Results 1 to 20 of 25
How much does capital affect relationships?
I have to analyse English literature and spoke texts for exams and I am interested in the marxist theory as well as others. If you apply it to a spoken text between a father and son arguing over something that the son wants but the father cannot afford you can say that the drama and conflict arises from lack of material necessities. The drama arises from a conflict which is a reflection of their material needs or wants.
This got me thinking that from my observation in general the poor tend to argue amongst each other more, they are more violent and they experience far more social problems than the bourgeoisie. But then there are many rich people who argue all the time with their family, get divorced take drugs etc etc. And i think that having capital and power, or having a healthy bank balance gives you a high, you feel relaxed and secure. Similarly if you are in debt or your bank balance goes up and down rapidly you perhaps feel low. Perhaps one is not conscious that the reason they feel bad is because they just spent a load of money and now have nothing however some people realise that being i debt is making them unhappy.
Also, perhaps having extreme amounts of wealth is unhealthy and leads to problems, and not having enough leads to problems. I'm interested to know what degree wealth affects subjective relationships and health. If you gave everyone everything they needed, would social problems still exist? I think they probably would but its an interesting question i think
Last edited by graffic; 5th June 2010 at 13:29.
Actually, studies have found that the old proverb is true: money can't buy happiness. Which is to say, there is no correlation between happiness and household income above $20,000 a year. Moving from abject poverty into the middle class will make you happier, but moving from a $60,000/year income to a $200,000/year income may not.
I think that, what intimite relationships are concerned, financial discussions are the most basic ones to avoid. It's very difficult to live with someone and make up a household budget, especially when both incomes differ (or one of them has no income). If this is hard enough, sharing these problems with your children is even tougher.
I think this goes for every intimate relationship wherein partners do not have sufficient funds to do everything they please.
Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err.
So why do Marxists care about in-equalities...
Thats an interesting proverb because i think its true but obviously money does have an affect, but perhaps the degree is subjective regarding individuals.
Because, according to Marxists, they arise from exploitative relationships which reduce the worker to a cog in a machine. Marx says that the division of labour causes alienation (Ertfremdung) by separating people from their human nature (Gattungswesen), and that in communism we will not have it: "in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."
Communism is a materialist doctrine in as far as the goal is to eliminate material inequalities, but it is also concerned with the repercussions of capitalism on the spirit.
Because it does have an effect on a lot of other things like health and education. Poor people are much more likely to get cancer for example (source).
"From the relationship of estranged labor to private property it follows further that the emancipation of society from private property, etc., from servitude, is expressed in the political form of the emancipation of the workers; not that their emancipation alone is at stake, but because the emancipation of the workers contains universal human emancipation – and it contains this because the whole of human servitude is involved in the relation of the worker to production, and all relations of servitude are but modifications and consequences of this relation."
- Karl Marx -
Because it's a lot easier to be happy when you have control over your life and actually get to be an equal to your peers. Go figure!
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
People are inherently not equal (define: be identical or equivalent to or (your definition probably) be equal to in quality or ability). Some people are beautiful; some are not. I could go through a whole list but you get this. But you say: we will make them equal economically (that is, the same resources are given to everyone) and yet there is still inequality. The trashman is less than the doctor, and the plumber is worse than the scientist. If you say "We will abolish the division of labor!" then you wish to abolish society (which formed because humans are more productive when they specialize (divide the labor) then alone) because suddenly you are no more productive with society than without it. You cannot teach everyone how to be a doctor, physicist, journalist, trashman, artist, novelist etc etc... there is not enough time and it would be inefficient and a waste of time.
Between production for profit and production for needs there is no contrast.
Ludwig von Mises, Socialism
IMHO this is garbage ideology to quell the masses (like sports). If you think that money doesn't affect all your relationships, think again. Marx reminds us that the abstract measure of labor as money produces a system that is incapable of producing equality among men or harmonizing humanity with nature.
Last edited by trivas7; 7th June 2010 at 22:30. Reason: addendum
Eppur si muove -- Galileo Galilei
[FONT=Tahoma]
[/FONT]
Ah, the old cliche of comparing equality of power with equality of height.
Yeah but its not rational or logical to judge people on their personal quality or beauty, or on anything else. Not everyone is beautiful... so what? Doesn't make them better or worse or society "un-equal".
No but everyone should have equal opportunity to do those things if thats what they want.
Who takes the trash out? At some point there needs to be a gun and someone telling someone else to do something unpleasant or else that something will never get done.
Between production for profit and production for needs there is no contrast.
Ludwig von Mises, Socialism
I don't know if your married, or have ever lived in a family relationship, or with roomates, but I assume the trash got taken out without guns.
It's unfortunate you see oppression in that way. You certainly don't need to behave in such a way to get unpleasant things done. I am unsure if you have ever had any interaction with humans but you will probably find people do help each other voluntarily.
In which case, it will be absolutely no different from capitalism.
But are you sure that humans are both so utterly selfish, and utterly stupid, that they cannot devise some fair way of distributing the unpleasant tasks?
That seems to me to be quite a silly idea.
So what is wrong with me beating and raping the most attractive woman I see on any given day? She is inherently unequal to me, I can suppress her, I can violate her. I can do these things so what makes it wrong? If we follow your logic then we conclude that unequals can be exploited for our gain. I can rape this girl if I am able to do so.
Exploitation is based on surplus. Surplus arises in Capitalism, Imperialism, and Fascism. Those ideologies have their own peculiarities but they operate under the same precepts of attaining surplus value. They plunder, they steal, they feed off of some class or race or nation or group.
For society to progress, someone will have to take the trash out. Why can't it be taken out in turns ?
I'm sure someone will want be become a trashman, and this is where the contradiction lies at anti-communists .... it's seen by you lot that why would someone want to become a doctor when they can become a trashman and reap the same rewards ..... well there you go, there wont be a shortage of people taking out the trash.
As has been already stated, everyone should avail of the same conditions and resources in life. This should make living and working conditions better and more equal for all. How someone progresses in their way of life and what job they may take on is up to them. Conditions should be there for everyone to follow the same or whatever path they want.
And believe it or not, some people do want to become plumbers. It's a massive and popular and worthwhile trade. A plumbing apprenticeship would be available, and it is a necessary job in society, so why wouldn't someone who has an interest or the skills not want to apply ?
Ooh and beauty is on the inside.
Yes, I hope too.
No statistics on it--but I see a lot of people that are pretty unhappy that have lots of control over their lives. I also see people that are pretty darn happy working for minimum wage.
I really don't think there is a connection.
