"Let’s Get This Class War Started"

nesf

Carlos Roca wrote: »

So someone has set up a grand experiment and disproved Conflict Theories? Total nonsense and patent denial of reality imho.

Disproved? What? Conflict Theory is so bloody far from some scientific concept that could be disproved by experiment.

Karl Stein

nesf wrote: »

Disproved? What? Conflict Theory is so bloody far from some scientific concept that could be disproved by experiment.

Precisely.

nesf

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Precisely.

So, please stop presenting it like it's some kind of series of facts. It's just a method of analysis.

Karl Stein

nesf wrote: »

So, please stop presenting it like it's some kind of series of facts.

I'm not sure I was presenting these theories as actual things that exist. There are good examples that lend weight to conflict theories though.

It's just a method of analysis.

Indeed. More recently we could take the collapse of Savar Building and resulting unrest, demands that factory owners be prosecuted, energizing of leftist political parties, and suppression of protests.

Viewed from the conflict theory perspective this is a clearly a struggle between relatively poor and powerless workers and wealthy, powerful capitalist industrialists.

nesf

Carlos Roca wrote: »

I'm not sure I was presenting these theories as actual things that exist. There are good examples that lend weight to conflict theories though.



Indeed. More recently we could take the collapse of Savar Building and resulting unrest, demands that factory owners be prosecuted, energizing of leftist political parties, and suppression of protests.

Viewed from the conflict theory perspective this is a clearly a struggle between relatively poor and powerless workers and wealthy, powerful capitalist industrialists.

You presented it earlier as evidence for a claim:

Yep. The well documented history of struggle between the have mores and have nots. Do a little reading up on Conflict Theory if you're really interested.

Karl Stein

nesf wrote: »

You presented it earlier as evidence for a claim:

It's not a claim it's an interpretation of historical events. I honestly think you'd want to be completely deluded to ignore the role of inequality, power differential, and competition for scarce resources in shaping human history.

nesf

Carlos Roca wrote: »

It's not a claim it's an interpretation of historical events. I honestly think you'd want to be completely deluded to ignore the role of inequality, power differential, and competition for scarce resources in shaping human history.

One would want to be deluded to think Conflict Theory was the only way of looking at this or even that it was the first way of considering those factors.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SamHarris

SamHarris wrote: »

Not least because, despite there being more inequality in the US than here, social mobility is much greater.

The US has some of the lowest social mobility in the developed world.

Karl Stein

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What free market? The free market is a myth. Well done though for suggesting using a non-existent system for resolving real world problems. Get down off the pulpit with the free market fundamentalism. It's boring.

or resolving political tensions peacefully through the political process.

The political process is failing people.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

Carlos Roca wrote: »

What free market? The free market is a myth

Try telling that to the man who just bought my old bicycle for £30 in cash!

Karl Stein

Valmont wrote: »

Try telling that to the man who just bought my old bicycle for £30 in cash!

Cash from a state secured monopoly on money printing? Bike factory built by a government privileged fictional entity know as a corporation? Delivered on a public road? By a vehicle that runs on free-flowing oil secured by regional wars?

There, I told him.

SamHarris

Deleted User wrote: »

The US has some of the lowest social mobility in the developed world.

Since 2008 it took a big hit, true, but for decades before that it had the highest. And for any social issues that this would throw up (if it did not change) would take time to work out. I should have made that clearer, apologies.

SamHarris

SamHarris wrote: »

Since 2008 it took a big hit, true, but for decades before that it had the highest. And for any social issues that this would throw up (if it did not change) would take time to work out. I should have made that clearer, apologies.

This was in 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Intergenerational_mobility_graph-1.jpg Since I started reading anything on this topic (about 10 years ago) America hasn't had high levels of social mobility and what I was reading then would've had a time-lag as well.

SamHarris

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Cash from a state secured monopoly on money printing? Bike factory built by a government privileged fictional entity know as a corporation? Delivered on a public road? By a vehicle that runs on free-flowing oil secured by regional wars?

There, I told him.

The idea that because the market is not entirely free the concept of the "free market" does not exist is vacuous. Most people find it unnecessary to say "free-er markets". Further, it is a collection of contractual obligations entered into by two or more consensual parties. The "free" part more refers to the "free" choice of the participants. That it does not take place in a vacuum does not make it a "myth".

Also calm down a little. Your hardly going to impress anyone greatly with your theories if your go-to move when challenged is to reply in the most asinine way you can think of.

SamHarris

Deleted User wrote: »

This was in 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Intergenerational_mobility_graph-1.jpg Since I started reading anything on this topic (about 10 years ago) America hasn't had high levels of social mobility and what I was reading then would've had a time-lag as well.

Probably one of those assumptions I made ages ago and never bothered checking. I seem to remember getting the idea from an article that claimed UK's riots were centered around the country having "American inequality, European social mobility" (obviously as a bad thing). Now that I think about it though I can see though how greater inequality (particularly with a much higher amount of people in the "poor" bracket" will almost automatically make this the case when comparing it to more intrinsically equal economies.

Your right, though, clearly.

From the perspective of this leading to some kind of class struggle though, the perception is more important than the fact - when/if people start to realize this and feel hard done by it, rather than it's purely economic effect which is felt immediately.

SamHarris

SamHarris wrote: »

Probably one of those assumptions I made ages ago and never bothered checking. I seem to remember getting the idea from an article that claimed UK's riots were centered around the country having "American inequality, European social mobility" (obviously as a bad thing). Now that I think about it though I can see though how greater inequality (particularly with a much higher amount of people in the "poor" bracket" will almost automatically make this the case when comparing it to more intrinsically equal economies.

Your right, though, clearly.

From the perspective of this leading to some kind of class struggle though, the perception is more important than the fact - when/if people start to realize this and feel hard done by it, rather than it's purely economic effect which is felt immediately.

I doubt it will lead to "class struggle" in the US any time soon. All the organisations that could and should be doing something about it have been subsumed into the general political machinery of the country and states and have their own self-interest to look after now. Any grass-roots movement will be either subsumed in the same ways or extinguished quickly by establishment powers.

SamHarris

Deleted User wrote: »

I doubt it will lead to "class struggle" in the US any time soon. All the organisations that could and should be doing something about it have been subsumed into the general political machinery of the country and states and have their own self-interest to look after now. Any grass-roots movement will be either subsumed in the same ways or extinguished quickly by establishment powers.

I was addressing what someone had said earlier in the thread rather than putting forward my own idea, just so we're clear

Perhaps, and that it is not even really addressed as an issue - even in the lip service fashion that poverty is - probably reinforces your position. I do not think it will lead to anything quiet so dramatic myself, but because the idea of social mobility is so central to America's experience of itself I have a feeling that if it got particularly bad (or is it already?) it would become more contentious than just the equality gap. That's obviously just pure opinion but it seems like American's in general are far more comfortable with the idea of extreme success or failure than other Western countries - with the caveat that they also have to at least perceive it as earned (whether that be true or not).

Malibu Stacy

SamHarris wrote: »

Probably one of those assumptions I made ages ago and never bothered checking. I seem to remember getting the idea from an article that claimed UK's riots were centered around the country having "American inequality, European social mobility" (obviously as a bad thing). Now that I think about it though I can see though how greater inequality (particularly with a much higher amount of people in the "poor" bracket" will almost automatically make this the case when comparing it to more intrinsically equal economies.

Your right, though, clearly.

From the perspective of this leading to some kind of class struggle though, the perception is more important than the fact - when/if people start to realize this and feel hard done by it, rather than it's purely economic effect which is felt immediately.

It is the perception that is off though: professors from Harvard Business School and Duke found that Americans underestimate income inequality, even though they would prefer to see a less unequal distribution.

SamHarris

SamHarris wrote: »

I was addressing what someone had said earlier in the thread rather than putting forward my own idea, just so we're clear

Perhaps, and that it is not even really addressed as an issue - even in the lip service fashion that poverty is - probably reinforces your position. I do not think it will lead to anything quiet so dramatic myself, but because the idea of social mobility is so central to America's experience of itself I have a feeling that if it got particularly bad (or is it already?) it would become more contentious than just the equality gap. That's obviously just pure opinion but it seems like American's in general are far more comfortable with the idea of extreme success or failure than other Western countries - with the caveat that they also have to at least perceived it as earned (whether that be true or not).

Most research is based on quartiles and quintiles so the absolute difference in income isn't what is measured in social mobility research. Add stagnating wages for the last couple of decades for those above the lowest rung and increasing inequality and 14% of the population being on foodstamps and it should seem obvious that the situation is ripe for something to be done about it. I don't see anything happening though.

SamHarris

Malibu Stacy wrote: »

It is the perception that is off though: professors from Harvard Business School and Duke found that Americans underestimate income inequality, even though they would prefer to see a less unequal distribution.

I agree, and I would not be surprised if the perception of social mobility were even more out of whack with reality. However for some form of mass social movement - one even approaching a "class war" scenario - to pick up steam many people's perception (whether based on facts or not) would have to change a great deal.

SamHarris

Deleted User wrote: »

Most research is based on quartiles and quintiles so the absolute difference in income isn't what is measured in social mobility research. Add stagnating wages for the last couple of decades for those above the lowest rung and increasing inequality and 14% of the population being on foodstamps and it should seem obvious that the situation is ripe for something to be done about it. I don't see anything happening though.

I'm aware of that, my theory that social mobility would almost certainly be less in an unequal society comes from the fact that for people to be (at least) upwardly mobile would require more relative investment (in time and treasure) in a society where there is a far wealthier upper quarter, than one where both groups were closer in real terms. Does that make sense? I apologize, I can't think of a way to get that idea across well.

I would argue there almost its almost never NOT a good time to address such issues, but in what manner do you believe it should be addressed?

SamHarris

SamHarris wrote: »

I'm aware of that, my theory that social mobility would almost certainly be less in an unequal society comes from the fact that for people to be (at least) upwardly mobile would require more relative investment (in time and treasure) in a society where there is a far wealthier upper quarter, than one where both groups were closer in real terms. Does that make sense? Apologize, I can't think of a way to get that idea across well.

All the research I've come across says the opposite, the more inequality, the less upward mobility. Inequality (as it turns out) appears to be down to more than abilities or work-ethic and more inequality means more concentration of wealth and power at the top and more attempts to consolidate and maintain the status quo for those it suits.
EDIT: Did you edit just as I quoted or did I misread? :pac: Yeah, more inequality is likely to lead to less upward mobility and the longer it goes on, the more it's going to be consolidated.

I would argue there almost its almost never NOT a good time to address such issues, but in what manner do you believe it should be addressed?

There's very little point in doing anything that's apparently been tried before. Traditional politics has failed to properly address the issue and I find the vast, vast majority of those claiming to address the issue are doing nothing but paying lip-service to it. The same mechanisms have apparently been tried time and time again yet they keep failing.

SamHarris

Deleted User wrote: »

All the research I've come across says the opposite, the more inequality, the less upward mobility. Inequality (as it turns out) appears to be down to more than abilities or work-ethic and more inequality means more concentration of wealth and power at the top and more attempts to consolidate and maintain the status quo for those it suits.
EDIT: Did you edit just as I quoted or did I misread? :pac: Yeah, more inequality is likely to lead to less upward mobility and the longer it goes on, the more it's going to be consolidated.

Just added something at the end. No problem. That makes sense. Coupled with the cost of university in the States, and wage scarring from things like segregation I'm not actually surprised now that I think about it.

Deleted User wrote: »

There's very little point in doing anything that's apparently been tried before. Traditional politics has failed to properly address the issue and I find the vast, vast majority of those claiming to address the issue are doing nothing but paying lip-service to it. The same mechanisms have apparently been tried time and time again yet they keep failing.

Do you think the fact that society is richer in general, and so even those in the bottom 20% can live a level of comfort far greater than those of even middling wealth a few decades ago has something to do with this not being as big an issue as it could be? Or that peoples perceptions of what they should have is entirely subjective (it clearly is to at least some extent).

University costs would be the one glaringly obvious thing that could help address both the issues of inequality and social mobility.

The big "danger" from my perspective is not social collapse or "class war" in the US, but the rise of a Huey Long type character and the radicalization of politics. I'm sure there are many on this forum that would see something like that as a "good" thing (there seems to be a depressingly large population in Ireland who see any problem, real or imagined, in the US as a cause for celebration - immoral firstly, and secondly short-sighted in how quickly in can effect us), but I feel it has a far greater chance of ending in disaster, particularly in a place as powerful as the US. I still feel it's a long way off what is happening in parts of Europe, as wacky as some parts of the Republican party have become a "Golden Dawn" they are not.

SamHarris

SamHarris wrote: »

Do you think the fact that society is richer in general, and so even those in the bottom 20% can live a level of comfort far greater than those of even middling wealth a few decades ago has something to do with this not being as big an issue as it could be? Or that peoples perceptions of what they should have is entirely subjective (it clearly is to at least some extent).

Modern distractions certainly help keep things more sedate. I think (in the US) that the maturity of the political scene is what mainly keeps things low key, between lowering expectations and hand-waving the issues as evidenced by perceptions of inequality.

University costs would be the one glaringly obvious thing that could help address both the issues of inequality and social mobility, in my view at least.

I actually think that in the US recently the pay gap based on degrees has all reduced massively. Obviously those who don't work will drag things down but those who finish school and go straight into a "proper" job appear to be benefiting from the extra few years experience. Also those who've finished college in the last few years started when the recession hit and may well look at peers who managed to get a job rather than go to college and know they'll be unlikely to match them in the medium term.

The big "danger" from my perspective is not social collapse in the US, but the rise of a huey long type character and the radicalization of politics. I'm sure there are many on this forum that would see something like that as a "good" thing, but I feel it has a far greater chance of ending in disaster, particularly in a place as powerful as the US.

I wouldn't worry, it ain't gonna happen. :P

SamHarris

Deleted User wrote: »

Modern distractions certainly help keep things more sedate. I think (in the US) that the maturity of the political scene is what mainly keeps things low key, between lowering expectations and hand-waving the issues as evidenced by perceptions of inequality.

Perhaps, but then I feel the same way about every place that reaches a certain level of wealth, Ireland included. There are many places with far greater issues that are masked almost entirely by a high personal wealth.

Deleted User wrote: »

I actually think that in the US recently the pay gap based on degrees has all reduced massively. Obviously those who don't work will drag things down but those who finish school and go straight into a "proper" job appear to be benefiting from the extra few years experience. Also those who've finished college in the last few years started when the recession hit and may well look at peers who managed to get a job rather than go to college and know they'll be unlikely to match them in the medium term.

The income gap between degree holder and high school grad has closed over recent years, true, but the very highest echelons of career based pay will almost invariably be closed off to those without a university degree, and those degrees are so expensive they are almost closed off to those from poorer families. For the offspring of the bottom 25% to have a chance of being in the next generations 10% an affordable third level education would, at least anecdotal, help a great deal. It's becoming less and less of a requirement to be middle class though, your right.

Deleted User wrote: »

I wouldn't worry, it ain't gonna happen. :P

I find it highly unlikely to, merely pointing out it's far more likely and a greater concern than any kind of "class warfare" which we were talking about originally. I would say the latter would almost certainly have to presage the former to a certain extent.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Marx was a great thinker for his time. Problem is that he was contemporary of Charles Dickens and his theories were developed in the time of Oliver Twist and David Copperfield. Many of his economic theories were ground-breaking, but were built around the industrial revolution, long before trade unions, the social welfare state or the information age. His economic predictions predictions ended up not coming to pass, for the most part.

That's why I find it fascinating how he's still followed with such vigour to this day. Where it comes to Adam Smith or the Physiocrats, we accept that they are historically important to the development of economics, but we do realize that time has moved on and not everything they wrote was correct. We credit the Greeks for the development of democracy, but we hardly use Plato's Republic as a blueprint for our own democracy. Yet adherence to Marxism somehow remains pretty orthodox in some quarters.

It's almost become a question of faith for largely twenty-something students who feel passionate about class, revolution and... stuff. Your later comparison between millennialists and Marxist-revolutionaries is an excellent one as a result.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

LOL. Actually, an earlier comment you made about millennialists brushing aside false predictions reminds me of something I witnessed when younger. Suffice it to say that I'm old enough to have been in university before, during and after 'Communism' collapsed. I put Communism in inverted comas, because one of the things that I noticed was that once Ceausescu was overthrown, and the DDR fell apart and especially after the fall of the USSR, you started hearing the term 'State Capitalism' more often.

It wasn't a new term, but you began to hear it in greater frequency, normally framed in a sentence like "[INSERT REGIME] wasn't communism/socialism, it was state capitalism" - often by the same people who were waxing lyrical about the same [INSERT REGIME] six months or a year earlier.

The idea that the balance of power between the 'upper' and 'lower' orders readjusts periodically is not a new one - the history of the Roman Republic alone will demonstrate this. However, to suggest that this must occur in a revolutionary fashion is daft and easily disproved - again, history of the Roman Republic alone will demonstrate this.

clairefontaine

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not all degrees are equal no, but that also has to do with your alumni base.

Harvard has the reputation, but like the other Ivy's, if you earn a BA you will be taught by graduate students, not by professors.

Having taken undgraduate classes in both an Ivy League and a small elitist northeastern liberal arts ivy towered PC college, ime, the Ivy League was a cake walk. It was easier than my high school.

I had also heard however, that what some these undergraduate programmes do is be very generous with their As, so that they have greater admission numbers into grad school, which the increases demand and so they can demand more competitive students, who will eventually make more money and the development office can then shake them down by offering a seat next to one of their more illustrious alums, (like a Supreme Court judge for example) at the next dinner or speech or whatever aggregation of elites they come up with next.

So...my guess is PB, a gender studies degree from Harvard might actually be worth more than an Engineering degree from Arizona state, once you takes the alumni base. It doesn't however, mean anything in terms of the education you will get necessarily.

The irony of the ivy leagues mimicking places like Oxford and Cambridge on the architecture, hell Columbia has a plaza that would see Mussolini tap dance on it, given the ellipsis of those institutions and then start preaching Marxism, demanding Marxism nearly from its students, is bizarre.

But what has become more bizarre, and I said this on another thread is that When I read British TV or news like the guardian I feel like they are living in an undergraduate concciousness. Yet they are the elite!

And if you have ever had the insufferable experience of watching an English soap opera, anyone who is not a barmaid, a mechanic, a seamstress, is evil and has to die. In other words, management is evil and has to die. But yet these are the same characters created for people who like the monarchy, and the same writers who are recruited straight out of Oxford.

Radiosonde

clairefontaine wrote: »

And if you have ever had the insufferable experience of watching an English soap opera, anyone who is not a barmaid, a mechanic, a seamstress, is evil and has to die. In other words, management is evil and has to die. But yet these are the same characters created for people who like the monarchy, and the same writers who are recruited straight out of Oxford.

That's a crude characterization. Soap operas blow, but Coronation St had nice guy Curly, who managed a supermarket, and a host of shopkeepers like Rita. Man I hate that I know that.

Jonny7

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's almost become a question of faith for largely twenty-something students who feel passionate about class, revolution and... stuff.

Or a question of daily life for the inhabitants of certain countries, e.g. Cuba

The Corinthian

Jonny7 wrote: »

Or a question of daily life for the inhabitants of certain countries, e.g. Cuba

Your point being?

nesf

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's why I find it fascinating how he's still followed with such vigour to this day. Where it comes to Adam Smith or the Physiocrats, we accept that they are historically important to the development of economics, but we do realize that time has moved on and not everything they wrote was correct. We credit the Greeks for the development of democracy, but we hardly use Plato's Republic as a blueprint for our own democracy. Yet adherence to Marxism somehow remains pretty orthodox in some quarters.

I don't find it remotely surprising to be honest. Or particularly interesting. Political beliefs rarely are required to pass the reality test for most people and nearly everyone on here is guilty of this to some extent (i.e. we fill in the gaps with whatever logic/argument makes our wish true, without noticing that we're doing it). It's not just restricted to Politics, it's pretty much the main reason for peer review in science, confirmation bias is powerful.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

nesf wrote: »

It's not just restricted to Politics, it's pretty much the main reason for peer review in science, confirmation bias is powerful.

I would have thought confirmation bias was just as possible throughout the peer review process?

Jonny7

The Corinthian wrote: »

Your point being?

That it's not just in vogue with twenty something sociology students, but sadly persists in the real world.

nesf

Valmont wrote: »

I would have thought confirmation bias was just as possible throughout the peer review process?

No. Possible? Definitely. Just as possible? Very unlikely unless referees have been picked poorly.

The Corinthian

Jonny7 wrote: »

That it's not just in vogue with twenty something sociology students, but sadly persists in the real world.

I see, clearly I'm out of touch with the younger generation and their Bebo social, whatsyoumecallits.

From what I can see, those who still cling to Marxism in the 'real World' are actually the remnants of those radicals who went to college with me. Most got jobs and moved on, but a few eventually managed to get elected - so I'm not sure I'd really classify it as 'real World'.

Jonny7

Well apart from student angst I was more referring to real world examples of Marxism still in operation, e;g. Cuba

nesf

Jonny7 wrote: »

Well apart from student angst I was more referring to real world examples of Marxism still in operation, e;g. Cuba

Eh, Cuba? It's not exactly self-sufficient.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

clairefontaine

Marxism can't work. Cuba banned religion, Catholicism, and the people ended up practising Santa Ria.

It just doesn't work, but that's what you get when you deny the existence of such a thing as human nature.

The Corinthian

Jonny7 wrote: »

Well apart from student angst I was more referring to real world examples of Marxism still in operation, e;g. Cuba

As has been pointed out, it's not exactly a Marxist nation anymore, at least economically, whatever about the decor, as it were.

Indeed, most of the remaining communist countries out there have been quietly divesting themselves of Marxist and adopting free market economics instead, all that remains in China, the most advanced of these, of Marxism are the trappings of communism; the rhetoric, the flags, the symbols and, of course, the one-party regimes.

To paraphrase Michael Palin; "Marxism isn't dead! Just look at that plumage!"

Malibu Stacy

clairefontaine wrote: »

Marxism can't work. Cuba banned religion, Catholicism, and the people ended up practising Santa Ria.

It just doesn't work, but that's what you get when you deny the existence of such a thing as human nature.

People practiced Santería in Cuba long before Castro came to power. The RCC hierarchy supported Batista, and because the church was more hierarchical and organized, anti-Castro church officials (including parish priests who initially supported the revolution) presented a greater threat to the regime than the santeros. But many people who identify as Catholics also observe and recognize Santeria rituals and gods - it is uniquely Cuban, so unlike Catholicism, it couldn't be painted as the religion of the conquistadores and the wealthy.

Also, when it comes to human nature, one can make the same criticism of market fundamentalists. The belief that 'the market' is self-correcting, and should therefore be the mechanism through which all transactions occur does not take into account human greed and short-sightedness. Both market fundamentalists and hardline Marxists fail to take human foibles into full account, and are left to shout "We need more!" (i.e. MORE market or Marxist fundamentalism) when their attempts to impose their orthodoxy on imperfect human societies fails.

clairefontaine

Malibu Stacy wrote: »

People practiced Santería in Cuba long before Castro came to power. The RCC hierarchy supported Batista, and because the church was more hierarchical and organized, anti-Castro church officials (including parish priests who initially supported the revolution) presented a greater threat to the regime than the santeros. But many people who identify as Catholics also observe and recognize Santeria rituals and gods - it is uniquely Cuban, so unlike Catholicism, it couldn't be painted as the religion of the conquistadores and the wealthy.

Also, when it comes to human nature, one can make the same criticism of market fundamentalists. The belief that 'the market' is self-correcting, and should therefore be the mechanism through which all transactions occur does not take into account human greed and short-sightedness. Both market fundamentalists and hardline Marxists fail to take human foibles into full account, and are left to shout "We need more!" (i.e. MORE market or Marxist fundamentalism) when their attempts to impose their orthodoxy on imperfect human societies fails.

Yes I know that they did, but Castro banned religion, you know the opiate of the people, and they practised Santa Ria anyway.

The Caribbean islands always mixed and matched their religions this way, it Castro banished RC.

I agree with you about the fundamentalism in ideologies, but Marxism in particular does not recognised a "nature" as such, we are all social constructs.

alastair

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yes I know that they did, but Castro banned religion, you know the opiate of the people

Castro/Cuba did not ban religion.

alastair

clairefontaine wrote: »

Marxism in particular does not recognised a "nature" as such, we are all social constructs.

Marx, and by extension, Marxism, was/is quite happy to acknowledge human nature.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch04.htm