Karl Marx

[blueeyedboy]

In your opinions, do you think that Karl Marx's ideas and theories are outdated in accordance of the 21st century.

To me, their even more relative today because of globalisation and the 'sweatshops' that are in the poor countries of the world.

Off topic, is it possible that the capitalists can sustain capitalism for much longer because of these 'sweatshops'. These people can't possibly live on what they get paid for long, but still they don't revolt against it and they seem content to carry on and get paid a pound an hour or whatever it is they get paid, which is not a lot.

If they can't revolt because of inadequate resources, then what suggestions can you give them to escape their plight.

Sorry about that rant, but I can't believe that so many people are ignorant to these peoples plights. Capitalism has to end soon. It's got too.

[Lenin's Law]

You are right that the ideas of Karl Marx are more relevant now than ever; Marxism was a theory designed for advanced capitalist states, not for backward, peasant states like for example, Russia in the early 20th century.

Be careful when you use the word "globalization". Revolutionaries have always wanted globalization of one sort or another: worldwide socialism is a form of globalization, the idea of "one big union" is another. The type of globalization here, is a specific kind of globalization: corporate globalazation; where capital is free to roam and exploit as it pleases but labor is not.

Remember to use a materialist concept of history not an emotional or idealist one. Another good thing to remember is not to rely on bourgeois media for who and is not rebelling: I would argue that many of the world's oppressed are rebelling, although it does not happen instanteneously. Case in point: Latin America. Specifically, look at Mexico today, one of the major homes of the world's sweatshops are now apparently on the brink of a possible revolution.

As for China, that is an extremely repressive country where revolts if they did happen (and they do) typically do not get reported and get put down rather brutally. I think it would be somewhat arrogant of someone like me, a privileged Westerner living in relative comfort to be giving advice to poor people in third world countries who know and understand their situation far better than I ever could.

I think they are organizing clandestinely as best they can as you said, a situation of mass exploitation cannot last forever; the masses will only tolerate so much of it before a revolutionary situation emerges. Every analyst on China that I have read has stated that a system where contradictations and class disaparities are so high have created a potentially explosive situation.

One of the quotes in my sig which I personally like very much I feel would be quite fitting here:

"A single spark can start a prarie fire"

Meaning a revolutionary situation can emerge where one leasts expects it to happen, it is inevitable.

[blueeyedboy]

Thanks for pointing out my misuse of the word globalisation. Coporate globalisation is what I meant. I'm also sorry about my brainwashing due to the media, which I think causes a hell of a lot of problems anyway. I was a bit silly to think that the media would show where people rebel due to oppression, but thats just me been niave.

My next point is that I live in England and I'm a 19 year old student and I haven't seen any evidence of any workers wanting to escape oppression. Why is this?

Is it because the media disguise the oppressive elements of capitalism, or is it due to the lack of resources and motivation.

Personally, for the workers to rebel, the police have to want to as well as any rebellion would get put down straight away. Also, will most ordinary workers actually know about or have read about Karl Marx, therefore would they know how to rebel properly and set up a new government.

I hope everyone who reads this knows what I'm trying to get at, as it's hard for me to communicate through writing.

[Gold Against The Soul]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 03:19 PM
My next point is that I live in England and I'm a 19 year old student and I haven't seen any evidence of any workers wanting to escape oppression. Why is this?

Is it because the media disguise the oppressive elements of capitalism, or is it due to the lack of resources and motivation.

A lack of class consciousness?. Thatcher went to war on the working classes and did a lot of damage and New Labour have done little (predictably) to change that.

In addition to that, immigration has been used skilful used by the ruling class to create greater competition among workers. Not just with jobs but with other services too. It has been used to break the union and generally, they have far more power over immigrant workers.

I'm fairly pessimistic about the future in this respect because things are getting very sectarian here now. Things are more divided along cultural or racial lines and there is no unity in terms of class. This is again thanks to long term ruling class assault, using the idelogy known as multiculturalism.

[apathy maybe]

Personally I find a lot of Marx's original ideas to be outdated and getting a bit stale. Many of them have been patched up by later thinkers, but some just don't cut it any more.

An example is the Marxian class analysis, I think that control of the 'means of production' is just one type of power for example. I don't find the meaning of the word proletariat stretches adequately to describe everybody whom Marxists would like it to, and sometimes it covers people who really do not share a lot in common with the rest.

The terms bourgeois and petite-bourgeois are also misused, either too broad or too narrow depending on who is talking.


Marx's analysis of history I don't actually know that much about, but I am beginning to seriously have my doubts as to its relevance any more as well. Technology and society have change significantly in the last 100 years, and so the analysis of history is starting to fall apart.

And one last thing, I find it laughable that people would try and claim a sociological position based on histories (which are obviously biased, history being written by the victor and all that) as materialist.


However, while I do find many of Marx's ideas not incredibly useful, that is not to say all of his ideas are useless. No way at all do I think that. A lot of what redstar2000 was trying to do was quite useful I thought, and even without that, Marxism has a lot to teach other revolutionary ideals.

[Demogorgon]

Marx is still relevant to me. In some ways he is more relevant than ever. The trouble is his language is now very archaic so he can't e used foor a call to arms in the way he once could.

As for the word Globalisation, isn't it just easier to let the reactionaries have the word and use Internationalism for what we believe?

[RedStruggle]

To me, their even more relative today because of globalisation and the 'sweatshops' that are in the poor countries of the world

The need for a constantly expanding market and the accumulation of Capital chases the Bourgeoisie across the globe. Everywhere it must settle, everywhere it must make its nest, everywhere it must establish new connections.

That was from the communist manifesto. Marxism is not rendered void by the realities of globalisation, rather it is globalisation that shows that Marx's (and later Lenin's) analysis of the Capitalist system contained at least some degree of truth. The theme of Class Struggle still persists throughout all of Human Society, it has merely undergone a transition form the national and class based level to an international level, whereby the export of finance capital becomes equivalent to the ownership of the means of production.


My next point is that I live in England and I'm a 19 year old student and I haven't seen any evidence of any workers wanting to escape oppression. Why is this?

This is an important point that was developed by Antonio Gramsci in the 1920s. Traditional Marxist Analysis puts forward the view that all the aspects of the society in which we live (the Superstructure) are determine by the underlying mode of production. Gramsci, however, believed that the sphere of ideology was slightly autonomous from the mode of production. Ideology is the way that we interpret the world around us and our aspirations for how the world should be changed. Ideology can be controlled both by the ruling class in the interests of maintaining class society, but is also open to control by other contending groups. In this instance, Workers are not rebelling for two reasons. Firstly, for pragmatic reasons, as the dialectic principle of the unity of opposites states, they depend on the capitalists for their economic survival, as someone to whom they sell their labour power. Secondly, such is there exposure to ideology under the control of the ruling class, that they cannot concieve of any society radically different from the one in which they live, and place other constructed antagonisms (such as Nationality and Race) above the class antagonism.

[Lamanov]

Recommended: Marx at the Milennium (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/millenni/index.htm), by Cyril Smith

[blueeyedboy]

Thanks for that thread DJ-TC. The book was very intresting in showing how Karl Marx's ideas have been misinterpreted.

I hate it when people say left-wing ideas can't work and that the USSR was communist, when it obviously wasn't.

I look forward to more discussion.