How would you place Communism/Socialism

[VonClausewitz]

What I mean is; Modern British society is a far cry from the post-industrial-revolution society of the early 1900's, and indeed a far cry from the industrialised society of the early-middle 20th century. You don't have, to steal a quote "the huddled masses" anymore.

You obviously have those who aren't as well off as David Beckham (who worked for his current riches, you can't dispute that, no matter how immoral his paycheque), but frankly, aside from those living on the streets (a regrettable fact that people still have to), there isn't anyone That badly off that they would feel the need to turn to radical politics to improve their situation. Even the lowliest council flat dweller can afford to feed, clothe and own a car themselves, through the welfare state.

The idea that "Rich=Bad" is frankly a problematic anachronism, the aristocracy has been successfully reduced to a curious tourist attraction by successive labour, liberal minded tory and other governments. The landed, inherited wealth of Britains pretty much doesn't exist anymore. If someone is rich now, they, or their fathers have worked for it. Why should they be considered bad people ?

Would you begrudge the man who worked from private to field-marshall of the army his nice house and decent pension ? (that is around a 35-45 year period)

I'd just like to see how some of the more outdated ideas contained within various left ideas could be applied to a society wherein the majority of the 'workers' are tertiary sectory employed. Why would an office worker feel the need to burn down the palace of westminster ? (Houses of Parliament for anyone infamiliar with it's proper title)

I don't mean to sound "reactionary" to use the seemingly current catch-all word for bad nasty anti-left thought, but really, how would You apply these theories today ?

And perhaps more importantly, how would you convince the people to accept them ?
(and saying 'education' is not a valid answer, three of four of my uni lecturers are marxists, and it ruins any kind of objective debate (I take history)).

[VonClausewitz]

No-one then ? 33 reads and no-one can comment ?

[Invader Zim]

I agree, that revolution in western states is unlikely, however if the trend is the way it is, that Britain is becoming steadily more progressive, then what would you consider to be the obvious conclusion of Britains social progression?

[Goatse]

You obviously have those who aren't as well off as David Beckham (who worked for his current riches, you can't dispute that, no matter how immoral his paycheque)

Yes, playing some fucking football is a job which requires hard work, commitment and really contributes to society!

[Forward Union]

Yes, your right to an extent, thereis hardly any industrial work left in the UK, most of it has gone abroad. And yet, in the past few years there has been a large increase in membership to radical left-wing organisations.


how would You apply these theories today ?

I presume by this you mean class warfare, or struggle. Well, regardless of what work the lower classes do, or what privileges they receive they are still being exploited.

I was speaking to a teacher a few days ago, she works in the UK and teaches art and design. She was having to face the fact that she would be fired a few weeks before christmas, and would have to look after her two autistic children, using only benefits.

That's bad enough, but the reasons for her predicament were worse, she was sexually harassed at school, by colleagues and students. They harassed her at home and in the class and the bosses of the school realising she wasn't an easy target chose to fire her, they got away with it because she was "emotionally unfit to teach".

Worse things have happened to better people. There are still sweatshops in the UK, ghettos, and vat scores of people being paid under the minimum wage. Parallel to this, there are still strikes, walkouts, demos, all over the UK, and as I stated before organisations have began to rapidly grow as a result of disillusionment with the MakePovertyHistory campaign.

How would we set about fighting in the 21st century? well that's a matter of discussion, there are vast options open to us. Marxist-leninists seem to prefer backing unions and attempting to win in election campaigns, Anarchists focus on Direct action and autonomy.

Which is better? well I don't think the electoral system will achieve anything, other disagree.

I hope that answers the question?

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by VonClausewitz+Dec 2 2005, 02:15 PM--> (VonClausewitz @ Dec 2 2005, 02:15 PM) No-one then ? 33 reads and no-one can comment ? [/b]
Actually, we have more important debates on other (more serious) boards.


As for the original question: well, it will take time before class struggle increases as it shifts to the industrial sector. Of course, this requires the shifting of production from "3rd (and '2nd') world" cheap labour power back to exploitation of "western" industrial reserve army of dozens of millions unemployed.

When will this happen? Well, I guess when capital loses it's accumulation and extension ability on the "3rd world" labour market. When will this happen? Not sure. Probably few decades till we have another big economic-political crisis.


Additives Free
Marxist-leninists seem to prefer backing unions and attempting to win in election campaigns, Anarchists focus on Direct action and autonomy.

No woder "Marxist"-Leninists eventually turn to bourgeois politics.

I'm thinking of mass strike and industrial self-organization.

[kingbee]

i can only speak of personal opinion, but i believe that revolution (if and when it happens) will happen in the third world first. due to globalisation, the most extreme forms of opression now happen in third world countries.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 07:47 PM
i can only speak of personal opinion, but i believe that revolution (if and when it happens) will happen in the third world first. due to globalisation, the most extreme forms of opression now happen in third world countries.
True, but i doubt they will give a positive result. Especially if it only happens due to extensive oppression only. We've seen enough so far. On the other hand, they might cause a crisis and "boost" a revolution in the "west".

At least, that's my calculation which tries to avoid unnececary optimism and tries to stay realistic.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The industrial jobs still exist. Just in other places. Logically, that's where the revolution would be. When Karl Marx said that the revolution would occur in advanced capitalist societies, he didn't realize that soon the proletariat would all be in entirely different countries instead of the "advanced" capitalist countries.
We instead have an "advanced capitalist world".

My prediction is that the third world will undergo revolutions, leaving the first world without the cheap labor and high living conditions, prompting revolutions in those places.

[YKTMX]

but frankly, aside from those living on the streets (a regrettable fact that people still have to), there isn't anyone That badly off that they would feel the need to turn to radical politics to improve their situation.

Oh right, and what 'evidence' are you basing this on? I imagine you've done mountains of research into poverty levels in Britain (a third) and levels of consumer debt (a TRILLION pounds).

OR, are you just, as is your job, parroting things you've read/heard in the mainsteam media and have never had the inclination to question.

The single person's unemployment benefit in Britain is 88 pounds a fortnight, which around a MILLION people collect - I suppose they're 'comfortable' as well? I don't suspect you've ever "lived" on this amount. I have, it's not easy.


Even the lowliest council flat dweller can afford to feed, clothe and own a car themselves, through the welfare state.


Speaking as a lowly council flat dweller myself (yes, I can read and write! :o ). I can't, nor can my mother, afford to run a car - and she has a good job. I suppose we're just a fucking mirage though, eh?


If someone is rich now, they, or their fathers have worked for it. Why should they be considered bad people ?


'Worked for it'? No, somebody else has 'worked' to make them rich. But you'd need an elementary knowledge of economics to understand that, and I don't guess you do.

You never know, perhaps 'The Sun' will run a 'ECONOMICS: EXPLAINED!!" pullout magazine.


Would you begrudge the man who worked from private to field-marshall of the army his nice house and decent pension ?

No, all career baby killers deserve a nice house.


Why would an office worker feel the need to burn down the palace of westminster ?

Why would anyone feel that way inclined? Because Britain is a class society, based on state violence and exploitation of the labour power of the mass of the people by the few. Seems like a good reason to me.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 07:47 PM
i can only speak of personal opinion, but i believe that revolution (if and when it happens) will happen in the third world first. due to globalisation, the most extreme forms of opression now happen in third world countries.
If there was a successful revolution in a 3rd world country, so what? It's economically weak, and would be an easier target for imperialism than it was before. The rich countries have power over the smaller ones.

[kingbee]

but surely people power is the biggest power available?

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

What I mean is; Modern British society is a far cry from the post-industrial-revolution society of the early 1900's, and indeed a far cry from the industrialised society of the early-middle 20th century. You don't have, to steal a quote "the huddled masses" anymore.

Due to reformist bourgeoisie reforms poverty is no longer as drastic as it was during the time of the Industrial Revolution. Nonetheless the simple economic facts demonstrate that we are living in one of the most class-stratified societies in history. Yes, many (although not all as you claim) poor people can feed and clothe themselves, that doesn't bridge the economic divide.



You obviously have those who aren't as well off as David Beckham (who worked for his current riches, you can't dispute that, no matter how immoral his paycheque), but frankly, aside from those living on the streets (a regrettable fact that people still have to), there isn't anyone That badly off that they would feel the need to turn to radical politics to improve their situation. Even the lowliest council flat dweller can afford to feed, clothe and own a car themselves, through the welfare state.

I'm from the US not the UK but I know that here in the US, the paragon of the first world, every night millions of children go to bed hungry and as far as cars, are you in touch with reality? There are millions of people out there who can not afford cars. Nonetheless, I don't see where you got the idea that people had to be destitute to turn to radical politics. The majority of people (even in the first world) are still wage-earning corporate slaves with little to no control over there life, even if they have enough to eat/clothe themselves. The realization that another world is possible is enough to drive many people to attempt to change their world.



The idea that "Rich=Bad" is frankly a problematic anachronism, the aristocracy has been successfully reduced to a curious tourist attraction by successive labour, liberal minded tory and other governments. The landed, inherited wealth of Britains pretty much doesn't exist anymore. If someone is rich now, they, or their fathers have worked for it. Why should they be considered bad people ?

Just because an economic class is not officially entitled as an "aristocracy" by some kind of royal house does not mean that one doesn't exist. The top 5% or so of a society still controls the methods of production, they are a de-facto aristocracy. Your concept of "work" is very different from that which most economists would use. David Beckham didn't work (unless he has taken a side job I haven't heard about?) and neither did the majority of rich in societies. Using the concept of profit (and therefore of surplus-labor) to basically steal from workers and accumulating this over time != working. Regardless, they are bad people because their existence and their actions continually opress the working class and their social structure continually oppresses minorities. In the end, they are useless, obsolete, theres no need to have owners in a workplace when workers can more efficiently manage themselves, produce more and keep more wealth for themselves.



Would you begrudge the man who worked from private to field-marshall of the army his nice house and decent pension ? (that is around a 35-45 year period)

It depends, traditionally most soldiers have been recruited from the working class, however if this man was an officer responsible for the unnecessary spread of war and imperialism then yes I would begrudge it from him even if not for economic reasons.



I'd just like to see how some of the more outdated ideas contained within various left ideas could be applied to a society wherein the majority of the 'workers' are tertiary sectory employed. Why would an office worker feel the need to burn down the palace of westminster ? (Houses of Parliament for anyone infamiliar with it's proper title)

Maybe because that office worker realizes that his office would run more efficiently and he would make more wealth if he and his fellow workers took over the company for themselves. And then realized that one of the main reasons for the existence of Parliament and the nation-state is to enforce capitalism, the force that prohibits him from running his own workplace.



I don't mean to sound "reactionary" to use the seemingly current catch-all word for bad nasty anti-left thought, but really, how would You apply these theories today ?

Reactionary isn't a catch-all word. It means someone who responds against social and economic progressiveness by arguing for conservatism or the keeping of the social order within the context of the situation and often without any kind of truly historical analysis. They react instead of act.

As far as how we would apply these "outdated" theories, I feel your entire question is rather odd. I sense from your previous question that you have some belief that we only advocate revolution for members of the industrial sector of the economy. Please, do you really think most of us here work in factories? Traditionally due to unionization and the former massive-size of the industrial workforce, industrial workers have been the forefront of the leftist labor movement. However nothing in Marx's analysis of society and capitalism prohibits white-collar or service-industry workers from being members of the proletariat. This thread didn't get much attention because you are asking questions that seem to be based in your own misconception of Marxism. More importantly these kind of questions have been addressed before. If you have any kind of real question or debate over Marx's analysis of class dynamics or dialectical materialism then I'm sure you'll inspire more debate.



And perhaps more importantly, how would you convince the people to accept them ?
(and saying 'education' is not a valid answer, three of four of my uni lecturers are marxists, and it ruins any kind of objective debate (I take history)).

Education. Obviously not in a university environment however. Practical education such as advocating takeover of workplaces. Raising class-consciousness via spreading of theory. Working in the streets, in workplaces, where the actual masses of working-class people are. Also your professor doesn't sound too bad, it sounds like he actually has opinions which he stands up for instead of being some gutless moral relativist.

[VonClausewitz]

Righty, replies, first up; youknowtheymurderedx;


QUOTE
but frankly, aside from those living on the streets (a regrettable fact that people still have to), there isn't anyone That badly off that they would feel the need to turn to radical politics to improve their situation.


Oh right, and what 'evidence' are you basing this on? I imagine you've done mountains of research into poverty levels in Britain (a third) and levels of consumer debt (a TRILLION pounds).

OR, are you just, as is your job, parroting things you've read/heard in the mainsteam media and have never had the inclination to question.

The single person's unemployment benefit in Britain is 88 pounds a fortnight, which around a MILLION people collect - I suppose they're 'comfortable' as well? I don't suspect you've ever "lived" on this amount. I have, it's not easy.

As is my job ? this makes absolutely no sense to me, explain ?

Yes, I have lived on the benefit, it's not easy, but frankly, a lot of people with either half a brain cell or less than the wonderfull morals that you posess will claim much more than that. Various benefits can and will and are combined to make people's life easier.


QUOTE
Even the lowliest council flat dweller can afford to feed, clothe and own a car themselves, through the welfare state.


Speaking as a lowly council flat dweller myself (yes, I can read and write! ohmy.gif ). I can't, nor can my mother, afford to run a car - and she has a good job. I suppose we're just a fucking mirage though, eh?

Nope, you're the exception rather than the rule. No nned to swear either, I was being polite at least.


QUOTE
If someone is rich now, they, or their fathers have worked for it. Why should they be considered bad people ?


'Worked for it'? No, somebody else has 'worked' to make them rich. But you'd need an elementary knowledge of economics to understand that, and I don't guess you do.

You never know, perhaps 'The Sun' will run a 'ECONOMICS: EXPLAINED!!" pullout magazine.

No need to be a smartarse, I meant in context; a man who started work in any organisation as a youngster, and now runs said organisation. Why is he bad ? I think 25 years of climbing is work.


QUOTE
Why would an office worker feel the need to burn down the palace of westminster ?


Why would anyone feel that way inclined? Because Britain is a class society, based on state violence and exploitation of the labour power of the mass of the people by the few. Seems like a good reason to me.

You miss the point, it's a nice building, most office-types are decently educated, have a stable and (usually) decent income, why would they feel the need to get all red flag about things ?

Righty, battleofthecowshed;

Thanks for the lesson in marxist theory, it makes a little more sense when people can apply it with some eloqence. Thankyou :)


QUOTE

Would you begrudge the man who worked from private to field-marshall of the army his nice house and decent pension ? (that is around a 35-45 year period)


It depends, traditionally most soldiers have been recruited from the working class, however if this man was an officer responsible for the unnecessary spread of war and imperialism then yes I would begrudge it from him even if not for economic reasons.

To be honest, a soldier is doing a job, regardless of what said job entails. An army officer is not responsible for the spread of anything, his political masters are. Unless of course he's a politician aswell, which in the example I don't think he was.