Marx made a fundamental flaw

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

He said that the material conditions that would provoke a mass working-class movement that would overthrow capitalism would be the the capitalist mode of production of his time, of the beginning of the second industrial revolution. This has not happened. Advanced capitalist powers have moved on from economies based on industrial output. There are no signs of workers taking power. If that change that he witnessed didn't result in anything, what will? Has the mode of production not truly changed, and are the material conditions that Marx referred to still in existence? If in fact a fundamental alteration has occurred, what are the material conditions that will incite change?

[Marsella]

He said that the material conditions that would provoke a mass working-class movement that would overthrow capitalism would be the the capitalist mode of production of his time, of the beginning of the second industrial revolution. This has not happened.

Firstly, just because it has not happened does not mean it will not happen. Maybe Marx was just way off the mark and the material conditions will not be reached for a long while (if at all). But it seems that he made some major errors.

I think that the system has not been overthrown for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, workers' wages do NOT represent the very basic maintenance required for their survival. That is clear as day. Workers receive far more than the money required to eat and survive. I think that has important consequences, because it (1) allows them to enjoy the material products of capitalist society and (2) allows them to save enough resources to become petty-bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie themselves; to climb up the class ladder. Just because it is difficult to do, does not make it impossible; it engenders a 'work hard attitude.'

Bosses have discovered that it bears far more positive consequences to have workers receive half-decent wages - they do not challenge the system. Some worker making 70,000 a year is not going to challenge the system.

And if you have the ability to climb up the class ladder, then you will naturally oppose all things which takes that ladder away from you.


There are no signs of workers taking power. If that change that he witnessed didn't result in anything, what will?

Undoubtedly, two things increase a radical position to the means of production: 1. War and 2. Depressions. Poverty and poor conditions breeds resistance.


Has the mode of production not truly changed, and are the material conditions that Marx referred to still in existence?

Well, capitalism is still the system but it has definitely reformed. It had to, otherwise it would have shot itself in the foot.


If in fact a fundamental alteration has occurred, what are the material conditions that will incite change?

Only a very strong depression, perhaps a serious war. Something that will 'shake' the working class out of their acceptance of the status quo.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:52 pm
Firstly, workers' wages do NOT represent the very basic maintenance required for their survival. That is clear as day. Workers receive far more than the money required to eat and survive. I think that has important consequences, because it (1) allows them to enjoy the material products of capitalist society and (2) allows them to save enough resources to become petty-bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie themselves; to climb up the class ladder. Just because it is difficult to do, does not make it impossible; it engenders a 'work hard attitude.'

Bosses have discovered that it bears far more positive consequences to have workers receive half-decent wages - they do not challenge the system. Some worker making 70,000 a year is not going to challenge the system.

And if you have the ability to climb up the class ladder, then you will naturally oppose all things which takes that ladder away from you.

In the United States the workers are beginning to feel the crunch.

There are obviously exceptions to some of what you said. I am one such exception. I have both moved up the ladder and make a decent wage, but I still oppose the system.

But in general, what you say is true. People are not willing to risk what they have if they have any little bit of excess. This is why the US has an enforced minimum wage. The US realized after/during the depression that it was beneficial to the system to appease the worker by throwing a piece of the "pie" every so often.

[Ultra-Violence]

The Problem is that workers Not all but a good 90% of them dont see themselves as a class or anthing for that matter IMO nothing has happend Becuase We havent been doing our job as Communis/Anarchist Wich is To educate the working class and lift the scales from their eyes so they can see becuase We already can.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The United States and the first world as a whole are exceptions. We're part of a global economy and it makes no sense to consider one country exclusively. Most workers do not earn enough to "enjoy consumer goods" or much less amass capital.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I'm inquiring as to the material conditions that have caused these lack of revolutions and lack of conscientization among the working class. Have they changed from the XIX century? Are the current conditions not favorable for proletarian mobilization? What are the conditions that will yield the emancipation of the workers? No satisfactory answers yet.

[More Fire for the People]

It is un-wise to sweep thirteen decades of failure of subjective-political organization under the rug of material conditions. Working class leadership and organization lags behind even at its speediest, it can out pace a snail… on a sloth’s back… standing still. This shows a very weak will of socialists, communists, and anarchists to empower workers’ organization. We need pro-active activists: radicals of sections of the working class, radical cultural workers in music and television, radical social workers and educators in community organizations and schools. We need thinkers and tinkerers, DJs and MCs, prophets and prose. Here lies this mass of un-realized potential, the young; united by a shared, Black, poor, ghetto dominant culture with connections to soulful and self-conscious lyricism.

[Ultra-Violence]

It is un-wise to sweep thirteen decades of failure of subjective-political organization under the rug of material conditions. Working class leadership and organization lags behind even at its speediest, it can out pace a snail… on a sloth’s back… standing still. This shows a very weak will of socialists, communists, and anarchists to empower workers’ organization. We need pro-active activists: radicals of sections of the working class, radical cultural workers in music and television, radical social workers and educators in community organizations and schools. We need thinkers and tinkerers, DJs and MCs, prophets and prose. Here lies this mass of un-realized potential, the young; united by a shared, Black, poor, ghetto dominant culture with connections to soulful and self-conscious lyricism.


Speak on my freind tell it like it is!

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

You must also make a note of the Stalinist countries and the extreme negative effect that that has had on the workers movement.

I'm not just saying this because i'm a learner Trotskyist, but Erenest Mandel wrote about this subject, and there are many other good Trotskyists too.

Also, i think what we have seen is this. There has been an active and militant workers movement in all countries, core and periphery.

The problem is that in both core and periphery countries workers have chosen, themselves, reformism as their expression and desire for change.

The material conditions are present, but the experience of Stalinism has meant the working class will put up with much more than it might do, were the Stalinist countries actually viable alternatives.

If Russia had not gone bad, we might probably be living in socialism now.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 09:00 pm
I'm not just saying this because i'm a learner Trotskyist, but Erenest Mandel wrote about this subject, and there are many other good Trotskyists too.
Your source for this ridiculous position (that we would be living in a socialist society had Trotsky not lost a power struggle within the CPSU) is a number of Trotskyites? Please...

I've never read Mandel but I am aware of his reputation, so I can only conclude that you are completely misrepresenting his arguments. Either way I'd like your explanation of the SPD - a major Marxist party that had become unwaveringly committed to reformism prior to the Russian Revolution. If not the SPD then pick any other party within the Second International.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 19, 2007 05:28 pm
It is un-wise to sweep thirteen decades of failure of subjective-political organization under the rug of material conditions.
I disagree. I think that material conditions are precisely the cause.

Perhaps it's unwise to sweep decades of successful socialist movements under the rug of failure. Socialism in the XX may have been not lasted to this day and may have been responsible for a number of mistakes and atrocities, but it has also been responsible for countless mobilizations of workers around the world, successfully wresting power from the ruling class, and making concrete gains in all aspects. Let us not forget that while socialist countries may have turned to reaction and revision, the socialism that they established did have its merits. All major socialist regimes of the XX century achieved notable things in terms of workers' rights, economic development, equality, etc.

But the matter in question is why the working class movement today is so miserably weak.

The questions are:
Were the material conditions for working class revolution present in XIX Western Europe as Marx claimed?
Were they present in Russia in 1917, in Africa in the 1970s, in Cuba in '59, in Eastern Europe after WWII, in China in '49, in Vietnam, in Korea, in Afghanistan? Are they present today in the Western world? Has the end of the Soviet Union weakened international socialism? Did the unity of Communist Parties around the world under Moscow help the working class movement? Is the lack of this source of strength perhaps a reason for the current lack of working-class political engagement? If the material conditions defined by Marx that would lead to revolutionary working-class emancipation still exist, why hasn't it happened yet and why does it look like nothing is happening? If nothing is indeed happening, then what alteration in the mode of production will cause an alteration in the material conditions that will yield the success of a mass movement against capitalism?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm with Hopscotch here. The "fundamental flaw" in Marx's analysis was his "binary" analysis of the system. Yes, there is a base and superstructure, but even with a strong base, the whole building can collapse on itself without a strong "skeletal" framework. The "skeletal" framework happens to be organization:

The limitations of directly materialist analysis (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72584)


[Or is the organizational question inherently part of the strictly/directly materialist analysis? :huh: ]

To start off, Lenin treated the concept of organization as its own "question," and I was inspired by such separation in some of my recent analysis.

I started off on this board by stating somewhere that Russia was already materially ripe for a traditional bourgeois revolution since the Crimean war, long before Stolypin became the prime minister (after "Bloody Sunday"), and before Lenin himself was born! Also, Russia was ripe for "revolutionary democracy" in the 1890s, thanks to the accelerated economic programs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_history,_1892-1917#Accelerated_industrialization) of one Sergey White (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Witte) (the developments being commented on in Lenin's The Development of Capitalism in Russia).

However, such revolutions (bourgeois-democratic or revolutionary-democratic) didn't happen spontaneously. As usual, "the devil is in the details."

Now, before someone here cries out "Great Men of History" or even "Ideologist" (sorry if my humour is poor this morning), I'm not one such analyst (coincidentally, those folks who subscribe to the "Great Men" crap are basically saying that some guys came out of the blue spontaneously and fulfilled their historical roles).

Last night, as I peeked into this Learning thread on Stalin's rise to power (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72409), I noted one sweeping generalization being made (as sweeping and as generalized as the "analysis" of the "Great Men" folks, but this time by the "strictly/directly" materialist side): civil war conditions.

Before I comment on the Learning thread material, I'll go back to the material above on capitalist development in Russia and introduce a fourth perspective (after "Great Men," "Ideology," and "strict/direct" materialism): organization. Simply put, Russia's masses were not sufficiently organized at that time to enact either a proper bourgeois-democratic revolution or a revolution for "revolutionary democracy" in their respective periods (post-Crimean War and under both Stolypin and White). The high levels of illiteracy certainly doesn't help the Ideologists' case or the "Great Men" folks (communication). By the time of March 1917, there were still high levels of illiteracy, but the high levels of regimentation and organization resulting from a third imperialist war in just sixty years (after the Crimean war and the Russian-Japanese war) and from the creation of soviets helped the revolutionary cause immensely. Also, although the Bolsheviks themselves were hardly the organized folks lionized by Soviet propaganda, the proliferation of soviets and factory committees helped the revolutionary cause immensely.

Now, on to Stalin, his bureaucratic bunch, and my two (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72409&view=findpost&p=1292405670) posts (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72409&view=findpost&p=1292407266) in the Learning thread (but briefly): no matter how bad the civil war conditions were, no matter how many posts Stalin himself held simultaneously (as noted by Preobrazhensky) (http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Back/Wnext19/Stalin.html) before that critical moment in 1922, no matter how much "will to power" he had (and ideology was irrelevant at this point, anyway), Stalin and his ignored bureaucratic bunch would not have prevailed over the more prominent trade-union bureaucracy (represented by Tomsky, Shlyapnikov, and Kollontai) and other emerging but equally prominent bureaucratic factions (including the "Bonapartist" military-bureaucratic pressures that Trotsky himself faced) without a key organization. It was neither the Secretariat nor the Orgburo itself (both of which Stalin presided over as General Secretary, a post that mattered little politically even without what I'm about to say); it was a little known Central Committee section known as "Uchraspred."

[Later on, the resurrection and permanence of the "Partyocracy" after Stalin's death was due to corresponding unknowns utilized by Khrushchev and his "Partyocrats," and not so much due to the Secretariat itself. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69965)]

Last, but not least, is the question of Hitler and the Nazis. Trotsky may have wrote some fine stuff regarding the petit-bourgeoisie's role in the rise of fascist states, but he, just like the "Great Men" folks and the "Ideologists," ignored the role of organization. Prospective fascist states have their material conditions (usually a political and/or economic defeat or mere eclipse of some sort, plus industrialist $$$), "masses" of petit-bourgeoisie and "Great Men" rabble-rousers, but left unorganized or organized improperly, fascism won't succeed. [If I recall correctly, shortly before Hitler's rise to power, France was the most anti-Semitic country in Europe, and it was long since eclipsed by Britain as the leading imperialist power.]

That's why, in my profile, I rank Lenin above Marx in terms of influence on my socialist thinking.

[YKTMX]

Firstly, workers' wages do NOT represent the very basic maintenance required for their survival.

Yes and Marx never claimed such a thing. In fact, in Das Kapital, he said that "so-called neccessary wants are a product of historical development" [my emphasis]. He also said that the value of labour was to a great extent influenced by the "traditional standard of life". He said that "wants" came not only from our base physical needs (i.e enough food and shelter to survive) but also the "social conditions from which people spring". In other words, what workers will receive is based, in large part, on what the conditions of the society in which they live. It also depends on the contours of the class struggle, as Marx also recognised, in contrary to even some socialists thinkers at the time, that trade union organization might help push wages up beyond some "natural" level.

The idea that Marx supported some Malthusian view of the 'Iron Law of Wages' is a load of bollocks. But, then again, I'd expect nothing less from someone proclaiming to be a fucking Menshevik!

They knew fuck all then and they know fuck all now.

[Marsella]

I was referring to this:


Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of machinery, etc. (Edit: Communist Manifesto)


The idea that Marx supported some Malthusian view of the 'Iron Law of Wages' is a load of bollocks. But, then again, I'd expect nothing less from someone proclaiming to be a fucking Menshevik!

How am I claiming to be a Menshevik?

I didn't know that the party, which has been dead since around 1921, has suddenly been resurrected! :lol:

If I must explain it, Martov is close enough to my first name, Menshy is what Palachinov slandered me as. So please, stop the petty attacks.


They knew fuck all then and they know fuck all now.

Calm down, don't get your knickers in a knot.

Are you having a bad day? :mellow:

[YKTMX]

was referring to this

Really? Then why didn't you make that clear. Why didn't you make clear that your "analysis" of Marx's "fundamental flaw" was derived solely from one thing in the Communist Manifesto?

I mean, it almost seems you don't have the first clue what you're talking about and I'm sure that's not right.


If I must explain it, Martov is close enough to my first name, Menshy is what Palachinov slandered me as. So please, stop the petty attacks.


That wasn't petty. If you think that was "petty", you're very much mistaken.

[Marsella]

Really? Then why didn't you make that clear. Why didn't you make clear that your "analysis" of Marx's "fundamental flaw" was derived solely from one thing in the Communist Manifesto?

Well perhaps Marx's fundamental flaw was that capitalism was able to reform, was able to allow the worker to rise 'above pauperism.' I think I made that quite clear:


Firstly, just because it has not happened does not mean it will not happen. Maybe Marx was just way off the mark and the material conditions will not be reached for a long while (if at all). But it seems that he made some major errors.

I think that the system has not been overthrown for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, workers' wages do NOT represent the very basic maintenance required for their survival. That is clear as day. Workers receive far more than the money required to eat and survive. I think that has important consequences, because it (1) allows them to enjoy the material products of capitalist society and (2) allows them to save enough resources to become petty-bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie themselves; to climb up the class ladder. Just because it is difficult to do, does not make it impossible; it engenders a 'work hard attitude.'

Bosses have discovered that it bears far more positive consequences to have workers receive half-decent wages - they do not challenge the system. Some worker making 70,000 a year is not going to challenge the system.

And if you have the ability to climb up the class ladder, then you will naturally oppose all things which takes that ladder away from you.

I don't pretend to be an expert on Marxist economics, so perhaps you had best explain to me what the fundamental flaw was. I say this not to patronise you, but because I think it is probably the most pertinent question facing the communist movement. Personally, I think wages have quite a deal to do with it. But I would be interested in your analysis.

And I think the question can be expanded from 'Marx's fundamental flaw' to 'why has socialism not been achieved yet?'


That wasn't petty. If you think that was "petty", you're very much mistaken.

Attacking someone's character based on their name which belongs to a leader of a political party which has been dead for nearly 90 years, which opposed a political party which you presumably support is petty in my opinion.

[YKTMX]

Well perhaps Marx's fundamental flaw was that capitalism was able to reform, was able to allow the worker to rise 'above pauperism.'

Marx never argued that capitalism was not able to "reform". In fact, as I assume you know as you've read the Communist Manifesto, he said the exact opposite. He said that the bourgeois class is constantly revolutionizing society and that change is the only constant in bourgeois society.

"All that is solid melts into air" and all that, yes?


I don't pretend to be an expert on Marxist economics, so perhaps you had best explain to me what the fundamental flaw was.

I'm not aware of one.


Personally, I think wages have quite a deal to do with it. But I would be interested in your analysis.


It's a complex thing that I don't really want to get into now. I'm more interested in making sure Marx's argument's aren't bastardized by ill-informed commentators.


Attacking someone's character based on their name which belongs to a leader of a political party which has been dead for nearly 90 years, which opposed a political party which you presumably support is petty in my opinion.

I attacked your politics, not your character.

And I'm sorry, but if someone takes their username from a famous Menshevik and has their member description as "Menshy" then I tend to think of them as Mensheviks. And believe me, while the Mensheviks might be dead, Menshevism is very much alive and well.

[Marsella]

Marx never argued that capitalism was not able to "reform". In fact, as I assume you know as you've read the Communist Manifesto, he said the exact opposite. He said that the bourgeois class is constantly revolutionizing society and that change is the only constant in bourgeois society.

"All that is solid melts into air" and all that, yes?

Indeed, but I was not aware that the reforms would be to the (relative) advantage of the working class, that on the contrary that the constant revolutionizing of the instruments of production would cause turmoil.

What I meant was, would capitalism reform for the benefit of the worker? Because it certainly seems it has when we compare the material conditions now and the material conditions in industrial Britain.

Do you agree?


I'm not aware of one.

Then why has socialism not been achieved in your opinion? Material conditions? Lack of 'organisation' - Hammer's post? Failure of USSR - BCS's post?

I tend to agree that there is not a 'fundamental flaw to Marxism.' Sure there were some errors but I still think that the working class is capable and in the right conditions will want to command the mode of production.

THAT I still find a very convincing argument.

But we were arguing why THAT has not been achieved YET.


It's a complex thing that I don't really want to get into now. I'm more interested in making sure Marx's argument's aren't bastardized by ill-informed commentators.

Well unfortunately for us, Marx is long dead.

Now that leaves two options:

1. Follow what he said nearly 150 odd years ago.

2. Critically evaluate what was said.

It serves nothing by 'protecting' Marx's arguments against 'bastardisation.' If anything, it elicits a lie that Marx was foolproof. And I am sure you do no favours by following that path.


I attacked your politics, not your character.

And I'm sorry, but if someone takes their username from a famous Menshevik and has their member description as "Menshy" then I tend to think of them as Mensheviks. And believe me, while the Mensheviks might be dead, Menshevism is very much alive and well.

Much like the bogey man is under my bed! :lol:

But seriously, what exactly are you getting at here? You came barging in here, like a big man on campus, throwing around 'They knew fuck all then and they know fuck all now.' How is 'Menshevism 'alive now? It seems you are just applying a decade old stereotype that 'Mensheviks are weak' and attempting to apply it.

I just found it very peculiar.

[dty06]

Originally posted by lvleph+November 19, 2007 08:04 pm--> (lvleph @ November 19, 2007 08:04 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 02:52 pm
Firstly, workers' wages do NOT represent the very basic maintenance required for their survival. That is clear as day. Workers receive far more than the money required to eat and survive. I think that has important consequences, because it (1) allows them to enjoy the material products of capitalist society and (2) allows them to save enough resources to become petty-bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie themselves; to climb up the class ladder. Just because it is difficult to do, does not make it impossible; it engenders a 'work hard attitude.'

Bosses have discovered that it bears far more positive consequences to have workers receive half-decent wages - they do not challenge the system. Some worker making 70,000 a year is not going to challenge the system.

And if you have the ability to climb up the class ladder, then you will naturally oppose all things which takes that ladder away from you.

In the United States the workers are beginning to feel the crunch.

There are obviously exceptions to some of what you said. I am one such exception. I have both moved up the ladder and make a decent wage, but I still oppose the system.

But in general, what you say is true. People are not willing to risk what they have if they have any little bit of excess. This is why the US has an enforced minimum wage. The US realized after/during the depression that it was beneficial to the system to appease the worker by throwing a piece of the "pie" every so often. [/b]
When I graduate with my degree, the average starting salary from my school is roughly $60,000 a year. After 10 years working, most people that graduated my school from my major earn over $100,000 a year, sometimes even double that. And I can assure you that even with such a salary in my future, I challenge the system, and when I graduate I do not plan to stop challenging the system. I will never accept the capitalist system so long as there are people at the bottom and people at the top, no matter where I might be.

[Hit The North]

Martov:
Firstly, workers' wages do NOT represent the very basic maintenance required for their survival. That is clear as day. Workers receive far more than the money required to eat and survive. I think that has important consequences, because it (1) allows them to enjoy the material products of capitalist society and (2) allows them to save enough resources to become petty-bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie themselves; to climb up the class ladder. Just because it is difficult to do, does not make it impossible; it engenders a 'work hard attitude.'

1. Generally workers - even in the USA - only earn enough money to maintain themselves. They have to pay food bills, rent, mortgage, pension, health insurance, income tax and travel costs in order to reproduce their labour. For many workers, this leaves nothing left.

2. Workers are more likely to be in debt than save the vast amounts of money you seem to indicate - "save enough resources to become... bourgeoise" indeed!

3. Social mobility rates across most developed capitalist societies is comparable to rates of social mobility in the second half of the 19th century. In other words, it is nearly impossible for workers to become bourgeois.

4. Take a look at the official statistics of wealth-holding and distribution in practically every capitalist society and you will see that the proportion of wealth held by the bottom 50% of the society has diminished over the past 30 years.

[Marsella]

Originally posted by dty06+November 21, 2007 04:43 am--> (dty06 @ November 21, 2007 04:43 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:04 pm

[email protected] 19, 2007 02:52 pm
Firstly, workers' wages do NOT represent the very basic maintenance required for their survival. That is clear as day. Workers receive far more than the money required to eat and survive. I think that has important consequences, because it (1) allows them to enjoy the material products of capitalist society and (2) allows them to save enough resources to become petty-bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie themselves; to climb up the class ladder. Just because it is difficult to do, does not make it impossible; it engenders a 'work hard attitude.'

Bosses have discovered that it bears far more positive consequences to have workers receive half-decent wages - they do not challenge the system. Some worker making 70,000 a year is not going to challenge the system.

And if you have the ability to climb up the class ladder, then you will naturally oppose all things which takes that ladder away from you.

In the United States the workers are beginning to feel the crunch.

There are obviously exceptions to some of what you said. I am one such exception. I have both moved up the ladder and make a decent wage, but I still oppose the system.

But in general, what you say is true. People are not willing to risk what they have if they have any little bit of excess. This is why the US has an enforced minimum wage. The US realized after/during the depression that it was beneficial to the system to appease the worker by throwing a piece of the "pie" every so often.
When I graduate with my degree, the average starting salary from my school is roughly $60,000 a year. After 10 years working, most people that graduated my school from my major earn over $100,000 a year, sometimes even double that. And I can assure you that even with such a salary in my future, I challenge the system, and when I graduate I do not plan to stop challenging the system. I will never accept the capitalist system so long as there are people at the bottom and people at the top, no matter where I might be. [/b]
Exceptions do not prove the rule. Your average worker on a hundred grand a year is not going to want to have that income capacity removed.

Sure some people can 'challenge the system' whilst still earning a high-capacity income.

Their numbers are few and far in between.

More likely that they were interested in 'challenging the system' before they began earning that high capacity income.

But this is clear: a socialist revolution won't be so appealing when it comes to crunch time.

Social conditions mean everything; you are what you do.

Those whom hold extremely high paying salaries, or work in a petty-bourgeoisie capacity will generally continue to support the system which allows them those luxuries. Your existence determines your consciousness.

There is no such thing as a bourgeoisie communist!

And if there is, they usually hold extremely elitist views on what a communist revolution will be. That is a natural response to the conditions of their wealth.

But talk to me in 20 years and we will see.

[Marsella]

1. Generally workers - even in the USA - only earn enough money to maintain themselves. They have to pay food bills, rent, mortgage, pension, health insurance, income tax and travel costs in order to reproduce their labour. For many workers, this leaves nothing left.

I would be interested in any statistic you have to prove this.


2. Workers are more likely to be in debt than save the vast amounts of money you seem to indicate - "save enough resources to become... bourgeoise" indeed!

Firstly, debt by itself does not indicate a proletarian status.

Secondly, I said it was possible, although quite difficult.

Please don't misinterpret me for a capitalist arguing that 'we can all get rich if we work hard enough.'

That is a myth - pure and simple.


3. Social mobility rates across most developed capitalist societies is comparable to rates of social mobility in the second half of the 19th century. In other words, it is nearly impossible for workers to become bourgeois.

Generally, I agree. But do you have any statistics to verify it?

Let me put a crude example.

In 1870, Joe works in a factory 10 hours a day, 6 days a week. Can he become bourgeoisie? Almost impossible due to wage level, unable to purchase property etc.

In 2007, Billy works in a factory 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. Can he become bourgeoisie? It is possible. A purchase of a house, then a mortgage of that house allows a former worker to open up a business; to become petty-bourgeoisie.

I might also add here, that I have yet to come across statistics which prove competition has 'beaten up' the small businesses and formed monopolies. It seems quite the contrary in Western, industrialised nations. If anyone has statistical proof or an article stating such, please link it.


4. Take a look at the official statistics of wealth-holding and distribution in practically every capitalist society and you will see that the proportion of wealth held by the bottom 50% of the society has diminished over the past 30 years.

Again, not that I disagree with you, but do you have a link?

Undoubtedly, the vast amount of wealth is owned by capitalists. I agree with that!:


The wealthiest 1 percent of families owns roughly 34.3% of the nation's net worth, the top 10% of families owns over 71%, and the bottom 40% of the population owns way less than 1%. Wealth Distribution in America (http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm)

[blackstone]

Originally posted by dty06+November 20, 2007 02:13 pm--> (dty06 @ November 20, 2007 02:13 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:04 pm

[email protected] 19, 2007 02:52 pm
Firstly, workers' wages do NOT represent the very basic maintenance required for their survival. That is clear as day. Workers receive far more than the money required to eat and survive. I think that has important consequences, because it (1) allows them to enjoy the material products of capitalist society and (2) allows them to save enough resources to become petty-bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie themselves; to climb up the class ladder. Just because it is difficult to do, does not make it impossible; it engenders a 'work hard attitude.'

Bosses have discovered that it bears far more positive consequences to have workers receive half-decent wages - they do not challenge the system. Some worker making 70,000 a year is not going to challenge the system.

And if you have the ability to climb up the class ladder, then you will naturally oppose all things which takes that ladder away from you.

In the United States the workers are beginning to feel the crunch.

There are obviously exceptions to some of what you said. I am one such exception. I have both moved up the ladder and make a decent wage, but I still oppose the system.

But in general, what you say is true. People are not willing to risk what they have if they have any little bit of excess. This is why the US has an enforced minimum wage. The US realized after/during the depression that it was beneficial to the system to appease the worker by throwing a piece of the "pie" every so often.
When I graduate with my degree, the average starting salary from my school is roughly $60,000 a year. After 10 years working, most people that graduated my school from my major earn over $100,000 a year, sometimes even double that. And I can assure you that even with such a salary in my future, I challenge the system, and when I graduate I do not plan to stop challenging the system. I will never accept the capitalist system so long as there are people at the bottom and people at the top, no matter where I might be. [/b]
Got damn! What school you graduated from? Harvard?

[davidasearles]

Red Dick said of Marx:

He said that the material conditions that would provoke a mass working-class movement that would overthrow capitalism would be the the capitalist mode of production of his time, of the beginning of the second industrial revolution.

Dave S.:

Quote please.

[mikelepore]

In the topic name "Marx made a fundamental flaw", I question the word "fundamental". Suppose there is a flaw here. I don't know that anyone identified hundreds of assertions that Marx made, sorted them in order from the most fundamental to the most incidental, and then found this flaw near the beginning of the list.

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 19, 2007 06:28 pm
He said that the material conditions that would provoke a mass working-class movement that would overthrow capitalism would be the the capitalist mode of production of his time, of the beginning of the second industrial revolution. This has not happened. Advanced capitalist powers have moved on from economies based on industrial output. There are no signs of workers taking power. If that change that he witnessed didn't result in anything, what will? Has the mode of production not truly changed, and are the material conditions that Marx referred to still in existence? If in fact a fundamental alteration has occurred, what are the material conditions that will incite change?
hang on a minute here, when was marx actually alive? i can't remember cos i'm in desperately need to got to bed mode, but at that time, the surge forward in the productive forces created by the capitalist economy must have seemed beyond the greatest imaginings of human kind, it was probably beyond anything he had experienced in his lifetime, it must have seemed the ultimate capitalist reality or capabilitty.
now i've only been arond since 1957, i've witnessed uprisings in france and czechoslavakia, vietnam, mozambique etc. etc. and still capitalism has found new ways, new methods of production to reinforce its hold over the planet.
this does not make marx's analysis fundamentally wrong or flawed, just optimististic, which it would be, given the general level of scientific and material productive forces of the time he lived in.
reality is coloured by experience, experience depend on when and where you live.
marx's analysis is still relevant and correct, you just have to allow for the ???? number of years since he wrote his analysis and remember, he lived in an age where the technological acheivements were considered to be the peak of human acheivement.
off to bed now, it's getting much too hard to think, let alone type ffs.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 19, 2007 06:28 pm
He said that the material conditions that would provoke a mass working-class movement that would overthrow capitalism would be the the capitalist mode of production of his time, of the beginning of the second industrial revolution. This has not happened. Advanced capitalist powers have moved on from economies based on industrial output. There are no signs of workers taking power. If that change that he witnessed didn't result in anything, what will? Has the mode of production not truly changed, and are the material conditions that Marx referred to still in existence? If in fact a fundamental alteration has occurred, what are the material conditions that will incite change?

First off, objective conditions don't make revolutions out of nothing, they condition [to use his own correct term] people to take action and make a change, by themselves - as living beings. They "create their own history".

Second, there is no actual flaw to fix. He said it himself in the last year of his life that he was wrong about being overtly optimistic, that capitalism wasn't "ripe" yet, but was only starting to develop. Basically, he was right, because next mass movement that threatened capitalism came 35 years later. If you add 12 years that passed since the Paris Commune, that would be - 48 years all together - longest spam between two major "waves"; that is, if the Commune itself could be called one.

So, we could only accuse him of overt optimism for his time, but not in general. How come? Because, third, rebellion did come... it comes all the time, over and over again, doesn't it?


After all that has happened, being a revolutionary optimist today is what we so desparately need.

[Zurdito]

My answer to the OP is that the material conditions Marx described do exist in the semi-colonies, especially China which now has a fast growing urban working class of 315 million.

We can only imagine what effect the next economic crisis will have on such a situation. But what we do know is that if a revolution occurred there or if the government were forced to challenge business imperialist interests in the name of appeasing that working class, then this would pull away many of the foundations of capitalism here int he west and necesitate an unprecedented conflict with China, as well as enormous inflation, unemployment and credit crunch.

The most revolutionary force as I see it right now is the semi-colonial working class, but the crisis this will cause for capitalism in those country's will hugely affect our own conditions here. This is fundamentally different from Marx's time, and I think we can say that he underestimated the need for capitalism to go truly global before it would use up all of its potential.

About the material conditions of the urban industrial proletariate I think he was right though: they, who prop up the sei-colonial economies, are the "weak link" in the capitalist chain, and moreso now than russia was in 1917, because now there is no part of the world not already penetrated by capitalism to which the imperialists can turn to as plan B as they did then, the levels of integration between the proletariate of the semi-colonies is much greater than it was then, and the levels of dependency on those states from the imperialists is qualitatively different and greater - the imperialists now depend on a third world proletariate, the most advanced and crucial sector, and not just on raw materials to channel through their own proletariate.

[davidasearles]

Red Dick said of Marx:

He said that the material conditions that would provoke a mass working-class movement that would overthrow capitalism would be the the capitalist mode of production of his time, of the beginning of the second industrial revolution.

Dave S.:

Quote please.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+November 19, 2007 11:45 pm--> (ComradeOm @ November 19, 2007 11:45 pm)
[email protected]November 19, 2007 09:00 pm
I'm not just saying this because i'm a learner Trotskyist, but Erenest Mandel wrote about this subject, and there are many other good Trotskyists too.
Your source for this ridiculous position (that we would be living in a socialist society had Trotsky not lost a power struggle within the CPSU) is a number of Trotskyites? Please...

I've never read Mandel but I am aware of his reputation, so I can only conclude that you are completely misrepresenting his arguments. Either way I'd like your explanation of the SPD - a major Marxist party that had become unwaveringly committed to reformism prior to the Russian Revolution. If not the SPD then pick any other party within the Second International. [/b]
I didn't mean that. The idea that if Trotsky had won the power struggle then there would have definitely been a functioning socialist society, is wrong.

The problems were increasing the rate of exploitation of the working class, squeezing the peasants, low quality of commodities, ban of free trade unions, no real elections, taking advantage of the western depressions and selling them huge amounts of grain to acquire capital, along with all the other terrible things, which stemmed from the brutal rule of bureaucrats.

I don't know that much about why the second international had so much reformism, it's probably that the trade union upper levels, labor officialdom, were very privileged, the working class saw increases in their conditions. which lent its support then to reformist politics. I;m not really sure though.

[Politix]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 19, 2007 08:28 pm
It is un-wise to sweep thirteen decades of failure of subjective-political organization under the rug of material conditions. Working class leadership and organization lags behind even at its speediest, it can out pace a snail… on a sloth’s back… standing still. This shows a very weak will of socialists, communists, and anarchists to empower workers’ organization. We need pro-active activists: radicals of sections of the working class, radical cultural workers in music and television, radical social workers and educators in community organizations and schools. We need thinkers and tinkerers, DJs and MCs, prophets and prose. Here lies this mass of un-realized potential, the young; united by a shared, Black, poor, ghetto dominant culture with connections to soulful and self-conscious lyricism.
nicely said...

if you enjoy political hip hop check out my music

www.myspace.com/illeagleprophets
www.enditbegins.com

[synthesis]

I think Marx fundamentally underestimated the ability of capitalism to adjust and adapt to conditions. His predictions would have been true as capitalism existed in Marx's time; there were many times when the Western world seemed on the verge of proletarian, socialist, or communist revolution, such as the late 1800's, the 1930's, and the 1960's, respectively.

One possible cause could be that Marx underestimated his own theory of synthesis: that things develop in opposition to a phenomenon, and in time the two phenomena synthesize to form something new. Thus did capitalism and socialism synthesize to form the New Deal, the welfare state, and other reforms of free-market capitalism in the Western world.

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Politix+December 12, 2007 10:53 pm--> (Politix @ December 12, 2007 10:53 pm)
Hopscotch [email protected] 19, 2007 08:28 pm
It is un-wise to sweep thirteen decades of failure of subjective-political organization under the rug of material conditions. Working class leadership and organization lags behind even at its speediest, it can out pace a snail… on a sloth’s back… standing still. This shows a very weak will of socialists, communists, and anarchists to empower workers’ organization. We need pro-active activists: radicals of sections of the working class, radical cultural workers in music and television, radical social workers and educators in community organizations and schools. We need thinkers and tinkerers, DJs and MCs, prophets and prose. Here lies this mass of un-realized potential, the young; united by a shared, Black, poor, ghetto dominant culture with connections to soulful and self-conscious lyricism.
nicely said...

if you enjoy political hip hop check out my music

www.myspace.com/illeagleprophets
www.enditbegins.com [/b]
this sounds to me, like educational liberal thinking, what we need, is working class solidarity, you can sing as many songs as you like, ask billy bragg, but in the end, it is the experience of workers coming into conflict with the state that determines their political understanding and wish to overthrow capitalism.

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@December 13, 2007 03:04 am
I think Marx fundamentally underestimated the ability of capitalism to adjust and adapt to conditions. His predictions would have been true as capitalism existed in Marx's time; there were many times when the Western world seemed on the verge of proletarian, socialist, or communist revolution, such as the late 1800's, the 1930's, and the 1960's, respectively.

One possible cause could be that Marx underestimated his own theory of synthesis: that things develop in opposition to a phenomenon, and in time the two phenomena synthesize to form something new. Thus did capitalism and socialism synthesize to form the New Deal, the welfare state, and other reforms of free-market capitalism in the Western world.
on a theoretical basis, i agree, i think however, that the basic "conditions" for the overthrow of capitalism have existed since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
what we have seen and experienced, is a ruling class, that unlike its fuedal predeccesors, understands the lessons of history and has adapted its economic and political policies to defuse any potential uprising in the "advanced capitalist countries".
the capitalist class, in the long term, will be unable to sustain such an approach, inevitably economic and social conditions will override their best efforts at compromise and reconciliation, and will have to resort to open oppression.

[peaccenicked]

Marx made some predictive errors but he tentended to follow general lines of development. History has a way of throwing up unforseeable events. I see nothing wrong in this. We only need to admit to these types of mistakes.

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 01:53 am
Marx made some predictive errors but he tentended to follow general lines of development. History has a way of throwing up unforseeable events. I see nothing wrong in this. We only need to admit to these types of mistakes.
marx, poor love, all he ever did was analyse capitalism, put it in its place in history, define the social and economic trends that led from primitive "communist" society through to the "developed" capitalist world he lived in.
"the communist manifesto" is a set of inspirational ideals for the creation of a new social order based on the needs of the "new ruling class" as would be, "the proletariat".
this is a judgement based on the lessons of history and the economic developments that led to social conditions that demanded working class cohesion and solidarity in their own interest.
since the russian revolution, the capitalist class has done its utmost to distort and decieve vis a vis the works of marx and engels, to compromise in order to diffuse revolutionary movements and ideals, and, has generally, in the advanced capitalisrt nations had the rescources to do so.
in the third world, it has been forced, up to the collapse of stalinism, to retreat.
once the eastern bloc collapsed, it took back all it had lost in eastern europe and punished the workers of western europe for their complicity.
in the third world, imperialism has run rampant.