Marx's relevance in 2002

[guerrillaradio]

Having read a good deal of Marx, I have come to the conclusion that his ideas are now irrelevant in the Western world. In the 1850s, his plans were accurate and moral, however now, Marxism is little more than a historical movement. Why?? The primary reason is the changes in European social geography in the last 150 years. The proleteriat is no longer "owned" by the bourgeiousie, they are capable of starting their own jobs. Industry and farming account for a minute percentage of employment, and working-class conditions (such as there is a working class) have vastly improved. However, the biggest factor in Marxism's fall from power is the emergence of a new class: the middle class. Blair's assertion that the vast majority of the UK is middle class is quite possibly the most accurate thing he has said, and it is similar in Europe and America. This middle class has effectively killed the concept of proleteriat and bourgeiousie. And now poor ol' Karl is about as appropriate as feudalism...

[Xvall]

-------------------------------

[Ian]

I believe that Marx's ideas ARE as relevant today as they were in the 1850's. The working class people are still exploited to an awful extent (you may be saying "WHAT? Not Likely, living standards are great, we are treated well" but the working class knows no nations so if your proletarian brothers and sisters are exploited in Asia, South America, Africa, and to a lesser extent first world nations then that is a reason to smash capitalism and set up Marxism.). You brought up the topic of standards of living, there were rising standards of living in societies based on slave labour, eg. Athens, Rome, is that an arguement for slavery? NO! There were rising standards of living under Stalin, is that an arguement for an evil dictator? NO!

Yes, the proletariat is still owned by the bourgeoisie, the proletariat still work for 10 hours and get 6 hours pay, the proletariat still produce $120 worth of goods and get paid $80, the proletariat are still commodities to be downsized when times are tough and employed when times are good, only to be later downsized because of capitalism's cyclical pattern of crisis.

Yes, there are a middle class and Marx observed these people to be either Petit or Petty Bourgeois or higher wage earning proletarians, but no, they do not make up the majority of the population, the majority of the population are proletarians that have to work for a wage rather than get rich of the fruits of others labour (in many countries 85% are proletarian)

If you find Marx's words outdated it does not necessarily mean you don't agree with them. My father (geneticist, left wing sympathiser) uses an analogy to explain this. "If you are talking to another geneticist and you say; 'Darwin says.....' then nobody will give a shit about that because Genetics has evolved ;) and is progressing because it has many theorists like marxism but Darwin isn't treated like a deity and neither should Marx, he should be considered a major contributor to the communist cause" I kind of agree with my father because I believe we need to progress otherwise we will stagnate.

[guerrillaradio]

"I believe that Marx's ideas ARE as relevant today as they were in the 1850's. The working class people are still exploited to an awful extent (you may be saying "WHAT? Not Likely, living standards are great, we are treated well" but the working class knows no nations so if your proletarian brothers and sisters are exploited in Asia, South America, Africa, and to a lesser extent first world nations then that is a reason to smash capitalism and set up Marxism.)."

The working class may not know no country (they might wanna learn some geography ;)), but revolution does. Marxism is a viable option in the third or even second world, but it would not work in the first world.

"You brought up the topic of standards of living, there were rising standards of living in societies based on slave labour, eg. Athens, Rome, is that an arguement for slavery? NO! There were rising standards of living under Stalin, is that an arguement for an evil dictator? NO!"

You misunderstood me. My point is that the problems and hardships the working class were experiencing in Marx's time are now much less evident, nonexistent in some parts. Therefore, they would not be calling for revolution or change as they were in 1850.

"Yes, the proletariat is still owned by the bourgeoisie, the proletariat still work for 10 hours and get 6 hours pay, the proletariat still produce $120 worth of goods and get paid $80, the proletariat are still commodities to be downsized when times are tough and employed when times are good, only to be later downsized because of capitalism's cyclical pattern of crisis."

You have ignored the radical changes to class in the last 150 years. The vast majority of Western society is middle class with a desk job. They do not work and live on the fields or in factories, as they did in Marx's era. Redundacies often hit all levels, not just the lowest. Besides, redundacies and a shitty boss are hardly gonna make a country's populace call for revolution are they??

"Yes, there are a middle class and Marx observed these people to be either Petit or Petty Bourgeois or higher wage earning proletarians, but no, they do not make up the majority of the population, the majority of the population are proletarians that have to work for a wage rather than get rich of the fruits of others labour (in many countries 85% are proletarian)"

I dunno whereabouts you are from, but the middle class is the majority, at least in Europe. They are a class of their own, and they contain most of the old proleteriat. The petit bourgeiousie was just an offshoot of the bourgeiousie, not an entirely different concept. Applying Marxist terms and theory to the 21st century West is not successful.

"If you find Marx's words outdated it does not necessarily mean you don't agree with them. My father (geneticist, left wing sympathiser) uses an analogy to explain this. "If you are talking to another geneticist and you say; 'Darwin says.....' then nobody will give a shit about that because Genetics has evolved ;) and is progressing because it has many theorists like marxism but Darwin isn't treated like a deity and neither should Marx, he should be considered a major contributor to the communist cause" I kind of agree with my father because I believe we need to progress otherwise we will stagnate."

Again, you misunderstood me. Marx is a hugely important contributor to the communist cause, however his manifesto is now outdated. What communists need is a new manifesto.

[Ian]

hmm.....guess I misunderstood alot! oh well! ;)

[Mazdak]

Irrelevent? So i suppose sweatshop laborers, child laborers and migrant workers are all living like kings?? In countries like the US, conditions are rather decent (as far as i have seen) but that means nothing!! With all our swetshop labor and exploited workers, we would have a much less comfortable lifestyle

[The Ax]

Hey,
What is known as marxISM will always be relevant as long as people need it.

The Ax

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Mazdak on 2:02 am on June 30, 2002
Irrelevent? So i suppose sweatshop laborers, child laborers and migrant workers are all living like kings?? In countries like the US, conditions are rather decent (as far as i have seen) but that means nothing!!

I said "in the West". Read my posts.


With all our swetshop labor and exploited workers, we would have a much less comfortable lifestyle

I'm assuming you meant "without sweatshops etc"?? If so, than that is definitely relevant. How the West would cope without its exploitation of the Third World is a fascinating question. I don't think it will be sufficient to go Marxist though.

[peaccenicked]

The point that many Marxists try to get accross is that
what is relevant is not his analysis of capitalism but his methodology which also is a based on a theory of social anthropology which puts the idea of socialism on a scientific footing. This by necessity gives credence to is idea of capitalism as an opposite to socialism. Even the simple notion of the priority of use value over exchange value brings forth the categories of Das Kapital, although they have different applications to-day. They still have meaning. The actual richness in Marx's work has yet to be tapped.

[marxistdisciple]

I think what GR was trying to say...(correct me if I'm wrong) is that although marx's ideas still have a lot of similarity to today's world, and the same groups of people exist, albeit in different places, there is not the same kind of chance of revolution in the western world.

As much as we argue on these boards, most people in middle class lives are either happy, or they believe they are happy, (or they forget whether they are happy or not by taking drugs and alcohol).
This kind of stiffles the chance of an armed revolution. The capitalists have simply moved the great inequalities to different parts of the world. So either these other parts of the world create revolutions - or we look for different ways to enact social change.
I don't think it could be done violently, but perhaps sureptitiously.

The one thing most activists, (lefties anyway) seem to share, is a loathing of corporate greed and exploitation. So maybe we should be banding together to lessen the power that companies have. Really we should be searching for ways to bring the economy into some kind of moral grounding.
I know this sounds kind of far out, and bizarre....if you can't fight the system directly (most no one will listen to people's ideas on communism) you must surreptitiously steer the economy to a place where socialism is a natural progression....does anybody get this? (Not sure I do lol)

[Ymir]

marxistdiciple I completely agree with what you posted.

[Mazdak]

yes, this is what i meant, querrllaradio or whatever your name is. i saw the WESt but like i said already, without our third world labor, we would not have such a decent lifestyle.

[peaccenicked]

The west might appear asleep but here is an article on Germany from the WSWS
How the social democrats and the Greens have contributed to Germany's social misery
By Wolfgang Weber
12 September 1998
Germany today: over 4 million officially unemployed plus 2 million "hidden" or no longer registered, 900,000 homeless, 3 million families dependent on welfare, 1 million children growing up in poverty. The list recording such growing social want can be extended further. However, neither the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the Greens nor the PDS (Party of Democratic Socialism, the former Stalinist party of state in East Germany) make it the occasion for a general settling of accounts with the Kohl government. The reason is simple: they are all responsible for this misery, not just the government in Bonn.

Helmut Kohl's conservative coalition government, comprising the Christian Democratic Union, the Bavarian Christian Social Union and the free-market Liberals of the FDP, came to power in 1982 with the declared aim of drastically reducing wages and social benefits. They sought to do this by utilising the growing level of unemployment. However, this policy really took off at the end of the 1980s. Parallel with the dissolution of the former Soviet Union and the transformation of the Stalinist parties throughout Eastern Europe into champions of market economics, the SPD and the unions in the west themselves underwent a fundamental transformation. From being parties and organisations of social reform they became the patrons of social devastation and job cuts, all in the name of "defending German industry".

One round of talks in the Chancellory followed another. "Solidarity Pact", "Alliance for Work" and many other cosy "fireside chats" between Kohl, the unions, the SPD and the employers took place under various names. The policy, however, remained the same. If it came to a dispute between the government, the opposition parties and the unions, then it was not over whether jobs, wages and social benefits should be dismantled, rather how this could be done more effectively.

Some facts by way of illustration:

Unemployment

The SPD and the Greens hold a majority of power in the Länder (states) and in local government. Here, they have presided over the destruction of jobs and cuts in wages in public service, the closure of education and cultural facilities, and the harassment of welfare recipients and the homeless. Entire departments of local government have been transformed into private enterprises, bringing down the jobs axe all the more quickly. Social democratic politicians in local government were the first to utilise the unemployed as a source of enforced cheap labour, to carry out jobs which had previously been done by public service workers at union rates of pay.

In the factories, the social democratic unions have become business advisers. Members of the Betriebsrat (union-management factory council) now function as co-managers. In countless "pacts to secure production", hundreds of thousands of jobs have been wiped out in the east and west; wages and working conditions systematically worsened. It was Gerhard Schröder, the SPD's candidate for chancellor, and Klaus Zwickel, the leader of the more than 2 million-strong IG Metall union, who initiated and pushed through the four-day week at Volkswagen, with a corresponding 20 percent wage cut for the work force.

The reduction of sick pay by 20 percent, implemented by the Kohl government, was "countered" by the unions agreeing to cuts in holidays and holiday pay, and agreeing to tighter controls of workers off sick by the Betriebsrat. The measures agreed by the unions save the employers 12DM billion a year.

Despite the continuous ratcheting down of wages so as to "secure jobs", unemployment has risen to record heights.

The dreadful state of education

The SPD and the Greens hold the reins when it comes to cuts in education, as this area is under the control of the state governments where the SPD are in a majority. A jobs freeze in schools and high schools, wage cuts and longer hours for teachers, the halt of all school building works and even necessary repairs--this is called "intelligent savings" by the SPD and the Greens. Since 1990 some 80,000 teaching posts have been cut by the state governments. Cuts in student grants were only implemented with the votes of the SPD in the Bundesrat (Upper House of Parliament), where the SPD also hold a majority.

Care for the elderly and the disabled

The introduction of a compulsory insurance system to cover old-age and disability care was effected with the help of the SPD, even though most experts warned that it would only mean a worsening of conditions both for those in receipt of such care and for the staff employed to provide it. A recent report has highlighted increasing neglect and harsher treatment, up to downright violent abuse, by overworked and unqualified care personnel.

Homelessness

Where the SPD and the Greens are in control, they justify their policies by saying, "the coffers are empty". The 900,000 homeless have little chance of getting a roof over their heads as the construction of public housing has come to a complete halt. Such low-cost housing that remains in the public sector is being sold off to fill the coffers again. Industrial concerns and property speculators, on the other hand, have been able to buy land at give-away prices.

Taxes

For working people income and sales taxes have risen, pensioners now have to pay health insurance contributions, while welfare benefits to the most needy are cut. On the other hand, employers and the rich now pay no tax on wealth or on trading capital. Capital gains tax has been cut along with other tax reductions which benefit the well-off. The generous possibilities for tax write-offs mean only those millionaires with an incompetent accountant need pay any tax at all. Meanwhile the burden of direct and indirect taxes on an average earner can reach well over 50 percent. All this has come about with the votes of the SPD in the Bundesrat or in other parliamentary bodies.

Whilst employees' average earnings have risen annually since 1982 by 2.7 percent, when increased prices are taken into account real wages have remained at the same level. However, income derived from capital has increased four-fold over this period. Between 1980 and 1995 the total revenue from income tax has more than doubled from 116.6DM billion to 282.7DM billion despite the explosive growth in unemployment. At the same time the revenue from employers' capital gains tax sank from 21.3DM billion to 18.1DM billion. Companies such as Siemens, Daimler-Benz and BASF have enjoyed record profits for years, and yet they pay hardly any taxes, or none at all.

In this way, the public purse has been plundered to the advantage of the rich and the employers, while simultaneously being burdened down with over 2,100DM billion in debts. In 1998, the federal government has earmarked 88DM billion for interest payments on this debt, equivalent to 20 percent of the federal budget. Interest payments now form over 40 percent of the budget of some local governments. In this way, the money flows via the banks into the pockets of their rich investors.

As a result of this redistribution from bottom to top, the contrast between rich and poor today in Germany is greater than ever. The 47 richest German families possess a wealth of over 260DM billion, equivalent to one-third of all that owned by the bottom 16 million families. Half a million families bring in 25,000DM or more a month, while at the same time there are 3 million households who must make do on less than 2,000DM.

The middle classes, which had previously enjoyed a relatively good income, are now drifting apart. Only a relatively small number of the self-employed, academics, lawyers and managers can still be found amongst the top earners. On the other hand, millions of teachers, white collar and professional workers in trade and technical industries, scientists and small businessmen are falling down the social ladder. They can no longer be so sure about their jobs, their old age or the future of their children.

At the end of 16 years of collaboration between the SPD and the Greens with the Kohl government, Germany today is a society deeply divided between a thin layer of rich and super-rich, on the one side, and a growing number of poor, unemployed and low-wage earners on the other.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from marxistdisciple on 11:37 pm on June 30, 2002
I think what GR was trying to say...(correct me if I'm wrong) is that although marx's ideas still have a lot of similarity to today's world, and the same groups of people exist, albeit in different places, there is not the same kind of chance of revolution in the western world.

You're right, except I don't think Marx's ideas have much similarity to today's world. A "surreptitious revolution"?? Well, like I said, I don't think a Marxist system would suit the Western world.

Mazdak - read my first reply to your post. I understood what you were trying to say.

[peaccenicked]

There is no such thing as a Marxist system. There is the class system and the struggle for a classless society.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 1:48 am on July 2, 2002
There is no such thing as a Marxist system. There is the class system and the struggle for a classless society.

Ok, let's not get pedantic. I am, of course, referring to a communist system adhering to Marxist principles.

[Conghaileach]

from guerrillaradio:
Marxism is a viable option in the third or even second world, but it would not work in the first world.

If revolutions occurred in the third world, then exploitation would come to an end and the first world would descend into chaos. And then Marxism would be a "viable option."

Capitalism is based on the idea of maximising profits by reducing costs. Because we in the first world now have better conditions for ourselves, this does not stop the bosses from making their profits by turning to the third world. With revolutions in the third world, the people of the first world would become their workforce again. Because of our better conditions, the capitalists would have to find a way to keep their profits as high as before. This would likely happen by raising costs, and less people would buy their products. The business would collapse and many people would lose their jobs and a recession would hit. And then Marxism would be relevant.

And there's also the fact that most of the raw materials used in production come from the first world.


You have ignored the radical changes to class in the last 150 years. The vast majority of Western society is middle class with a desk job. They do not work and live on the fields or in factories, as they did in Marx's era.

Just because we don't get our hands dirty doesn't mean that we're not working class. In Britain, 75% of the population is working class, 20% is middle, and 5% is the scum. The fruits of our labour still make profits for the bosses.

[guerrillaradio]

I typed a really long reply which refused to post, but hey, I'll try again...


Quote: from CiaranB on 3:48 pm on July 3, 2002
If revolutions occurred in the third world, then exploitation would come to an end and the first world would descend into chaos. And then Marxism would be a "viable option."

I think you are overestimating the First World's reliance on the Third World. Due to the onset of technology, there is less available employment in manufacture and even so, there has been a definite shift towards office and desk jobs as opposed to manufacture. And with trading deals such as the EU and NAFTA, the First World has become much more self-sufficient.

Corporations which do use (and, indeed, exploit) Third World labour would most likely not be affected by possible Marxist revolution. I very much doubt that American interventionists will allow the entire Third World to go Marxist, so Nike, IBM et al can merely move to the nearest and cheapest American puppet state.


In Britain, 75% of the population is working class, 20% is middle, and 5% is the scum.

I don't quite know where you got that statistic from, but I very much doubt that three-quarters of this nation is "working class", whatever (and there are many) definition you use. I would say that a more accurate estimation would be that 75% of the country is middle class.

[jimr]

Quote: from guerrillaradio on 10:41 pm on July 3, 2002
I typed a really long reply which refused to post, but hey, I'll try again...


Quote: from CiaranB on 3:48 pm on July 3, 2002
If revolutions occurred in the third world, then exploitation would come to an end and the first world would descend into chaos. And then Marxism would be a "viable option."

I think you are overestimating the First World's reliance on the Third World. Due to the onset of technology, there is less available employment in manufacture and even so, there has been a definite shift towards office and desk jobs as opposed to manufacture. And with trading deals such as the EU and NAFTA, the First World has become much more self-sufficient.

Corporations which do use (and, indeed, exploit) Third World labour would most likely not be affected by possible Marxist revolution. I very much doubt that American interventionists will allow the entire Third World to go Marxist, so Nike, IBM et al can merely move to the nearest and cheapest American puppet state.


In Britain, 75% of the population is working class, 20% is middle, and 5% is the scum.

I don't quite know where you got that statistic from, but I very much doubt that three-quarters of this nation is "working class", whatever (and there are many) definition you use. I would say that a more accurate estimation would be that 75% of the country is middle class.

are you kidding? With out the cheap labour the prices would soar on everyday clothes. Without the cheap raw materials being near enmough stolen from the deveoloping world prices would rise on near everything. With no one to exploit capitalism cannot work. Everything about capitalism relies on extracting maximum profit with minimum effort or cost to yourself. The system would surely crash. This is why America attempts to control teh worlds resources through its imperialist methods because America knows this to be true more than anyone else. The western world will only live in luxery aslong as they keep the developing world down.

I believe it is you who has over estimated teh efficience of capitalism, and have under estimated capitalisms reliance on third world exploitation.

You are proving yourself misguided in your last post where you say that America would not allow the whole world to go Marxist. This is because Marxism is so much of a threat, hense it is still relevent.

[guerrillaradio]

"are you kidding? With out the cheap labour the prices would soar on everyday clothes. Without the cheap raw materials being near enmough stolen from the deveoloping world prices would rise on near everything. With no one to exploit capitalism cannot work. Everything about capitalism relies on extracting maximum profit with minimum effort or cost to yourself. The system would surely crash. This is why America attempts to control teh worlds resources through its imperialist methods because America knows this to be true more than anyone else. The western world will only live in luxery aslong as they keep the developing world down."

Without the Third World, capitalism would merely exploit itself (ie the First World). Westerners are exploited daily, without the Third World, they would just be exploited more. Not that that is a bad thing, but it's hardly revolution is it??

"You are proving yourself misguided in your last post where you say that America would not allow the whole world to go Marxist. This is because Marxism is so much of a threat, hense it is still relevent."

Hardly. Just cos America sees Marxism as a threat does not mean that it is either relevant or moral. Fascism was such a threat to America that they fought four years of war against it, does that make it relevant??

[Conghaileach]

Without the Third World, capitalism would merely exploit itself (ie the First World). Westerners are exploited daily, without the Third World, they would just be exploited more. Not that that is a bad thing, but it's hardly revolution is it??

The capitalists wouldn't risk exploiting the first world (again), as there'd be too much of a threat of the workers developing a class consciousness.

[Conghaileach]

I got my statistics from this webiste, by the way...

http://www.soi.city.ac.uk/~louise/class.html

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from CiaranB on 2:55 am on July 4, 2002
The capitalists wouldn't risk exploiting the first world (again), as there'd be too much of a threat of the workers developing a class consciousness.


So instead there would be a Marxist revolution?? I doubt it. And also, at risk of sounding like a capitalist apologist, I think you are overestimating the cunning and intelligence of capitalism. I very much doubt that they plan who to exploit, it seems much more likely that they just exploit whoever they can without any thought of the consequence. They really aren't that intelligent, to be honest. The whole basis of capitalism is accidental.


I got my statistics from this webiste, by the way...

That is a quite bizarre page. The first thing that strikes me about it is that it claims that "figures were updated after the 1981 census". That was 20 years ago, in which time we have had two more censi, but more importantly, how exactly can one's class be determined from a census?? And they claim that the State gave those figures, but without referring to which area of the State, or giving any link or quotes. Suspicious indeed. And let us not forget that they class "office workers" as working class. Do you seriously believe that stockbrokers, lawyers and accountants are working class?? However, the most important factor here is the article's slant. Considering that it is from a "Class War" website, we cannot expect it to be totally accurate. In the same way that pro-capitalist sources cannot be trusted, neither can neo-Marxist sources.

(Edited by guerrillaradio at 5:03 pm on July 4, 2002)

[Michael De Panama]

I think Marx is more relevant now than ever before. Marx's theories were ahead of his time. Since the world has been industrialized completely, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie have fully developed. Revolution is inevitable.

Exactly what kind of a revolution are you expecting, GuerrillaRadio?

[El Che]

You seem to be confusing Marxism with "the revolution", perhaps your like the stalinists and you think Marxism/Socialism boils down to the Manifesto. If so, you completely lost the plot.

[guerrillaradio]

"Since the world has been industrialized completely, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie have fully developed."

They have not "fully developed", they have blurred and ceased to be distinguishable. Read the entire thread, divisions have become more shady and a new class has emerged, which encompasses the majority of the West.

"Exactly what kind of a revolution are you expecting, GuerrillaRadio?"

None, to be honest. If you mean what revolution am I referring to in this topic, I mean a Marxist revolution. Whether it is violent or peaceful is irrelevant.

"You seem to be confusing Marxism with "the revolution", perhaps your like the stalinists and you think Marxism/Socialism boils down to the Manifesto."

Notice how I am referring to Marxism specifically, not Socialism. And the debate merely touched on revolution, which I can't help can I?? I suggest you write a post on the intelligent level you are very capable of, rather than skirting the issue such as you just did.

[RedRevolutionary87]

aperantly comrade you did not understand marx at all, dont take his writing as concrete, but as a starting point that can be aplied to any society, tell me this, are workers today paid pack what they produce, not bloody likely. so indeed marxism is relevent. except we can not view the revolution as national, instead it must be global, and if we take a look at the globe today we see that it is still the proleteriat that is the majority, the usa is exactly how marx depicted capitalism, they are prospering because of continouse warfare that gets rid of capital, and no other reason. it is now that it is the most important as ever. marxism is more than relevent today, it is nescesary.

[Michael De Panama]

Quote: from El Che on 12:02 pm on July 5, 2002
You seem to be confusing Marxism with "the revolution", perhaps your like the stalinists and you think Marxism/Socialism boils down to the Manifesto. If so, you completely lost the plot.

He's certainly no Stalinist. I like GuerrillaRadio's beliefs, even if he isn't a Marxist and I am.

[El Che]

"Having read a good deal of Marx, I have come to the conclusion that his ideas are now irrelevant in the Western world."

Lets see what proof you give to back up your charge of irrelevancy.

"In the 1850s, his plans were accurate and moral, however now, Marxism is little more than a historical movement."

When you say plans, you mean political action, you mean Marx man of action as opposed to Marx man of reflextion. And what I`m trying to say is that what might be irrelevant today is this or that course of action but not the struggle its self, if the Capitalism presists then so must the struggle. How is the struggle against Capitalism moral yesterday and imoral today? That is one of your many contradictions, that can only be explain by asuming that you are refering to a course of action rather then the necessity for action. It is your error that, in turn, you wish to atribute to others. Perhaps there are alot of modern day Marxists that live in their own time and defend apropriate courses of action for their time, if you only bothered to look.

Marxism is a historical movement exactly because there is historical continuity. Marxism evolves, re-examines its self and updates its self, without forgeting its roots. It could not be otherwise and it is that evolution that you neglect.

It is unclear to me what you mean when you say Marxism is "little more" than a historical movement, but I`m again lead to the assumption that you misunderstand the concepts your dealing with.

----------

Then you say that a new class has arisen, and that condictions are less dramatic than they were in the 19th century. But I ask you what has really changed? Dont wage slaves remain wage slaves? What equality and social justice is there? Do you think that because the western europian/yankee proletariet live under better condictions its no longer justified to demand the exploitation of man by man?

I`m not even going to point out to you the sub human condictions that exist in other parts of the world, for the simple fact that the argument is superfluous. The problem is exploitation its self and not the condictions awared to slaves.

The working class may not know no country (they might wanna learn some geography ), but revolution does. Marxism is a viable option in the third or even second world, but it would not work in the first world.

I think this is ilustrative of your concept of Marxism.

And just as a side note, what you should ask is not of the viability of the revolution but of the legitimacy of the revolution. In my opinion it has none.

etc etc, you repeat your arguments, if I missed something please bring it to my atention.

[RedRevolutionary87]

well said comrade

[Conghaileach]

What makes you think that someone who sits in front of a computer in an office all day is middle class, and not worker? Is it because he/she isn't getting their hands dirty like a factory worker, or is it because he/she earns more?

Income doesn't decide class, position does.

[Conghaileach]

I started reading this article just after my last post, so it may be connected or it may just be my unbalanced mind playing tricks...

Buy Me!
Jan Pole

Sitting alone in an Indian restaurant has its pros and cons. The most
obvious advantage is the lack of any polite requirement to share
dishes. Leave such selfless collectivism to Methodist picnics. The
confused belief that socialists favour everyone dipping into the same
trough comes from the same stable as the belief that socialists want
everyone to be dressed in grey uniforms (an indignity forced upon
schoolchildren by conservative defenders of capitalism, not
socialists).

There is an advantage to be gained from solitude — an advantage too
often turned into unattainable luxury for those whose time is rarely
their own and homes are usually crowded. So, to be seated in the
high-street Taj Mahal with a good book and your own onion bhajee is no
bad thing.

The disadvantages come when you are stuck next to a table occupied by
the salary slaves from hell. There is no escaping. Buried as you try to
be in your book, the loud voices and objectionable chatter is intrusive
to the extent that you have no choice but to become their auditory
captive.

It was an illuminating experience—in a perverse kind of way. At the
next table were two young men (late twenties) and a slightly younger
woman. The men were employees of an investment bank. The woman, a law
graduate, wanted to become one. Her interview was next week. Their job
was to show her how to go for their job. Her job was to find out
precisely what lies she needed to tell, clothes she needed wear,
postures she needed to adopt and enthusiasms she needed to fake to
convince their employers that her ability to be exploited was worth
buying. It was an undignified scene.

"Tell them that you find investment banking really exciting",
counselled the first one; "But don't forget to badmouth commercial
banking. Investment bankers hate commercial bankers," added the second,
like a big kid telling his mate how to get into the Bash Street Gang.

"What about if they ask me why I want to work for them in particular?"
she asked, her apparent innocence belying an immense willingness to
assume the most disingenuous beliefs.

"Well, you tell them that you've always admired us because we're
dynamic and know the market well," responded the first one, resembling
a boy forced to learn a catechism. "And whatever you do, let them know
that you want to be at the cutting edge of international finance."
Other cutting edges were on my mind at the time, but I stuffed my gob
and desisted from adding "restaurant rage" to the new wave of tabloid
crimes.

Never before has the utter prostitution of the job-seeker been quite so
clear to me. What difference was there between the woman at the next
table and a hooker learning the ropes? At least the hooker might have
some sadness at her transformation from human into commodity. Not so
the would-be investment banker. She was fully seduced by the pimps of
capital, not only ready but eager to do whatever they would pay her
for.

Increasingly it has come to pass that finding a job is less a
transaction than a relationship, a faked affair of the heart. How often
these days do we see salary slaves spending their leisure hours
plotting new ways of serving the company? A whole new area of
management has emerged designed to make workers excited in their
exploitation. They call it corporate participation. "If you feel good
we feel good, if we feel good . . . " company talk has been diminished
to the level of a Eurovision pop song; the responses expected from
workers have reached the nadir of Maoist chants.

There are now books in the stores on how to sell yourself. I never
picked one up in the fear the covers are made of glue, but those who
have read them describe how depressingly objectifying they make you
feel.

Maybe there are more proles who can afford to eat out these days, but
at what price? Next time I'll get a take-away and eat it in the local
Job Centre.

[guerrillaradio]

"Lets see what proof you give to back up your charge of irrelevancy."

I am stating opinion. Opinion does not need proof.

"When you say plans, you mean political action, you mean Marx man of action as opposed to Marx man of reflextion."

Marx's plan of action was directly related to his reflections, therefore the two are interlinked. I am criticising both.

"How is the struggle against Capitalism moral yesterday and imoral today?"

You have misunderstood me. My apologies if I was not very clear, I have difficulty translating my thoughts into words. The struggle against capitalism is as moral as ever, however one of capitalism's alternatives, Marxism, is now less applicable.

"Perhaps there are alot of modern day Marxists that live in their own time and defend apropriate courses of action for their time, if you only bothered to look."

That is not the point. The fact is, the set of ideas which they subscribe to is irrelevant, like I keep saying.

"Marxism evolves, re-examines its self and updates its self, without forgeting its roots. It could not be otherwise and it is that evolution that you neglect."

Really?? now I am interested. How has Marxism evolved?? This could well overcome my misgivings about it.

"It is unclear to me what you mean when you say Marxism is "little more" than a historical movement, but I`m again lead to the assumption that you misunderstand the concepts your dealing with."

That maybe, however i am yet to see any evidence that Marxism is anything more than a piece of history.

"But I ask you what has really changed? Dont wage slaves remain wage slaves? What equality and social justice is there? Do you think that because the western europian/yankee proletariet live under better condictions its no longer justified to demand the exploitation of man by man?"

Once again you have missed the point. I am not condoning capitalism, far from it. I am merely questioning Marxism.

I think this is ilustrative of your concept of Marxism.

"just as a side note, what you should ask is not of the viability of the revolution but of the legitimacy of the revolution."

But the viability of the revolution is hugely consequential to its legitimacy. Attempting to implement Marxism in a Western country is akin to attempting to put a square peg in a round hole (as the British saying goes).

[El Che]

Marxism is not a system. Objectively, Marxism is a science and a method. What you have is attempts to implement Marxism in practice i.e Socialism. That is the whole point. While you might think, and I might agree, that certain courses of action that aim to implement Marxist demands for a new society are without viability or without legitimacy (in case they are undemocratic) and therefore should be rejected, I do not however understand your claims against Marxism as theory. If you wish to object to Marxism, you must show where Marxists are wrong, and you can not do that by criticizing courses of action.

So, if you think Marxism is irrelevant or just wrong, and you wish to back up your "opinion" with some sort of argument, you must address Marxism as philosophy and show us what is wrong with it, what flase conclusions it arrives at and what has changed in reality so such a great extent that it has rendered a Marxist outlook obsolete.

(Edited by El Che at 4:36 pm on July 6, 2002)

[ID2002]

I don't see a problem with Marxism. As some of you said, correctly..Marxism is more of a science and method.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from El Che on 4:33 pm on July 6, 2002
While you might think, and I might agree, that certain courses of action that aim to implement Marxist demands for a new society are without viability or without legitimacy (in case they are undemocratic) and therefore should be rejected, I do not however understand your claims against Marxism as theory. If you wish to object to Marxism, you must show where Marxists are wrong, and you can not do that by criticizing courses of action.

I have said several times in my original post and its subsequent replies that the world Marx lived in is dramatically different to today's world, the main change being the emergence of a new class and the improvement both of condition and treatment of the working class. This has led to a blurring of the class divisions, and therefore a more spread political allegience.

[marxistdisciple]

On the contrary, Marx's theories are entirely based on the nature of capitalism itself. Capitalism has not changed, so Marx's underlying theories are still relavent. There may be certain details which have been altered, but the margins are still fairly clear cut. As I posted in CappievSocialism his theory of Crisis seems to bear true too. The difference is, the huge boundaries are between different countries as opposed to in the same country. This doesn't change the theory. As far as action goes, he said something like, if the times are not right for changing system itself, then you must work from within the system to change it. So although we must be bound by the rules of the system (revolution in the 1st world is very implausible) that doesn't mean we can't enact social change. If the social change occurs at a pivitol moment, then it is possible to change the system completely. Much of europe is moving toward more socialist goals, it is important that we achieve them. These are good for everybody, including the cappies. Better education and fair business practice will help pave the road for true socialism, and will reduce the pain of getting there.

To lay it out, I have tried and tried to tell people what great ideas Marx had. Unless they already believe it, they rarely care at all. However, if you scratch away at every issue that you deplore (something like what che said too) eventually people will begin to understand you. You can be a revolutionary without forcing your opinions on people. And I realised that all I could do to change people's minds, was to lay out the facts before them. When people can see the facts, and nothing is pushing them either way, I think they almost always make the moral judgement. I think this is backed up by psychology.
So I proclaim, really we need to make people aware of the problems, if they aware, social change will occur. It is ignorance that breaks down the effort, once people know, they will join the cause. I give example to the Local Government strikes we had today, when near 1 million people across the UK striked. There hasn't been a strike this big for something like 70 years.

When the conditions are right, then you will not need to convince the people, they will fight harder than you do :)

The trouble is, making people aware of the factual problems, in big enough numbers.