145

So, what do you want to proove? That people got richer? Did you think that maybe everything got more expensive? And anyway, an average says nothing, it's just an average. Maybe 5% got that rich that it seems that everyone got richer ...
It's the same with statistics, you can proove anything if you want.

[dr wtf]

Originally posted by God of [email protected] 16 2004, 07:00 PM
So, what do you want to proove? That people got richer? Did you think that maybe everything got more expensive?

Ok then, Real GDP per capita in the US for 1970 = $18,394
Real GDP per capita for the US in 2000 = $34,758
That takes into account both population and inflation.
Real GDP per capita in the Uk 1970 = £7,611
Real GDP per capita in the UK 2000 = £14,145
You win at economics.

Also yes, that is the point, people have gotten richer. This is the opposite of what Marx predicted. And no you cannot prove anything with statistics.

[NovelGentry]

I'm not going to sit here and argue points agianst the UK because frankly I have no clue. But if indeed what is said is true about the UK I can say that it is an anomoly and does not represent the majority of capitalist nations in which you need little more than to look at the population itself to see how the rich get rich and the poor get poorer... no statistics required.


The minimum wage is no indication of peoples wages - people do not all earn just the minimum wage.

In case you weren't aware, which you obviously aren't, a huge amount of working class Americans make minimum wage. Because of this most are forced to take up more than one job. Remember state minimum wages can differ.

Those people who do not make minimum wage have been seeing themselves go through extra-company demotions. This means they get fired from one job and rehired at another job for much less. This trend has been continuing in markets where blue collar and even some white collar jobs are being outsourced. In short, the petit-bourgeoisie is being slowly pushed downward, and the true bourgeoisie continue to rise as everyone, including the petit-bourgoisie fall. It may be true that the middle class is growing, but there will come a time when that middle class will have finished being demoted, and they'll soon be lower class. Thus creating a HUGE gap and two major classes at ends with each other with very little middle ground.


My mistake. Still it has stabilized compared to recent decades.

I'm not sure why "stabalizing" is so good in your book. If every ten years it raises .5% exactly it is by all means stable... it's not only stable, it's predictable, but that doesn't mean it's getting better. I'd rather have it become "unstable" and drop towards 0% than remain stable at 11%.


stable for quite some time now. This being good for both the consumer and businesses who do not have to worry about higher costs on loans, etc.

Once again we here about this great "stability"... a stable economy, hell, a booming economy doesn't mean that the working class isn't struggling. The bourgeosie could single handedly save their own economy by buying their own goods and putting that money "back into the company." Which is kinda hilarious because it would in essence only be putting that money right back into their own pocket. When you look at how much more corporate executives are making than say retail workers at wal-mart. No matter what kind of recession, no one should ever have to "lose thier job"... the corporate execs could pay for those lost workers 10 times over and still have enough to buy a new house every year.


Ok then, Real GDP per capita in the US for 1970 = $18,394
Real GDP per capita for the US in 2000 = $34,758

http://ingrimayne.saintjoe.edu/econ/Measuring/GNP2.html



The creation of the Competition Commision in 1998 to look into mergers, take-overs, and general markets to investigate any possible collusion. Quite a good job they are doing too, considering the breadth of what is asked of them. As I write this they are investigating 14 possible cases of unfair trade.

Which committee is it that fights the WTO and NAFTA? Out of all the possible multi-billion dollar international companies you're gonna tell me that they can only nab 14? "Unfair trade" is very often a bourgeoisie protection against bourgeoisie, how about unfair labor practices? Hiring of immegrants and outsourcing labor for less than $.50 a day. It is by no measure a way of protecting the working class from the upper class.


How is it that is it worse, it shows that wealth in the top percentages is falling as a proportion of overall wealth. They also do not show the gap widening, as Marx claimed, which is the point of my original post. That simply important predictions Marx made have not become true.

Assume for a minute that the 26% is spread evenly across the 10%, this means 1% should have 2.6% of the wealth. So with no increase in what percentage owns what percentage of the wealth, 1% in the future should still own 2.6% (once again, assuming no increase). Yet, amazingly that 1% all the sudden owns 17%. Ok, so let's assume that 1% owned 17% WHILE the 10% owned 26%, that means that the other 9% owns 9% of the wealth, assuming once again this excess is spread evenly, each of that 1% only owns 1%. 1% and 17% is not a big enough GAP for you? It's a gap of 16% of the wealth. Scary.


What is to say it isn't over?

The fact that as bad as it has gotten, it has not gotten bad enough for people to revolt. So if you ask me, we have a long way to go. People aren't going to just sit around and take oppression, the problem is that most people don't feel they are oppressed, which may very well mean they are not oppressed enough. But that day will come, the bourgeoisie, however, is very good at hiding oppression, so it may take awhile.

I'm not sure why you would believe that it's the "end of history" and that this is it. If history has taught you anything it should be that it has no end.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 16 2004, 06:05 PM
Dude, take a look around you. Not only is the game over, but even the people who stay after to clean the stadium have gone home.
“Dude” read the article and understand why it’s not over. Capitalism is not going to last forever it’s a historical inevitability. The question is though what’s going to replace capitalism?

[Dio]

Depending on who the players are, capitalism may take its ultimate shape, which is fascism.

[STI]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 16 2004, 06:05 PM
Dude, take a look around you. Not only is the game over, but even the people who stay after to clean the stadium have gone home.
Dude, take a look at this thread. Your comment was entirely irrelivant.

[Nordic Rebel]

Well now that people started quoting statistics it would be interesting to see some numbers on the development of median income (of course takin in to consideration inflation). Because growth in averages don't show where the growth actully is I'd recommend using medians which are far more informative. So if you want to show that there is growth that benefits all one should show increase in median income and also in the lowest quarter incomes(growth in lowest 1/4 does show in median growth but median growth could be caused by other factors too).

[Monty Cantsin]

if you want to see where growth benefits you should look at the lorenze curve and gini coefficent.

basically it goes the closer the gini coefficient is to zero the greater the degree of equality and the closer it lies to 1 the greater the degree of inequality.

so in australia in 1999-00 it was at o.45 (it's geting worse but thats the lastest date i have on the fact sheet infront of me).

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by kylieII
Firstly Marx claimed that the increased urbanisation of workers would lead to greater awareness and movements against the bourgeoisie, because the proletariat would be in contact with many people in the same situation as him.

I think it was more the growth of very large factories that Marx thought would have this result.

In any event, Marx failed to anticipate both the conscious development of suburbanization and the invention of the electric motor (making it possible to build smaller factories anywhere that electric power was available).

It's not yet known if suburbanization is a "permanent" feature of capitalism...there is some resistance to it in the advanced capitalist countries.

Smaller factories in widely-dispersed locations, however, does seem to be a "permanent" feature of capitalism. Indeed, the capitalist strategy here seems to be one of seeking rural locations...perhaps as much because the workers are perceived to be more "docile" as because they'll work harder for lower wages.

Working strongly against this trend of social isolation is the internet, of course...a tool with the potential to bring workers of the whole world together.


Secondly that conditions would worsen for the proletariat, as the bourgeoisie became more efficient (and supposedly closer to their own demise).

I'm not a statistician, so I'll avoid the numbers debate...official statistics are probably not all that reliable anyway.

Instead, I'll just remark on what I've seen in my own lifetime.

When I was young, a working class guy could own a house and a late-model car, support a wife and a couple of kids, take lengthy vacations, etc.

What I see now is that couples must both work long hours, run up enormous credit card debts, and constantly borrow on the equity in their homes (if they have them) in order to "maintain" the same standards...or at least a decent approximation.

Regardless of the "official numbers", I think things are getting worse.

And will continue to do so.


Thirdly that as a result of the second prediction I listed, that the gap between the two classes would become bigger and bigger, and importantly more and more noticeable.

Here the "official numbers" do confirm Marx. The gap is growing substantially.

As to "noticeability", matters are "mixed". After World War I, the ruling class began to withdraw somewhat from the public spotlight and that trend, with ups and downs, has continued.

Most working people "know about the rich" from the dummyvision...a less than reliable source.

Few of us are ever likely to see, first-hand, how the ruling class actually lives (or learn what it really costs).

But as "gated communities" become more numerous, as more and more "public" places become "off-limits" to ordinary working people, I think the class divisions will become much clearer.


The petty bourgeoisie as Marx called them have in fact increased in numbers, not disappeared into the proletariat as he thought.

In Marx's day, the petty-bourgeoisie were truly petty: small shopkeepers, individual craftsmen, self-employed professionals, etc.

Most of them have disappeared.

There is a "new" petty bourgeoisie that has emerged to take its place...and, for the moment, it is quite numerous. People who speculate in rental property, for example.

Are they a significant class? Do they "carry weight" in modern capitalist society?

I don't think so.


And finally Marx felt the arrival of modernity would be the cause of the bourgeoisie's downfall, that society constantly questioning itself would result in it turning its gaze to the ruling class.

This has happened "enough" to prompt a direct response from ruling class ideologues...namely post-modernism.

I think that with the emergence of the internet that we've seen an explosion of criticism of the ruling class and its ideas.

And that it's only just begun.

:redstar2000:

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

[dr wtf]

http://ingrimayne.saintjoe.edu/econ/Measuring/GNP2.html
Wait, so at first you argue that GDP cannot be accepted because it doesn't take into account population, but now you are saying you no longer support GDP as a measurement tool at all? Hey thanks for saying that to start with.
As for GDP, yeah it has problems, namely the black unofficial market isnt counted. There is no way though that this unofficial market is as large as the legal markets, though. And what this means is that while the unofficial markets sales may have fell, which would mean GDP inreases would be lower, GDP changes would remain positive, because like I said its a smaller market than the one measured.
Plus the second hand market, which forms a large part of the unofficial market, has shrunk a lot in recent years, meaning its even less significant now.
As a side note the article seems to get muddled up between GDP and GNP, the difference being one counts foreign investment into the country's firms and the other doesn't.

But yeah GDP is not entirely accurate, but the increases between decades is large enough to assume at least some increase occured.



In case you weren't aware, which you obviously aren't, a huge amount of working class Americans make minimum wage. Because of this most are forced to take up more than one job. Remember state minimum wages can differ.
Well you yourself just pointed out the problem with this. If they are working more than one job, then their income has indeed increased from the 70's where multiple jobs was less common. Also note how now it is possible for people to do more than one job, something previously unthought of due to longer working hours and more labourous jobs.


It may be true that the middle class is growing, but there will come a time when that middle class will have finished being demoted, and they'll soon be lower class. Thus creating a HUGE gap and two major classes at ends with each other with very little middle ground.

Well ok, but I disagree that the middle class has came from the ruling class. The bourgeiosie are, as Marxism itself claims, small in numbers. And how big is the middle class? Very, possibly in the US and UK larger than even the working class now. But im just guessing there. In any case its way to large to be made up of all former bourgeiosie, even with the population explosion.
Personally I think that the middle class has instead emerged from the working class. Government has in the last half century pushed for small business to develop, and at the same time increased accessability to education. Both these have contributed a lot to the new middle class in my opinion.




I'm not sure why "stabalizing" is so good in your book. If every ten years it raises .5% exactly it is by all means stable... it's not only stable, it's predictable, but that doesn't mean it's getting better. I'd rather have it become "unstable" and drop towards 0% than remain stable at 11%.

A stable unemployment rate means that it won't suddenly rocket pushing us into a reccession, plus all the other bad social things that come with having high unemployment(eg poverty). And also that we won't suddenly have it fall by a huge amount, making lots and lots of unfilled job placements(the UK is already in the situation in fact, full employment), raising the potential of inflation dramatically.


The bourgeosie could single handedly save their own economy by buying their own goods and putting that money "back into the company."
I guess considering how business is continuing to expand in the UK and US must mean it is doing this already.


The fact that as bad as it has gotten, it has not gotten bad enough for people to revolt. So if you ask me, we have a long way to go. People aren't going to just sit around and take oppression, the problem is that most people don't feel they are oppressed, which may very well mean they are not oppressed enough. But that day will come, the bourgeoisie, however, is very good at hiding oppression, so it may take awhile.
I'm not sure why you would believe that it's the "end of history" and that this is it. If history has taught you anything it should be that it has no end.

Capitalism is not going to last forever it’s a historical inevitability. The question is though what’s going to replace capitalism?
Well, this shows our different views good I guess. I'm not a Marxist, so I don't subscribe to the Marxist view of historical materialism. It raises some good points, but I don't think that just because of conflicts in society, that the society will have to change at some point in the future. I don't believe in the view that history has no end, or that change will happen for the sake of change, I feel the conditions of current society and its trends mean large change will infact not happen again.


Depending on who the players are, capitalism may take its ultimate shape, which is fascism.
Yeah ok thats great thanks.

redstar2000: interesting points, basically what i was looking for, how it is you think society has changed to cause it to develop not how Marx thought it would. But about Postmodernism, can you explain what you mean more? It's a subject im quite interested in, but i'm not sure what you mean by the ruling class having responded to modernity with postmodernism exactly.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Monty Cantsin+Oct 15 2004, 10:12 PM--> (Monty Cantsin @ Oct 15 2004, 10:12 PM) Don’t you hate it how people try and say History has proved Marx Wrong? It’s like calling the game before it over. [/b]
Erm, didn't Marx do the same thing with capitalism ?


[email protected] 17 2004, 12:38 AM
Depending on who the players are, capitalism may take its ultimate shape, which is fascism.
Not this crap again.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 10:04 PM
This has happened "enough" to prompt a direct response from ruling class ideologues...namely post-modernism.
Post modernism is your invention, not ours. It's a reaction to the despair many left-wing ideologues were filled with when the USSR collapsed and the reality that communism didn't work finally began to sink in.

Many of them decided to soldier on regardless. While others decided that because communism didn't work, then no system deserved to work and they set their sights on nihilism as a goal, both philosophicaly and politically. Take a good look at the main post-modernist's political views, Redstar, and you'll find that they're all socialists of one form or another.

That is no coincidence.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by dr wtf+--> (dr wtf)But about Postmodernism, can you explain what you mean more? It's a subject I'm quite interested in, but I'm not sure what you mean by the ruling class having responded to modernity with postmodernism exactly.[/b]

It's not my field, but my understanding is that post-modernism views all ideas & systems of ideas as "social constructs" -- none of which is any more "truthful" than any other.

Objective reality is "inherently unknowable".

Even science is just another "construct"...no more likely to be true than the babble of a store-front preacher and no less either.

Indeed, "truth" is a meaningless concept.

Post-modernism does "borrow" from Marxism the concept that ideas are constructed to gain material advantage (that's the sense in which it is "ours", Moneybags)...but it rejects any idea of direction in history or ideology.

Thus I regard it as a "bourgeois ideology" because it renders the goal of conscious social change in a chosen direction completely absurd...we don't even know (and can't know) what social reality is, much less change it in some preferred direction.

As someone put it, life in post-modern society is like living on a movie set...with cameras and microphones everywhere. It's all illusion of one sort or another. We "watch" ourselves "living".

This is alienation on a truly grand scale...beyond anything that even Marx anticipated.

In its turgid verbosity it is, of course, "for intellectuals only"...many of its proponents are "stars" at major western universities.

But it's been "trickling down" for quite a while...think DisneyWorld or one of the new mega-casinos at Las Vegas -- where you can "experience" places like "Venice", "Paris", or "New York" without ever going to those cities or having any idea what they're "really" like.

There is no "reality".


Professor Moneybags
Take a good look at the main post-modernist's political views, Redstar, and you'll find that they're all socialists of one form or another.

I think you've been here long enough to absorb the basic Marxist insight that what people may call themselves has no necessary relationship to what they actually are.

I mean, do you accept George W. Bush's claim to be "chosen by God"? :lol:

:redstar2000:

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

[NovelGentry]

....first you argue that GDP cannot be accepted....now you are saying you no longer support GDP as a measurement tool at all?

I agree completely, intellect is not a strong point for most people.


but the increases between decades is large enough to assume at least some increase occured.

But once again, these increases don't mean people are better off, just means they're making more money than they used to, my mom makes more money than she did 3 years ago. She works 2 more nights at her night job and one more day at her day job.


Well you yourself just pointed out the problem with this.

That was my intention.


Personally I think that the middle class has instead emerged from the working class.

Earlier I would agree, but the trend now seems to be a push of everyone downward, incluidng some of the "weaker" bourgeoisie. The problem with you bring Marx into this is that Marx didn't really divide classes like we do... and the "middle class" didn't really exist. My personal opinion is that the middle class is below the petty bourgeoisie even. This is where I see the demotion from, mainly the petty bourgeoisie. Eventually I do think it will be from the bourgeoisie itself. I, however, don't think it's safe to say that these increases in the middle class are from people moving up. Not enough people get that lucky.

If anything it can be an accounted shift in firstly what defines middle class, and secondly but possibly more importantly, how does one (on either side) become middle class -- and what are the possibilities of working class becoming middle class compared to upper class becoming middle class.


A stable unemployment rate means.....

I know damn well what it means, but I'd take an unstable unemployment rate going down over a stable one going up even by the slowest margin. I didn't ask what it meant, I asked why it was so "good."


I guess considering how business is continuing to expand in the UK and US must mean it is doing this already.

Certain business yes, other business no. It is by no means something that can sustain itself.


I don't believe in the view that history has no end

Nor do I, I just don't believe that end is now.


or that change will happen for the sake of change

Nor do I, change will happen because people will be unable to survive under the current system forever. It will happen not for it's own sake, but for the sake of human civilization.


I feel the conditions of current society and its trends mean large change will infact not happen again.

The United States is arguably the most advanced capitalist nation there is, Let's round and give it the benefit of saying it's existed for 300 years. Do we dare compare this lowly timeframe to that of Feudal England?

[dr wtf]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Oct 19 2004, 02:35 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Oct 19 2004, 02:35 PM)
[email protected] 17 2004, 10:04 PM
This has happened "enough" to prompt a direct response from ruling class ideologues...namely post-modernism.
Post modernism is your invention, not ours. It's a reaction to the despair many left-wing ideologues were filled with when the USSR collapsed and the reality that communism didn't work finally began to sink in.

Many of them decided to soldier on regardless. While others decided that because communism didn't work, then no system deserved to work and they set their sights on nihilism as a goal, both philosophicaly and politically. Take a good look at the main post-modernist's political views, Redstar, and you'll find that they're all socialists of one form or another.

That is no coincidence. [/b]
I dont have time to read the rest of the replys, but sorry this isn't the case at all. Postmodernist thought and Marxism are very much opposites.
Firstly one of the core elements of postmodernism is how society has completely split up. There is no longer any grand narratives, but infinite smaller narratives. Marxism on the other hand is the classic grand narrative, claiming class affects everything, the economic basis of society will affect all societies members.
In postmodernism such a scenario is impossible, and in fact many postmodern theorists go so far as to say society itself no longer exists, let alone has general themes throughout it. So for that reason you won't find any Marxists who feel we are in a truly postmodern era.

And secondly postmodernism is an era from which progress is impossible. With the breakdown of society into so many small groups, change to an alternate society such as communism is impossible. No change, forwards or back, will happen. Similar to what Fukuyama states. Baudrillard highlights this well when talking of the 'black hole of postmodernism', dragging everything further away from the modern era. This runs in complete opposite to the Marxist view that social change is possible, and is inevitable at some point in the future.

[Professor Moneybags]

It's not my field, but my understanding is that post-modernism views all ideas & systems of ideas as "social constructs" -- none of which is any more "truthful" than any other.

Objective reality is "inherently unknowable".

How do you know this ?


Even science is just another "construct"...no more likely to be true than the babble of a store-front preacher and no less either.

So we ought to value the babblings of a man who thinks the earth is flat the same as one who thinks it is round ? These post-modernists seem to think that science is just another religion, no more or less credible that the faith-based nonsense that preceded it.


Indeed, "truth" is a meaningless concept

Is that true ?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)Indeed, "truth" is a meaningless concept.[/b]


Professor Moneybags
Is that true?

Well, I don't think that's true...but the post-modernists do.

Of course, there's an inherent logical contradiction in what they say...but it doesn't seem to bother them.

Marxists think that objective reality is knowable...that it's possible to make true statements about it.

Post-modernists think that objective reality is inherently unknowable; instead, we "choose" certain "narratives" because we learned them from childhood or because they confer (or appear to confer) material advantages or both.

Post-modernism itself is such a "narrative", of course...and those that choose it are well-rewarded at some of the most prestigious universities in the western world.

Since, in their view, there's no such thing as objective truth, what possible difference can it make to them if post-modernism is "true" or not?

As a "tool" to attack modernist (Marxist) critiques of capitalism, post-modernism is thought to be useful by those who dispense funds to academia...and is consequently well-rewarded.

And, after all, since when has the capitalist class ever given a rat's ass about "truth"?

These days, every balance sheet and quarterly financial statement is a post-modernist document. :lol:

:redstar2000:

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

[Nas]

hey Kylie , i got your picture in my avatar ;)

[kylie]

this thread has many fallen comrades :salute: