Support Capitalism?

[la-troy]

While watching a interview of an educator who had founded several schools to help individuals receive tertiary education. When asked what I thought , i stated that i support no form of capitalism.
Now understand this guy is making some huge profits so it aint no charity, but the fact that it is helping individuals has created an argument in my mind. I know that Marxism calls for an end to Capitalism but I'm still confused. As there is no revolution should I as a Marxist support capitalist endeavors that provide some element of benefit
to the working man.
Say i was suppose to support these endeavors how could I then turn around and denounce capitalism as it exploits the working class. Understand this business is obviously exploiting the people, so it does fall into the category of capitalism that should be shunned by Marxist?

should i just leave these business alone and focus on getting active in worker movements? Because if you ask me doing this would just be arguing for better working conditions, that usually don't last, while neglecting the bigger fight for sovereignty of the working class by attacking capitalism.

[Fodman]

do you mean is it right for a Marxist to help charities, if it involves some form of capitalist business?

[la-troy]

do you mean is it right for a Marxist to help charities, if it involves some form of capitalist business?

No rather in the reverse capitalism with some form of charity.

[abbielives!]

i would prefer working for reforms from the goverment because they are not based on the charity of one individiual.

[Taboo Tongue]

Originally posted by la-troy+May 17, 2007 04:39 pm--> (la-troy @ May 17, 2007 04:39 pm)tertiary education.[/b]
What exactly is tertiary education, do you mean the geological use of the word? See: Wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Tertiary)


Originally posted by la-[email protected] 17, 2007 04:39 pm
the fact that it is helping individuals has created an argument in my mind. I know that Marxism calls for an end to Capitalism but I'm still confused. As there is no revolution should I as a Marxist support capitalist endeavors that provide some element of benefit to the working man.
He can 'help' them all he wants, but he is really doing what he sees in his best interest (more on perceived material interest here (http://rs2k.revleft.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082947254&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)). And you can help them too. Just because you are another worker, that doesn't have the money of a capitalist, doesn't mean you can't help. I try to provide for peoples needs as best I can. From simplistic things such as burning DVD's and Software for people for free, to giving people a ride whenever they need it, or food if I can. These may be small, and I am not saying they will lead to the revolution, but we can still help.


la-[email protected] 17, 2007 04:39 pm
Should i just leave these business alone and focus on getting active in worker movements?
I still don't understand what the business is doing, or how you would help it along. So I really can't say which I would do if given the opportunity.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Well you need to be subtle and not show the enemy your cards.

Also, you need to work with the workers, but not like chanting "down with capitalism" thats just not going to work.

You need to be a step ahead of them, so they can relate to your position.

It wont do to call for revolution all the time. so yes while workers are thinking in terms of capitalism thats how you must try to relate to them.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by la-[email protected] 17, 2007 10:47 pm

do you mean is it right for a Marxist to help charities, if it involves some form of capitalist business?

No rather in the reverse capitalism with some form of charity.
You can't 'reverse' capitalism. From a historical perspective it could would mean going back to feudal or semi-feudal societies.

[LSD]

The thing about capitalism is that we don't have a choice. If we did, this would all be a lot easier.

But by its very nature capitalism, forces us into seeking imployment, indeeed that's arguably its primary purpose; and so as such, no, you are in no way morally culpable for the economic consequences of an economic paradigm you had no part in constructing.

If I'm understanding you correctly?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Raccoon+May 18, 2007 12:27 pm--> (Raccoon @ May 18, 2007 12:27 pm)
la-[email protected] 17, 2007 10:47 pm

No rather in the reverse capitalism with some form of charity.
You can't 'reverse' capitalism. From a historical perspective it could would mean going back to feudal or semi-feudal societies. [/b]
He meant,

"No, rather in the reverse, capitalism with some form of charity."

Luís Henrique

[la-troy]

OK let me explain my question.
I did not mean to specifically refer to that business ( which is a school ) but rather to businesses that are set up that offer a service to the people but at a price that is usually
outrageous( meaning it is way more than what it should be, I am not referring to fanciful thinking about how things should be cheaper). Hence it seems charitably but it is not. These companies allow the owner to owner to make profits quite contradictory to what such a service should cost. I know these businesses may fall in the category of petty bourgeois but what i am asking is that being a marxist should I attack these establishments which in some cases are trusted by the population or just ignore them ?

Simply put should i ignore petite bourgeois and focus on the major bourgeois class ?

Also this school usually provides training that is very beneficial to capitalist. i.e job specific training that cant be applied anywhere else ( not even in the same company)

[Rawthentic]

All work under capitalism is beneficial to capitalists.

Focus on the bourgeois class, while maintaining a strong worker-based organization.

[Janus]

I did not mean to specifically refer to that business ( which is a school ) but rather to businesses that are set up that offer a service to the people but at a price that is usually outrageous( meaning it is way more than what it should be, I am not referring to fanciful thinking about how things should be cheaper).
If the businessman is obviously benefitting greatly from such enterprises then it is clearly not charity but exploitation. In that case, then I see no reason why one should support such greedy actions.


Simply put should i ignore petite bourgeois and focus on the major bourgeois class ?
It depends on each case but if this institution is having a negative impact on your community, then it's probably a good rallying issue and thus something that shouldn't be ignored.

[Fishoutofwater]

Marx said that in order for the socialist revolution to take place, the people must first be exhausted of being exploited, and by the people, he meant EVERYONE (except the aristocratic and the rich and famous of hollywood)

A few revolutionaries can accolplish a lot: If, they have a lot of support.

[h9socialist]

Let's put it this way, some capitalist pursuits are less disagreeable than others. The problem with capitalism's more charitable side is that if it was to become dominant the system would collapse. I recall Lenin saying something to the effect that when capitalism does such things it is not being capitalism. The tragedy is that capitalism affords very few socialist career opportunities -- thus most of us end up trying to get by in life working for a system we hate. That's also why pristine revolutionaries are hard to find -- they tend to miss more meals. Our task is to close this gap, and as you might suspect, it's not easy.