Marx after Communism your comments - An interesting article

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Hi I’m new to this site. Anyway I was reading the economist and saw this article and wanted to get your responses http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?...tory_id=1489165 (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1489165) why is it that u guys hold him in such high regard when his ideas have been proven completely wrong through the course of time. The article does a good job of suggesting why this is so but I want to hear your ideas on the topic.

[Ian]

The article in question does very little to refute marxism, it is more of a review of his influences over the last 150 years. I am unsure of what you want us to comment on.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

The article attempts to examine his baffling endurance in some circles of academia as philosopher and a thinker even though his relevance as an economist (what he considered himself first and foremost is nil) I just wanted to know what the communist prospective was on this irony? And how do you continue to justify his importance when none of his economic theories ending up working? Doesn’t this disturb you guys or do you manage to glance over or rationalize it? Or am I assuming too much in thinking that you actually took the time to read the article?

[Exploited Class]

Quote: from Crusader 4 da truth on 9:24 pm on Dec. 30, 2002
The article attempts to examine his baffling endurance in some circles of academia as philosopher and a thinker even though his relevance as an economist (what he considered himself first and foremost is nil) I just wanted to know what the communist prospective was on this irony? And how do you continue to justify his importance when none of his economic theories ending up working? Doesn’t this disturb you guys or do you manage to glance over or rationalize it? Or am I assuming too much in thinking that you actually took the time to read the article?

No, I read the article, nothing all that new or way out there and nothing that hasn't been said before. All the article really did was say, communism has always failed, and why do people like Marx? Then they decide to sum up the article cleverly why denouncing with their opinion.

1. Communsim is not and has not existed. Let me punch you in the face and tell you I am a pacifist, would you refer to me as the pacifist after I violently punch you? No, why? because just because I say I am something doesn't mean that I am.

2. Let me create a new and wonderful car, it has all the high tech gadgets yet to come out, all in one smart neat package. I make enough of these for everybody in the country but only 1 person gets to drive them. He wrecks them all. Is it my car or this one person's driving ability? Or is it that I didn't design my car to be driven by just one person?

3. This article assumes that I go to the church of Marx, that I believe Marx is the son of God, that I as a communist believe that Marx could do no wrong. I am sorry but Marx was a person with a good idea and one of the first people to announce it, I doubt his ideas are 100% orginal, I am pretty sure people thought about communism without a name prior to him. He just did all the work and writing. This article also assumes that I don't want to expand on his ideas, use them as templates or that anyof us have grown or changed since 150 years ago. I guess we could all do it the easy way like America and just borrow from ancient thoughts, greek, Romans and Magna Carta.

Adding to the fog, what Marx believed in 1844 was probably not what he believed in 1874:
Well good he grew as a person, he wasn't set in stone.

the only constant was his conviction that what he said at any time was both the absolute truth and fully consistent with what he had said before.
He had an ego, let's crucify him. How does the United States' Decleration of Independence go? "We hold these truths to be self-evident". They evidently were full of themselves too, oh and their works have been edited several times as well.

In all, I would say Marx is the guy who started it, he isn't the messiah, he isn't flawless, he just got published and people liked his ideas. Many of us without even reading about communism were communists. We just didn't know it till we found a word on how we all felt.

[redstar2000]

Crusader 4 da truth, I want to begin by thanking you for bringing the Economist magazine to the attention of people on this board.

Before I could afford to go on line, I cheerfully spent the $125/year that a subscription costs...because it is FAR SUPERIOR to ANY other capitalist publication (publications like Time, Newsweek, Fortune, etc. are COMIC BOOKS compared to the Economist).

Marx had a VERY high opinion of the Economist (it started publishing in the 1840s!) and quoted from its pages frequently whenever he wanted an authoritative source of capitalist views of current events. It has lived up to its reputation for more than 150 years...and, if you can spare the money, it is WORTH it.

Of course, their class view of Marx is interspersed with objective admissions of his on-going appeal. I particularly liked the sniff of disapproval with regard to the "demonization" of big business...since one of Marx's crucial points is that the individual "morality" of capitalists is irrelevant: capitalists MUST act with complete ruthlessness or...go out of business and cease to be capitalists.

In general, I share the currently emerging opinion that Marx has been shown to be correct MORE than anyone suspected for many decades. Consider the Marxist theory of declining real wages...how many pro-capitalist "economists" have enjoyed a good laugh at Marx over that one. And yet, real wages for the working class in the U.S. have been STAGNANT for three decades; I believe the same has been true of Japan for a decade. I don't know about the E.U. Inspite of the frenzy of globalization, wages have stopped rising...is a decline in the works? Will Marx have the last laugh on that one?

Of course, the proletarian revolution that Marx predicted for the advanced capitalist countries has yet to take place...and one could legitimately say that UNTIL that crucial event takes place, history's jury is still out on the ultimate validity of Marx's thought.

But, in the view of THIS unrepentent communist, old Karl is looking good, man, looking good! I think he'll look even better in the 21st century.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 8:51 am on Dec. 31, 2002)

[HankMorgan]

redstar2000, is it possible to boil down what Marx said to explain why capitalists MUST act with complete ruthlessness to avoid going out of business. Is the definition of capitalist literally "one who acts ruthlessly?
If they aren't acting ruthlessly then by definition they can't be a capitalist?

Seriously, I've spent my whole life surrounded by capitalists. By day they run a business and by night they raise a family. Regular salt of the earth types without a ruthless bone. If they're successful enough, long enough, their small business becomes a large business. Success over a long period of time is such an ominous thing.

Couldn't just let that go by.

[synthesis]

Of course, the proletarian revolution that Marx predicted for the advanced capitalist countries has yet to take place...and one could legitimately say that UNTIL that crucial event takes place, history's jury is still out on the ultimate validity of Marx's thought.

The problem lies not in the inadequate frustration or a lack of motivation of the proletariat, but the direction that the oppressed worker often chooses to take.

Rather than moving to the left, the working class white man often turns to nationalism, blaming his woes on the Indian who takes his job in Silicon Valley, the Arab who takes his job as a taxi driver, the Asian who takes his job at the bank, and so on and so forth for the Black, the Mexican, the Cuban, and the Haitian. He blames his woes on immigration, welfare, and, once he has adequately identified his beliefs with others of his type, the Jew who, he believes, brings all his problems about.

This is not his fault; the capitalist moves him in such a direction, causing racial rifts rather than allowing the destitute white man to see the true cause of his problems: the ruling class.

This is a problem we must, as a whole, seek to bring an end to. The left often aims its campaigns at the middle-class suburban youth which, while invaluable, alienates the largest source of potential, the working-class white male. While not desirable as individuals any more so than any other demographic, this is the group who turns to nationalism in the largest quantities and therefore has the potential for becoming the Socialist's greatest enemy.

We must abort these far-right tendencies in their fetal stage; we should create propaganda campaigns that aim at ALL demographics, rather than merely the racial, religious, and sexual minorities.

For, isn't communism supposed to include everybody, after all?

[Stormin Norman]

The Economist is by far one of the better publications out there. I rank it up there with the Wall Street Journal.

[redstar2000]

HankMorgan, I also have known small businessmen, SOME of whom were really decent human beings. In fact, one such follow upgraded this old used Gateway that I'm using for MUCH less than Gateway would have charged me. He runs a one-man shop and exploits no wage labor; he says he doesn't want to get rich, he just likes being his own boss.

On the other hand, I've had the misfortune of encountering small businessmen--landlords, insurance brokers, attorneys, etc.--who could have traded sword-strokes with Bill Gates et.al. on an equal basis.

The capitalism that we live in is not a "pure", laboratory capitalism. At the bottom, one doesn't necessarily have to be ruthless to survive...though it definitely helps. A small business that begins to grow seriously, to "take off" as it were, finds itself in very serious difficulty to the extent that it is NOT ruthless...because it is now entering the SERIOUS part of the market where its competitors are indeed ruthless. A huge number of those "garage technology" startups in Silicon Valley foundered over this very issue...they tried as hard as they could to keep their "informal" and "generous" culture alive while they grew, only to discover that whatever the merits of their technology, they were simply no match for their larger and more voracious competitors. Ultimately, they had to agree to a buyout offer from one of their larger rivals or simply be crushed out of existence.

The higher up you go in the hierarchy of capitalist firms, the greater the ruthless devotion to "the bottom line" (or, it must be added, the "appearance of the bottom line" since we've recently learned these folks have been less than honest about their numbers). When you get to the level of a Bill Gates, Jack Welch, etc., the human being behind the job title is irrelevant--the iron law is increase profits or die.

ALL of the major capitalists understand this and, whatever their personal misgivings might be, act accordingly. Sometimes it bothers SOME of them, I dare say, and they will occasionally use some of their plunder to purchase an improvement in their public image. Thus, Ted Turner's one billion dollar (tax-deductible) gift to the United Nations...everyone who has ever known him STILL thinks he's an arrogant, ruthless asshole, but they don't say it nearly as much in public as they once did.

So, if you know a small businessman who's a "nice guy", tell him you hope his business stays right where it is or grows VERY slowly. You need not go vary far down the road of capitalist success before you run into a traffic jam...of demons!

:cool: