Where did Marxs go wrong?

[Invader Zim]

As the inital communist experiments failed, somewhere some thing pritty drastic Marx must have forgotten about. I wish to discuss what went wrong and how to improve the system.

[sc4r]

Pretty simple I think :

1) The early Marxist 'experiments' were actually conducted under conditions other than those Marx described for the initial stages. Both Russia and China were basically agrarian feudal societies not industrialised Capitalist ones.

2) The Early Marxists (Lenin, Stalin, Mao) believed that even so they could impose Socialism provided they replaced the feudal structured with well meaning Socialist elites as a transition measure.

3) Marx did not allow for highly motivated and antagonistic outside forces which might force these early socialists to adopt a very defensive attitude to extending democracy.

4) This unfortunately means that the 'elites' are exposed to the possibility of a slippery slope of perversion into fascism into which they descended by imperceptible degrees.

The solution ?

1) We must wholeheartedly support the one remaining bastion of Socialism (namely Cuba). WE must constantly demand that it continues to improve its approximation to being a demonstrably fair socialist republic and serve as its defenders agaoinst all those who would harm it.

2) We must find a different paradigm for the implementation and safe establishment of socialist control within large existing states. This I can see taking on two aspects a) we must constantly stribve to increase the amount of socialism within these nations (i.a gradual takeover_ B) we must obtain control of supposedly capitalist businesses and somehow find a way to make this takeover safe both safe from subversion ad also invisible to our enemies.

Most importantly we must be patient in our desire to be recognised but ever vigilant in our actions and in keeping the flame alight.

We will see many traitors and many cowards. We must never allow these people ot any momentary setbacks to deflect our optimism that eventually we will have contributed towards a truly wonderful gift to mankind.

If oit takes a thousand years anf AK47 is forgotten by history you will have contributed so long as you remain always one of those who will keep the red flag flying. This is a thing to feel immense pride in.

[synthesis]

I don't think Marx's ideas were wrong. I think that Lenin's ideas were wrong.

Lenin's idea of an elite vanguard leading the working class inevitably leads to an authoritarian, corrupt, inept state such as those we have seen the world-over.

However, the real socialist experiments - the Paris Commune, for example - are exactly what socialists should strive to achieve.

I think Redstar2000 put it better than anyone else: The duty of present-day Marxists isn't to lead the working class into victory, it's to show them how to obtain victory and let them govern themselves.

[thursday night]

"1) We must wholeheartedly support the one remaining bastion of Socialism (namely Cuba). WE must constantly demand that it continues to improve its approximation to being a demonstrably fair socialist republic and serve as its defenders agaoinst all those who would harm it."

What about the DPRK and Vietnam (perhaps Laos too)? Both are examples of working socialist states, and furthermore despite it's revisionist policies the People's Republic of China must be defended against imperialism.

[redstar2000]

sc4r, I find your strategy--or "paradigm"--rather difficult to fathom.

The idea of a gradual increase in the "socialization" of a capitalist economy has been attempted even more often than the Leninist model...and with even less success. Converting publicly-owned businesses into private property is now one of the main sources of revenue for governments around the world...especially countries where so-called "socialist" parties are in power.

But the second option you offer is the real puzzler. "We must obtain control of supposedly capitalist businesses and somehow find a way to make this takeover both safe from subversion and also invisible to our enemies."

What does that mean? :confused:

I would modify thursday night's comment; I think we have the obligation to defend any country against U.S. imperialism...the main enemy of the entire world in the present era.

:cool:

[thursday night]

I totally concur with you Comrade.

[Palmares]

Didn't Marx, as a generalisation, go wrong in the areas of religion and human nature?

Religion in the sense that he thought it would simply go away, or evaporate (can't remember his terminology). But rather than banning religion, wuoldn't it be more logical to slowly lesser it's grip through education (I guess this doesn't directly relate to Marx).

Then there is human nature. Human will always want. I do not advocate desire, but we cannot simply suppress it. Moderation is the key. The best example of the human nature factor I can think of is the leadership of Stalin, Machiavellian to the core.

[sc4r]

I'm afraid I dont know enough about Korea or Vietnam to be sure they are genuine examples of socialism rather than more examples of places which call themselves communists / Socialist but are really Fascist. Any links would be appreciated.

In the case of China I am just completely unsure what it is. But I do think that if it turns out to be following a rather devious path to socialism then it is big enough to do so without outside help. I wont slag off China but I wont start praising it either.

There are several proto socialisms across the world and I guess it goes without saying that I would be supportive of them developing it still further.

Cuba howver is different to any of these. Socialism is demonstrably fairly advanced there but Cuba itself has a fragile existence. This place need as much support as we can give it.

But in the west liberal property rights are absolutely entrenched both in Law and in the consciousness of people. This is not going to be removedto pave the way for socialsm any time soon. However there actually is a gradual way to socialism in these countries which is not available to smaller and more vulnerable ones. Quite simply every 1% increase in income tax (or even better increases in capital gains tax) provided it is accompanied by an increase in social services and or used to retain or better exctend nationalisation of industries is a step towards economic socialism. It makes any eventual transition easier.

As to the 2nd part of my 'plan' it involves 'nationalising' businesses for the 'nation of socialsm'. Quite simply we buy the capitalists out without telling them who we are. This wont take a year or a decade or even 50 years; but it could be done and I think it is a valid front to launch a genuine attack.

best wishes.

(Edited by sc4r at 10:57 am on April 14, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Im not sdure about Cuba still being a socialist state. It is after all very tourist orientated.

I think it may be doing what china has done but to a lesser extent.

[redstar2000]

"Quite simply, we buy the capitalists out without telling them who we are." -- sc4r

Ok, let's look at this one.

I can think of two possible approaches. The first would be to establish a "mutual fund" that would purchase shares in, for example, the 500 largest corporations. The funds for these purchases would come from voluntary contributions from those who believe that the working class should own the means of production.

At some point in the distant future, sufficient shares would be accumulated to force a change in the Board of Directors of each company and put "our own people" in charge.

The second approach would be to start by acquiring share-holder control of medium-sized corporations, moving on to the larger corporations as funds accumulate.

Here are the problems with this approach:

1. Where are working people to acquire the surplus funds to contribute to the mutual fund? Working people who manage to prosper under capitalism usually spend their surplus buying a house...far and away the most sensible economic investment a working class person can make. Sc4r's strategy would be asking working people to forego this opportunity in favor of a program that might not pay dividends for a century or longer. I frankly doubt that more than a few would be receptive to this approach.

2. When you purchase shares in a corporation, it is because some other capitalist wishes to sell them. What does he do with the money you've given him? Presumably, he purchases shares in some other corporation that he thinks is a better investment. In other words, when a new person enters the stock-market, it doesn't mean that the people already in the market own less...it just means that the "pie" gets bigger. If, by magic, the working class could, tomorrow morning, invest $100 billion in the stock market, it wouldn't mean a net decline in the wealth of those who sold their shares...it would simply mean that they bought different shares (or other forms of investment property).

3. Many large corporations are "privately held"...there are no shares available to the public. No worker or group of workers can purchase one of these corporations with paying a huge additional premium to convince the owners (generally a large and traditionally wealthy family) to sell.

4. Having won control of a corporation, what then? There is still the capitalist marketplace and the new owners, working-class though they may be, are still constrained by the demands of that market...be more profitable than the competition or be destroyed. This is not necessarily an obstacle to treating the corporation's employees in a more humane fashion...some existing companies treat their wage-slaves a good deal better than others and still manage to be successful in the market. But, it does impose constraints.

Of course, once having won control of a corporation, one could seek to convert it into a "non-profit corporation"...and be sued by the minority shareholders (who are still capitalists). I haven't any idea how that would play out in the capitalist court system...but there would be extreme bias against you.

5. There is a contradiction in the goal of (more or less) publicly appealing to the working class to "buy out the capitalists" and keeping this appeal "secret" from the capitalist class itself. There is a saying: "Three people can keep a secret, provided two of them are dead." A "socialist conspiracy" of this magnitude would become known within a few years of its inception...if not sooner.

For these reasons, I think a socialist strategy of "buying out the capitalist class" is impractical.

:cool:

[thursday night]

Cuba is certainly still a socialist state, and I should know because I've been there, AK47.

Furthermore, Vietnam and People's Korea are hardly 'fascists under socialist banners.' Check around the boards for discussions on North Korea, especially posts by Chairman Mao. Also, you can email the Vietnammese embassy in Washington DC and ask them to send you some helpful reading material, it is well worth it.

[Invader Zim]

Cuba is certainly still a socialist state, and I should know because I've been there, AK47.

im sure your correct, its just that i watched some TV program (probably propagander) but it made out it was fading into capitalism.

[Conghaileach]

The only piece of news I've heard about Vietnam in the last while is that it uses child slave labour. It may not be true, but who can tell?

[Conghaileach]

from sc4r:
However there actually is a gradual way to socialism in these countries which is not available to smaller and more vulnerable ones. Quite simply every 1% increase in income tax (or even better increases in capital gains tax) provided it is accompanied by an increase in social services and or used to retain or better exctend nationalisation of industries is a step towards economic socialism. It makes any eventual transition easier.

I'm not sure I understand this point. Are you saying that raising taxes will slowly bring about socialism? Trust me, the last thing the workers need right now is more taxes thrown on them.

A problem with so-called economist socialism is that it completely omits the political factor - it ignores the push towards workers taking control of the state, and all its appartai, for themselves.

Economism falls into the trap of having a new bourgeoisie controlling the capitalist state "on behalf of" the workers, simply by making their living conditions a little better.

[sc4r]

I'm not sure I understand this point. Are you saying that raising taxes will slowly bring about socialism? Trust me, the last thing the workers need right now is more taxes thrown on them.
.

And you can trust me when I say that if you dont want taxation then you dont want socialism.

Yes, of course it matters what the taxation system is and the more progressive it is the better.

A 100% tax on income above a certain level or (if it could be devised without loopholes) a 100% tax on unearned income is almost exactly synonmous with common ownership of the means of production.

A common thread running through these replies seems to be the idea that 'the workers' can achieve equality or bring about socialism without sacrificing anything at least during the struggle. I cannot imagine why you think this should be. Do you seriously imagine that many people within the capitalist system are going to be persuaded by demonstrations and arguments to just suddenly allow a quite massive upheaval in the way they live ? Or do you think there is any cjhance of a socialist revolution occuring in a developed nation (and for that matter how would u justify doing something you cannot achieve through the ballot box even if there were the slightest chance of success ?).

We may all wish upon a star and have pleasant daydreams that things will magically put themselves right but in reality it wont happen.

If people are serious about wanting to see Socialism then they have to be prepared to pay a price and I can assure you that having some fun at a demo or chatting here about the theory and the benefits is not a high enough price. This does not mean do not do these things, all progress and all opposition is good. But dont fool yourself that it is enough.

[sc4r]

Quote: from redstar2000

1. Where are working people to acquire the surplus funds to contribute to the mutual fund? …. I frankly doubt that more than a few would be receptive to this approach.

If you wont pay for a socialist future you wont get one. It really is that simple, no capitalist is going to gift it to you and in no developed nation is a socialist revolution practical.

It really does not matter how many contribute or even how much they contribute; all this alters is the timeframe. Few workers in developed nations genuinely cannot afford to contribute anything at all. If they decide they want immediate gratification (in terms of a larger house or car) more than they want socialism then that’s fair enough they will have made their choice. But we should at least offer a choice.

Whats your plan ?

2 In other words, when a new person enters the stock-market, it doesn't mean that the people already in the market own less.

Errrr yes it does. It isnt as simple as saying that the value owned by the existing people drops by the same amount as the new entrant aquires, but the effect is definitely in this direction. Sorry, but this is so basic I would be embarrassed to explain it without giving you at least the chance to have a rethink for yourself.

4. Having won control of a corporation, what then? There is still the capitalist marketplace and the new owners, working-class though they may be, are still constrained by the demands of that market...be more profitable than the competition or be destroyed. This is not necessarily an obstacle to treating the corporation's employees in a more humane fashion.

I think you miss the point. The idea is not to start gradually operating businesses as if they were self-contained socialisms. That would impose a competitive disadvantage on those enterprises and almost guarantee they failed. The idea is for Socialism to cumulatively aquire ownership rights so that at some future time we can declare it and turn enough over to a genuinely socialist national Government without risking the sort of counter revolution that has occurred in Venezuela following nationalisation of a key industry. The idea is to deprive capitalists (eventually) of the economic and media weapons that they use against socialist governments.

It also has a secondary (maybe even more important) pschological effect. It gives focus and obtains commitment from people. Its a truism that what you have not paid for you dont value.

5. There is a contradiction in the goal of (more or less) publicly appealing to the working class to "buy out the capitalists" and keeping this appeal "secret" from the capitalist class itself. There is a saying: "Three people can keep a secret, provided two of them are dead." A "socialist conspiracy" of this magnitude would become known within a few years of its inception...if not sooner.

This is a valid point. Could something be done without it ever becoming opposed if the purpose of the ownership was kept low key ? I think so.


(Edited by sc4r at 11:21 pm on April 14, 2003)

[redstar2000]

"What's your plan?" -- sc4r

I frankly don't think that any small group of individuals can "plan" a communist revolution.

History suggests that they are, by and large, spontaneous events brought about by millions and even tens of millions of people as a result of the more or less total collapse of the old order.

In the final days of that old order, it may be possible to "plan" the final push over the edge (as Lenin and the Bolsheviks did). But to attempt to devise a "100-year-plan" at the present time does not seem practical to me.

I know people have heard it all before, but I'm still waiting to hear a serious improvement on traditional communist strategy: 1. Where possible, engage in class struggle with the goal of radicalizing the working class with communist ideas; and 2. Outside of the direct class struggle, do whatever is possible to spread communist ideas throughout the general working class and its potential allies.

I don't think there's any "easy" or "magic" road to revolution...it's just a lot of hard work and a lot of waiting for the internal workings of capitalism to create the necessary conditions. If Marx was right, then those conditions will appear.

If he was wrong, then we're all "wankers" and should quit wasting our energy here and go join "Everquest."

:cool:

[Nick Yves]

I really think the most logicle, and practical way to get Socialism/Communism back on its feet, its to educate. Ive talked to quite a few of my friends who dont know much about politics about the idea, and they all have a basic understanding of it, and maybe even some of them will study it a step further. Knowledge is a weapon. The idea of revolution is a good one, but one that I do not see actually working, other than making chaos. We cant just get a big group of people and protest in the name of communism..We have to get somebody inside the government, and let them take it over inside the system. If it comes back, thats how I would see it happening

[redstar2000]

"We have to get somebody inside the government and let them take over inside the system."

Definitely not!

You can't take over from "inside" for the same reason that a truck makes an extremely poor boat.

Capitalist governments are designed to serve the interests of a capitalist class...they are like machines designed to serve certain purposes.

To try to use them for an entirely different purpose, the abolition of class society, is not only a mistake...it's impossible.

Please don't waste your time trying.

:cool:

[Blackberry]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 3:19 am on April 15, 2003
"We have to get somebody inside the government and let them take over inside the system."

Definitely not!

You can't take over from "inside" for the same reason that a truck makes an extremely poor boat.

Capitalist governments are designed to serve the interests of a capitalist class...they are like machines designed to serve certain purposes.

To try to use them for an entirely different purpose, the abolition of class society, is not only a mistake...it's impossible.

Please don't waste your time trying.

:cool:

I can think of many examples where people or organisations who genuinely wanted to help the working class were corrupted by the system when they participated in it. The Australian Labor Party comes to mind. What started off as a party for the working class, today serves the interests of the capitalists.

I'm sure you can think of many other examples. The system itself corrupts those who participate in it. Redstar mentioned that above.

There can be no such thing as 'socialism from above'. If it is done above, then socialism will not ultimately result. ANYONE who enters the system will no doubt take advantage of the perks and the powers given to them also. I know I would. The rewards would be very tempting, and a system designed to protect the capitalists would not help the cause, so it is neccessary that I fight socialism from BELOW.

(Edited by Neutral Nation at 4:05 am on April 15, 2003)

[Ian]

I agree with Thursday, we do need to defend the countries he mentioned from imperialism any way we can, thats goes without saying, we as socialists oppose imperialism.

I agree in part with Comrade Cthenthar, I do believe it is fantasy to believe religion will dissappear as soon as a new society emerges, but I digress with Cthenthar when he states "Then there is human nature. Human will always want. I do not advocate desire, but we cannot simply suppress it.", I agree all people 'want', but does Human nature really exist?

Mostly, the idea of "human nature " is a reflection of a divisive society that is incapable of creating a decent life for all its members. This failure is then rationalised as a pessimistic view that all people (mainly other people) are inherently selfish, greedy, and lazy. This view has been used as an objection to socialism, in which all the bad examples of human behaviour under capitalism are called upon to say that a society based on equality and voluntary co-operation is impossible.

This prejudice is also reinforced by arguments which assert that our behaviour and our relationships result from the way we are biologically or genetically programmed. These focus on competition, leadership, possessiveness, aggression, social and sexual inequality and an alleged drive to be territorial but, again, all these are behaviour patterns that reflect capitalism.

The arrival of capitalism is a relatively recent phenomenon within human history, ninety per cent of which has been spent living as hunter gatherers, in small tribes moving from place to place. This ended with the rise of settled agriculture about ten thousand years ago and a variety of different forms of social organisation have followed across different parts of the world. If our social arrangements were determined by our biology then this diversity of human behaviour, relationships and culture would never have arisen.

The real scientific evidence shows humans are able to adapt to cope with the challenges presented by the natural and social environments within which they have had to live. Evidence from the now completed human genome project supports the view of the adaptability of human beings. Dr Craig Venter, President and chief scientific officer of Celera Geonomics (the private firm that wants to patent genes for profit and thus not someone to be suspected of anti-capitalist or pro-socialist leanings :)) declared in the official press release issued by the journal Science which published his firms results in its 16 February issue:

“There are many surprises from this first look at our genetic code that have important implications for humanity. Since the June 26, 2000 announcement our understanding of the human genome has changed in the most fundamental ways. The small number of genes – 30,000 instead of 140,000 – supported the notion that we are not hard-wired . We now know that the notion that one gene leads to one protein and perhaps one disease is false. One gene leads to many different products and those products-proteins- can change dramatically after they are produced. We know that regions of the genome that are not genes may be the key to the complexity we see in humans. We now know the environment acting on these biological steps may be key in makin us what we are. Likewise the remarkably small number of genetic variations that occur in genes again suggest a significant role for environmental influences in developing each of our uniqueness.”

Often we hear People are too greedy for socialism, I dream of a time when people will say "people are too kind for capitalism", this point is forgotten to many comrades who refuse to confront this outright attack on co-operation under socialism, they just say "nah mate I'm not greedy and you will eat what you are given fatty!". The fact is that the nature of the individual is shaped by their environment and in a truly socialist society the nature of individuals would be altered.

Co-operation is sometimes said to be impossible because there is an inherent conflict between self-interest and the interests of others. In fact, the reverse is true. The interests of the individual are best realised when people are working together.

Sorry if I attacked you or anything Cthenthar, just making a point.
...And thus ends my rant.


(Edited by Ian Rocks at 12:01 am on April 16, 2003)

[Palmares]

That's alright Ian.

I would have a response, but I gotta got catch a bus.

Maybe my brain will grow overnight and I'll have a response.

BTW, good post :)

[Ian]

catch a bus? what the hell? I thought you could walk across Tasmania? ;)

[Conghaileach]

from sc4r:
A 100% tax on income above a certain level or (if it could be devised without loopholes) a 100% tax on unearned income is almost exactly synonmous with common ownership of the means of production.

I apologise if I seem somewhat slow to you, but can you please explain this concept?

How do you decide what level the 100% tax begins at? £30,000 a year? £50,000 a year? £75,000?

And who is to decide what is considered "unearned" income? The government?

I understand what you're saying as regards to the idea of a progressive tax, and I agree that the higher income 'earners' do need to be taxed more harshly. But I still fail to see how it will bring about socialism.

Even devising such a tax system (ignoring the fact that if you depend on the government to ensure that it has no loopholes, you'll never get it) would be extremely dangerous. Third world countries, as well as rich nations, depend on foreign capital. If you threaten foreign businesses with a huge tax, they will simply move their sweatshops to another area where a bigger profit can be turned.

[sc4r]

Quote: from CiaranB on 6:05 pm on April 15, 2003
from sc4r:
A 100% tax on income above a certain level or (if it could be devised without loopholes) a 100% tax on unearned income is almost exactly synonmous with common ownership of the means of production.

I apologise if I seem somewhat slow to you, but can you please explain this concept?

How do you decide what level the 100% tax begins at? £30,000 a year? £50,000 a year? £75,000?

And who is to decide what is considered "unearned" income? The government?

I understand what you're saying as regards to the idea of a progressive tax, and I agree that the higher income 'earners' do need to be taxed more harshly. But I still fail to see how it will bring about socialism.

Even devising such a tax system (ignoring the fact that if you depend on the government to ensure that it has no loopholes, you'll never get it) would be extremely dangerous. Third world countries, as well as rich nations, depend on foreign capital. If you threaten foreign businesses with a huge tax, they will simply move their sweatshops to another area where a bigger profit can be turned.

You dont seem slow. You simply to me dont seem to have thought through what socialism actually is in economic terms.

I assume you recognise that 'common ownership of the means of production' is the key concept in the economic part of socialism ?

Now common ownership means two things :

1) It means that by some mechanism or other society must be allowed to decide how businesses operate (the most obvious way is through state control).

2) It means that the profits (i.e all surplus capacity created after expenses have been paid) must go to society.

Now Taxation is a way of moving surplus production (which equates to capacity) from the individual to society. What society then does with it (invest in yet more production, fund schools or hospitals, or reduce workloads etc is up to society). The more progressive the tax is, the more it tends to acknowlege that no individual is entitled especially to a disproportionate share of whatever wealth is created. In other words it says that all individuals are entitled to be paid but no individual is entitled to be paid huge amounts and that anything above a fair wage effectively represents profit which (under 2) belongs to society.

Unearned income means income you recieve by virtue of an investment rather than by virtue of a productive occupation. Unearned income is exactly what the 'owners' of a business recieve and under socialism the 'owner' is society.

Hence if there is a tax of 50% on enearned income then you can justifiably say that 50% socialism is in in place.

Depending upon what particular version of socialism you take (flat rate per hours worked all the way through to extreme market socialism) a progressive tax on earned income, in a situation where 100% tax on unearned income and negotiation through society of wages does not exist, can mean either that in effect socialism has been put in place or that it has been approximated.

What exact level should be set at ? Thats up for democratic discussion. I doubt that any genuine socialist would want to set the rate on unearned income any lower than can possibly be achieved (100% ideally) in general principle. How should the gearing on earned income be set ? that depends on a whole lot of things which include how close you want to get to flat rate socialism. It cannot really be answered except as a proposal which just might be currently acceptable. In which case I would say something like :

First £15k free of tax.
Next £25k at 25%
Next £50k at 35%
Next £150k at 50%
next £250k at 60%.

or something like that.

If you are trying to attract outside (capitalist) investors into a country you actually cannot run socialism in the first place. Its a contradiction in terms; the exact opposite of what you are trying to achieve. You might in practise fudge the definition or allow exceptions for pragmatic reasons but while you have any outside investors you dont have full socialism anyway.


(Edited by sc4r at 7:13 pm on April 15, 2003)


(Edited by sc4r at 7:16 pm on April 15, 2003)

[Conghaileach]

You're talking about how the state and businesses may operate under socialism. What I'm wondering is how you plan to achieve socialism in the first place?

[sc4r]

Sorry but I thought that was was started this off in the first place.

You implement socialism in a western nation by gradually getting closer to it. i.e. by gradually taking more and more things under public control and funding this through steadily increasing taxation rates for the better off.

I expressed another idea to support this (gradual aquisition of capital by committed socialists).

And you do all sorts of other things (including education, protest, unionisation) in parrallel.

Dramatic change may be possible in less developed countries (where the conditions suggested by Marx may at least be approximated). But not in 1st world countries wher frankly the conditions have come and gone (more on this topic from me another time maybe).

I honestly cannot see how else anyone thinks it is going to get done (and I havent seen anything else suggested in this thread beyond a failry general call for 'education'). Surely nobody thinks that a genuine socialist party has the slightest chance of getting elected in the USA or the UK without a very considerable and very gradual shift of conditions. To use one of Marx's earlier ideas (connected to alienation) the effect that capitalist behaviour exerts upon peoples natures will prevent them ever voting to change the system until after it has already been changed without them realising it.

This is just my opinion of course.

best wishes.

(Edited by sc4r at 12:02 am on April 16, 2003)

[redstar2000]

"the effect that capitalist behavior exerts upon peoples' natures will prevent them ever voting to change the system until after it has already been changed without them realizing it."

I agree that the effects of capitalist behavior have enormous influence on what we think of as "human nature".

But I think it's a mistake to think of this as a static phenomenon. Capitalism itself changes over time; it's material conditions and effects change; and "human nature" adjusts accordingly.

If one were to assume that capitalism could more or less function indefinitely, then I would agree that socialism would, in some fashion, have to be imposed on people without their knowledge.

But I think that's a faulty assumption. Over the course of this century, I expect capitalism to be "crisis-ridden" with imperialist wars, stagnation, bubbles of growth followed by collapse...and a general atmosphere of increasingly intolerable uncertainty. Authoritarian ideologies like fascism will certainly be more appealing...but they can't really do anything but make things worse.

Sooner or later, a "proto-communist" attitude will emerge in the working class (sooner if there are active communists present)...and "human nature" will have begun to change again.

It will not be a matter of "voting" (if the old ruling class is still bothering with the charade of elections)...it will be a matter of revulsion at the old order and everything associated with it.

I know this is a difficult thing to imagine...much as it would have been difficult for even the most visionary 13th century thinker to imagine a modern capitalist economy. If confronted with a plausible scenario, he would have insisted that such a system would be an abomination to "human nature."

And he would have been wrong, of course.

:cool:

[sc4r]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:42 am on April 16, 2003
"... then I would agree that socialism would, in some fashion, have to be imposed on people without their knowledge.

But I think that's a faulty assumption. Over the course of this century, I expect capitalism to be "crisis-ridden" with imperialist wars, stagnation, bubbles of growth followed by collapse...and a general atmosphere of increasingly intolerable uncertainty. Authoritarian ideologies like fascism will certainly be more appealing...but they can't really do anything but make things worse.

Sooner or later, a "proto-communist" attitude will emerge in the working class (sooner if there are active communists present)...and "human nature" will have begun to change again.

It will not be a matter of "voting" (if the old ruling class is still bothering with the charade of elections)...it will be a matter of revulsion at the old order and everything associated with it.

I know this is a difficult thing to imagine...much as it would have been difficult for even the most visionary 13th century thinker to imagine a modern capitalist economy. If confronted with a plausible scenario, he would have insisted that such a system would be an abomination to "human nature."

And he would have been wrong, of course.

:cool:

I think you are still missing part of what I'm saying (or I'm not saying it very well, whatever), and an important part.

Im not remotely suggesting that socialism be 'imposed on people' either with or without their knowlege. In fact I'm actually saying the exact opposite.

the phrase 'will prevent them ever voting to change the system until after it has already been changed without them realizing it.' is not intended to imply that the changes are hidden (we are talking taxation here, how could the changes be hidden) but that most people will not percieve that these direct changes alter the way that an entire system functions and that as a consequence of that their attitudes are changing with it.

I cant believe that you think that most people actually understand (or care about) how a system itself works rather than in what it overtly does. Most people dont even understand what money really represents.

I'm talking gradual changes mandated by people not any kind of imposed system or change.

I simply dont agree with you either that it is likely that revulsion will set in IN THE WEST (which is what I'm talking of here). Almost everybody in the west participates in capitalism, the people who today approximate best to Marx's proletariat dont really exist there, they are increasingly to be found only in the third world. The time when a mass 'workers' movement could come to be in the USA and in the UK and in the USA etc. has come and gone; the moment really never crystallised as Marx foresaw it because workers conditions improved and ameliorated the revulsion Marx was expecting. Today the way business is increasingly operating divides and confuses any attempt to establish such a movement.

Which leaves the prospect of a marxist style revolution in the third world. Frankly I dont think this is likely either because the forces of Imperialism are alert to it and guard against it. Many things have altered since Marx's time and it simply is not realistic to see the type of revolution he predicted as happening. Marx was not a gid , he was a man, and he got this bit wrong because he could not foresee the future.

This is obviously my opinion only and you are quite entitled to yours. I will at some time in the future develop the notion of why the conditions expected by Marx wont now come about in more detail , but for now I just have to leave it as an expressed opinion.

The only prospect of a genuine breakdown of capitalism is that when fossil fuels run out and/or we see the results of global warming really hitting home there is likely to be huge turmoil. But this really is not the sort of turmoil that Marx was envisaging as the conditions for a socialist revolution either (I assume you see this).

Best wishes - all opinions are just that opinions :)



(Edited by sc4r at 10:08 am on April 16, 2003)

[Sabocat]

Quote: from AK47 on 6:21 pm on April 14, 2003
Im not sdure about Cuba still being a socialist state. It is after all very tourist orientated.

I think it may be doing what china has done but to a lesser extent.


Because Cuba uses a 2 tier pricing system ( 1 price for goods and services to tourists, another price for residents), it may provide some financial relief to help counter the ridiculous US embargo.

In some ways, although I hate the thought of US tourism wrecking the place, maybe it's a good thing having it open to tourism so that people from all over the world can experience a socialist culture up close. I would think it would certainly dispell some of the American myths.

[redstar2000]

The United States Supreme Court once wrote (approvingly) that "the power to tax is the power to destroy."

Thus it is within the realm of bourgeois legality that the capitalist ruling class could be "taxed out of existence" and even relegated to sleeping on the sidewalks and eating out of dumpsters.

Considering the class nature of bourgeois parliaments, why should such a theoretical possibility ever come to pass?

I do not think it true that there is no more "proletariat" in the Marxist sense in the "West"--the Maoists to the contrary notwithstanding.

The working class in the western countries are indeed divided and suffer from many false apprehensions of social reality, from the myth of "upward mobility" to religious fundamentalism to imperial patriotism.

If Marx was right, these falsehoods are being challenged and will be challenged more and more as late capitalism deteriorates into a crisis-ridden existence.

It's true that Marx and Engels did not anticipate environmental crises...but, somehow, I don't think they would have been terribly surprised by them. What would have surprised them, if anything, is that capitalism is still around to do serious damage.

It is hard for humans, with our limited life-spans, to take "the long view". We have words to speak of it but we don't really feel it. The understandable reaction of many people to a statement like "capitalism might last another century or two" is to change the channel.

But that's life. The more people grasp the material reality of the social order, the more willing they become to fight it...and, as we have seen in recent decades, the less willing the capitalist class is to make concessions.

I cannot see any way this process of change can go except towards communist revolution...in the long run.

"In the long run," said the bourgeois economist, "we are all dead." However, it's my personal opinion that those who struggle for liberation are the only ones who really "live".

:cool:

[synthesis]

I do not think it true that there is no more "proletariat" in the Marxist sense in the "West"--the Maoists to the contrary notwithstanding.

TOO MANY NEGATIVES!!! :boggles:

[redstar2000]

Edit sentence to read: There is a "proletariat" in the Marxist sense in the "West", and the Maoists are wrong to say otherwise.

Always happy to please. :biggrin:

:cool:

[synthesis]

Eh, I figured it out after I posted that :biggrin:

The best use of double negatives ever has to go to Douglas Adams when he describes a vending machine which produces "a substance almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea."

[Ian]

I'm gonna be really helpful (pedantic), Redstar you said Marx & Engels did not anticipate environmental crises, but Marx had a feeling... "The development of civilization and of industry in general has ever shown itself so active in the destruction of forests, that everything done by it for their preservation and production, compared to its destructive effect, appears infinitesimal" Karl Marx Capital volume 2 chapter 13 p279 or thereabouts
Not to be outdone Red Freddie had an inkling about environmental problems as well... "Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human victories over nature. For each such victory nature takes its revenge on us. " Engels (1876), The Part Played by Labor in the Transition from Ape to Man, pg 261

[redstar2000]

Pedantry in defiance of vagueness is no vice. :biggrin:

Thanks, Ian.

:cool: