Karl Marx. Was he right or will he be?

DadaKopf

Acacia wrote: »

Exactly!

I had to look this up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness

That's pretty much what I've thought myself, though. Parties like the BNP thrive because the workers don't realize it's the employers screwing them over, not immigrants...that's what you mean, right?

And the Left is supposed to be internationalist, not nationalist. The belief being that splitting peoples apart through nationalism destroys solidarity among everyone who works against those who exploit. It always annoys me when you see groups pushing for nationalist and socialist agendas.

The kind of Post Indusrialist society we're living in now is so far removed from where Marx came from as to be ridiculous to compare, his theories were incredibly insightful back then but the failure of the Frankfurt School and all the modern Cultural Theorists since, proves that Capitalism is far too complex and shape shifting to nail down and simply throw out with the bathwater.

I don't get why people opposed to left wing ideologies hold them to outmoded theories as an example of how they've been 'disproven' while they push their liberal/right-wing ideologies do a different standard - when the theories don't match reality, they just change them to fit their agenda.

Like all other ideas, when theories don't match 'reality', they change, this goes for 'Marxism' and 'Capitalism'. At least Marxism doesn't pretend it's an objective science; it actually works into its theories the reality that ideas are socially constructed. In fact, we can't even access human nature because it changes with history. But mongos who don't think about this.

A lot of Marx's ideas have huge relevance today. And not just him, umpteen influential theorists and researchers over the years. Where the ideas do have explanatory power, they should be listened to.

K-9

But it's interesting that the party that prides itself on Marxist or socialist Republic policies tends to attract the anti immigration vote.

Nationalism should not mix with Marxism.

Dadakpkf, we posted at same time!

anonymous_joe

DadaKopf wrote: »

And the Left is supposed to be internationalist, not nationalist. The belief being that splitting peoples apart through nationalism destroys solidarity among everyone who works against those who exploit. It always annoys me when you see groups pushing for nationalist and socialist agendas.


I don't get why people opposed to left wing ideologies hold them to outmoded theories as an example of how they've been 'disproven' while they push their liberal/right-wing ideologies do a different standard - when the theories don't match reality, they just change them to fit their agenda.

Like all other ideas, when theories don't match 'reality', they change, this goes for 'Marxism' and 'Capitalism'. At least Marxism doesn't pretend it's an objective science; it actually works into its theories the reality that ideas are socially constructed. In fact, we can't even access human nature because it changes with history. But mongos who don't think about this.

A lot of Marx's ideas have huge relevance today. And not just him, umpteen influential theorists and researchers over the years. Where the ideas do have explanatory power, they should be listened to.

Modern society disproved Marxism because he believed that a class of capitalists would become more and more wealthy, and smaller, and would make the massed ranks of the proletariat poorer and poorer.

That never happened. Quite the opposite. Standards of living etc have increased beyond comprehension from the time when Marx developed his theories.

K-9

DadaKopf wrote: »

I don't get why people opposed to left wing ideologies hold them to outmoded theories as an example of how they've been 'disproven' while they push their liberal/right-wing ideologies do a different standard - when the theories don't match reality, they just change them to fit their agenda.

Like all other ideas, when theories don't match 'reality', they change, this goes for 'Marxism' and 'Capitalism'. At least Marxism doesn't pretend it's an objective science; it actually works into its theories the reality that ideas are socially constructed. In fact, we can't even access human nature because it changes with history. But mongos who don't think about this.

A lot of Marx's ideas have huge relevance today. And not just him, umpteen influential theorists and researchers over the years. Where the ideas do have explanatory power, they should be listened to.

Indeed, the right wing, free market agenda has just been proven to be wrong.

anonymous_joe

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed, the right wing, free market agenda has just been proven to be wrong.

Has it?

Ostrom

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Modern society disproved Marxism because he believed that a class of capitalists would become more and more wealthy, and smaller, and would make the massed ranks of the proletariat poorer and poorer.

That never happened. Quite the opposite. Standards of living etc have increased beyond comprehension from the time when Marx developed his theories.

Not at all, and again you are situating that conclusion within a very limited, and much earlier strand of Marx's writings

Capital is the crux of Marx's work, as mentioned above it is not meant to be taken as an objective reading of a specific state, it is a conceptual apparatus for understanding social change

anonymous_joe

efla wrote: »

Not at all, and again you are situating that conclusion within a very limited, and much earlier strand of Marx's writings

Capital is the crux of Marx's work, as mentioned above it is not meant to be taken as an objective reading of a specific state, it is a conceptual apparatus for understanding social change

Tbh it's been years since I read Das Kapital.

Anyway, it's been what, 150 years?

The other problem I find with communism is that it does not go hand in hand with democracy. You can't make people communist voluntarily, too many people would lose too much. That requires unpleasantness. Theoretically, communism's great, though flawed (what isn;t?) but it's been put in practice, and it was a lot nastier than free market capitalism.

Ostrom

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Tbh it's been years since I read Das Kapital.

Anyway, it's been what, 150 years?

The other problem I find with communism is that it does not go hand in hand with democracy. You can't make people communist voluntarily, too many people would lose too much. That requires unpleasantness. Theoretically, communism's great, though flawed (what isn;t?) but it's been put in practice, and it was a lot nastier than free market capitalism.

Many would argue that wasn't real communism - I certainly would

Socialism doesn't have to involve great losses of any sort

K-9

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Has it?

With non regulation, yes.

If you want further info, look at the US Health system.

Capitalism on its own can't work.

anonymous_joe

efla wrote: »

Many would argue that wasn't real communism - I certainly would

Socialism doesn't have to involve great losses of any sort

Hmmm. What was it? Or more accurately, what is?

Socialism and communism are very different beasts.

K-9 wrote: »

With non regulation, yes.

If you want further info, look at the US Health system.

Capitalism on its own can't work.

But there's no such thing as capitalism on its own. In the same way, communism on its own failed, but black market capitalism kept it going.

K-9

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Hmmm. What was it? Or more accurately, what is?

Socialism and communism are very different beasts.


But there's no such thing as capitalism on its own. In the same way, communism on its own failed, but black market capitalism kept it going.

Grand, can you answer my question previously and elaborate on the US Health system?

the_syco

Marxism will work for the people, once the leaders use capitalism to trade with their neighbours, who'll use the products made by the Marxist country. Think how everyone bought stuff off China.

synd

I think Marx is hugely relevant.

Class antagonism in my opinion is brought about by the relative distribution in socially created wealth and power. You always get right wing types arguing that an absolute rise in productive capacity has resulted in capitalisms ''invincibility'' as a system. Of course it only takes a second to understand how ridiculous there position is, every form of social organization usually results in increased production. Feudalism was once the (economic high point of civilization), however people still rebelled against the perceived injustice that it was based upon in favor of a more democratic mode of arrangement. Socialism in all its forms is at its heart is abut equality in self determination brought about through direct democratic control of the institutions that effect our lives.

I mean capitalism wont exist forever unless you think that history has just stopped. Right wing economists and such are essentially to capitalism what the the catholic church was to aristocracy - the idealogical vanguard.

synd

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Tbh it's been years since I read Das Kapital.

Anyway, it's been what, 150 years?

The other problem I find with communism is that it does not go hand in hand with democracy. You can't make people communist voluntarily, too many people would lose too much. That requires unpleasantness. Theoretically, communism's great, though flawed (what isn;t?) but it's been put in practice, and it was a lot nastier than free market capitalism.

Joe - Communism is democracy, Marx in his early work however believed communism could only be brought about via a centralized command economy and workers dictatorship. In Marx's later years he abandoned this position and took a more libertarian approach this created a split within Marxism - left Marxism such as Luxumburgism is more Anarchistc and focuses on participatory democracy ect. Unfortunately most socialist organizations around today are Bolshevik.

Anarchism is also communism - radical democracy, to the extent whereby it perceives representative democracy as a form of oligarchy.

Im not sure what you mean by capitalism ? - If you simply mean a market where people freely exchange goods then this would exist under communism - only the means of production would remain public so as to facilitate equality in self determination.

humberklog

Karl Marx as opposed to Marxism was right. He hardly worked a day in his LIFE! Bit of a train job apprentice, pissed it up against the wall after getting wedged drunk with Engels on the Tottenham Court Rd. Then heading off drunkingly home but not before smashing out gas lamps with stones. Not to keep people in employment but for the sheer fecking hell of it. Was Karl Marx right? Damn right...take your sorry bones to a far flung country that you resent, vandalise it, create a revolution from the bed, get LOCKED with your mates, grow a beard and FECK the begrudgers.
Marxism? Me Tights!

Valmont

The marxists are always going to be in their own little world and I'm just glad I won't live to see another resurgence in these ideals. I'll be happy reading Atlas Shrugged, thank you very much.

dsmythy

José Alaninho wrote: »

I fookin hope so.

I bloody hope not. Down with Marxism and what not!

Anyways all this talk of the end of capitalism is sensationalist crap. There's been recessions before and there will be again. They come and they go and so far we aren't all living in some supposed socialist paradise as a result of previous downturns and most of those who tried failed miserably.

IvySlayer

He wasn't right.

He was leftist

Valmont

K-9 wrote: »

Like all good ideas, it's ruined by human nature, always will be.

The very fact that Marxism fails to take human nature into account suggests that it's a terrible idea. Especially considering it's supposed to provide an answer to all the horrific injustices of capitalism. If human nature itself thwarted Marxism maybe you could pitch it to the aliens when they arrive? Marxism is impractical, implausible, and above all else, immoral.

galwayrush

tony1kenobi wrote: »

No.....he is dead.

Does thast mean that the grave of Karl Marx is just another communist plot?:rolleyes:

faceman

Star Trek is socialist/communist a bit. Im all for hot aliens.

andrew

Huzzah for the market!

Stev_o

Communism on paper is better then sliced bread, it makes perfect sense and would be the end to the worlds problems. Problem is that when it's put into practice it falls flat on its face. Human greed will always mean Communism will fail its the same as Capitalism the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Human greed will always prevent on form of economics working properly.

Ostrom

Valmont wrote: »

The very fact that Marxism fails to take human nature into account suggests that it's a terrible idea. Especially considering it's supposed to provide an answer to all the horrific injustices of capitalism. If human nature itself thwarted Marxism maybe you could pitch it to the aliens when they arrive? Marxism is impractical, implausible, and above all else, immoral.

'Marxism' was never something objective to be 'thwarted'

Great comment above, Karl Marx was right, Marxism was not.... He wasn't writing to set out plans for a new social order, you wont find much in his writings about what it may have looked like, nothing about structure or function - nothing.

You cant talk about a failure of 'Marxism' unless you situate it historically

Terry

Communism works.

This post was submitted through a PC, parts of which were made by a large corporation in China.

Riddle101

Communism is s**t, so is Facism. All it dose for you is nothing. Now Anarcy that a whole different story, brining the World in total Chaos is my kind've game, no rulers, no money. Everyone dose what they want to do, sure they will be a lot of deaths but every Revolution has deaths, we'll get over it.

The_Minister

julep wrote: »

Communism works.

This post was submitted through a PC, parts of which were made by a large corporation in China.

I love you.

javaboy

In the words of Fidel Castro: "We all knew from day one this mumbo jumbo wouldn't fly."

mumhaabu

Karl Marx, was a utopian visionary, this however will never occur and it cannot be allowed to. Human genetics and the instincts of thousands of years of evolution and civilisation (in Europe) will not allow it to occur. Survival of the fittest rules and this is what has led Europe to becoming world masters. Europe literally created the world and this was based not on communism but on monarchist capitalism.

Communism became prominent in 1917 when less than 100 revolutionaries took over the the Russian Tsardom. Using ruthless leadership and mass brainwashing (propaganda - think obamamania on steroids) through the state controlled media a small group of individuals took control of Russia and not only did it not help Russia it ruined it. 100million people died as a result of Karl Marx's theories and the brutal way they were carried out by Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin. As a Russian once remarked to me, at least Adolf Hitler loved his people and wiped out Jews and outsiders, the Bolsheviks massacared their own. However liberal revisionism, the leftwing media and left wing sites such as Wikipedia convienently cover up this holocaust which makes the 6 million jews killed by Hitler and the Rwandan massacre pale in comparision.

The most important thing in this Recession is to keep a steady head and most importantly to keep left wing socialists, Trade Unions, Political Correctness and Liberalism well and truly under control. Recent moves against private gun ownership worries me as it the beginning of the move to all out Authoitarianism thoughout history has been marked by the disarming of the private Millitia. The USA is perhaps the country where liberty is most sacrasant as it's population is armed to the teeth and will rebel against the federal government if they push the liberal agenda too far.

javaboy

mumhaabu wrote: »

However liberal revisionism, the leftwing media and left wing sites such as Wikipedia convienently cover up this holocaust which makes the 6 million jews killed by Hitler and the Rwandan massacre pale in comparision.

Rubbish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Calculating_the_number_of_victims